Kristen Walker Hatten

Popular pro-abort site asks: ‘Why not do a self-abortion?’

Kristen Walker Hatten
By Kristen Walker Hatten

December 12, 2011 ( - A site called RH Reality Check, which purports to cover issues of “Reproductive & Sexual Health and Justice,” published a blog Tuesday in which they asked a question I’m sure has been weighing on all our minds: “Why is self-abortion care a crime?”

If it sounds dangerous to you — a woman to attempting a procedure on herself that can be risky even when done by an experienced doctor — don’t worry, that’s a normal reaction. Here’s what the National Abortion Federation, a pro-abortion organization, has to say on the subject:

Trying to end a pregnancy by self-aborting can be very dangerous to your life, health and ability to have children in the future. You may injure yourself or die if you attempt to self-abort.

The authors of the RH Reality Check blog seem to disagree with this assessment. Or maybe they just want to see what happens when people try to give themselves abortions. But far be it from me to question their motives. In any case they say this:

We have to ask then – is the outcry when women choose to self-induce truly driven by the need to protect the health and safety of the woman?  Or is this another example of over-regulation because of the politics of abortion?

Oh, wait, look, they’re questioning my motives for opposing self-abortion! So I guess it’s fair now for me to question theirs for advocating it.

So here’s a question: how concerned are you really with the health of women if you’re publicly encouraging them to not worry about that pesky “licensed medical professional” business? Appendectomies are legal to perform, too, but only if you’re what we over here in Saneville call a “doctor.”

Join a Facebook page to end abortion here

This article goes on and on about how hard it is for some women to find a place to get an abortion. Here’s a crazy idea for an alternative that’s safer than a do-it-yourself abortion: adoption! I know, I know, it sounds nuts, this idea of being pregnant until you go into labor and then having the baby. But desperate times call for desperate measures, am I right?

I’m having trouble finding statistics that address how much safer it is to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth than to attempt to give yourself an unsupervised abortion in your apartment at 24 weeks gestation and dump the baby in a trash can. Childbirth is certainly safer for the baby! But I’m going to do something I rarely do and agree with the National Abortion Federation: self-abortion is unsafe.

The 2008 film Revolutionary Road (SPOILER ALERT!) ends with Kate Winslet’s character performing an instillation abortion on herself so that she can be free to move to Paris with her husband and live a more carefree, exciting life than the suburban one currently boring and depressing her. She hemorrhages and dies. I don’t think the film was trying to make a pro-life argument – quite the opposite — but it nevertheless illustrates a universal truth: what we think might liberate us can also destroy us.

In other words, pro-abortion advocates might love the idea of women having the utter, unfettered freedom of D.I.Y. abortions, but to quote the country music songs, freedom isn’t free. It comes at a price, and that price might be a woman’s life.

Comparing even a medically-induced abortion to a miscarriage is inaccurate and dishonest; the body terminating a pregnancy naturally is different from the body reacting to drugs. The Wikipedia entry on “Self-induced abortion” references an earlier article on misoprostol, a drug commonly used to induce abortion, by Susan Yanow, one of the authors of the RH Reality Check blog:

Although proponents of this method deem it to be safer than those using insertion of objects or chemicals into the uterus, they also note that failure to effect an abortion by this method can lead to the child being born with serious birth defects. Furthermore, the drug causes a drastic drop in blood pressure, and women may haemmorhage as a result of misusing the drug for the purpose of abortion.

These are the people who have screamed themselves hoarse for decades about wanting abortion to be safe, legal, and rare. It’s a lie. They only care that it’s legal. They routinely defend abortion doctors with pitiful records of harming women, and now they’re telling women they don’t need a doctor at all. Rarity is also not one of their chief concerns. If it were, they might be open to encouraging abstinence — the only method of birth control that works 100% of the time – instead of sexual libertinism.

What they really want is for abortion to be profitable, publicly funded, and unrestricted, even at the expense of women’s health.

The authors spend several paragraphs lamenting the plight of women who might feel no other option than to give themselves an abortion, but this is what they have to say about a 24-week old fetus:

The woman disposed of the fetus in what was probably the only way she could think of: wrapped in plastic bags and placed in the trash receptacle of her apartment building.

Note the tone of sympathy for the poor woman who threw her baby in the garbage. Note there is none reserved for the baby.

Bringing us to another point specific to abortion in the second trimester and beyond: an abortion kills a fetus, often painfully. How much more painful might that death be if it’s caused by an inexperienced woman with crude equipment operating on herself? It is unpleasant to think about, but it’s a valid question, one which I doubt has crossed the minds of the authors.

