Pro-abortionists have it backwards: Hiding abortion facts is ‘anti-woman,’ not a ban on dismemberment abortions
By Kathy Ostrowski, Legislative Director, Kansans for Life
The
ground-breaking Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act
is now on the books in two states, signed into law within this past
week by Gov. Sam Brownback (Kansas) and Gov. Mary Fallin (Oklahoma).
This law forbids a particularly gruesome method of abortion which (for
that reason) abortionists do not honestly describe in detail to women.
It is difficult for most of us to imagine how someone, particularly a trained physician, could reach into the womb with an instrument like a pair of pliers and grab onto a body part, ripping a tiny baby apart, piece by piece until she bleeds to death.
Yet that is exactly what occurs in a dismemberment abortion.
To ordinary men and women who have learned about this grisly act –and, no doubt, even to some within the abortion industry who are a party to it–the effect has been profound shock and sadness.
But some, particularly those who have defended abortion for decades, have gone in the opposite direction. They have become so hardened that they will say almost anything to protect dismemberment abortions.
Take for example, David Grimes– a long-time abortionist, abortion promoter, and prolific abortion apologist. While the dismemberment ban was working its way through the legislative process, Grimes championed the dismemberment method as popular and safe for women, without the slightest acknowledgement of the victim of this act, the unborn child.
In a February 19 article, written with another long-time abortion proponent, Grimes extolled dismemberment abortion as cheaper and more convenient—for the mother, that is, since the baby is not a consideration. He characterizes dismemberment abortionists as noble “removers of tissue” [again, denying the baby] who do an unpleasant task but, in so doing, save women from any ‘emotional’ burdens.
Thus, as could be expected, the first passage of a ban on dismemberment abortions sent Grimes over the edge.
In his regular Huffington Post blog, Grimes blasted the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act with this headline, “Kansas as Medical Misogyny: Kansas Mandates Substandard Abortion Care.”
His rebuke began by defining misogyny as “hatred, dislike, mistrust of women, or prejudice against women.” Of course abortion is itself an anti-woman act, half the time destroying females, and all the time harming mothers who submit to the abortions. But not to Grimes.
Grimes claims that this new ban on a barbaric abortion method punishes women by denying abortionists the use of that method, leaving only “inferior methods.” And to him, that is ‘anti-women’.
But Grimes is showing the height of hypocrisy about treating women respectfully!
Grimes knows, as well as those of us who followed the partial-birth abortion litigation, that abortionists under oath admitted that they don’t tell the mother the actual procedure of the dismemberment abortion, merely referring to it as a ‘D&E.’ Planned Parenthood of Kansas & Mid-Missouri is equally unforthcoming. On its website it describes the method as “removal of the pregnancy with forceps.”
In what other medical treatment or surgery would that kind of paternalistic/misogynistic omission of facts even be attempted?
It is the ultimate in disrespect and deception– misogyny–to hide the truth from a mother contemplating abortion that the dismemberment method demolishes her unborn child until the baby bleeds to death! And pity the women who are just now discovering that is the kind of abortion they have already obtained.
Grimes’ wrath is really directed at the U.S. Supreme Court which upheld, in 2007, a ban on another brutal, inhumane procedure —partial-birth abortion. How ironic (but unsurprising) that partial-birth abortion defenders also insisted that delivering all but the baby’s head and then plunging surgical scissors into her skull and suctioning out the child’s brain was ‘safer for women.’
But the High Court, in that 2007 ruling, wrote:
The dismemberment law now in place in Kansas and Oklahoma exposes
what happens in an abortion. Any departure from the truth is
misogynistic, and furthers the myth that women need abortion.
What they need is the truth.
The
ground-breaking Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act
is now on the books in two states, signed into law within this past
week by Gov. Sam Brownback (Kansas) and Gov. Mary Fallin (Oklahoma).
This law forbids a particularly gruesome method of abortion which (for
that reason) abortionists do not honestly describe in detail to women.It is difficult for most of us to imagine how someone, particularly a trained physician, could reach into the womb with an instrument like a pair of pliers and grab onto a body part, ripping a tiny baby apart, piece by piece until she bleeds to death.
Yet that is exactly what occurs in a dismemberment abortion.
To ordinary men and women who have learned about this grisly act –and, no doubt, even to some within the abortion industry who are a party to it–the effect has been profound shock and sadness.
But some, particularly those who have defended abortion for decades, have gone in the opposite direction. They have become so hardened that they will say almost anything to protect dismemberment abortions.
Take for example, David Grimes– a long-time abortionist, abortion promoter, and prolific abortion apologist. While the dismemberment ban was working its way through the legislative process, Grimes championed the dismemberment method as popular and safe for women, without the slightest acknowledgement of the victim of this act, the unborn child.
In a February 19 article, written with another long-time abortion proponent, Grimes extolled dismemberment abortion as cheaper and more convenient—for the mother, that is, since the baby is not a consideration. He characterizes dismemberment abortionists as noble “removers of tissue” [again, denying the baby] who do an unpleasant task but, in so doing, save women from any ‘emotional’ burdens.
Thus, as could be expected, the first passage of a ban on dismemberment abortions sent Grimes over the edge.
In his regular Huffington Post blog, Grimes blasted the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act with this headline, “Kansas as Medical Misogyny: Kansas Mandates Substandard Abortion Care.”
His rebuke began by defining misogyny as “hatred, dislike, mistrust of women, or prejudice against women.” Of course abortion is itself an anti-woman act, half the time destroying females, and all the time harming mothers who submit to the abortions. But not to Grimes.
Grimes claims that this new ban on a barbaric abortion method punishes women by denying abortionists the use of that method, leaving only “inferior methods.” And to him, that is ‘anti-women’.
But Grimes is showing the height of hypocrisy about treating women respectfully!
Grimes knows, as well as those of us who followed the partial-birth abortion litigation, that abortionists under oath admitted that they don’t tell the mother the actual procedure of the dismemberment abortion, merely referring to it as a ‘D&E.’ Planned Parenthood of Kansas & Mid-Missouri is equally unforthcoming. On its website it describes the method as “removal of the pregnancy with forceps.”
In what other medical treatment or surgery would that kind of paternalistic/misogynistic omission of facts even be attempted?
It is the ultimate in disrespect and deception– misogyny–to hide the truth from a mother contemplating abortion that the dismemberment method demolishes her unborn child until the baby bleeds to death! And pity the women who are just now discovering that is the kind of abortion they have already obtained.
Grimes’ wrath is really directed at the U.S. Supreme Court which upheld, in 2007, a ban on another brutal, inhumane procedure —partial-birth abortion. How ironic (but unsurprising) that partial-birth abortion defenders also insisted that delivering all but the baby’s head and then plunging surgical scissors into her skull and suctioning out the child’s brain was ‘safer for women.’
But the High Court, in that 2007 ruling, wrote:
Any number of patients facing
imminent surgical procedures would prefer not to hear all details, lest
the usual anxiety preceding invasive medical procedures become the more
intense. …It is, however, precisely this lack of information concerning
the way in which the fetus will be killed that is of legitimate concern
to the State. The State has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is
well informed. It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her
choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more
profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not
know…” — Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 159-160
What they need is the truth.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment