An abortion case at a Phoenix hospital back in 2009

Back on November 5, 2009, an abortion was performed on a 27-year-old pregnant woman who was suffering from pulmonary hypertension in the 11th week of pregnancy at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, Arizona. The doctors advised this pregnant woman that she would likely die from pulmonary hypertension unless she had an abortion. The termination of this woman’s pregnancy in this abortion case constituted a direct abortion because this pregnancy was directly terminated at a stage where the unborn child is clearly incapable of survival outside of the womb.

Even though the doctors in the Phoenix abortion case advised the pregnant woman to undergo an abortion, there have been cases where pregnant women with pulmonary hypertension successfully carried their pregnancies to term with appropriate medical treatment. Instead of advising her to have an abortion, the doctors should have given her the option of taking anti-hypertensive drugs to lessen the danger to her life and that of her unborn child. Unlike an abortion, which would directly terminate the pregnancy and indirectly target her pulmonary hypertension, the administration of anti-hypertensive drugs would directly target her pulmonary hypertension. If this woman had undergone the alternative option of anti-hypertensive drugs instead of having an abortion, she might have been able to safely carry her pregnancy to term and her unborn child might have been able to survive.

Here is M. Therese Lysaught’s account of the medical condition of the pregnant woman who had an abortion in the Phoenix abortion case: “Due to the age of the fetus, there was no possibility that it could survive outside the womb. Nor, due to the mother’s heart failure and cardiogenic shock, was there any possibility that the fetus could survive inside the womb. In short, in spite of the best efforts of the mother and of her medical staff, the fetus had become terminal, not because of a pathology of its own but because of a pathology in its maternal environment. There was no longer any chance that the life of this child could be saved. This is crucial to note insofar as it establishes that at the point of decision, it was not a case of saving the mother or the child. It was not a matter of choosing one life or the other. The child’s life, because of natural causes, was in the process of ending.”

Even if M. Therese Lysaught’s account of the medical condition of the pregnant woman in the Phoenix abortion case were correct, there were measures other than direct abortion that the doctors could have taken to save the life of the pregnant woman. The doctors could have chosen to allow the baby to die inside of the womb and administer anti-hypertensive drugs to the mother instead of choosing to directly terminate the pregnancy, and this choice might have been morally licit under the circumstances given in Lysaught’s account. There is a moral distinction between a direct abortion and merely permitting the natural death of an unborn child inside of the womb. A direct abortion is always intrinsically evil and never morally justifiable, but merely permitting the natural death of an unborn child who is naturally dying is not always morally illicit and can be morally justified in some circumstances.

Even if Lysaught’s account of the circumstances were correct, the circumstances would not have justified a direct abortion. Instead of advising St. Joseph’s Hospital of Phoenix that the abortion is indirect, she should have upheld that directly terminating the pregnancy in this case still constitutes a direct abortion until the pregnancy reaches the point of viability. Additionally, she should have advised the doctors to take other reasonable measures to preserve the life of the pregnant woman, such as the administration of anti-hypertensive drugs.

Bishop Thomas Olmsted of the Diocese of Phoenix was correct in stating that the abortion in the Phoenix abortion case constitutes a direct abortion. His analysis is correct, even if he did not have full knowledge of all of the medical facts of the Phoenix abortion case, since his analysis is based on Catholic Church teachings and laws of God which are always applicable in every circumstance. Bishop Thomas Olmsted did not need full knowledge of the medical facts to declare that the abortion in the Phoenix abortion case constitutes a direct abortion since a direct abortion always has the evil moral object of causing the death of an unborn child and is always intrinsically evil, regardless of the intention behind the abortion or the specific circumstances of the abortion.