By the way, this particular late-term self-abortion took place in New York City, which the authors go on to admit is crawling with abortionists. The article is very careful not to guess at the woman’s reasons for making her “choice” to abort at home. That would be speculative and judgmental! But they have no problem speculating that us wacko pro-lifers oppose self-abortion not because it’s unsafe, but because it gives us another political victory.

Advocacy of self-abortion is irresponsible and proves that pro-aborts lie when they claim they are driven solely by concern for women and their health.

By the way, the woman who dumped her 24-week-old fetus in the trash was charged with a misdemeanor. In some states, she wouldn’t have been charged with a crime at all. A thinking, feeling human being hears that and thinks “tragedy.” But to the good folks at RH Reality Check, the only tragedy is the misdemeanor charge.

She may not have understood it before she did it (although I imagine she understood quite well once she saw her fully-formed baby), but what that woman did, besides put her own life at risk, was commit murder. Fortunately for her, she lived through it, and got away with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Her child was not so lucky.

Reprinted with permission from

Share this article

Steve Jalsevac Steve Jalsevac Follow Steve

Today’s chuckle: Rubio, Fiorina and Carson pardon a Thanksgiving turkey

Steve Jalsevac Steve Jalsevac Follow Steve
By Steve Jalsevac

A little bit of humour now and then is a good thing.

Happy Thanksgiving to all our American readers.

Share this article

Featured Image
Building of the European Court of Human Rights.
Lianne Laurence


BREAKING: Europe’s top human rights court slaps down German ban on pro-life leafletting

Lianne Laurence
By Lianne Laurence

STRASBOURG, France, November 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – The European Court of Human Rights ruled Thursday that a German regional court violated a pro-life activist’s freedom of expression when it barred him from leafleting in front of an abortion center.

It further ruled the German court’s order that Klaus Gunter Annen not list the names of two abortion doctors on his website likewise violated the 64-year-old pro-life advocate’s right to freedom of expression.

The court’s November 26 decision is “a real moral victory,” says Gregor Puppinck, director of the Strasbourg-based European Center for Law and Justice, which intervened in Annen’s case. “It really upholds the freedom of speech for pro-life activists in Europe.”

Annen, a father of two from Weinam, a mid-sized city in the Rhine-Neckar triangle, has appealed to the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights at least two times before, Puppinck told LifeSiteNews.

“This is the first time he made it,” he said, noting that this time around, Annen had support from the ECLJ and Alliance Defense Fund and the German Pro-life Federation (BVL). “I think he got more support, better arguments and so I think this helped.”

The court also ordered the German government to pay Annen costs of 13,696.87 EUR, or 14,530 USD.

Annen started distributing pamphlets outside a German abortion center ten years ago, ECLJ stated in a press release.

His leaflets contained the names and addresses of the two abortionists at the center, declared they were doing “unlawful abortions,” and stated in smaller print that, “the abortions were allowed by the German legislators and were not subject to criminal liability.”

Annen’s leaflets also stated that, “The murder of human beings in Auschwitz was unlawful, but the morally degraded NS State allowed the murder of innocent people and did not make it subject to criminal liability.” They referred to Annen’s website,, which listed a number of abortionists, including the two at the site he was leafleting.

In 2007, a German regional court barred Annen from pamphleteering in the vicinity of the abortion center, and ordered him to drop the name of the two abortion doctors from his website.

But the European Court of Human Rights ruled Thursday that the German courts had "failed to strike a fair balance between [Annen’s] right to freedom of expression and the doctor’s personality rights.”

The Court stated that, “there can be no doubt as to the acute sensitivity of the moral and ethical issues raised by the question of abortion or as to the importance of the public interest at stake.”

That means, stated ECLJ, that “freedom of expression in regard to abortion shall enjoy a full protection.”

ECLJ stated that the court noted Annen’s leaflets “made clear that the abortions performed in the clinic were not subject to criminal liability. Therefore, the statement that ‘unlawful abortions’ were being performed in the clinic was correct from a legal point of view.”

As for the Holocaust reference, the court stated that, “the applicant did not – at least not explicitly – equate abortion with the Holocaust.”  Rather, the reference was “a way of creating awareness of the more general fact that law might diverge from morality.”

The November 26 decision “is a quite good level of protection of freedom of speech for pro-life people,” observed Puppinck.

