“Necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” does not mean the same thing as medically necessary

Even though most Americans believe that “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” means the same thing as medically necessary, an abortion that is not medically necessary can be legally considered to be “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” because the United States Supreme Court broadly defined “health of the mother” as “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the [mother]” in the Doe v. Bolton case, which is the companion case of Doe v. Bolton. The broad definition of health in the Doe v. Bolton decision, along with the requirement that abortions after viability be legal whenever they are “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother,” has allowed abortion on demand to be effectively legal for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy in the United States because abortionists can legally claim that an abortion is “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the health of the mother”, even when the abortion is medically unnecessary.

There are certain criteria that have to be met in order for a medical procedure to be medically necessary, and some of the abortions that are legally considered to be “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” under the criteria set forth in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions are not considered to be medically necessary under the criteria accepted by most of the medical profession and health insurance companies. Here are the criteria that have to be met for a medical procedure to be medically necessary:

  1. The procedure must be in accordance with the generally accepted standards of medical practice.
  2. The procedure is performed for the purposes of preventing the death of the patient or preventing, diagnosing, or treating an illness, injury, or disease of the patient.
  3. The procedure is clinically appropriate, in terms of type, frequency, extent, site and duration.
  4. The procedure is effective in preventing the death of the patient or in preventing, diagnosing, or treating an illness, injury, or disease of the patient.
  5. The procedure is not primarily performed for the convenience of the patient, the physician, or other health care provider.
  6. The procedure is less expensive than an alternative which is at least as likely to produce equivalent therapeutic or diagnostic results as to the diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s illness, injury or disease, or as to preventing the death of the patient.

Abortions that are legally considered to be “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” under the criteria established under the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions might not be considered to be medically necessary under the criteria accepted by most of the medical profession and health insurance companies for several reasons. First, such an abortion might not be in accordance with the generally accepted standards of medical practice. Second, most of the abortions that fall under the so-called “health of the mother exception” are performed for purposes other than and apart from preventing the death of the mother or preventing, diagnosing, or treating an illness, injury, or disease of the mother.  Third, most abortions are primarily performed for the convenience of the mother, and as such would not fall under the medical necessity criteria used by health insurance companies and most of the medical profession. Finally, an abortion might be considered to be clinically inappropriate under the criteria used by health insurance companies and most of the medical profession, even though abortion providers often consider these abortions to be clinically appropriate.

Many Americans misunderstand the difference between an abortion that is “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother,” as defined by the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, and an abortion that is medically necessary under the definition accepted by most of the medical profession and by health insurance companies. This misunderstanding has allowed abortionists to legally perform medically unnecessary abortions during all nine months of pregnancy in the United States. In addition, this misunderstanding has enabled abortionists and abortion providers to file claims for abortions that are considered to be medically necessary by the abortion provider but would not be considered to be medically necessary by the health insurance provider. Moreover, some of the women who are seeking an abortion that is deemed to be “necessary, in appropriate judgment, for the preservation of the health of the mother” by an abortionist might not understand why such an abortion might not be covered under an health insurance policy that covers medically necessary abortions but does not cover elective abortions. Furthermore, this misunderstanding has allowed abortion providers to receive taxpayer funding that it should not have been entitled to by claiming that the abortions are “necessary for the preservation of the health of the mother.” Finally, if more individuals understood the difference between “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” and medically necessary, there would be increased support for prohibiting medically unnecessary abortions after viability and there would be decreased support for taxpayer funding of abortion providers.

Advertisements

What is wrong with Planned Parenthood and why Planned Parenthood must be defunded

Planned Parenthood claims to be a “trusted health care provider” who “delivers vital reproductive health care, sex education, and information to millions of women, men, and young people worldwide,” but is really a pro-abortion organization whose primary purpose is to make as much money as possible from abortions. In addition, there are many other things that are wrong with Planned Parenthood, including but not limited to the sale of fetal body parts that are harvested from aborted children, the cover-up of statutory rape and the sexual abuse of minors, encouraging children to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage through its sex education programs, lobbying to get pro-abortion politicians elected and to keep abortion legal, pressuring pregnant patients into undergoing an abortion, and lying to prospective abortion patients about the facts of fetal development. As such, Planned Parenthood should lose its government funding, and individuals and corporations should stop donating to Planned Parenthood.

