NRL News

Painful abortions: a visit to a South African abortion clinic

by | Apr 25, 2014


By Dave Andrusko

There is a rule in covering the abortion issue that is nearly iron-clad. If you want incredibly revealing remarks, look for what come straight out of the mouths of abortionists, their staffs, and their legion of sympathizers in the media. Give them enough rope, in other words, and they hang themselves.

I give you, “South Africa: A Day at Dora Nginza,” written by Jina Moore for something called the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting. More about the Center and “The Promise of Life: Reproductive Choice in Africa” momentarily.

Dora Nginza, the locale which forms the basis for the story, is a state hospital, “Port Elizabeth’s biggest health facility,” Moore writes. Revelation #1: “South Africa legalized abortion 15 years ago, and today the country can’t keep up with the demand.”

To pro-abortionists, this is one of those “aha” moments, evidence of the “unmet need” for abortions. To pro-lifers this steady increase means what it always has meant: you legalize abortion and there is a tremendous pressure on women to take the “easy” way out. In fact, you empower not women, but boyfriends who are not interested in being fathers.

The “process” of the “procedure” is “described by specialists as quick and relatively painless,” according to Moore. “[B]ut Sharon Hobo, one of the nurses here, tells us some women scream, sometimes.”

“Quick,” I’m sure, refers not just to the abortion itself but to the exam, the sonogram, and the “counseling” prior to the “procedure.”

Bing, bing. In and out. In with a live baby, out by yourself.

Abortion advocates increasing counsel women to talk about their abortions, the better to “destigmatize” the “procedure.” The downside, for them, is that a central truth often works its way out: abortion can be very, very painful.

That is one of the many ironies of chemical abortions—RU-486. This “safe,” “quick procedure” can be unbelievably painful. (See “Two stories from New York Magazine unintentionally reinforce the pro-life case against abortion”)

Speaking of stigma, Moore tells us, “The women’s clinic, as the abortion facility is called, is tucked away at the edge of the vast hospital complex. Dr. Mafundo Mabenge says it’s set apart from the rest of the hospital to protect its users against stigma.” But a few paragraphs later we read this:

“And then there’s the stigma. So many people tell us that South Africa can be a socially conservative place, and even though abortion is legal, Sharon says the midwives who provide it are often scorned by their colleagues or friends. They volunteer, after all—because the issue can be fraught with religious and moral complications, no public health employee is compelled to serve in the roughly 70 state abortion clinics functioning across the country—and that choice can earn them the disdain of family and friends.”

So, how do you put the best face on a painful “procedure” whose numbers are growing by leaps and bounds (thanks to legalization) and which brings scorn on abortion clinic workers?

By telling us that Sharon’s family supports her and that Sharon believes her work is important. And, as she makes clear, she is merely meeting a need, not generating one.

“We’re not here to encourage abortion,” she says. “We’re here to do it safely.”

Never mind that providing abortions clearly does “encourage” the taking of unborn life, not just in South Africa but everywhere.

Just a word (because this is all I know) about “The Promise of Life: Reproductive Choice in Africa” (which according to the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting) is a project which “partners four African journalists with two US-based journalists to produce a body of reporting on reproductive health that will be distributed in African and international outlets. The goal is to improve the quality of the reporting on reproductive health issues and bring the voices of African journalists to an international audience.”

The reporting initiative, we’re told, also “explore[s] critical challenges in reproductive health and family planning—and what they mean for life, death and socio-economic stability.” Sounds very much like population control, doesn’t it?

The “project” may “bring the voices of African journalists to an international audience,” or at least four of them. But based on this story (and a couple of others I read at their website) it will “improve the quality of the reporting on reproductive health issues” only when it accidentally stumbles onto the truth: legalizing abortion vastly increases the number of dead babies and injured women.

Categories: Abortion Infanticide