Beto O’Rourke, This Is What a Third-Trimester Abortion Is

Beto O’Rourke recently argued that, while unborn life has value, abortion is still a “decision for the woman.” It’s also a decision that becomes increasingly difficult to defend when described in detail – something the media rarely do.

On August 26, the Democratic presidential candidate expressed his support for abortion – even up until the day before birth. O’Rourke made his comments during a town hall Q&A held at the College of Charleston in South Carolina.

The first question that evening came from a 29-year-old man who was curious about the former Texas representative’s abortion stance.

“Someone asked you specifically about third-trimester abortions, and you said that’s a decision left up to the mother,” he said, remembering O’Rourke’s past comments during a Cleveland event in March. He wanted to know if O’Rourke still agreed with that.

“I was born September 8, 1989, and I want to know if you think on September 7, 1989, my life had no value,” he told O’Rourke.

The Democrat politician responded, “Of course I don’t think that. And of course I’m glad that you’re here.” But, he added, his answer on abortion “remains the same .”

“This is a decision that neither you, nor I, nor the United States government should be making. That’s a decision for the woman to make,” O’Rourke said to the crowd’s delight. “We want her to have the best possible access to care and to a medical provider.”

After warning his audience about threats to abortion and Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion in the U.S., O’Rourke concluded that “I don’t question the decisions that a woman makes.” “Only she knows what she knows, and I want to trust her with that,” he added.

But the pro-life movement doesn’t challenge abortion because it distrusts women. It challenges abortion to protect women – and all human life – from the moment of conception.

O’Rourke’s comments mirror many in the media who attack any restrictions or limits on abortion. But abortion, and how it works, is difficult to defend when looked at in detail.

In 2016, Dr. Anthony Levatino, an obstetrician-gynecologist who has performed more than 1,200 abortions, examined the different procedures with pro-life group Live Action.

During a third trimester induced abortion, which is “performed 25 weeks to term,” the unborn baby is “almost fully developed and viable” or “could survive outside the womb if the mother were to go into labor prematurely,” he said. He’s right – as The New York Times reported in 2015, studies show that babies can survive at 22 weeks.

An abortionist “uses a large needle to inject a drug called digoxin” that “will cause fatal cardiac arrest,” Levatino said. The needle travels “through the woman’s abdomen or through her vagina and into the baby, targeting either the head, torso, or heart.” The baby’s life ends.

Next, the abortionist “inserts multiple sticks of seaweed called laminaria into the woman’s cervix” which will “slowly open up the cervix for delivery of a stillborn baby.” A couple days later, the abortionist “replaces the laminaria and may perform a second ultrasound to ensure the baby is dead.”

The mother “may be advised to deliver her baby into a bathroom toilet,” he said. But “if she can make it to the clinic, she will do so during her severest contractions.” He concluded, “if the baby does not come out whole,” then the abortionist “uses clamps and forceps to dismember the baby piece by piece.”

That's quite right. If 100% of those women were making strict use of the most effective hormonal contraceptives --- the injectables, transdermals and implants --- which effectively disable normal female sexual physiology, there would be very few surprise pregnancies.

OTOH, many women cannot tolerate the chronic malaise (bloat, depression, loss of libido) which is often caused by this chronic hormonal derangement, to say nothing of more serious long-term health risks (like hormone-sensitive cancers).

The less-than-industrial-grade methods (like condoms) also have big risk factors which are virtually inescapable: let's call it the "wear and tear" or "slip, rip and drip" factor. They really don't "take the worry out of being close."

The youngest third of female contraceptors (age 15-27) is far, far more fertile than the oldest (ages 39-50); they are also the ones most likely to experience product-failure and user-failure (ripped the condom, forgot the pill.)

And user-effeciveness is real-world effectiveness. No use quoting perfect-use statistics when they have no real relevance to the way people live.

Margaret Sanger started he first contraceptive dispensary in Brownsville NYC in 1916. They became the essentual staple of middle-class life, and a state-subsidized staple for the poor, roughly 50 year later (mid-'60's.) So we've got over 100 years experience. If contraceptives were the "answer," the "question" would have been resoundingly "answered" two or three generations ago.

Isn't it time to face facts and admit the "Contraceptive Revolution" was a failure in terms of its ineffectiveness in achieving its own stated goals?

Unless you consider increased out-of-wedlock pregnancy, the breakdown of the marriage culture, the mountains of size XS corpses, and the pervasive weirding of sex to be, not a glitch, but a feature.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.