Abortion Activist Compares Killing a Baby in an Abortion to Getting Wisdom Teeth Pulled

Opinion   Dave Andrusko   Mar 1, 2016   |   7:45PM    Washington, DC

It’s amazing how often pro-abortionists who tout something as an “aha” moment don’t realize that one can easily draw the opposite conclusion from what they do. Or, if they do understand, they hope no one notices.

The latest example is from the pro-abortion-to-the-hilt vox.com and its poll of 1,060 registered voters conducted by the communications firm Perry/Undem.

Sarah Kliff, a veteran pro-abortion scribe, tells us that the public, especially the better educated and higher income, do not know how prevalent abortion is and (in Kliff’s words) “overestimate” how dangerous abortion is to the woman.

Let’s go through these two assertions, and look at why they are making this argument.

First, note how the abortion community is gradually retreating from its long-held assertion that one in three women will have an abortion during their lifetime.

“The best data available suggests that about 25 to 30 percent of American women will terminate a pregnancy at some point in their lives.”

But note the fundamental flaw, both of the old number and the “corrected” figure. Both ignore the encouraging–and undeniable–news that the number of abortions has been doing down for years.

Necessarily the abortion “at some point in their lives” percentage will likely continue to drop.

Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and the latest pro-life news.

Kliff’s conclusion is that just 17% of the public had the accurate estimate (25%-34%) while 61% incorrectly estimated (“fewer than 24 percent”).

Un-emphasized is that 19% overestimated (“more than 35%”).

The conclusion they want to draw is that if people actually knew how many abortions there were, they would be more be supportive of the “right” to abortion.

But equally as plausible is that many/most of that 61% would be appalled. Moreover, they might respond even more negatively if they were told the numbers–still over 1 million a year, more than 58 million since 1973.

Second, as pro-abortions always do, Kliff mocks how anyone could think abortion is even a little bit problematic for women.

Abortion is also safe for women who have the procedure. There are twice as many complications associated with wisdom teeth removal as with abortion. Complications for both procedures tend to be relatively minor (for abortion, a common complication is cramping, and for wisdom teeth it’s inflammation).

Get it? Removing your wisdom teeth is as uncomplicated as removing your unborn child.

But of course, as we have written about hundreds of times at NRL News Today and NRL News, just because Kliff and other like-minded people tell you abortion is a walk in the park doesn’t make it so.

Besides immediate physical complications, there are physical complications that crop over time, including a greater likelihood of subsequently delivering premature babies. And there is a raft of studies that demonstrate that (a) having an induced abortion increases a woman’s chances of breast cancer (b)there are adverse psychological effects on women who’ve aborted.

Worse yet is that’s it’s not just pro-lifers who “misunderstand.” Kliff writes

More interesting, though, is that abortion rights supporters — people in our poll who identify as pro-choice — also perceive abortion as dangerous. They presumably don’t have the same moral objections to terminating a pregnancy. But 67 percent of pro-choice respondents incorrectly estimated abortion to be riskier or just as risky as giving birth.

So why is Vox and Kliff and the abortion industry so interesting in “correcting” the lay public, including their own supporters? Kliff writes

These misperceptions aren’t just unfortunate psychological quirks; they work together to contribute to a view of abortion as being infrequent and risky for the women who have one. That ultimately shapes the way we regulate abortion in the United States and how we judge which restrictions ought to stand

So, to the pro-abortion propagandist, if abortion is harmless (to women), although more prevalent that most people think (to them a good thing], then there’s no need to mandate that abortion clinics meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers or that abortionists have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital (since there are essentially no complications and what few there are, are minor).

What a coincidence. Those are the two provisions of the 2013 Texas law under challenge and about which the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday.

These people are shameless.

LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared in at National Right to Life News Today —- an online column on pro-life issues.

sarahkliff