{"id":198199,"date":"2019-03-20T12:24:54","date_gmt":"2019-03-20T17:24:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=198199"},"modified":"2019-03-18T16:48:44","modified_gmt":"2019-03-18T21:48:44","slug":"three-reasons-pro-abortion-laws-dont-protect","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/three-reasons-pro-abortion-laws-dont-protect\/","title":{"rendered":"Three reasons why pro-abortion laws don\u2019t protect women and girls"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

There are some misconceptions about abortion that we are so used to reading and hearing that we rarely stop to give them a second thought. Erika Guevara-Rosas, the Americas Director at Amnesty International, wrote a piece in The Washington Post<\/a> arguing for the liberalization of abortion laws in Latin America. Her piece was based on these common claims of pro-abortion activists:<\/p>\n

Latin America authorities have shown alarming negligence in failing to protect women and girls from gender-based violence. Instead of supporting survivors, they frequently revictimize them and deepen their suffering. By denying their right to legal abortion, they also put their rights to life and health at risk.<\/em><\/p>\n

Rhetorically, this kind of argument seems persuasive to some. After all, who wants gender-based violence against women, the revictimization of women, and the endangerment of women\u2019s lives and health? But when you peel back the rhetoric, the reality becomes clear: pro-abortion laws like the author wants for Latin America would fail to protect women on all counts.<\/p>\n

False claim #1: Abortion must be legal, or women\u2019s \u201clife and health\u201d are at risk<\/i><\/b>. Abortion is never necessary<\/a> to protect the life or health of women. It may sound surprising, given how often we hear the contrary from so many mainstream sources. But it\u2019s true. Abortion is never medically necessary<\/a>. Over a thousand physicians worldwide have signed onto the Dublin Declaration, which states the following:<\/p>\n

As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynecology, we affirm that direct abortion \u2013 the purposeful destruction of the unborn child \u2013 is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman. We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.<\/em><\/p>\n

Former abortionists with decades of experience, like OBGYN physician Dr. Anthony Levatino, have repeatedly have said that abortion is never medically necessary. \u201cI saw hundreds of cases of really severe pregnancy complications. Cancers, heart disease, intractable diabetes out of control, toxemia of pregnancy out of control,\u201d said Dr. Levatino. \u201cI saved hundreds of women from life-threatening pregnancies. And I did that by delivering them, by ending their pregnancy by delivery either by induction of labor or caesarean section. And I always tell people: in all those years, the number of babies \u2026 that I was obligated to deliberately kill in the process was zero. None.\u201d<\/p>\n

READ:\u00a0Guttmacher study: Pro-life laws don\u2019t burden women after all<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n