One of the biggest problems with Planned Parenthood is that it misrepresents itself to the government, to its donors, and its potential patients. First, Planned Parenthood claims that without birth control, women are unable to choose when they want to have children and how many children they want to have, but women are actually able to make these decisions without birth control by choosing to completely abstain from sexual activity when they do not want to have children. Second, Planned Parenthood represents abortion as a safe procedure on its website and portrays abortion as being a safe procedure in its YouTube video on in-clinic abortion, but there have been incidents of botched abortions being performed at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics, including an abortion performed at a Chicago Planned Parenthood clinic that resulted in the death of Tonya Reaves back in 2012. Third, even though Planned Parenthood claims that only 3% of its services are abortions, Planned Parenthood performs abortions on approximately 92% of its pregnant patients and Planned Parenthood’s primary source of revenue is from the abortions performed at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics. Fourth, Planned Parenthood receives over $500 million dollars of taxpayer funding, but Planned Parenthood has lied to the government in order to receive taxpayer money that it should not have been able to receive in the first place. Moreover, Planned Parenthood misrepresents itself as a comprehensive woman’s healthcare provider that cares about women when they are primarily in the business of performing as many abortions as possible.

Another major problem with Planned Parenthood is that at least some Planned Parenthood clinics are believed to be involved in the sale of fetal body parts from babies who are aborted at Planned Parenthood clinics. It is also believed that Planned Parenthood is violating the law by profiting from the sale of fetal body parts, by altering the manner in which the abortions from which these fetal body parts are obtained, and by performing abortions with the knowledge that fetal body parts will be harvested from these aborted babies and resold. In addition, Abby Johnson has recently admitted that the Planned Parenthood clinic that she used to work for did harvest fetal body parts from aborted babies. Furthermore, there are even indications that Planned Parenthood might possibly be willing to kill babies who are born as a result of a failed abortion in order to harvest fetal body parts. Finally, many individuals are outraged by the harvesting and resale of fetal body parts that are harvested from babies aborted at Planned Parenthood clinics.

In addition to misrepresenting itself as a comprehensive woman’s health provider and in addition to possible involvement in the harvesting and resale of fetal body parts, Planned Parenthood is actively trying to increase demand for abortions in order to make additional profit, and they are taking several measures in an attempt to achieve this goal. First, Planned Parenthood is pushing comprehensive sex education to school-age children with the intentions of increasing the number of sexually active teens, increasing the number of unplanned teenage pregnancies, and increasing the demand for abortion. Second, Planned Parenthood imposes quotas on the number of abortions that each clinic must perform in order to maximize its profits. Third, Planned Parenthood promotes birth control with the knowledge that it will sometimes fail to prevent unplanned pregnancies in order to increase the number of unplanned pregnancies and in order to increase demand for abortion. Additionally, pregnant women who seek medical care at Planned Parenthood clinics are usually pressured into undergoing an abortion by Planned Parenthood employees because Planned Parenthood wants to do as many abortions as they can and because they want to make as much money as they can off of abortions. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood is willing to cut corners on patient safety to maximize profits, to increase the efficiency of its abortion operations, and to increase the number of abortions that it can perform. Finally, Planned Parenthood actually cares more about the money than it does about protecting the health of women and reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies.

Individuals and corporations must stop donating to Planned Parenthood, and taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood by federal, state, and local governments must also be stopped for several reasons. First, Planned Parenthood is using the taxpayer funding and donations in order to increase demand for abortions. Second, Planned Parenthood misrepresents itself to the government, to the general public, to its patients, and to its prospective patients in order to receive donations and taxpayer funding that it would not otherwise receive. Third, Planned Parenthood might be covering the cost of abortions by overcharging Medicaid and other health insurance companies for other medical services that are rendered to patients who had undergone an abortion at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood contributes large sums of money to the campaigns of pro-abortion candidates in order to ensure that they can continue to legally make money off of its abortion services, and the large sums of money paid to these campaigns come from taxpayer funds, donations, and abortion revenue. If people and companies stopped donating to Planned Parenthood and if the taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood is stopped, there will be a reduction in the demand for Planned Parenthood’s abortion services and Planned Parenthood would not be contributing large sums of money to the campaigns of pro-abortion candidates.

