{"id":92695,"date":"2016-04-16T15:43:26","date_gmt":"2016-04-16T19:43:26","guid":{"rendered":"\/news\/?p=92695"},"modified":"2016-04-17T13:23:38","modified_gmt":"2016-04-17T17:23:38","slug":"daily-beast-abortion-story-wasnt-about-abortion-at-all","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/daily-beast-abortion-story-wasnt-about-abortion-at-all\/","title":{"rendered":"The Daily Beast’s “abortion” story wasn’t about abortion at all"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

The Daily Beast is no stranger to posting<\/a> pro-abortion articles. But recently, they used Donald Trump’s comments on punishing abortionists<\/a> (and women) for abortions to\u00a0peddle a completely misleading, fear mongering piece.<\/a><\/p>\n

The pro-life movement<\/a>\u00a0has long believed that it is\u00a0abortionists who should be punished for performing illegal\u00a0abortions – not women.<\/p>\n

But The Daily Beast’s Chavi Karkowsky capitalizes on fears of incarceration\u00a0for both in a piece inaccurately titled,\u00a0“The Hardest Abortion I’ve Ever Had to Perform.”<\/a> As it turns out, the procedure she discusses\u00a0wasn’t even an abortion<\/em> – it was the delivery of a stillborn child following the premature rupture of amniotic fluid at\u00a019 weeks. But you have to read the article to find that\u00a0out…<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

And then what I did next was very similar<\/strong> to offering her an abortion… \u00a0 Mostly what we saw was infection, I reviewed, infection that can get into her body through her uterus, now defenseless. Once there, it can make her sick very fast, and won\u2019t get better until the uterus is empty. I told her since waiting was unlikely to help the pregnancy survive, the safest thing would be to induce her labor and\u00a0end her pregnancy.<\/p>\n

What I offered her, then, was an induction of labor. No metal tools; no operating room; no terrifying instruments. But I offered her an induction at a gestational age at which the fetus cannot survive, because it is so early.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Inducing labor to save a mother’s life after her bag of waters has already ruptured and she has acquired an infection is not<\/em> an abortion. In fact, Karkowsky admits that she didn’t even had to induce labor, because the woman was already dilated<\/em>:<\/p>\n

\n

When I did the exam to place the medication, the patient was already several centimeters dilated. I put the medication away. Her body was trying to save her, and had started emptying her uterus. Ten minutes later, her son\u2014tiny, too tiny\u2014was born. He never had a heartbeat.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

As a doctor, Karkowsky should know that this little boy’s heart was beating inside his mother’s womb,\u00a0at just 21 days<\/a>\u00a0after he was conceived, despite the fact that he was stillborn. Besides this, her\u00a0claim\u00a0that the woman’s “body was trying to save her, and had started emptying her uterus,” is even more evidence as to why this premature delivery was not an abortion.<\/p>\n

What Karkowsky and so many pro-choicers get wrong is a basic premise of abortion: an abortion is done with the direct intention to end the life of a preborn child. The death of the child mentioned by Karkowsky was not directly intended; instead it was an unfortunate consequence of this situation – a miscarriage. But Karkowsky\u00a0continues with the fear mongering:<\/p>\n

\n
\n

So really, isn\u2019t this an abortion? Should we talk about punishing her, now? Or perhaps just me? Which one of us should go to jail?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

No. Actually, it isn’t<\/em> an abortion. The child was already deceased, and there was no intent to kill the child. This is a\u00a0typical abortion done at\u00a019 weeks gestation:<\/p>\n