The perils of pro-life politics

June 5, 2007

There’s a little secret that usually goes unmentioned when the political discourse turns towards so-called “partial-birth” abortions: if medical professional can’t use one procedure, they’ll just use another. The absurd legal ban, recently upheld by the Supreme Court (Gonzales v. Carhart), basically boiled down to this: the justices said one specific abortion method is never medically necessary. Experts disagreed, but this was about politics, not science.

Of course, for opponents of abortion rights, this was a big legal victory, right? They successfully banned an abortion procedure, which is a big step for the movement, right? Well, it depends.

James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, predictably, hailed the ruling as a milestone success. A variety of anti-abortion groups and leaders, however, have taken the surprising step of condemning Dobson and Focus, suggesting that (gasp!) the Colorado Springs empire is more concerned with fundraising than policy. Colorado Right to Life, among others, took out advertisements blasting Dobson for his group’s position.

“All you have to do is read the ruling, and you will find that this will never save a single child, because even though the justices say this one technique is mostly banned — not completely banned — there are lots of other techniques, and they even encourage abortionists to find less shocking means to kill late-term babies,” [Brian Rohrbough, president of Colorado Right to Life] said. […]

A Focus on the Family spokesman said that Dobson would not comment. But the organization’s vice president, Tom Minnery, said that Dobson rejoiced over the ruling “because we, and most pro-lifers, are sophisticated enough to know we’re not going to win a total victory all at once. We’re going to win piece by piece.”

Minnery’s appalling choice of words notwithstanding, this has led to an important distinction for the anti-abortion movement.

This may get a little graphic, so if sensitive readers are worried about being offended, you might as well look away now.

Intact D&X, now illegal, removes the brain of a fetus and shrinks the fetus’ skull in order to remove it. Both the woman and the fetus are anesthetized. It is a fairly rare procedure, but when needed, it is safe, with fewer risks. The alternative, which is now the only legal option, is to extract the fetus piece by piece. This vastly increases the chances for complications, putting the woman at far greater risk, which is why medical professionals insist that IDX is safer and medically necessary when abortion is needed.

This is exactly why Focus’ Minnery sees the court ruling as a positive development.

Doctors adopted the late-term procedure “out of convenience,” Minnery added. “The old procedure, which is still legal, involves using forceps to pull the baby apart in utero, which means there is greater legal liability and danger of internal bleeding from a perforated uterus. So we firmly believe there will be fewer later-term abortions as a result of this ruling.”

Let’s be absolutely clear about what Minnery is saying here. Focus on the Family is satisfied with the legal status of abortion methods that may seriously harm more women because they may seriously harm more women. They want medicine to be more dangerous. An increased likelihood of internal bleeding is a good thing.

I’d call this many things, but “pro life” isn’t one of them.

Dobson’s crowd has a need to go around destroying things in order to save them, and that sounds “sophisticated” doesn’t it. -Kevo

  • Anybody know how many late-term abortions actually happen in the US in a year?
    Haik Bedrosian

    “Of the 1.6 million abortions performed in the U.S. each year, 91 percent are performed during the first trimester (12 or fewer weeks’ gestation); 9 percent are performed in the second trimester (24 or fewer weeks’ gestation); and only about 100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks’ gestation), approximately .01 percent of all abortions performed. ”

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,880,00.html

  • When you try to fathom these people, it’s important to remember that fundamentalists believe that this life is really just some kind of simulation or warm-up for their “real” lives in heaven, and that a far more excruciating procedures await everyone who doesn’t adhere to their religious ideology.

    So no, they’re not actually all that concerned with risks to people’s lives.

  • I think the Carhart opinion affects more than third-trimester abortions, though; I think I recall from the opinion that the D&X procedure is (was) also commonly used in second-trimester abortions.

  • When I mentally abbreviated your title, I found that it perfectly captures my views about Dobson and his group: the pee of pee-pee.

  • This latest ruling and the direction of the debate and discussion seem to be headed toward turning the clock back to the days when women were chattel – property – and had no say over anything. To say that I find that disturbing would be a huge understatement.

    That it is taking that direction confirms for me that what this is really about is not “life” or “health,” but about control – using the law to control women. That men are the leaders of many of the “pro-life” groups and organizations has always been, for me, a clear indication that women having an unquestioned right to make decisions about reproduction is terribly threatening to some men.