First, the European Court of Human Rights has permitted leafleting “in the direct proximate vicinity of the clinic, so there is no issue of zoning,” he told LifeSiteNews. “And second, the leaflets were mentioning the names of the doctors, and moreover, were mentioning the issue of the Holocaust, which made them quite strong leaflets.”

“And the court protected that.”

Annen has persevered in his pro-life awareness campaign through the years despite the restraints on his freedom.

“He did continue, and he did adapt,” Puppinck told LifeSiteNews. “He kept his freedom of speech as much as he could, but he continued to be sanctioned by the German authorities, and each time he went to the court of human rights. And this time, he won.”

ECLJ’s statement notes that “any party” has three months to appeal the November 26 decision.

However, as it stands, the European Court of Human Rights’s ruling affects “all the national courts,” noted Puppinck, and these will now “have to protect freedom of speech, recognize the freedom of speech for pro-lifers.”

“In the past, the courts have not always been very supportive of the freedom of speech of pro-life,” he said, so the ruling is “significant.”

As for Annen’s pro-life ministry, Pubbinck added: “He can continue to go and do, and I’m sure that he does, because he always did.”  

Share this article

Featured Image
A vibrant church in Africa. Pierre-Yves Babelon /
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

, ,

‘Soft racism’: German Bishops’ website attributes African Catholics’ strong faith to simplemindedness

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

GERMANY, November 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) --  The only reason the Catholic Church is growing in Africa is because the people have a “rather low level” of education and accept “simple answers to difficult questions” involving marriage and sexuality, posited an article on the official website of the German Bishops' Conference posted yesterday. The article targeted particularly Cardinal Robert Sarah of Guinea, the Vatican's prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and ardent defender of Catholic tradition.

First Things blogger Leroy Huizenga, who translated a portion of the article, criticized the article's view as “soft racism.”

In his article, titled “The Romantic, Poor Church,” editor Björn Odendahl writes: 

So also in Africa. Of course the Church is growing there. It grows because the people are socially dependent and often have nothing else but their faith. It grows because the educational situation there is on average at a rather low level and the people accept simple answers to difficult questions (of faith) [sic]. Answers like those that Cardinal Sarah of Guinea provides. And even the growing number of priests is a result not only of missionary power but also a result of the fact that the priesthood is one of the few possibilities for social security on the dark continent.

Huizenga said that such an article has no place on a bishops’ conference website. 

“We all know that the German Bishops' Conference is one of the most progressive in the world. But it nevertheless beggars belief that such a statement would appear on the Conference's official website, with its lazy slander of African Christians and priests as poor and uneducated (Odendahl might as well have added ‘easy to command’) and its gratuitous swipe at Cardinal Sarah,” he wrote. 

“Natürlich progressives could never be guilty of such a sin and crime, but these words sure do suggest soft racism, the racism of elite white Western paternalism,” he added. 

African prelates have gained a solid reputation for being strong defenders of Catholic sexual morality because of their unwavering orthodox input into the recently concluded Synod on the Family in Rome. 

At one point during the Synod, Cardinal Robert Sarah urged Catholic leaders to recognize as the greatest modern enemies of the family what he called the twin “demonic” “apocalyptic beasts” of “the idolatry of Western freedom” and “Islamic fundamentalism.”

STORY: Cardinal Danneels warns African bishops to avoid ‘triumphalism’

“What Nazi-Fascism and Communism were in the 20th century, Western homosexual and abortion ideologies and Islamic fanaticism are today,” he said during his speech at the Synod last month. 

But African prelates’ adherence to orthodoxy has earned them enemies, especially from the camp of Western prelates bent on forming the Catholic Church in their own image and likeness, not according to Scripture, tradition, and the teaching magisterium of the Church. 

During last year’s Synod, German Cardinal Walter Kasper went as far as stating that the voice of African Catholics in the area of Church teaching on homosexuality should simply be dismissed.

African cardinals “should not tell us too much what we have to do,” he said in an October 2014 interview with ZENIT, adding that African countries are "very different, especially about gays.” 

Earlier this month Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels, instead of praising Africa for its vibrant and flourishing Catholicism, said that African prelates will one day have to look to Europe to get what he called “useful tips” on how to deal with “secularization” and “individualism.” 

The statement was criticized by one pro-family advocate as “patronizing of the worst kind” in light of the facts that numerous European churches are practically empty, vocations to the priesthood and religious life are stagnant, and the Catholic faith in Europe, especially in Belgium, is overall in decline.

Share this article


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook