"As always, pro-life measures or what women-helping groups provide for pregnant women are dismissed because the appropriate “experts” disagree."
Yes, those would be ACTUAL MEDICAL EXPERTS.
" For example, for all the reasons that we’ve written about for years, which begin with basic biology, an induced abortion will increase the risk that a woman will subsequently be stricken with breast cancer. That is not, as Rampell insists it is, “junk science.” It is rather science that offers an inconvenient truth and therefore must be mocked and dismissed and shoved into the corner."
The American College of OB-GYNs thinks it's junk science to link abortion and breast cancer.
"If “junk science” is the second way “states are trying to politicize medicine,” what is the third, according to Rampell?...“Ultrasounds,” for one, “mandatory waiting periods for abortions,” for another. Hmmm.
Is having an abortion without seeing whom it is that a woman is obliterating a “data-driven” decision? Hardly."
Anti-choicers think women who view an ultrasound are less likely to abort, studies show that isn't true. And 60% of women having abortions are mothers, so they've seen some ultrasounds!
Fetal development has no bearing on whether a woman can undergo a pregnancy, so why force them to look at an ultrasound?
"The whole point of the assembly-line abortion machinery is to keep the woman (or girl) from considering her options; from taking a deep breath; and from allowing her to heed the better angels of her nature."LIES! Women in Texas are waiting 20 days for an appointment on average. Most women have considered their options in the event of unplanned pregnancy before it happens. Most women are driving miles and miles where they have plenty of time to ponder.
“Look, there obviously is a role for policymakers to play in setting laws that promote public health,” Rampell concludes, in her best pretend middle-of-the-road manner. “But those laws should be grounded in scientific evidence, not attempts to reward campaign donors, appease the political base and shame women.”
So, to be clear, there arereasons to pass any of these laws to “appease the political base and shame women”?"
" Are legislators “appeasing the political base” when they pass a law that says you can’t abort an unborn baby who is capable of experiencing excruciating pain, a capability which an abundance of scientific evidence says begins no later than at 20 weeks?"
Fetuses don't feel pain at 20 weeks.
"Are they “shaming women” when they pass legislation to prevent dismemberment abortions–abortions that twist off little arms and legs by the use of brute manual force, using a long stainless steel clamping tool? You know, the kind of “technique” that if used on an animal would rightly cause an uproar."
Those fetuses can't feel pain, and that's how 2nd-trimester abortions are done, only 10% of abortions.
LIE news lives up to its name...