Communications Department
202.626.8825
mediarelations@nrlc.org

Who Really Cares for Women?

Jul 27, 2012 | 03-Summer 2012 NRL News

NRL News
Page 3
Summer 2012
Volume 39
Issue 3

Who Really Cares for Women?

The so-called “war on women” launched by President Obama and his supporters is nothing more than a rhetorical smokescreen and political ploy designed to get women to re-elect Obama and his pro-abortion allies.

Using the flawed logic being employed by President Obama, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Nancy Pelosi, NARAL and its allies, if you don’t agree with them on “choice,” then you must hate women and are engaged in a war on women.

For years, we have heard that pro-lifers only care about the baby, not the woman. And it is supposedly those who advocate for abortion who are the real champions for women. Really? Let’s look at what’s happening in this country right now and consider who really cares about women.

Abortion is the least regulated invasive procedure in the country. Many states do not require that a mother be fully informed about abortion, its potential risks, and alternatives – something required for every other medical procedure performed in this country.

A hallmark piece of legislation for the right-to-life movement would require abortionists to provide to a woman considering abortion an ultrasound of her unborn child before the abortion occurs. Ideally, the legislation should require that the screen be positioned so that the woman can view the real-time ultrasound image of her unborn child, if she so chooses.

The opposition from abortion supporters over this proposal is loud and intense. A woman seeking an abortion is about to make an irreversible life-or-death decision. She should be given all medically relevant information before the abortion is performed, including letting her see an ultrasound of her unborn child. Are they afraid she’ll change her mind? A changed mind means lost revenue. How is that pro-woman?

Abortion advocates, those stalwart “protectors” of women, even fight legislation requiring abortion facilities to meet the most basic health and safety standards of medical clinics. How is that pro-woman?

Abortion providers are not content to just have mothers walk through their doors. Some Planned Parenthood facilities now offer so-called “webcam” abortions. Rather than meeting the abortionist in person, a pregnant woman sits in a Planned Parenthood office and converses with him long-distance via computer. The abortionist is able to push a button on his computer that opens a drawer in the room where the woman is seated. Inside that drawer is the chemical that will kill her unborn child.

Webcam abortions pose serious dangers to women.  Fourteen women who took RU486 have died in the United States since 2000, according to the FDA, and thousands of women have suffered complications. An abortionist dispensing the drug to someone perhaps hundreds of miles away via computer isn’t exactly supervising the procedure. How is this pro-woman?

This spring, the California State Assembly considered legislation that would allow non-physicians to perform surgical abortions. Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and certified nurse-midwives are already allowed to perform chemical abortions. The people in these positions provide valuable medical services, but they are not doctors. For those who think abortion should be “safe,” how is reducing the required standard of care pro-woman?

Abortion advocates aren’t content to push abortion in this country. They support it overseas as well.

In 2009, President Obama restored U.S. funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) to the tune of $50 million. His budget request for 2013 includes $39 million for UNFPA. Under President George W. Bush and his pro-life predecessors, U.S. funding to the UNFPA was cut off because of the UNFPA’s support of China’s population-control program, which includes forced abortion.

Stories abound of pregnant women in China who are dragged out of their homes, taken to “family-planning” centers against their wishes, and have an abortion forced on them. (See Rep. Chris Smith’s story on page 4)

Abortion advocates are not screaming that this is a war on women, and the Obama administration tolerates this program by financially supporting the UNFPA. Where are the “pro-woman” abortion advocates in this horror?

In China, India, and many other places, a higher value is placed on boys so unborn baby girls are much more likely to be aborted. According to various reports, more than 160 million girls are “missing,” having been the victim of sex-selection abortions.

Where are the “pro-woman” abortion advocates in this battle? When given the opportunity to ban sex-selection abortion in this country, they oppose the legislation.

Another distressing attribute of abortion advocates is that they refuse to acknowledge any consequences resulting from abortion. Instead of letting a woman grieve over her decision to kill her child, those who advocate abortion refuse to acknowledge that abortion is anything more than an appendectomy.

While the pro-abortion movement offers only a dead baby as the solution for a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy, the pro-life movement has taken up the challenge to help her through this difficult time.

Pregnancy resource centers offer support, clothing, supplies, and when needed, a place for the pregnant mom to stay. They offer legal and medical referrals, provide adoption assistance, and offer counseling, either about the pregnancy or post-abortion counseling for women who do choose abortion.

Abortion advocates who say they are pro-woman are anything but. They aren’t interested in making abortion “safe” for women. They aren’t interested in defending girls who are being killed because they are girls. They aren’t interested in women who suffer from their abortion. The bottom line for abortion advocates is making sure that abortion remains legal. That unborn child must be sacrificed at all costs.

Again I ask, who really cares about women?