Pro-Life Action League

. . . because action speaks louder than words.

League history, NOW v. Scheidler, Action News, Joe Scheidler, League staff

Q & A on abortion, the unborn child, where we stand on the issues and more

Helping abortion-bound women choose life for their babies

Unmasking the truth about abortion in the public square

Our youth outreach, raising up a new generation of pro-life leaders

Abortion industry converts tell the inside story

News and commentary from the Pro-Life Action League

News and commentary from the Pro-Life Action League

Home Hotline Blog Article

NOW President: Babies Wouldn’t Die So Much If We’d Just Kill Them Before They Died!

Posted by Matt Yonke (May 13, 2014 at 4:38 pm)

Terry O'NeillNational Organization for Women (NOW) president Terry O’Neill published an editorial on the Huffington Post today entitled, “Abortion, Like Contraception, Is Essential Health Care That Saves Lives.”

Let that sink in for a second. A procedure that’s taken over 50 million lives in the U.S. alone since 1973 . . . saves lives.

O’Neill’s “life saving” abortions

How does O’Neill get to the conclusion promised in the title, that “abortion care” saves lives? Easy! She ignores 50% of the people involved in every abortion.

The first place she looks for saved lives from abortion is high infant mortality rates. They’d be so much lower if more of those pesky underprivileged women would just get more abortions. That’s right, her solution to high infant mortality rates is to kill the babies before they get the chance to die!

From the article (emphasis mine):

We have a premature birth crisis in this country that can be directly linked to our failure to provide adequate contraception and abortion care. About half of pregnancies in the U.S. each year are unintended, and for those women who carry their pregnancies to term (more than half do), the prognosis is anything but great. They not only experience higher rates of premature birth, but also are more likely to have inadequate prenatal care, low birth weight and small size infants, maternal depression and anxiety.

From a public health point of view, abortion care, no less than contraception, is an essential measure to prevent the heartbreak of infant mortality . . .

To avoid the “heartbreak of infant mortality,” we should just kill the infants before anyone starts keeping statistics about them.

Again, from the article (emphasis mine):

. . . as more states like Texas and North Carolina restrict access to abortion care, more women are dying in childbirth or pregnancy, and more infants are not surviving to their first birthday.

They’re not surviving to their first birthday because you didn’t even give them the chance to be born, Terry!

Killing the poor would be an efficient way to reduce poverty, disease, recidivism, and any number of other problems, except that it’s wrong to kill the people who have problems in order to solve problems!

O’Neill mentions maternal mortality, which I won’t address in detail because it’s never right to kill someone in order to solve your problems, and so abortion cannot be a solution to the problem of maternal mortality. But it should be noted that the data actually shows that direct abortion is never necessary to save a woman’s life.

The Myth of “Abortion Care”

But, at its heart, O’Neill’s piece is an attempt to make the phrase “abortion care” happen. Planned Parenthood and their ilk have been using the phrase for a while, though apparently not everyone is getting on board with this bit of Newspeak, or O’Neill’s piece would not have been necessary.

“Abortion care” is yet another attempt to shift focus off the human being who’s being killed in every single abortion procedure. Abortion can only be called “care” if you’re not thinking about the person who’s being dismembered.

But controlling the narrative is at least half the battle in a culture war, so it’s imperative that we who recognize the inherent value of the child in the womb combat their twisting of language.

Don’t let the phrase “abortion care” go by unchallenged if it’s used in your presence. All that’s required for a pernicious phrase like “abortion care” to slip into the American lexicon is for you and me to say nothing.

Ask about what care is being provided to the child. Show the images of abortion victims to “abortion care” advocates, and ask what kind of care they would call that. Ask how killing a child so it doesn’t die solves the problem of infant mortality.

But whatever you say, keep the focus on the child in the womb, whose life is an end in itself, not a tool to be used to fix statistics we don’t like.

[Back to Top]

Posted in Abortion, Our Opposition, The Culture War, The Unborn Child. Follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

2 Responses to “NOW President: Babies Wouldn’t Die So Much If We’d Just Kill Them Before They Died!”

Note: Visitor comments do not necessarily reflect the views of the Pro-Life Action League.

  1. Phee says:

    Abortion is a life-saving procedure. Why?
    If abortion was banned, it would not reduce the number of abortions performed, it would only reduce the safety. There is no such thing as ‘no abortion’, only safe and unsafe abortion. What happens when desperate people are denied abortions? They seek out dangerous and unsafe abortions, which not only result in the death of the fetus but of the mother as well.
    When abortions are safe and legal, the fetus dies. When they are unsafe, both fetus and mother often dies. It cannot be denied that more deaths occur when abortion is banned than when it is legal, even if the fetus is considered a person.
    I believe that this O’Neill’s original meaning, and I think her comment has been grossly misinterpreted here.

    May 25, 2014 at 10:56 am
  2. Jonse says:

    The argument you present to make abortion legal is not such convincing one. You state that, if abortion banned, the unsafe abortion will expand and cause the death of both mother and her baby. But if it is legal, the abortionist will kill the infant and save the mother. The main thing I need to ask you is that, why you choose this remedy as the only option? Why don’t you aware the people about the exact effects of abortion? Why don’t you teach the people about unwanted pregnancy?
    In your sentence you recognize the baby as a person.
    ‘……….even if the fetus is considered a person……’ think over it. let the one who is going to be aborted is you, and somebody decide to kill you. How do you feel? Really, I am confusing with the law you are making. The WHO teaches as the unborn baby has the right to be protected even before birth. This implies that, the fetus has human right. On the other hand you are provoking the contradicting argument that clash the first one saying that abortion should be legal. Which law is correct? I think you yourself are confused with what you are doing. Let God forgive you?
    Be sure!!!! God never permit you to kill his own image creation.

    June 21, 2016 at 7:28 am

Leave a Reply to this Hotline Entry

We welcome a free and open exchange of ideas on the Pro-Life Hotline, from all points of view, but we request that you restrict your remarks to the topic(s) presented in the entry above.

To ensure constructive dialog, the following will not be tolerated:

You may use HTML code to style your comments.