Pro-choice leaders misrepresent abortion limits
I don’t know if they’re ignorant or lying, but pro-abort leaders who should know better are spreading flatly false information about how long in a pregnancy a mother can abort….
"Abortions are legal up until a child is born" — a flat out lie. Roe v Wade established 24 weeks. #stopthebanSC
— PP South Atlantic SC (@PPSATSC) March 18, 2015
@marlynantiANC @twit2014opine @JillStanek Yes. Unless life of mother is in danger and/or the fetus has conditions incompatible with life.
— JodiJacobson 🇺🇦 🩸🦷 @jljacobson@mastodon.social (@jljacobson) January 26, 2015
The first tweet comes from Planned Parenthood South Atlantic in South Carolina.
The second was written by Jodi Jacobson, editor-in-chief of the pro-abortion website RH Reality Check.
Both are, of course, wrong.
The correct answer is: Abortion is legal in the United States throughout all 40 weeks/nine months of pregnancy, up to the moment of birth.
The Supreme Court’s Roe v Wade decision on January 22, 1973, legalized abortion on demand in all 50 states until viability, after which time it could be committed for “life or health” of the mother.
On that same day the Supreme Court handed down its decision on Roe’s companion case, Doe v Bolton, in which it defined maternal “health” as “all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health,” holding further that the abortionist alone could make that decision. This gaping loophole made abortion available on demand in the U.S. throughout all nine months of pregnancy.
The United States is one of only seven countries that allows elective abortions past 20 weeks.
In addition, United States joins only with Canada, China, North Korea, and Vietnam as the most permissive countries in the world on abortion.
I find it hard to believe Planned Parenthood and RH Reality Check don’t know these basic abortion facts.
There would be reason to hide these facts, of course, because the reality of what Planned Parenthood and RH Reality Check actually support is so heinous.
[HT for PP link: Carole at Saynsumthn blog]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Interesting. Was the PP affiliate going off script, or is PP actually trying to sell the 24-week nonsense? When a late-term ban was debated at a New Hampshire hearing this year, the abortion advocates opposed it on the grounds that it would stand in the way of eugenic abortion, only they didn’t say “eugenic.” The euphemism of choice was “tragic fetal abnormalities.” I did hear one person use the term “incompatible with life” to refer to the condition of preborn children with severe disabilities.
(The bill was tabled and is not likely to come back this year.)
I think they know the truth but talk out of both sides of their mouth. On the one hand, they do not want to appear extreme to more moderate, nuanced, or fence sitters on abortion especially when the polls show the squishy middle as the majority. On the other hand, they can’t alienate the abortion on demand without apology no strings attached crowd either.
In defense of PP-SASC and Jodi Jacobson: We read yesterday about how much the abortion industry lies to the people who work inside it.
https://www.jillstanek.com/2015/03/pp-staffer-abortion-sold-happy-product/
The Jodi and the author of PP-SASC’s tweet may actually believe that there are effective regulations that restrict late-term abortions.
Late-term abortions are more expensive, take longer to prepare, and require more medical record-keeping than early abortions. This may equate to ‘regulation’ in the confused minds of abortion supporters.
I do agree that some of the pro-choice leaders do misrepresent abortion limits, and I am well-aware that abortion-on-demand is legal for any reason in the United States during all nine months of pregnancy up until the moment of birth. However, at least four of the Supreme Court justices involved in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, including at least two who had supported the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton rulings, did not intend to legalize abortion-on-demand during all nine months of pregnancy. In addition, the broad definition of “health” that was given in the Doe v. Bolton was an arbitrary definition that is not found anywhere within the text of the United States Constitution.
The United States Supreme Court has already decided in Roe v. Wade that prohibitions on abortion are constitutionally permissible where an abortion is not “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother,” and the language of Roe v. Wade suggests the existence of circumstances where abortions are not “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” In addition, the very same governmental interests that justify prohibiting abortions that are not deemed necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother also justify prohibiting those abortions that are deemed necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
Here is a detailed explanation on why a 20-week-ban on abortion should be enacted and why the United States Supreme Court should uphold the 20-week ban: https://reversingroe.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/enacting-a-20-week-ban-on-abortion-in-the-united-states/
Here is a list of 38 reasons why the Roe v. Wade decision should be reversed:
https://reversingroe.wordpress.com/2015/02/28/reasons-why-roe-v-wade-and-doe-v-bolton-should-be-reversed/