The flaws of the arguments made by reproductive rights advocates who support legal abortion

Some of the reproductive rights advocates do believe that abortion should be legal at all costs, despite efforts to impose additional regulations on the abortion industry and despite efforts to enact prohibitions on late-term abortion. However, there are flaws in the arguments that are being made by reproductive rights advocates who support legalized abortion-on-demand.

Here are some of the flaws in the arguments being made by reproductive rights advocates who support legal abortion-on-demand:

  • The arguments made by abortion rights advocates often fail to take into account the fact that abortion involves the killing of an unborn human being, but some of the supporters of abortion rights have already openly admitted that abortion does involve the killing of an unborn human being.
  • These reproductive rights advocates often argue that the decision to undergo an abortion should be a private decision between the mother and the doctor. Nevertheless, the government should have some say in the matter because an abortion involves the killing of an unborn child, because an abortion affects persons other than the mother and the doctor including the unborn child who is being aborted and the father of the aborted child, because neither the doctor nor the mother are above the law, because both the doctor and the mother are always subject to the law, because the medical profession and abortion industry are both subject to legitimate regulation by the government, and because the government has a legitimate interest in protecting pregnant women against the dangers that might result if a pregnancy is ended through an abortion.
  • It is frequently argued by abortion rights advocates that women should have a right to do whatever she wants with her own body, but abortion is by its very nature a life or death matter that involves the killing of a separate unborn human being. In addition, even though a woman generally has a legal right to undergo an abortion or to use birth control, there are laws that restrict what a woman can do with her own body, including but not limited to laws that prohibit the abuse of illegal drugs.
  • Even though reproductive rights advocates often argue that men should not have any say on the matter of abortion, men can and should have a say on the matter on abortion because pregnant women who are seeking to end their pregnancies through abortion are often placed in such a position by the choices made by the men who had gotten them pregnant, because men were involved in the decisions that legalized abortion and birth control in the United States, because abortion does affect the fathers of the unborn children who are being aborted, and because most of the men and women who oppose abortion do so because they believe that abortion constitutes the killing of an unborn human being.
  • Most reproductive rights advocates who support abortion often argue that enacting bans on abortion would cause women to lose access to essential health care, but abortion does not normally constitute essential health care because most pregnant women are able to safely their pregnancies to term with proper medical care and because the vast majority of abortions are performed for purposes other than preventing the death of the mother or treating an illness, injury, or disease of the mother. In addition, women would still have access to prenatal care, obstetric care, and gynecological medical care at healthcare providers who are not in the business of performing abortions if abortion becomes illegal.
  • While it is often argued by reproductive rights advocates that lives of pregnant women would be put in danger if abortion is outlawed, the lives of most pregnant women would not be in danger if abortion became illegal. In addition, Dr. Alan Guttmacher, an advocate for abortion rights, had already admitted prior to the legalization of abortion in the United States that it is very rare that an abortion is needed to save the life of the mother. Furthermore, several abortionists have openly admitted that abortion is not needed to save the life of the mother, despite arguments to the contrary being made by abortion rights advocates, pro-abortion politicians, and pro-abortion judges.
  • While abortion rights advocates frequently claim that abortion is safe for women, many women who have undergone an abortion have suffered physical and emotional harm as a result of a prior abortion. In addition, there are cases where women have suffered serious complications as a result of a legal abortion, and there have even been cases where women have died as a result of a legal abortion.
  • The arguments being made in favor of keeping abortion legal often fail to take into account the dangers that abortion procedures pose to the health of the women who undergo abortions.
  • Planned Parenthood, who is the nation’s largest abortion organization and is one of the most prominent advocates of abortion rights in the United States, is willing to lie about the dangers of abortion procedures in order to get additional abortion business that it would not otherwise receive, and these lies have been exposed through an undercover investigation performed by Live Action back in 2012.