Here are some links to articles regarding the Phoenix abortion case:

Pro-life Amendment to the United States Constitution

There is a need to amend the United States Constitution to include a pro-life constitutional amendment, even if the United States Supreme Court completely reverses the Roe v. Wade decision prior to such an amendment being ratified, for the following reasons:

  • The majority of Americans support restrictions on abortion procedures which cannot be enacted into law in the United States due to the Roe v. Wade decision, Doe v. Bolton decision, and other United States Supreme Court decisions made after the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases.
  • Abortion cannot become illegal in the United States unless Roe v. Wade is reversed or the United States Constitution is amended.
  • The abortion industry will continue to fight pro-life laws that regulate abortion procedures in federal courts unless Roe v. Wade is completely reversed or an amendment to the United States Constitution which guarantees the constitutionality of these pro-life laws is passed.
  • A constitutional amendment is needed to prevent the United States Supreme Court from reinstating the Roe v. Wade doctrine if it gets completely reversed by the United States Supreme Court prior to the ratification of a pro-life constitutional amendment.

An pro-life amendment to the United States Constitution should be similar to the following:

Section 1. Each state shall have the authority to regulate and prohibit abortion procedures within its borders.

Section 2. Congress shall have the authority to regulate and prohibit abortion procedures in places that are outside of the jurisdiction of any state and that are within the jurisdiction of the United States.

Section 3. Congress shall have the authority to regulate and prohibit abortion procedures on property that is owned by the government of the United States.

Section 4. The authority to regulate and prohibit abortions provided by this amendment shall extend to cases where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, the life of the mother is in danger, the health of the mother is in danger, or an abortion is deemed to be necessary to saving the life of the mother or preserving the health of the mother.

Section 5. Each state shall have the authority to regulate and prohibit the sale or use of drugs and medical devices that have the potential to cause the death of an unborn human being within its borders.

Section 6. Congress shall have the authority to regulate and prohibit the sale or use of drugs and medical devices that have the potential to cause the death of an unborn human being.

Section 7. Sections 5 and 6 shall not be construed to require that the sale or use of drugs and medical devices that have the potential to cause the death of an unborn human being be prohibited in cases where these drugs or devices are sold or used for purposes other than preventing conception, preventing implantation, terminating a pregnancy, or causing the death of an unborn human being.

Section 8. An unborn human being shall have a right to be protected from being killed by unlawful means, including an unlawful abortion procedure.

Section 9. Neither the United States nor any state shall have an obligation under the United States Constitution to pay for abortion procedures.

Section 10. For the purposes of this amendment, an unborn human being shall include a human embryo, a human fetus, and the being that results from the fertilization of a human egg cell with a human sperm cell.

Section 11. For the purposes of this amendment, abortion procedures shall include any procedure that intentionally and directly terminates a pregnancy prior to the point at which a non-defective unborn human being is capable of survival outside of the womb and any other procedure that intentionally and directly terminates a pregnancy in a manner that is normally fatal to the unborn human being who is being aborted.

The effects of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases

The Roe v. Wade and the Doe v. Bolton cases have resulted in the following consequences since these cases were decided by the United States Supreme Court:

  • The deaths of over 55 million aborted babies
  • The deaths of over 400 post-abortive women from the complications of legal abortion procedures
  • Unborn children being deprived of the right to life prior to birth
  • Abortion being legal during all 9 months of pregnancy within the United States
  • An increased willingness by some women who are faced with an unwanted pregnancy to undergo an abortion
  • An increased willingness to abort by some women who become pregnant as a result of contraceptive failure
  • Health care fraud being committed by Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers within the United States
  • A legal abortion industry that is largely unregulated within the United States
  • Unsanitary conditions in American abortion clinics
  • Political support for legalized abortion by some American politicians
  • Political support for a constitutionally guaranteed right to an abortion by some American politicians
  • Support for the legalization of infanticide by some pro-abortion politicians, some abortionists, and some reproductive rights organizations
  • Attempts to mandate coverage for legal abortion procedures under health care plans at the federal level and also at the state level in some states
  • Challenges to pro-life laws that regulate abortion procedures in federal courts by the abortion industry

Here are links to some articles that explain the risks of legal abortion procedures:

