Top medical journal: Abortion must be ‘at the heart’ of COVID-19 response
PETITION: Urge state governors to stop abortions during coronavirus crisis Sign the petition here.
April 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – As the abortion industry fights to continue and expand abortion in the face of the global coronavirus crisis, a new paper in the prestigious medical journal Lancet declares that a “sexual and reproductive health and justice policy agenda must be at the heart of the COVID-19 response.”
“Global responses to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic are converging with pervasive, existing sexual and reproductive health and justice inequities to disproportionately impact the health, wellbeing, and economic stability of women, girls, and vulnerable populations,” says the paper, which was written by Kelli Stidham Hall, Goleen Samari, Samantha Garbers, Sara E Casey, Dazon Dixon Diallo, Miriam Orcutt, Rachel T Moresky, Micaela Elvira Martinez, and Terry McGovern.
Therefore, a “sexual and reproductive health and justice framework—one that centres human rights, acknowledges intersecting injustices, recognises power structures, and unites across identities—is essential for monitoring and addressing the inequitable gender, health, and social effects of COVID-19.”
The paper goes on to argue that “disruption of services and diversion of resources away from essential sexual and reproductive health care because of prioritising the COVID-19 response are expected to increase risks of maternal and child morbidity and mortality,” a curious claim in light of the fact that “reproductive health care” kills children by design. “Additionally, systemic racism, discrimination, and stigma are likely to further compound logistical barriers to accessing sexual and reproductive health care for women and marginalised groups,” it adds.
It condemns the Trump administration’s ban on foreign aid to abortion groups and the closing of American and European borders, and claims that “additional resources must be directed to, not diverted from, the sexual and reproductive health workforce.” It also calls for expanding “telemedicine” abortions (dispensing abortion pills after communicating with a doctor via webcam), and eliminating “legal and policy restrictions to sexual and reproductive health service provision.”
“Only when public health responses to COVID-19 leverage intersectional, human rights centred frameworks, transdisciplinary science-driven theories and methods, and community-driven approaches, will they sufficiently prevent complex health and social adversities for women, girls, and vulnerable populations,” the paper claims.
In May 2019, the Lancet chose to abandon its veneer of scientific objectivity in favor of endorsing legal abortion in strikingly partisan terms, declaring abortion a “settled, inviolable right that is central to achieving not only reproductive health goals but women's freedom over their own bodies”; and degrading pro-life legislation as “regressive, religious, and repressive law-making” that’s somehow inconsistent with being “advocates for women.”
Many medical experts disagree, both with the Lancet’s embrace of legal abortion and with the idea that abortion should be elevated during a pandemic. The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) note that, in addition to being non-essential, abortion “generates more patients to be seen in already overburdened emergency rooms.”
“Most abortion providers instruct women to go to an emergency room if they have any concerning symptoms after the abortion,” AAPLOG notes. “Approximately five percent of women who undergo medication abortions will require evaluation in an emergency room, most commonly for hemorrhage. Surgical abortions can also result in hemorrhage. Emergency room personnel – who are already struggling to meet the demands of the COVID-19 pandemic – will be further strained to provide care to these women.”