What do you think most irritates pro-abortionists? Let me count the ways.
For starters, anything, and I do mean anything, that introduces the truth that there are real medical risks to having an abortion.
For example, the biological truism that an induced abortion heightens the chances of breast cancer for reasons that are explained by the fundamentals of female biology. Or that mucking around near a woman’s reproductive organs could/would lead to a weakening of the cervix and a greater chance of premature births. And, of course, no one is allowed to talk about what any fair-minded individual already knows: that women, for self-evident reasons, can regret—deeply regret—taking their children’s life.
It goes on (and on). How about fetal pain? Fake science. The ghastly, barbaric nature of dismemberment abortions? Just an attempt at “rebranding” the dilation and evacuation abortion.
Sex-selective abortion? A little trickier. They turn the discussion away from killing babies because they are girls into an indictment of those who points out (as organizations who support women from ethnic minority communities in the UK do) that women from certain cultures are under enormous pressure (including threats of violence) to abort a female baby.
Typically, the usual suspects grind out academic “studies” to “prove” that abortion is good, any and all attempts to find win-win solutions are bad. Such is the case of an area that drives the anti-life Establishment crazy: parental involvement laws. Even with the judicial bypass, which allows teens to petition a judge to avoid their parents even knowing, the whole idea is fatally flawed.
So we have a story in Reuters Health under the headline, “Judicial bypass process for abortion in Texas causes harm, researchers say.” Never mind that we learn in the first paragraph that it’s a “small study” that appeared in the Journal of Adolescent Health.
How small? Twenty—20—teenagers. Lead study author Kate Coleman-Minahan of the University of Colorado in Denver warns Carolyn Crist, “With these laws, the health and well-being of adolescents is often overlooked.”
So, we’re told, the judicial bypass process is “burdensome from a logistical standpoint”; “delay[s] abortion care”: is “unpredictable” and “traumatic,” and much more.
But we already knew this was coming, didn’t we, based on the opening sentence: “The judicial bypass process for abortion in Texas could be used as a form of punishment, allowing officials to humiliate young women for their personal decisions, a small study suggests.”
Click Like if you are pro-life to like the LifeNews Facebook page and receive the latest pro-life news.
Wow! There is not a hint that there is a single redeeming value in the judicial bypass process. The authors’ objective obviously is to ensure that teenagers have an absolutely unfettered right to abort without ever worrying for a second that a judge may not give them the thumbs up, or not give it quick enough.
The real reason “studies” like these are cranked out is because parental involvement laws…involve parents, or at least one parent. The number of abortions to teenagers has been going down for years. And nothing but nothing angers pro-abortionists more than the thought of abortions going down—especially if that is at least partially a consequence of the passage of parental involvement laws.
Not that the abortion clinics don’t try. “Margo,” who formerly worked in a late-abortion clinic, explained how they coached the girls.
[T] here was a whole system in place to help the kids get a judicial bypass, which basically was a rubber stamp, just go before the judge and say, “I’m afraid of what my parents will do to me if they find out that I am pregnant.” And the judge would ask, “Do you feel like you would be in danger?” “Yes.” “Ok.” And it’s just that sort of thing.
Conclusion? Abortion clinics want—demand, actually—to be the only voice these teenagers hear. The salesman gets to give the only speech. Convenient.
In truth, young girls need someone looking out for their welfare. They need protection against making rash, ill-informed decisions which have life and death consequences—the deaths of their babies, a life-time of regret, but more profits for Planned Parenthood.
There must be another voice, and that should in most cases mean parents.
But if parental involvement=fewer abortions, no wonder the abortion industry hates those laws.
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.