Why the right to conscientious objection should be legally protected

There are some pro-abortion politicians who support requiring doctors to perform abortions, even if doing so would violate their consciences. There are good reasons why a physician’s right to conscientiously object to abortion, contraception, sterilization, assisted reproductive procedures, and physician assisted suicide should be protected by law. First, some of the procedures that doctors conscientiously object to, such as elective abortion and physician assisted suicide, are considered to be morally wrong by the majority of Americans. Second, some of the procedures that some physicians conscientiously object to are unethical according to the principles of ethics generally applicable in the medical field. Third, a physician might conscientiously object to a morally objectionable medical procedure on grounds other than the intrinsic immorality of abortion or the religious beliefs of the physician, such as a danger to the life or health of the mother that might result from the complications of an abortion. Fourth, depriving physicians of the right to conscientiously object to abortion, contraception, sterilization, and assisted suicide infringes upon the rights of some physicians to freely exercise their religious beliefs. Finally, depriving physicians of the right to conscientiously object to these procedures forces physicians to perform morally objectionable procedures in cases where the procedures are medically unnecessary or where the procedures go against a medical judgment that is made in good faith.

It is essential that a physician’s right to conscientiously object to abortion, contraception, sterilization, assisted reproductive procedures, and physician assisted suicide be legally protected, even if there is opposition to such protections, since the religious freedom of health professionals is not the only thing at stake if conscience protections are absent. In addition to protecting the religious freedom of health professionals, conscience protection laws do protect patients against the harm that might result from the complications of medical procedures, protect patients from being forced to undergo medical procedures that might violate the religious beliefs of the patient, prevent health professionals from being forced to perform procedures that are medically unnecessary, prevent health professionals from being forced to violate their consciences, and allow physicians and other health professionals to object to procedures that might have dangerous side effects on the basis of a professional judgment that is made in good faith.

So, What’s Really Wrong With Abortion?

The Lost Generation

Simply put:

Photo from this site, with more info about this little baby. Photo from this site, with more info about this little baby.

Abortion takes a child’s life. From the moment of conception, every person is a distinct and living human being with intrinsic worth, who possesses the basic right to life.

Abortion harms women. Abortion poses serious short-term and long-term risks to women’s physical and emotional health.

Abortion harms all of us. It has created a culture that disregards the dignity of human life, endangers women, demeans motherhood, and denigrates men’s role as fathers.

A choice for life is always more just. It’s the fair chance every person, including unborn children, deserve.

Do you have more questions about abortion? Do you want to know why the claims made above are true? Would you like to know how to explain abortion and the issue of life to your friends or others?

Well, fortunately, I’ve recently been introduced to an…

View original post 170 more words

The majority of Americans support restrictions on abortion

The majority of Americans do support restrictions on abortion. According to a poll performed by ORC International on behalf of CNN taken earlier this year, only 27% of Americans who particiated in this survey believe that abortion should be legal in all circumstances. An additional 13% believe that abortion should be legal in most circumstances, 38% believe that abortion should be legal in a few circumstances, and 20% believe that abortion should always be illegal according to the same poll. This poll also indicates that 56% of Americans who participated in this survey believe that abortions should not be funded by the government, and only 39% favor government funding of abortions.

According to another poll performed by the Knights of Columbus and Marist College Institute of Public Opinion in 2014, 84% of Americans believe that abortion should either be restricted or made illegal. Over 90% of Americans surveyed in this poll oppose abortions performed after the first six months of pregnancy. This poll also shows that over 50% of Americans surveyed in this poll do support the Supreme Court ruling in favor of laws that restrict or prohibit abortions. According to this poll, only 37% of those surveyed support taxpayer funding of abortion and over 70% believe freedom of religion should be protected, even when it violates government laws.

According to the Gallup Poll, only 26% of Americans surveyed in this poll believe that abortion should be legal in all circumstances, but 53% of Americans oppose the reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision. The disparity between the percentage who support restrictions on abortion and the percentage who oppose the reversal of Roe v. Wade indicates that some pro-life Americans who support restrictions on abortion might not fully understand the implications of the Roe v. Wade case. The Roe v. Wade decision allowed abortion-on-demand during the first trimester of pregnancy, allowed regulation of abortion during the second trimester of pregnancy in ways related to maternal health, and allowed states to prohibit abortion after viability except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. The Roe v. Wade case, along with the Doe v. Bolton companion case, allowed abortion to be legal during all nine months of pregnancy within the United States. If more Americans had a better understanding of what Roe v. Wade was about and the arguments that were made in that case, more Americans would support the reversal of the Roe v. Wade case.

