A doctor who regularly performs late-term abortions waxed eloquent in The New York Times about the benefits of the baby-killing procedure, insisting, “Pregnancy is dangerous; abortion can be lifesaving.”
Dr. Warren M. Hern, who was the partial subject of a blistering anti-abortion video released by Stephen Crowder in February, writes in his op-ed, “Pregnancy is a life-threatening condition. Women die from being pregnant. We have known that for thousands of years.”
Hern continues by listing possible complications from pregnancy, concluding, “Pregnancy always comes with some irreducible risk of death.” He adds, “The measure of risk to a woman’s life from pregnancy itself is called the ‘maternal mortality ratio.’ That is the number of women who die of causes related to or aggravated by pregnancy per 100,000 live births.”
Hern compares the “maternal mortality ratio” in the United States in 2018, 20.7 per thousand, to the abortion mortality rate from 1998 to 2010 , which was 0.7 per 100,000 procedures, adding, “The death rate for early-abortion procedures — those that took place within the first eight weeks of the pregnancy — was less: 0.3 per 100,000.”
He then concludes, “Pregnancy is dangerous; abortion can be lifesaving.”
Hern continues, “”A woman’s life and health are at risk from the moment that a pregnancy exists in her body, whether she wants to be pregnant or not.”
Hern takes aim at the new Alabama abortion ban, writing, “Does the Alabama legislature recognize that the effects of its new law, depending on how it is enforced, are unequal, since black women are more likely to die from pregnancy in Alabama than white women and so are more likely to benefit from the availability of safe abortion?”
Hed theorizes, “Perhaps the goal of the Alabama law, in addition to triggering a legal challenge to Roe v. Wade, may be to discourage doctors from even practicing medicine in that state, lest they be accused of performing an illegal abortion and sentenced to prison for the rest of their lives. Perhaps the vagueness of the law and the confusion is the point. Vagueness and confusion are tools of tyranny.”
“Vagueness and confusion.” Since the pro-abortion movement likes to camouflage the murder of millions of unborn children by referring to the act as “abortion,” and further, decries the idea of pregnant women actually seeing their unborn children in ultrasounds so that the women are not dissuaded from barbarically ending their children’s lives, “vagueness and confusion” could well be attributed to pro-abortion forces. As far as tyranny, defined as the despotic abuse of authority, is anything more tyrannical than ending the right to life of millions of unborn children?
Crowder video below: