NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

Another hatchet job on laws offering pregnant women a chance to reflect before aborting

by | Mar 29, 2016

By Dave Andrusko

NCSchafferquoteThis will be a brief post (okay, having now written it, I take that back). Why? Because to accept the argument of a pro-abortion “study” requires not only the willful suspension of disbelief but also putting your brain in deep freeze.

How so? Let me count just a few of the many ways. By way of background, Utah was the first state to pass a law requiring a 72-hour waiting period between the time of the first visit and the date of the abortion.

#1. The study– “Utah’s 72 hour waiting period law results in increased costs, burdens and anxiety”– is published in Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. Is there anyone over the age of six that would expect a publication that specializes in grinding out “studies” that prop up the pro-abortion establishment and slash away at even peer-reviewed pro-life research to reach any other conclusion?

#2. The study, we’re told, comes from the University of Utah and the University of California, San Francisco. I know nothing about the University of Utah and/or the researchers who were part of this study. But if you go to ansirh.org, we’re also told that it’s “ANSIRH’s study.”

What/who is ANSIRH? It’s an acronym for Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). And as NRLC’s director of Education Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon once put it, “If Planned Parenthood is America’s abortion chain and the Guttmacher Institute its source of statistics, then UCSF has long been the nation’s abortion training academy.” [Guttmacher publishes Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. What a coincidence.]

#3. Okay, who financed the study that comes from a hotbed of pro-abortion advocacy published in a journal that defends abortion six days a week and twice on Sunday? It’s an “anonymous foundation.” Sigh. There are lots more interesting points, but let’s end with this.

#4. We’re told

“Most women had made the decision to have an abortion and were not conflicted about their decision when they presented for their abortion information visit. …8% reported changing their minds, but most of those women had been conflicted at the information visit. Only 2% of women who were not conflicted about their decision at the information visit did not have an abortion.”

Just to be clear, I assume what the Issue Brief is saying is that 6% who were conflicted at the time of the “information visit” did not abort (6% conflicted+ 2% not conflicted=8% changing their minds and not aborting).

Nobody but nobody says that a high percentage of women will change their minds, whether the waiting period is 24 hours, 48 hours, or 72 hours. How can it be otherwise when women (and especially girls) face unbelievable pressures to abort an untimely pregnancy and usually with virtually no support?

However, the above quote–from an ANSIRH “Issue Brief” — tells us more than the author[s] suggests.

8% fewer dead babies means nothing–it’s a rounding error–to people who perform abortion for a living or who devote their professional lives to protecting the “right” to unfettered abortion. But it means a lot to us, to the babies, and to the families of those babies.

So what did the waiting period accomplish? It gave these women a chance to have a one-on-one with their conscience and the better angels of their nature carried the day (and the baby).

What if she learned about alternatives and especially about resources available to her? What if the state provided funds to organizations which provide her with “another way”?

The more options we give women with unplanned pregnancies, the more time they have to consider if abortion is what they really “want,” the larger that percentage will become.

Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, go directly to nationalrighttolifenews.org and/or follow me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha

Categories: Abortion