NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

Pro-abortionists aren’t about to allow a “serious crisis to go to waste”

by | Nov 27, 2012

By Dave Andrusko

Kate Blanchard

I remember vividly the antics of pro-abortion zany Chris Matthews on election night, particularly his remark, ”I’m so glad we had that storm [Hurricane Sandy] last week because I think the storm was one of those things –No, politically I should say, not in terms of hurting people–the storm brought in possibilities for good politics [Obama’s re-election].”

Obviously, Matthews, as off the wall as he often is, didn’t mean he was glad people died so that his hero, Barack Obama, could win a second term. He was saying out loud what others were thinking: good break for Obama.

I’ve often thought of that comment in the context of the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar, a pregnant Indian woman who died on October 28 in Galway University Hospital, Ireland from overwhelming infection. Talk about a rush to judgment. Based on the most fragmentary “evidence,” the pro-abortion establishment insisted she died because the  hospital refused to abort her unborn child by inducing labor.

In fact, as Michael Kirke explained out in great detail, “What is disturbing about all this is the flight from reason and truth in the service of a propaganda campaign by Ireland’s – and the whole world’s — pro-abortion activists. Many of the facts surrounding the case are not at all clear, but one thing is certain: this tragic case is not the result of Ireland’s law protecting the unborn child. At issue is medical practice in a particular Irish hospital and whether or not the medical team involved in this case did everything they could do to save this woman’s life, as they were obliged to do by Irish law and the ethics of their profession.” (emphasis added)

Enter Kate Blanchard, author of “My Two Abortions,” that appeared at www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-blanchard/my-two-abortions_b_2129792.html.  She is analogizing/contrasting her own experience to Savita Halappanavar’s (“Part of my reaction comes from a sense of ‘there but for the grace of God go I’”). Blanchard is one angry woman.

By way of background the brief accompanying bio tells us that she is an  Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Alma College. Clearly, one thing she was either not taught, or unlearned, was respect for those who have a different faith.

Unmercifully, Blanchard bashes Catholics—derisively, sneeringly tagged “good Catholics” in the second sentence—who, she declared, “prioritized the dying fetus’s heartbeat over the living, breathing, walking, working, loving, would-be mother’s suffering, and ultimately, over her life.”

But that is just the lead in to her “two abortions,” which in fact were an ectopic pregnancy which was removed (a baby cannot develop in the mother’s fallopian tube and the mother could die if the tube ruptures) and another baby whose heart stopped beating by 10 weeks. What’s  the connection? She calls the first an “involuntary abortion,” the second she was told constituted a “missed abortion”!

Blanchard wants to make sure we understand one point (made in different ways) which most decidedly do not reflect well on “Christians,” particularly Catholics. Although she was in graduate school for Christian theology and ethics at the time she lost her first baby, she informs us that nobody sent a card (even the Catholics!). When she lost her second baby, “The friends who were most supportive to me at that time were non-religious, who simply cared about me.”

Obviously I don’t know the particulars. A less hostile interpretation is that people often are at a loss what to say when a baby is lost. It’s not because they don’t value both the child and the mother, but because they fear they will say the wrong thing, aggravating her grief rather than consoling her.

She makes the same argument sideways. Just four months after she loses her first baby, she became pregnant again. Blanchard tells us

“I gave birth to my only miraculous child at age 34, and both of us came through pregnancy and birth miraculously healthy. When I first saw him, I thought to myself that this one had to be my child — this one had to be — and I was strangely grateful for the first failed pregnancy that enabled everything to work out just the way it had to. Eight years later, I still feel that way, however irrational it might be. My child still seems like a miracle.”

Then, at age 39, “Again, after countless months of disappointment, I got pregnant.” When an ultrasound reveals that her baby has no heartbeat, they called this “cruel state of affairs a missed abortion,’” which I’m sure they did, but is something I’ve never heard of. (I’m surprised she couldn’t find a way to blame Catholics for that grotesquely insensitive remark.)

Blanchard and her doctor decide to induce a delivery. Blanchard writes

After a couple of weeks of cramps and bleeding, I experienced something that I can only describe as labor; I had horrific abdominal pain, and eventually had to push what felt like a large mass through my birth canal and into the toilet. Then, all by myself, I flushed the whole bloody mess down. Once again, no one came around encouraging me to have a funeral, because anyone who is intellectually and spiritually honest knows, without a doubt, that the human tissue that went down the sewer was not equivalent to ‘a human life.’ The friends who were most supportive to me at that time were non-religious, who simply cared about me.

Since no one suggested a funeral, we are informed, everybody understood that what she lost was not a human life but (in her words) just a “bloody mess.”

Of course that doesn’t follow at all, any more than the absence of a note of condolence after the ectopic pregnancy meant people didn’t care. No more than it follows that since baby #2 survived, baby #1 was not supposed to live and that she should be “strangely grateful” her first child had died.

All of this free-swinging, free-floating anger is in service of Blanchard’s original outburst: Mrs. Halappanava “died so that some self-righteous Catholics could feel good about themselves.” She died, according to Blanchard, so that these “good Catholics” could “secure their own moral purity over reason and compassion.”

To come full circle, there is no evidence, beyond that conjured up by forces determined to overturn Ireland’s pro-life laws, that these laws were responsible for her death. To quote Michael Kirke again, “At issue is medical practice in a particular Irish hospital and whether or not the medical team involved in this case did everything they could do to save this woman’s life, as they were obliged to do by Irish law and the ethics of their profession.”

Chicago mayor and former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel once said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” He tried to walk that one back, just as Matthews did his, but the point was made: exploit anything if it promotes your political agenda.

Which is exactly what pro-abortion forces in Ireland are cynically attempting to do with Mrs. Halappanavar’s death. Kirke hit the nail on the head when he described this as a “callous manipulation of this situation by the abortion advocates before even the most basic investigation of the facts is carried out.”

Your feedback is very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha

Categories: pro-abortion