NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

Fear-mongering and contempt for the truth are what pro-abortionists do best

by | Apr 19, 2024

By Dave Andrusko

Carl Sandberg, the great poet, is credited with saying “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”

For decades and decades, this has been the abortion crowd’s go-to strategy. Untethered to the Constitution, they substitute blistering rhetoric for reason, heat for light, and demagoguery for measured discourse. This is much easier to pull off when the Legacy Media doesn’t make you prove what you’ve been spouting off with such confidence.

But never has the truth taken such a beating as it has since the June 24, 2022, Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. Ingrid Skop makes her way through the distortions and disinformation and deceit under the headline “Abortion advocates lie about pro-life protections to create fear, sway votes: Fear-mongering is what abortion advocates do.”

Dr. Skop cuts right to the case:

With abortion as a major issue in the 2024 election, there has been a proliferation of stories claiming pro-life protections put women in “medical peril” because they allegedly prohibit doctors from intervening in medical emergencies. It has even prompted some of the women who have suffered unfortunate circumstances to campaign for President Joe Biden.

As a practicing OB-GYN, I care for both a mother and her unborn child, and in my 30 years of practice, I have never had to resort to an abortion to save a woman’s life.

Dr. Skop makes the crucial distinctions which pro-abortionists won’t, lest it undercut their “narrative.” For example, there is  “the blatantly false allegations that state laws protecting unborn human life prohibit physicians from providing necessary medical care to women suffering pregnancy emergencies.”

In fact, she writes

States with pro-life protections ensure doctors can provide life-saving care for pregnant women during medical emergencies. The laws give broad deference to a physician’s judgment, allowing him or her to make this determination based on their “reasonable medical judgment.” Physicians can document their actions are reasonable by referencing the abundant guidelines in the obstetric literature addressing pregnancy complications that can lead to maternal death.

What is the goal of these dishonest portrayals? Dr. Skop says the goal “becomes clear by examining the ballot initiatives that abortion advocates offer to replace existing state laws.”

This November, Floridians will vote on a constitutional amendment that will prohibit the law from “restrict(ing) abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the healthcare provider.”

 

Because of women’s terrifying stories of not receiving necessary health care during an emergency, the casual observer might assume the “health” clause is necessary. In actuality, it will open the floodgates to abortion on demand at any time in pregnancy. Rather than limiting abortion to rare, dire emergencies, “health” was defined in the Roe era as “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the well-being of the patient.” And the “patient’s healthcare provider” responsible for deciding if an abortion is necessary under the health exception is the abortionist who would profit from the abortion.

This essay is rich in detail, too much to even briefly outline here. I would encourage you to read it because it debunks so many pro-abortion untruths.

Dr. Skop concludes

Abortion advocates have one goal: to spread confusion through lies. They want to increase abortions on demand at any time in pregnancy, and they will do whatever it takes to achieve that goal. It’s crucial that Americans, especially women, start questioning the abortion advocates weaponizing that confusion for their own benefit, rather than the pro-life protections that very clearly protect pregnant women facing heartbreaking situations.

Categories: pro-abortion