    As someone who has given birth to two children, I can tell you that it would be a tragedy of untold magnitude to be in a position to have to terminate a pregnancy in the later stages. To be faced with a situation where my life might be in danger if I did not terminate the pregnancy, and then be faced with having to proceed using a method that would put me at greater risk than a procedure that was banned for the sole purpose of forcing me to carry the pregnancy to term, is insane.

    I am sick to death of people who make it their mission, and think they have the right, to impose their beliefs on all of us. As far as I’m concerned, if you don’t have a uterus, you don’t get to decide. Not for me, not for any woman. If you are opposed to abortion, work to make contraception available to anyone who wants it, make sex education available to anyone who wants it.

    James Dobson can kiss my a**.

  • What’s next, Dobson? Requiring women to register their uterus with the state? Uterine barcodes? ENOUGH is ENOUGH! Get your Neanderthal morals out of my uterus! If y’all want a uterus – GO GET YOUR OWN! I’m sure there is a surgeon that will be happy to help you out. You can try and “catapult the propaganda” all you like – it changes nothing.

    Why Abortion is Biblical: How anti-abortion activists misrepresent the biblical record
    By Brian Elroy McKinley

    One sided. That’s the abortion stance of most Christians — one sided. We hear the Christian Coalition speak against abortion. We hear Focus on the Family tell Republican candidates it will not support them unless they state their opposition to abortion. We hear Operation Rescue’s Christian members praying God will turn back the clock and make abortion illegal again. Over and over we are bombarded with the “Christian” perspective that abortion is outright wrong, no exceptions.

    With all these groups chanting the same mantra, there must be some pretty overwhelming biblical evidence of abortion’s evil, right?

    Wrong. In reality there is merely overwhelming evidence that most people don’t take time to read their own Bibles. People will listen to their pastors and to Christian radio broadcasters. They will skim through easy-to-read pamphlets and perhaps look up the one or two verses printed therein, but they don’t actually read their Bibles and make up their own minds on issues such as abortion. They merely listen to others who quote a verse to support a view they heard from someone else. By definition, most Christians, rather than reading for themselves, follow the beliefs of a Culture of Christianity — and many of the Culture’s beliefs are based on one or two verses of the Bible, often taken out of context.

    Continued here: http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html

  • More infighting amongst the Talevangicals? That almost makes up for their latest round of bullshit.

    They want medicine to be more dangerous. An increased likelihood of internal bleeding is a good thing.

    Yes of course. Because in No-Lifer World, women just trot up to their doctors and ask for a late term abortion because they are tired of wearing maternity clothing. Serve her right, the hussy!

    One of the reasons late term abortions are so rare is they are only perfomed when medically necessary and that means something is very wrong with the fetus, the mother or both. The No-Lifers don’t care if a woman who is already sick enough to warrant a late term abortion undergoes a procedure that might place her in graver danger. The No-Lifer will point out that Eve was a woman and therefore all women deserve to suffer as much as possible.

    But since they made the argument about science, I move that all No-Lifers who must undergo surgery do so without anesthesia. It will certainly cut down on the number of surgeries.

    Dicks.

  • “Hi! We’re Focus on the Family, and our policy is to make you safer by making everything in your life more dangerous!”

    And people still can’t figure out why I want to drive these fools off a high cliff with a bullwhip and into a mountainous chasm to serve as “an afternoon delicacy for a puma….”

  • Anne (#15) said: This latest ruling and the direction of the debate and discussion seem to be headed toward turning the clock back to the days when women were chattel – property – and had no say over anything. To say that I find that disturbing would be a huge understatement.

    You’re far more right than you might think, Anne. The fundamentalists do in fact argue for taking women’s rights back to pre-1919. I can’t remember the person who said it, but it was a leader of Concerned Women for America who argued in 2005 against women voting. The fundies also promote a book, “The 1870 Husband,” that promotes the idea of men treating their wives the way it was done in 1870 (where domestic violence was widespread and merely taken as a man disciplining a woman for being “uppity”).

    These people are not only as dangerous as you think they are, they are far more dangerous than you can imagine.

  • I also think we need to be clear about who we’re talking about here besides women. Dobson and his minions aren’t talking about rich people. They can have abortions because they can afford to keep it quiet. For them it is a vacation to another, less restrictive country.

    Dobson only wants poor people prevented from abortions. The end goal is, of course, is another several million workers in the shallow end of the wage pool. An endless supplies of cannon fodder for endless and unnecessary wars is an added bonus.

    Not only is this an affront to women’s rights and medical rights, but it’s a clear weapon of class warfare.

  • Doctors adopted the late-term procedure “out of convenience,” Minnery added. “The old procedure, which is still legal, involves using forceps to pull the baby apart in utero, which means there is greater legal liability and danger of internal bleeding from a perforated uterus. So we firmly believe there will be fewer later-term abortions as a result of this ruling.”

    Bastards. They want to make abortion less safe. They don’t care that women will be hurt. As someone else noted, “it’s not a bug, it’s a feature” for them.

    The main tenet of medicine is “Do no harm.” Doctors want to help their patients, and to take care of them in the safest way possible. Unlike the right to lifers, we consider women adults, and think they should be allowed to make their own decisions with regard to their own bodies and health.

    That’s why we opose abstinence “education.”

    That’s why we think contraception should be widely available and affordable.

    We think abortion should be prevented by preventing unwanted pregnancy.

    Most second (and all third) trimester abortions are due to maternal health issues or fetal deformity. Some are elective, but this is often because of all the roadblocks put up by government; they make it harder for women to obtain an abortion, and they end up having their abortion in the second trimester, when it is riskier, rather than in the first.

    (Mind you, many of the same people who oppose abortion also oppose birth control, and are making it more difficult every year for women to obtain contraception–e.g. they support pharmacists who won’t fill prescriptions for BCPs or sell Plan B.)

    There are many ways of terminating a second trimester pregnancy. One is the D&X. It’s not completely safe, but it’s the safest method we have.

    Another is the D&E which, as noted above, significantly increases the risk of uterine perforation, which can cause bleeding and lead to infection, sterility or even death.

    Then there is hysterotomy, which is like a cesarian section, but on a much smaller uterus. The uterus is permanently scarred, and at high risk of rupture in future pregnancies, which will all have to be delivered by cesarian. There is also risk of a future placenta previa (low lying placenta) which can cause hemorrhage and maternal and fetal death. Additionally, there is risk of a placenta accreta or percreta, where the placenta implants into the old scar and cannot be easily removed; this may result in hemorrhage or hysterectomy.

    Alternatively, there is, in later second trimester pregnancies, there is labor induction. The fetus is first killed by injecting potassium chloride into the amniotic sac, the cervix is dilated somewhat, and then labor is stimulated. This can be very painful, and labor can progress very slowly, risking amniotic fluid embolus (potentially fatal), cervical tears and uterine infections. If the induction fails, one of the procedures above is then necessary, but becomes more dangerous, because of an increased risk of infection. Cervical tears can lead to future cervical incompetence and preterm delivery. And infection can lead to sterility or death.

    Convenience. Right.

  • Of course the Christofascists want women to be injured during abortions. And despite their pro-chidbirth rhetoric, they really don’t give a damn if women become sterile during abortions, either. Both are God’s punishment for having one.

    Their main idea is that women have no right to control what is in their own bodies. It’s up to men and the government to tell us what to do with our wombs.

    “Handmaid’s Tale,” here we come.

  • That men are the leaders of many of the “pro-life” groups and organizations has always been, for me, a clear indication that women having an unquestioned right to make decisions about reproduction is terribly threatening to some men. — Anne, @11

    I’ve always thought that anti-abortion men are motivated by fear that they might have been aborted themselves, had their mothers had the option. “there, but for the grace of strict laws, go I” kind of thing.

  • Dobson’s glee seems to predicated on the assumption that these late-term abortions are elective. As Orange noted above, in Dobson’s world, women in the 5th or 6th month of a pregnancy just up and decide they don’t wanna have a baby after all because it would be inconvenient or interfere with their vacation plans. I think O’Reilly even said once that there is no such thing these days as a medically necessary abortion, or one that risks the mother’s health or life.

    With that thinking, if the procedure is supposedly “easy,” (yeah, right) and relatively painless and low risk, these selfish women will keep flocking to the “abortionists” to get rid of those annoying pregnancies. So, we make it painful and dangerous to discourage these selfish women.

    • Comments are closed.