{"id":222841,"date":"2020-05-01T10:45:18","date_gmt":"2020-05-01T15:45:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=222841"},"modified":"2020-05-01T00:26:51","modified_gmt":"2020-05-01T05:26:51","slug":"pro-abortion-writer-ignores-dangers-restricted","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/pro-abortion-writer-ignores-dangers-restricted\/","title":{"rendered":"Pro-abortion writer ignores dangers of abortion, claims it shouldn’t be restricted"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

As states take measures to <\/span>ban abortions<\/span><\/a> during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, pro-abortion groups are growing concerned this will grant the government power to further restrict abortion in the future. Writing for <\/span>Rewire.News<\/span><\/a>, an abortion advocacy website, Mary Ziegler claimed these bans are part of a historic anti-abortion strategy to inspire doubt \u201cabout the difference between fact and ideology \u2013 and science and spin.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

If Ziegler is contending that ‘abortion rights’ should not be subject to government interference, she does not explain where this supposed ‘right’ comes from. Is abortion a <\/span>natural right<\/span><\/a>, something that existed prior to government and is obtained merely by existing? For this to be true, we would then have to say a woman has a natural right to abortion from the moment she comes into existence \u2013 which we <\/span>know<\/span><\/a> to be in the womb \u2013 but she does not have a natural right to life.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Is abortion access comparable to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? No. Abortion is demonstrative of a <\/span>positive right<\/span><\/a>, as it is a law established by the government, which means it can be regulated or taken away.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Roe is on shaky ground because it is based on false assumptions<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ziegler briefly discusses the <\/span>330 Human Life Amendment<\/span><\/a> proposals introduced after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of <\/span>Roe v. Wade<\/span><\/i>. This is framed as if pro-lifers have always been an opponent to a law a majority of people support, but this isn\u2019t true. A <\/span>majority<\/span><\/a> of Americans today think <\/span>Roe <\/span><\/i>should be modified or overturned, and <\/span>polls<\/span><\/a> conducted before the Supreme Court\u2019s 1973 decision showed widespread disapproval of it. The actions of the Supreme Court Justices nationalized what had once been a state concern.<\/span><\/p>\n

In “<\/span>Abuse of Discretion: The Inside Story of Roe v. Wade<\/span><\/a>,” attorney Clarke D. Forsythe points out:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Justices effectively ended an active public debate, in the sense that the American people could no longer decide the issue\u2026As of January 1973, however, thirty states permitted no other exception than to save the life of the mother, and most states actively enforced their abortion laws. Prosecutions against abortionists were pending in many states on the day <\/span>Roe <\/span>was issued.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

While pro-lifers stand accused by Ziegler of attempting to distort facts, <\/span>Roe<\/span><\/i><\/a>, according to Forsythe,\u00a0was based on the assumption that abortion was safer than childbirth. This shielded abortion providers from regulations, prohibiting public health officials from enforcing health and safety standards, as the Justices granted abortionists complete discretion when it came to managing these matters.\u00a0<\/span>The idea of abortion being safer than childbirth is as untenable as it is dangerous. <\/span>Abortion complication reports<\/span><\/a> are only collected <\/span>voluntarily<\/span><\/a>, meaning there\u2019s no comparability between them and maternal mortality rates. In places where there is <\/span>cleaner recordkeeping<\/span><\/a>, abortion is associated with a higher mortality rate than childbirth.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Citing the Hyde Amendment — which bans the federal funding of abortion except in certain circumstances — as another example of \u201cabortion foes\u201d attempting to narrow women\u2019s rights, Ziegler accuses the policy of being \u201cdiscriminatory.\u201d But she leaves out the fact that <\/span>most Americans<\/span><\/a> are in favor of it, and how groups like <\/span>Planned Parenthood<\/span><\/a> blur the line to meet the amendment\u2019s \u201cmedically necessary\u201d exception.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

WATCH: Pro-Life Replies: Abortion is actually never medically necessary<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Ziegler <\/span>writes<\/span><\/a>, \u201cRather than changing the text of the Constitution, [pro-lifers] could try to change the Supreme Court\u2014by fighting to elect Republicans and lobbying them to pick justices who would reverse <\/span>Roe<\/span><\/i>.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

But the <\/span>Supreme Court<\/span><\/a> had no Constitutional basis for <\/span>Roe<\/span><\/i>, as they merely decided the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to humans who are still in the womb. This reasoning is flawed, as the <\/span>amendment<\/span><\/a> was intended to be universal, granting \u201cequal protection of the laws\u201d to all human beings.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Rather than pro-lifers creating disorientation regarding the law, pro-abortion advocates have spawned confusion regarding their own position. The original rationale for <\/span>Roe <\/span><\/i>was discarded because of <\/span>Planned Parenthood v. Casey <\/span><\/i>in 1992<\/span><\/a>, replacing the Constitution justification with a sociological one. Far from being established law, the ruling Ziegler and other abortion proponents stand by is incredibly inconsistent.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Abortion is risky, and even riskier during a pandemic<\/strong><\/p>\n

In an attempt to \u201credefine the effects of abortion,\u201d <\/span>Ziegler<\/span><\/a> asserts that \u201canti-abortion groups\u201d hired their own experts to prove abortion makes \u201cpregnant people sick instead of equal.\u201d She contends all claims about abortion risks have been \u201crejected\u201d by \u201celite medical organizations,\u201d but their <\/span>studies<\/span><\/a> often rely on <\/span>flawed reporting<\/span><\/a> and a lack of concrete data on <\/span>abortion<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Expressing fear about how abortion access may change when the pandemic is over, <\/span>Ziegler<\/span><\/a> worries current state bans on abortion may lay the groundwork for states to \u201croll back rights in the name of an emergency.\u201d Ziegler assumes the motivation behind the COVID-19 abortion bans is based on false charges. She denies that abortion patients would overwhelm already overburdened hospitals, and Ziegler claims abortionists are not hoarding personal protective equipment (PPE).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

But we\u2019ve seen <\/span>Planned Parenthood<\/span><\/a> request donations of PPE for abortion services as hospitals try to combat COVID-19 while facing supply shortages. While it\u2019s difficult to track the precise number of complications due to incomplete reporting, there\u2019s been a <\/span>series<\/span><\/a> of alarming cases of <\/span>abortion patients<\/span><\/a> requiring <\/span>emergency care<\/span><\/a>. This puts women at risk, as a hospital visit may expose them to the virus, or cause the infection to spread.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

If the argument is that clinics don\u2019t use <\/span>PPE<\/span><\/a> that often, but we\u2019re also supposed to believe abortion is the same as any normal medical procedure, this would be another example of abortion facilities determining their own standard of care.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n