Maryl Sackeim is a 30-something mother and OB-GYN from San Francisco who suffers from a serious genetic disorder.
She’s also an abortionist who mistakenly believes “all reproductive decision-making” is at risk now that Roe v. Wade is gone.
In a column at the San Francisco Chronicle this week, Sackeim portrayed the abortion issue as a matter of control, not of protecting lives, while warning of the supposed threat to birth control, infertility treatments and other reproductive decisions.
Sackeim said she has had to make a number of difficult reproductive choices in her own life due to the genetic mutation BRCA1, which makes her prone to breast and ovarian cancers. She expressed fears that, with Roe gone, women in the future will not have the same “choices” she did.
Because of her condition, Sackeim said she already had a bilateral mastectomy and plans to have a hysterectomy soon, which will cause her to go through menopause in her 30s. Neither of these are choices that pro-life advocates want to restrict.
Please follow LifeNews.com on Gab for the latest pro-life news and info, free from social media censorship.
When she became pregnant with her two children, she said she used in vitro fertilization technology to test the embryos and choose children who would not suffer the same genetic disorder. This suggests the embryos who tested positive were destroyed.
While pro-life laws do not ban in vitro fertilization itself, pro-life advocates do oppose the destruction of embryos because every human life is valuable from the moment of conception. What’s more, the practice discriminates against people with medical problems – people like Sackeim herself. The goal is not about control but about protecting and valuing human life.
Sackeim admitted that her reproductive decisions have been “difficult and painful,” suggesting she realized at some level that unborn babies are valuable and women’s unique ability to bear children is worth cherishing.
However, she still insisted that abortion should be a “choice.” Then, she wrongly implied that pro-life advocates want to control women by taking away “all reproductive decision-making” including in dangerous and difficult circumstances like her own.
When Roe v. Wade was overturned in June, it put all reproductive decision-making on the line. In a day, patients found themselves in dire binds, sometimes pregnant but without the ability to make empowered choices. They had a baby-grower, with the potential for good and for bad, but unlike me, they didn’t get to decide what to do with it.
The threat to reproductive rights goes beyond abortion. Overturning Roe also put assisted reproductive technologies, like in vitro fertilization, at risk and threatens the ability of women to use contraception to prevent pregnancy.
While admitting her predictions seem “far-fetched,” she insisted that they could become true soon, asserting that “reproductive rights are dependent upon the state in which a person lives.”
But that is not true. States are not banning “reproductive rights” because abortion is not a right and the life-destroying procedure occurs post-reproduction.
The U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that an abortion is not a right when it overturned Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health in June. Now, more than 20 states are protecting unborn babies from abortion or fighting in court to do so. None of their laws ban reproductive decisions or health care; they protect children by banning the killing of unborn babies in elective abortions.
Since 1973, more than 63 million unborn babies have been killed in abortions in the U.S. Now that Roe is gone pro-life leaders estimate state pro-life laws will save hundreds of thousands of lives.