How Many Post-Viability Abortions Would be Too Much?



2020 Democrats Expose Extreme Abortion Policies in New Survey




This is very odd to me. And when I say "very odd" I mean pretty horrific.

The New York Times actually reported actual news. Sadly, that is a shock. You see, they've been very busy with pretending that Russia and the Ukraine were our president's secret overlords. But they sent out a questionnaire on abortion to the 2020 Democrat hopefuls. Can you imagine that? A news organization actually got the Democrats to go public about their abortion stances.

Now that I'm thinking about it, it was all probably a ruse to get Tulsi Gabbard to delineate exactly what she thinks about abortion but she didn't respond to the questionnaire.

As you might imagine, there was very little space between the Dem candidates on abortion. They all had their scalpel shaped pom poms out.

And it's pretty horrific when you think about it. And when you really drill down into it, you can't help but think these folks are moral monsters.

Case in point. They were asked about whether they support restrictions on abortion procedures after fetal viability. That's usually somewhere around 21 weeks.

National Review:
Most candidates offered some form of a “no,” including Colorado senator Michael Bennet, Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, billionaire Tom Steyer, and New Jersey senator Cory Booker. 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.

“The fact is that less than 1 percent of abortions take place after 24 weeks of pregnancy,” South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg said. “They often involve heartbreaking circumstances in which a person’s health or life is at risk, or when the fetus has a congenital condition that is incompatible with life.”

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.”

Both Andrew Yang and Marianne Williamson offered similar responses. It’s worth explaining why these are cop-out answers that obfuscate the truth about late-term abortion. Just over 1 percent of abortions after 20 weeks does sound rare, until you consider that the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute also estimates about 926,000 annual abortions, meaning that 12,000 abortions happen after viability. That means there are more post-viability abortions each year than gun homicides.

Contrary to the Democratic narrative, plenty of women obtain third-trimester abortions for reasons other than a fetal-health condition (and it is certainly debatable whether it’s “medically necessary” to kill unborn human beings with an illness or disability). In this interview, a U.S. doctor who performs third-trimester abortions says “a large percentage of our patients had no idea that they were pregnant” until late in pregnancy and that they then obtain an abortion at her clinic. There are a few clinics in the U.S. that advertise late-term elective abortions, including Southwestern Women’s Options, a facility in Albuquerque, N.M., that performs elective abortions through 32 weeks of pregnancy.

A 2013 Guttmacher article reported that “data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.” Rather, they most often do so for reasons such as “they were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous.”

These talking points from Democrats are an inaccurate excuse deployed by candidates who refuse to support any regulations on abortion but want to provide cover for that unpopular position by twisting the facts.
Just think about what they're saying. We're talking about viable infants who are in the womb but could likely be removed and survive. And that's about 12,000 acceptable deaths, according to them.

But the Demos just keep saying, it's a small percentage. OK. The question must be, what number offends? Truly. If you keep saying that the number is small and therefore doesn't rise to the level of being considered by legislators, the question is what number would raise the stakes? Because we all know that the Democrats are all about government restraint, right?

The Democrats are saying 12,000 viable infants being killed is a completely acceptable number.

2020 matters guys.

Comments