Pro-abortionists thrive when their manufactured stories of persecution become accepted truth, the narrative that explains all.
Take Miriam Yeung and her Washington Post op-ed, “How Asian American women became the target of anti-abortion activism”
It runs hither and yon, but the jumping off point is the case of Purvi Patel, a 33-year-old Indian-American woman which we’ve written about extensively.
Yeung, the executive director of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum, writes that Patel
is sitting in an Indiana prison serving a 20-year sentence for fetal homicide. Last spring, she became the first woman in the country to be imprisoned on that charge for allegedly ending her own pregnancy, which prosecutors said she did by taking illegal abortion pills (though no drugs were found in her system).
Eventually, citing this and other examples, Yeung concludes, “This reproductive oppression disproportionately targets low-income women and women of color.”
So in Yeung’s narrative, this is not only oppression but racially motivated oppression. Since this is now a doubly-charged paradigm, it’s important to remember that pro-abortionists continue to grotesquely misrepresented what took place.
Keep up with the latest pro-life news and information on Twitter. Follow @LifeNewsHQ
At the risk of stating the obvious, Yeung doesn’t mention that Patel’s unborn baby was 25-30 weeks old. That grisly reality might temper readers’ reaction. Nor that the baby was born alive. Nor that Patel lied about being pregnant. Nor that she lied about taking the abortifacients .
Instead the narrative, according to the pro-abortion set, is an ominous foretelling of the future. Patel miscarried and zealous prosecutors turned that accident of biology into conduct warranting a 20-year jail sentence.
For pro-abortionists, like Yeung, this is not about just one woman. It’s what could (would, in their telling) be an example what will come to pass as we pass protective laws, particularly those that forbid aborting pain-capable unborn children.
But as Calvin Freiburger correctly noted in a brilliant rebuttal, “Death, lies, and relativism in the Purvi Patel feticide conviction,” pro-abortionists saw (and see) the Patel case “as a golden opportunity to push the meme that pro-lifers are secretly clamoring to throw post-abortive women in jail.”
Put another way, the abortiosphere would have you believe that the Patel case is the canary in the mineshaft.
Freiburger simply eviscerates all this nonsense. You do need to read his piece.
There was a “deeply misleading” interpretation of the evidence provided by various sources, particularly Dr. Joseph Prahlow, the forensic pathologist. Pro-abortionists, such as Yeung, distort the evidence to argue that the prosecution had not proven that Patel ever took the abortifacients she’d ordered online from overseas or that Patel’s baby was born alive.
But Patel herself texted a friend that she had received–and taken–the abortifacient (as Freiburger put it) “for the express purpose of eliminating her [25-30 week old] son.” And then she texted, “Just lost the baby. I’m gonna clean up the bathroom and then go to Moe’s” [the family-owned restaurant].
The pro-abortion dismissal of the evidence that the baby boy was born alive is, of course, crucial. They argue that the test used was flawed.
But as Freiburger explains, the study used to draw that conclusion had been found to be reliable in 98% of cases. Moreover “Prahlow’s full investigation took into account the limitations of the test and compensated for them.”
One other point. Patel’s attorney argued that she had tried to revive her baby. But as Freiburger notes
As for the claim that she tried resuscitating her son, [forensic pathologist ]Prahlow “testified that Patel’s resuscitation attempts, as she described them, were so minimal that they wouldn’t have had any effect on the baby’s lungs.” Besides, the idea that she’d suddenly try to save her victim after planning to kill him for months simply doesn’t pass the laugh test, especially considering she already lied more than once about what happened.
As the trial ended, WSBT’s Kelli Stopczynski admirably summarized and quoted from the prosecution’s closing argument.
The state told jurors Patel’s intent was to give herself an illegal abortion, and that’s what prosecutors say she did.
“This whole production is about a little boy” said Deputy Prosecutor Mark Roule. “He wasn’t expected, he wasn’t wanted. He lived a brief and horrible life. What happened to him was very, very wrong.”
Roule reminded jurors about details they’ve already heard–that the baby was born on the bathroom floor at Patel’s home. She wrapped him in plastic bags and put him in a dumpster behind Moe’s Southwest Grill in Mishawaka — a restaurant her family owns.
Then, when her pain and bleeding wouldn’t stop, Patel went to the emergency room.
“She continued to lie to doctors and nurses — she tried to keep secret the fact that she’d been responsible for another life and done nothing,” Roule said.
Then, six months of text messages between Purvi Patel and her best friend about her irregular period, a positive pregnancy test in June and the abortion pills she ordered online and took, according to those texts.
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.