Abortionist: Late-Term Abortions are Done for “Very Compelling” Reasons

National   Dave Andrusko   Nov 28, 2014   |   12:43PM    Washington, DC

Yesterday, in Part One of “The abortionist as hero,” we talked about Carol Ball, the medical director for Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, who splits her time among Planned Parenthood’s headquarters in St. Paul, Minnesota, Duluth, Minnesota, and the Sioux Falls, South Dakota abortion clinic.

In the fluff piece written by The Los Angeles Times’ Maria L. LaGanga, Ball is a hard-worker, impatiently chafing under pointless pro-life requirements foisted on her and her soul mates by a know-nothing South Dakota legislature and governor. A closer look easily undercuts the abortionist-as-hero profile.

I was actually going to write about another abortionist turned into a saint by an agreeable reporter when a friend forwarded me a story from the British newspaper The Guardian. The subjects of their adoring story are the husband and wife team of Curtis Boyd and Glenna Halvorson-Boyd.

curtisboydKaren McVeigh has her work cut out for her. The Boyds specialize in late, late abortions. On the webpage of their Southwestern Women’s Options abortion clinic, it states flatly:

Elective Abortion through 28 weeks

Later Abortions for Maternal Indications

Later Abortion for Fetal Indications

(To her credit, McVeigh eventually concedes this has little constituency outside the fringes of the Abortion Movement.)

There is the usual explanation/justification/rationale but Curtis Boyd takes it a step further. When such abortions –late second and third trimester abortions—are performed

“they are always done – always – for very compelling reasons.”

That, of course, isn’t remotely true, as we have discussed in many posts. Indeed, in the documentary “After Tiller,” a tribute to four other abortionists who perform third-trimester abortions, several contrary facts are clear whenever one of the four (Susan Robinson) gave interviews.

For example Robinson routinely undercuts the rationales and rationalizations that are presented as justifications to abort babies who have long since passed the point of viability. As we explained in a 2013 post, Robinson offered a bevy of extenuating circumstances—excuses—to get around the simple truth that she will abort some unspecified percentage of huge, mature babies for reasons most people would not believe are commensurate with the gravity of killing a viable unborn baby.

Then in early October 2013, in another interview, we learned that Robinson did not know about the long list of parents ready to adopt children with Down syndrome and that “I think that the public perceives first of all that late abortion could be completely eliminated if people would only get their act together and have their abortions earlier, which is completely untrue.”

Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

Moreover the criteria for which babies she will abort is hazy, to put it mildly. As Caitriona Palmer, an ultra-sympathetic interviewer put it, “Many others who come to Robinson are carrying fetuses destined to be too ill or disabled to live productive lives outside of the womb.” By “productive lives,” you know Robinson is talking about babies with Down syndrome and babies with maladies that are not fatal.

Back to the Boyds.

Pro-abortionists have the same four or five sound bites. Legislation that gives women a moment to breathe before making a life and death decision is to treat them as ”idiots,” an inability of opponents “to accept women as fully responsible citizens,” to quote Glenna Halvorson-Boyd.

And, of course, there is no such thing—ever—as a negative aftermath of an abortion. Check that: on those rare, rare, rare occasions that there are, it’s because of preexisting conditions in the woman—aka, blaming the victim. Boyds are fond of such nonsensical non-sequiturs.

In a very revealing exchange, Boyd takes the opportunity to…clarify….what he had said previously, which has been quoted back at him countless times.

Sure, he said, when asked, “Am I killing? Yes. I know that.” But that was taken out of context, he told McVeigh.

“They [the interviewer] said murder. Murder is a legal definition. I said yes, it’s killing, but it is not murder.”

Oh.

One other point of many that could be made. Naturally anyone who peacefully protests outside their abortion clinic is to be dismissed. But notice what one woman, whose baby is “post 22 weeks,” says:

“They yelled at me. They said, ‘We’ll help you find somebody to adopt your baby.’ They had signs and pictures up at that gestational age. It was pretty nasty.”

It was “pretty nasty” to offer to help to find a couple to adopt her baby, or to show a representative photo of a baby the same age as the baby she was about to abort?

The headline to the story is, “‘I can’t think of a time when it was worse’: US abortion doctors speak out.” It’s “worse” not just because of the many pro-life laws passed in the past two years, but because it—meaning us—was supposed to go away. Here is the conclusion:

When Roe v Wade made abortion legal, [Curtis Boyd] was jubilant. “We thought we had won, it was over. At that time, the media mocked these crazy anti-abortion groups. They were not taken seriously.”

The Boyds never believed they would still be in the abortion business 43 years later. “We thought [by now] it would be available in every family practice, that there would be no resistance Every medical school would be teaching it.” Now, Curtis says, “We wake up and think, ‘My God what has happened?’”

Maybe what’s happened is that the American people are waking up to the ghastliness of not just what the Boyds are doing to huge unborn babies, but to the savagery which is abortion at any stage.

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 at National Right to Life News Today.