At least 10,000 viable fetuses are aborted every year. Do you even care, Kamala?
These are individuals who could have survived on their own outside of the womb—if they had not been aborted.
These are at least 10,000 babies/fetuses/persons (take your pick) that politicians, ideologues, abortionists and Kamala Harris ignore. As if they don’t exist. Or they aren’t worth anything so they are undeserving of any protections.
This is callous in the extreme. This is abhorrent. This is cruel.
Let’s uncover their “reasoning.”
According to the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, about 3,400 infant deaths (within the first year after birth) are attributed to SUIDs (sudden unexpected infant deaths). That’s way too many; substantial and costly research is underway to find the cause. But three times (at least) more viable fetuses are killed from abortion. That gets virtually no attention. Who cares?
Some “pro-choice” people love to point out that “only” one of 99 abortions are performed after the fetus is viable.
Citing CDC figures, Pew Research asserts that:
The vast majority of abortions occur during the first trimester of a pregnancy. In 2021, 93% of abortions occurred during the first trimester – that is, at or before 13 weeks of gestation, according to the CDC. An additional 6% occurred between 14 and 20 weeks of pregnancy, and about 1% were performed at 21 weeks or more of gestation. These CDC figures include data from 40 states and New York City, but not the rest of New York.
Okay, let’s work those numbers. Using only percentages without using the actual number can mask the seriousness of a problem. So, using the CDC estimate that “only” one percent of 625,978 abortions were performed on viable fetuses (21 weeks plus), then abortions killed 6,260 viable fetuses.
That many deaths for any reason is horrific. That’s many time more than the 2,977. killed on 9-11. (Of course abortion activists will insist that the comparison is apples and oranges because a viable fetus is not a person, even though he can live on his own outside the womb.)
The Guttmacher Institute (the spawn of Planned Parenthood) says even more abortions occurred than what the CDC calculated. Using Guttmacher’s higher number, then 9,301 viable fetuses were killed by abortion.
That’s even a lowball number. Even the CDC and Guttmacher agree that estimates of total abortions are not reliable. Plenty of reasons abound: Not all states, including California and New York (outside of New York City), provide abortion data. Typically only 40 states do. Each state uses its own statistical standards. Some reporting is voluntary and not required. Some clinics that perform abortions on viable fetuses presumably don’t want to report how many they actually do. And how do you calculate the actual number of abortions when those done with over-the-counter pills are not counted?
One study (“Who Seeks Abortions at or After 20 Weeks?”) reports, “Given an estimated 1.21 million abortions in the United States annually, more than 15,000 likely take place after 20 weeks.”
So, it’s safe to say that more than 10,000 abortions are performed on viable fetuses. The truth is, the exact number is unknown. But it’s certainly high enough to ask why they were done.
Abortion activists insist (without verification) that abortions done to viable fetuses are for “lethal fetal anomalies” or threats to the mother’s life or health. As if no other reasons exist. They want us to assume that each and every death of a viable fetus is a medical necessity.
The evidence that it is so? The “evidence” is either arguable, sparse, anecdotal or nonexistent. Here’s what one study (“Who Seeks Abortions at or After 20 Weeks?”) says:
We do not know how accurately these narratives [fetal anomalies and mother’s health] characterize the circumstances of women who seek later abortions for reasons other than fetal anomaly or life endangerment. But data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. [Emphasis added.]
In other words, some, maybe many, of these abortions are elective, not medically necessary.
One thing we can be sure of, though, is the way that abortion activists fudge the data to make their case.
A serious example is their ambiguous definition of “health.” They argue that threats to the mother’s health is reason enough to abort a viable fetus. But what does “health” mean? Only serious health concerns? Minor health concerns? Just how dangerous or serious must the threat be to “health” to justify aborting a viable fetus?
The Supreme Court has issued one definition in Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade. That definition creates a gigantic loophole that justifies aborting a viable fetus for any reason at any time. The court said:
We agree with the District Court…that the medical judgment [confirming the medical need for an abortion] may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. [Emphasis added.]
Meaning, for just about reason you can imagine. Giant loophole, indeed.
The same kind of fudging appears when pro-abortion activists attempt to prove that they have a huge majority of Americans on their side. They insist that some 85 percent are “prochoice.”
What they don’t tell you is that 50 percent of Americans believe that some restrictions should apply, such as a minor needing to get parental consent. Any such restriction is anathema to the abortion activists. They don’t acknowledge this publicly, but only 35 percent agree with them that there should be no restrictions.
In truth a near majority of Americans occupy the middle ground—abortion should be legal, but with some restrictions. [See the Gallup survey here.]
Using the same kind of fudging that pro-abortion activists do, we could just as well say 62 percent of Americans reject their insistence that the deadly procedure should be legal at any time, for any reason. That’s the position—but not spoken—that the abortion industry, like Planned Parenthood, politicians and so many progressives like Kamala Harris believe.
That’s why ABC debate moderator Linsey Davis asked Kamala Harris, “Would you support any restrictions on a woman’s right to an abortion?” Harris clumsily dodged the question, never providing a clear yes or no answer. It was a shameful, irrelevant answer that many in the legacy media ignored.
You’ll notice that just about every Democratic candidate dodges that question. If they said they agreed to restrictions, they would lose the support of progressives and many Democrats. If they said they oppose any restrictions, they’d be out of step with nearly a majority of Americans. Keep in mind that special interests pushing unrestricted abortion, like Planned Parenthood, are among the biggest contributors to Democratic candidates.
Isn’t that so, Kamala:?
Silence.
I can’t think of a single issue that has been exploited so dishonestly, as do Democrats/liberals/progressives. They have successfully persuaded so many voters that you are an “extremist” if you think that any restriction, even a minor one, is reasonable. You’re a misogynist. Even worse, a MAGA Republican.
Let’s talk about who is an extremist.
You may have noticed that abortion activists always couch the debate in terms of women’s rights, reproductive freedom, control over her own body, or whatever euphemism is currently acceptable. Never, not ever, do we hear from them any discussion about the humanity of abortion’s victims. Or about when or if during pregnancy a fetus has grown enough to into a person, endowed with the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Even if they believe that a fetus doesn’t become a person with those rights until birth, they won’t even discuss whether a fetus deserves some respect because of his potential as a human,
Theirs is an unbelievably self-centered view. Pro-abortion absolutists are completely absent compassion, a virtue that they exclusively claim. Oh, you see, it is those who disagree with them who have no compassion. They’re heartless. Hateful. Inhumane.
For them, the balance of rights of the mother and the baby is never debated or even considered. They are blind to the beauty of the life within.
And so, Madam Vice President, I ask with all the respect I can summon, where do you stand? As Davis asked, “Would you support any restrictions on a woman’s right to an abortion?
It’s a simple yes or no.