Abortion in the US is at its lowest level in thirty years, touts a study by the Guttmacher Institute, which Knows About These Things. From the breathless reporting on this story, you might think they mean it’s dropped to a level on the order of zero.
“This study shows that prevention works, and that’s what we provide in our health centers every day,” said Cecile Richard of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. “At the end of the day, Americans of all stripes believe that we need to do more to prevent unintended pregnancy and make healthcare [a euphemism for state-sanctioned murder] affordable and accessible.” (The Boston Globe, 17-Jan-08)
You would be wrong. Legalized infanticide in the US plunged all the way from 1.3 million in 2000, to the unbelievably low level of 1.2 million in 2005. This is a mere 1.5% decrease per year, in that five-year period, or 8% overall. But that’s down from 1.6 million deaths in 1990. [And don't get me wrong — I'll take 100,000 fewer dead children any day of the week. But I'd rather 1.2 million fewer dead children.]
To add to the celebration, use of RU 486 (a.k.a., the ”day after” pill [as in, "I gave it up to someone I don't know and don't like, and now, the day after, I'm afraid I might be knocked up — so my baby gets the death penalty for my immaturity and irresponsibility"], or mifepristone) is up:
Even as the long-term decline in the U.S. abortion rate continued, the new study also found that early medication abortion services expanded substantially between 2000 and 2005, as growing numbers of providers offered the service, including some that previously did not offer surgical abortion services. Fifty-seven percent of all known abortion providers now offer medication abortion services, compared with 33% in early 2001. Medication abortion accounted for 13% (161,000) of all abortions performed in 2005, and 22% of all eligible abortions (those performed prior to nine weeks’ gestation). According to recent government reports, abortions are occurring earlier, when the procedure is safer [For whom? Certainly not the baby!]; increased access to medication abortion can help accelerate that trend. (Guttmacher Institute website)
So let me spell it out. Abortions are down nationally. But use of the abortion pill is up, as are the number of doctors who have forgotten the Hippocratic Oath. You know, the one that says, “do no harm.” Or doesn’t killing babies count as “harm?”
When the murder advocates talk about “abortion providers,” what they mean, typically, is “‘doctors’ who perform surgical abortions.” This does not include the “doctors” who perform “medicinal” abortions, or those helpful, happy OB/GYNs (and others) who offer the abortion pill. So the groups like Guttmacher, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the UN Family Planning Association Population Fund (UNFPA) all get to act giddy about the drop in abortions while comfortable in the knowledge that pro-life women everywhere may be getting checkups from “doctors” who send pregnant women home with prescriptions for an abortion in a bottle. [Which can only contribute to the idea that abortion isn't murder: just take a pill and don't worry about it; it's like getting rid of a headache]
So here’s a little problem I have with the whole “abortion rights” movement [aside from the obvious]: “should be able to” is not the same as “should;” I mean, I have never heard anyone [except the occasional sociopathic misanthrope] recommend abortion in general. It’s always defended as something along the lines of “I respect a woman’s ‘right to choose’.” To a man (or woman), abortion advocates say abortion should be avoided, minimized. I’m sitting here, looking at the Constitution, and wondering what other of our rights should be avoided or minimized.
I’ll admit, government “rights” should be minimized in the extreme, but I couldn’t back the minimization of any individuals’ rights, even if their very means of practicing same were anathema to everything I believe in. [I know, I'm an idealist] So how can it be that Guttmacher, PPA, NARAL, etc., can so heartily defend this supposed “right,” while at the same time calling it an option of last resort? (I certainly would never say “practice your religion freely, but only if you must,” or “arm yourself to the teeth if you like, but only after the police state becomes patently obvious and they are coming to get you.”) It makes one wonder what other “rights” these groups would abridge.
Forgive me for saying so, but it seems to me that the abortion-on-demand position is inherently intellectually dishonest. To support the proliferation of abortion availability, while at the same time advocating the limiting of its use, is simply indicative of the kind of moral and intellectual gymnastics through which these peddlers of death must go, in order to maintain their positions. Is this [and, more broadly, modern liberalism], then, a mild and somewhat socially acceptable form of schizophrenia? Perhaps.
[But in a Ron Paul Presidency, maybe we could see the end to that bad law, bad policy, and worse morality called Roe v Wade, and an end to this suicidal abortion culture]
