NRL News

Always and ever the abortion industry must dehumanizes the unborn child

by | Oct 21, 2019

By Dave Andrusko

There is no protective abortion law the Supreme Court could conceivably review that would not generate waves of pro-abortion hysteria. That includes, of course, the decision by the justices to examine Louisiana’s Unsafe Abortion Protection Act which requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.

As you recall, last September, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court judge’s decision and upheld the Louisiana law (Act 620). Judges Jerry Smith and Edith Brown Clement ruled that the Louisiana law’s impact is factually different from the Texas law in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt and should be ruled constitutional even with the 2016 Hellerstedt precedent.

As I read a re-posted story this morning that originally appeared in the abortion-enabling Dallas Morning News, the question struck me yet again: is it possible that the Abortion Industry actually believes everything (or even most of what )it says?

Take, for example, this gem from Amy Hagstrom Miller, CEO and founder of Whole Woman’s Health, who (Mendez reports) said the admitting requirement “is unnecessary and unfair because other nonsurgical physicians are not required to have admitting privileges.”

“The physicians that have hospital privileges are doctors that are doing surgeries in hospitals,” she said. “Abortion’s not a surgery, and so someone who provides abortion wouldn’t have the privileges any more than, you know, a family doctor who removes a mole in an office setting or, a gastroenterologist who does a colonoscopy in an office setting or a dentist who has to do a root canal.”

In Miller’s imaginative understanding, built around erasing the humanity of the victim, taking apart an unborn child, piece by piece, is analogous to removing a mole, performing a colonoscopy, or doing a root canal. Like abortions, all those can be performed in an office setting—not in hospitals– so who needs admitting privilege to a hospital, local or otherwise?

Does she actually believe the risk of complications from removing a mole is no more than comes with digging around in the area of a woman’s reproductive organs?

If something goes wrong in removing a mole, the patient may have a scar.

If something goes wrong in an abortion, as the case with a woman cited by Judge Smith, she could wind up needing to undergo an emergency dilation and curettage—or worse.

And, even by the standard of the customary demeaning language employed by the Abortion Industry, does Miller think she is helping her case by reducing the status of the abortion victim to nothing more than infected tooth?

Probably not, but I’m sure she can’t help herself. The importance of the “right” to abortion cannot ever be overstated, the insignificance of the unborn child can never be harped on enough.

Guess what? Pro-lifers aren’t giving up, either.

If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at Your feedback is very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to

Categories: Abortion