Posted on 12/04/2019 12:12:18 PM PST by Morgana
Democrat presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren answered a survey about abortion from the New York Times and defended the legality of killing viable babies in late-term abortions. Why? Because so few babies are killed every year at latter stages of pregnancy.
Warren joined all of the Democrats in defending abortion, as National Review reports:
Several candidates offered longer explanations, repeating the common claim that post-viability abortions are rare and only take place in the case of medical emergencies.
Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren used the same formula.
“Only 1.3 percent of abortions take place at 21 weeks or later, and the reasons are heartbreaking,” she said. “20-week abortion bans are dangerous and cruel. They would force women to carry an unviable fetus to term or force women with severe health complications to stay pregnant with their lives on the line.”
Warren is correct that just 1.3% of abortions are done to kill babies who at or after the point of viability. According to the most recently available 2014 data from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, however, that still comes to just over 12,000 abortions a year.
But supporting the destruction of innocent unborn children at any stage of their development — but especially late in pregnancy and just because it’s a smaller number of babies whose lives are ended compared with the total number of unborn children killed in abortion, demonstrates a cold-hearted callousness to human life that should immediately disqualify Warren from ever serving as president.
Moreover, Warren is totally incorrect in her claim that most post-viability abortions are done for only medical emergencies or “heartbreaking” reasons. Even the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute cited a study from 2013 that found “most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.”
That late-term abortions are medically necessary has been a lie that has been perpetuated for decades.
Ron Fitzsimmons, the former executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, made a startling admission about late-term abortions as well in 1997. He told the New York Times that he had lied to U.S. Congress when he said late-term abortions are rare. Fitzsimmons said late-term abortions are more common than abortion activists admit, and many are on healthy mothers carrying healthy unborn babies.
And late-term abortionist Martin Haskell, who is credited with inventing the partial-birth abortion procedure, said in a 1993 interview with American Medical News: “I’ll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range…. In my particular case, probably 20% are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective.”
And New York Magazine featured the story of an Oregon woman who aborted her unborn baby at 28 weeks of pregnancy even though they both were healthy.
Numerous OB-GYNs have pointed out that late-term abortions are not necessary to save women’s lives. In cases where the mother’s life is at risk, doctors induce labor or perform a cesarean section, and it is not necessary to kill the baby before doing so.
Dr. Lawrence Koning, an OB-GYN in Corona, California, previously explained the situation to Christian News Network.
“As an OB/GYN physician for 31 years, there is no medical situation that requires aborting/killing the baby in the third trimester to ‘save the mother’s life,’” Koning said in 2016. “Just deliver the baby by C-section and the baby has 95+% survival with readily available NICU care even at 28 weeks. C-section is quicker and safer than partial birth abortion for the mother.”
Former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, also said abortion is not necessary to save lives.
Koop, a pediatric surgeon, said: “When a woman is pregnant, her obstetrician takes on the care of two patients—the mother-to-be and the unborn baby. If, toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother’s health, he will take the child by inducing labor or performing a Caesarian section. His intention is still to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby will be premature. The baby is never willfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger.”
What Elizabeth Warren fails to understand that is even one abortion of one baby per year would be one too many. And she doesn’t understand that point because she has a fundamental lack of respect for human life before birth.
So I assume she’s no longer in favor of gun control?? She still is?? Whaaaaat?
60 million abortions since Roe vs. Wade. More than half a million a year. More than were killed in WWII.
Since when is a broken heart a medical emergency?
The known nitwit warren is yet another faux squaw ghoul. Her husband must be such a piece of work.
One is too many. No matter how the count them.
Dr. Lawrence Koning, an OB-GYN in Corona, California, previously explained the situation to Christian News Network.
In other words, if the about-to-be-mother's life is in danger in the third trimester, partial birth abortion is more dangerous than C-section.
Meaning, of course, that Ms. Warren ...
1. Is LYING (again, and again with her.) and...
2. She cares NOTHING for human life (like all wayy left lefties.)
If it's okay to kill 12,000 babies a year, then it's okay to have death panels on medicare-for-all.
.
Repeating for emphasis...
.
If it's okay to kill 12,000 babies a year, then it's okay to have death panels on medicare-for-all.
.
Repeating one additional time for emphasis...
.
If it's okay to kill 12,000 babies a year, then it's okay to have death panels on medicare-for-all.
.
Very very very sick people the dims are!
I wish someone would ask her at what level it becomes unacceptable.
It’s a small world. I know the OB/GYN quoted in the article. He was our upline when we were in Amway back in the early 90s. He’s a good Christian, and his wife was gorgeous.
If pregnancy is so advanced that a C-section or induced labor would produce a baby that is advanced to the point it would not need heroic measures in the preemie ICU, the woman should have the baby, instead of a baby-killing abortion.
She then can give the baby up for adoption is she feels she can’t handle the stress or economics of keeping her child.
Only if that pregnant woman has an emergency medical condition that clearly rules out c-section or induced birth should an abortion be lawful.
We could call it "Congress Care".
Statistically insignificant. And if you can sell the organs to (cough, cough) benefit others, quite the humanitarian undertaking.
A coworker of mine from Indonesia in a former life told me that was standard operating procedure in most police precincts. They would then have to investigate but would, by some even stranger coincidence, never find anything and have to close the case.
It was a very effective crime fighting procedure since 5% of those with the worst rap sheets were the cause of 80% of the crimes. Statistically, I am told this is true for almost anywhere in the world. Perhaps some Freeper with a law enforcement background could verify.
Democrats are evil.
Some countries attack their Congress with tanks. Just sayin’ ...
Gee Liz. It’s too bad your mom didn’t believe in that.
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.