Even though the majority of Americans do support restrictions on abortion, there are barriers to appropriately regulating abortion in the United States. First, there are pro-abortion politicians at the state and federal levels within the United States who oppose reasonable regulations on abortion procedures. Second, there is pressure to keep abortion legal within the United States by pro-abortion politicians, reproductive rights organizations, and the abortion industry. Third, there is strong opposition to many laws that restrict or prohibit abortion procedures by the abortion industry, even where the laws in question are constitutionally permissible or the restrictions in question are considered to be reasonable by the majority of Americans. Last, there are restrictions on the ability to regulate abortion procedures within the United States due to rulings made by the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, and subsequent cases involving laws that regulate abortion procedures.

Some of the flaws of Sarah Weddington’s arguments in the Roe v. Wade case

Here are some of the flaws of the arguments made by Sarah Weddington in Roe v. Wade:

  • Most unwanted pregnancies are not the result of rape and were preventable through complete abstinence from sexual activity.
  • Every unwanted pregnancy that is not the result of rape could have been avoided by complete abstinence from sexual activity.
  • Jane Roe was portrayed as a victim of gang rape in the Roe v. Wade case, but Jane Roe was never gang raped. Norma McCorvey, who was Jane Roe in the Roe v. Wade case, will later admit this after she became pro-life and regretted what she did in the Roe v. Wade case.
  • Even though it is perfectly understandable that a rape victim who becomes pregnant as a result of rape should not have to suffer being pregnant as a result of rape, there are good reasons why the abortion of rape conceived children should not be legal, including but not limited to protecting the right to life of the resulting unborn child, preventing the cover-up of rape, deterring the commission of future acts of rape, and preventing babies who were not rape-conceived from being illegally aborted.
  • In the case with the woman with the neurochemical condition, she and her husband could have avoided pregnancy by completely abstaining from sexual activity.
  • Legal abortion procedures at American abortion clinics are often more dangerous than childbirth. Many post-abortive women have suffered serious complications from their abortions, and there have even been cases of women dying of abortions. Some abortion patients even have had to be rushed to the hospital as a result of complications from an abortion.
  • Even though there are cases where pregnant women are unable to work during a pregnancy because of the complications of a pregnancy, most pregnant women are still able to work and be productive members of society during the pregnancy.
  • Some of the issues involving pregnant teenage girls and pregnant women that were brought up during the Roe v. Wade case, such as the inability to complete an education, receive welfare, or receive unemployment assistance, can be addressed by means other than the legalization of abortion.
  • The situation is not as dire today for some of the pregnant teenage girls and pregnant young women who are in crisis pregnancies as it was at the time that the Roe v. Wade case was decided.
  • Today, many pregnant teenage girls and pregnant young women who are in crisis pregnancies are able to complete their educations. At least some of these pregnant teens and pregnant women are able to obtain welfare and unemployment assistance.
  • If pregnant teenage girls and pregnant women who are in crisis pregnancies are given the support that is needed to carry their pregnancies to term, then most of these teenage girls and women who are in crisis pregnancies would choose to have their babies instead of having an abortion.
  • Women in crisis pregnancies who do not want to take care of their child after birth can give up their baby for adoption instead of choosing to undergo an abortion. Norma McCorvey, who is Jane Roe in the Roe v. Wade case, did end up giving up her baby for adoption.
  • Even though it was claimed that an unborn child was not a person and that an unborn child did not have a constitutionally protected right to life in Roe v. Wade, an unborn child is a human being, was so from the moment of contraception, and does have a right to life that should have been legally protected.
  • Our founding fathers clearly believed that the right to life should extend to unborn children, and this intent of our founding fathers was ignored in the Roe v. Wade case.
  • The Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases ignore the fact that a failed attempt to abort an unborn child can cause birth defects in children who survive a failed abortion.
  • There are compelling governmental interests that should allow states to be able to regulate and prohibit abortion procedures, including but not limited to the right of life of an unborn child, the humanity of an unborn child, the willingness of some abortionists to commit infanticide, the possible danger to the life or health of a pregnant woman undergoing an abortion, and the risk of birth defects in children who survive a failed abortion.