(Created Equal) Abortion advocates want Ohio to be next up to enshrine elective abortion in the state’s constitution. Supporters claim it would only establish abortion until fetal viability, when the baby can survive outside her mother’s womb with current technological assistance. But, while it is true the amendment mentions viability, it allows for no meaningful protections for babies at that point. And, for those skeptical, one abortionist recently drilled this point home.
First, consider the proposed amendment’s language related to viability.
“However, abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability. But in no case may such an abortion be prohibited if in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient’s treating physician it is necessary to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health.”
The language is clear on one point. This amendment would create no protections for babies after viability. At best, it would allow for such protections to be made. But on day one with this amendment, babies who can survive outside the womb would have no protections whatsoever from painful abortions.
More troubling, however, is that even if abortion were prohibited after fetal viability, the amendment would give carte blanche to the mother’s “treating physician” to proceed with abortion if needed to protect the mother’s “health.” This raises two questions: First, who is the treating physician? And second, what is meant by health?
The first question is as startling as it is simple to answer. Her treating physician is the abortionist.
The definition of health, however, has not always been so clear. Doe v Bolton, companion case to the original Roe v Wade, defined a mother’s “health” related to abortion as not merely physical health but also much more: emotional health, her need to care for other dependents, and so on. This starts to shatter the impression that viability clauses provide any semblance of meaningful protection.
But that final point just got worse thanks to the candor of one abortionist.
“Every Pregnancy is a Health Issue.”
The Atlantic recently published a human interest piece on Colorado abortionist Warren Hern. Among the dark gems was Hern’s definition of fetal viability: “Hern, though, believes that the viability of a fetus is determined not by gestational age but by a woman’s willingness to carry it.”
In other words, when asked whether a baby can survive outside the womb, Hern’s metric is: Well, is the mom willing to carry the child?
Such a definition is particularly troubling when the proposed amendment in Ohio—which, if successful, will provide the pattern for more states to come—leaves determining viability up to the abortionist.
But what matters more than Hern’s shocking definition of viability is how he gets there. Many will be tempted to isolate him as some forceps-slinging lone ranger of an abortionist—off in a remote land where no other physicians dare to venture. But he’s not an outlier. He’s just willing to say out loud what others only think. (He’s been slammed before for his candid description of D&E abortions as “destruction.” See the same Atlantic piece. Abortion marketers straight off Madison Avenue prefer more gentle descriptors.)
Explaining his ethic on abortion to The Atlantic, Hern says, “This is a grotesque conversation to many people … But this is a surgical procedure for a life-threatening condition.”
The surgical procedure, of course, is elective abortion. But one might wonder what is the “life-threatening condition” to which he refers. Pre-eclampsia? Ectopic pregnancy? Uterine cancer? No.
He gladly tosses his cards on the table when pressed by the journalist to clarify his position:
“So what if a pregnant woman with no health issues comes to the clinic, say, at 30 weeks, what would you do?” I asked Hern once. The question irked him.
“Every pregnancy is a health issue!” he said. “There’s a certifiable risk of death from being pregnant, period.” (emphasis added)
So why does Hern dispense with any concern for the fetus when deciding whether the baby is viable? Because it’s a non-issue. Every pregnancy by definition is life-threatening, and thus every abortion is justifiable, no matter how old the baby in the womb may be.
Abortion Through All Nine Months
So back to the extreme amendment proposed in Ohio—which, if it passes, will be the model for other states. This amendment would always allow abortion if the mother’s health is on the line. Further, this amendment would let the abortionist be the one to determine if the mother’s health is on the line.
And now we see an abortionist telling us that for 100% of women people who become pregnant, their health is indeed on the line.
That means that whether the fetus would be deemed viable doesn’t matter. Every baby would be legal fodder for the abortion pill cocktail, suction machine, or forceps—because healthy pregnancy or not, it is always a “health issue.”
The viability debate is over. Hern killed it. Now we’ll see what the voters decide.
Editor’s Note: This article was originally published at Created Equal and is reprinted here with permission.
