Promoters of the right to "reproductive health care" (a code phrase that includes abortion) are identified as the protectors of women’s health. The Pro-Life community’s rejection of abortion, opposition to abortifacient contraceptives, concern that "safe sex" is not safe, and promotion of abstinence-only programs for teenagers gets it labeled as dangerous to women’s health. This contrast suggests ideology is controlling what passes for science in today's world.
Real world evidence demonstrates that promoters of “reproductive health care” are definitely not protecting women’s health. Have you heard any of them express concern about unethical and unsafe abortionists? In just the last 13 months abortionists in five states have had their medical licenses suspended or revoked. The latest case occurred in Alabama where the state health department has suspended the medical license of the Summit Medical Center, the abortionist, and a nurse for unsafe medical practices involving RU-486. This drug was being given to women much further into their pregnancies than intended for RU-486 abortions. Beyond that, RU-486 was being administered by a nurse when state law requires that its use be directed by a doctor.
Of course, the safety of RU-486 is seriously questioned, but you can count on the defenders of “reproductive health care” to assure everyone that RU-486 is safe. They question whether the infections that have now killed seven women after using RU-486 were actually unrelated to the abortions attempted using the drug. When scientific evidence suggests that a connection does exist between use of the RU-486 regimen and these infections, RU-486 supporters simply ignore the evidence because it is not politically correct. And they accuse Pro-Lifers of having ideology-driven agendas!
Ron Weddington, who with his wife Sarah Weddington represented "Jane Roe" in Roe v. Wade, sent a four-page letter to President Clinton's transition team before Clinton took office in January 1993. Weddington told the president-elect: "I don't think you are going to go very far in reforming the country until we have a better educated, healthier, wealthier population." He suggested Clinton could "start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country" by liberalizing abortion laws and “persuading” them not to have babies. Weddington added, "I'm not advocating some sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people. Crime, drugs and disease are already doing that. The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can't afford to have babies."
Do abortion supporters consider Weddington's concept racist bigotry? Apparently not! Those who claim to be the defenders of the poor should be outraged by this bigoted, elitist concept. But they are currently too preoccupied with accusing promoters of English as our national language of being racist. The evidence suggests they are not serious about either protecting women’s health or helping poor people. Their fight for “reproductive rights” is actually intended to help eliminate the poor people to whom they want to grant those “rights.” That is exactly the racist concept that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger had in mind.
More information: Illinois Right to Life Committee
Talk Back - leave a comment