  • Even though it is frequently argued that women will resort to illegal back-alley abortions if abortion is outlawed, most of the women who are in crisis pregnancies would be personally unwilling to end a pregnancy through an abortion if abortion becomes illegal and most of the women who are seeking an abortion are only willing to do so if it is legal and readily available.
  • Despite what is argued by reproductive rights advocates and despite a perceived need for abortion by women who are in desperate situations, many of the abortions that are being performed in the United States would not be necessary if these women had easier access to prenatal care through healthcare providers that do not perform abortions, if these women were given the support needed to carry their pregnancies to term, if these women are offered the assistance needed to give up their babies for adoption in the event that they do not want to take care of their unborn child after birth, and if these women were given the help needed to raise their children after birth in the event that their babies are not given up for adoption.
  • The vast majority of abortions that are performed in the United States involve unplanned, unintended, or unwanted pregnancies that are the result of consensual sexual intercourse, and these unplanned, unintended, or unwanted pregnancies could have been avoided in the first place if these women did not choose to engage in sexual intercourse, despite claims that these women are incapable of abstaining from sexual activity.
  • Even though reproductive rights advocates often argue that women need to have a right to abortion in order to complete their educations or to have successful careers, some of the women who had children prior to completing their education have been able to successfully complete their education and some of the women with children have been able to have successful careers. In addition, a woman who is unwilling to sacrifice her education opportunities or her career in the event of an unplanned pregnancy is usually able to avoid an unplanned pregnancy and is usually able to avoid having to be in position where she feels that she has to have an abortion by choosing to completely abstain from sexual intercourse.
  • While most of the women who undergo an abortion are aware that an abortion does end a pregnancy and while most of these same women are also aware that abortion will result in the death of a fetus, some of the women who are seeking an abortion are not fully aware of the gruesome reality behind abortion and some of these women would not have sought an abortion if they were aware of the gruesome reality of abortion.
  • Abortion rights advocates and the abortion industry often attempt to conceal the gruesome reality behind abortion in order to make abortion appear to be attractive to those who support abortion rights and to the women who are seeking to end pregnancies through abortion.
  • Abortion clinics often misrepresent the facts regarding fetal development to prospective patients so that they will not be deterred into undergoing an abortion. Live Action has conducted undercover investigations that show that Planned Parenthood employees will lie about the facts of fetal development so that they can get more abortion business.
  • Pregnant women who do not want an abortion and who obtain medical care at abortion providers are often coerced into having abortions that they do not want because these abortion providers really want to do as many abortions as they can and really want to make as much money as they can, despite widespread opposition to this kind of coercion by the majority of Americans and despite the popular claim by abortion rights advocates that a woman should have a right to choose whether or not to end her pregnancy through an abortion.
  • Even though pro-lifers are opposed to keeping abortion legal, most pro-lifers do support legitimate reproductive medical care that does not entail the performance of an abortion. Furthermore, the laws that these pro-lifers support do not prohibit licensed obstetricians, gynecologists, and urologists from providing legitimate reproductive medical care that does not entail the performance of an abortion.
  • Abortion rights advocates in the United States often argue in favor of keeping abortion legal on the assumption that Roe v. Wade will not be reversed and on the assumption that an amendment to the United States Constitution that allows states and Congress to enact bans on abortion will not be ratified. However, the United States Supreme Court has already admitted in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that “the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child,” and this admission will probably lead to the reversal of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton in a future United States Supreme Court case on the issue of abortion.

If more people become aware of the flaws of the arguments that are being made by reproductive rights advocates who support legal abortion, support for keeping abortion legal in the United States would decrease. In addition, the demand for keeping abortion legal can be further reduced by providing pro-life assistance to women who are in unplanned, unwanted, or unintended pregnancies in a loving and caring manner.