On Wednesday at the Senate confirmation hearings for Robert F. Kennedy (RFK), President Trump’s HHS secretary nominee, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) made some erroneous claims about late (or late-term) abortions. Whitehouse stated, “There’s, there’s been a lot of conversation about… late-term abortions here, and I just want to make clear what Rhode Island OBGYN doctors describe as what is almost always happening.”
First, we need to be clear about the definition of “abortion/induced abortion”: it is the direct and intentional killing of an undelivered human being. It is not accidental, nor is it an emergency preterm delivery or c-section to save a mother’s life, nor is it a full-term birth. It is also not a miscarriage treatment after a child has already died in utero, nor is it a treatment for ectopic pregnancy.
Now let’s look at what a later (or late-term) abortion really is. These abortions are most often done by either D&E (dilation and evacuation) or by induction abortion.
In a D&E, an often still-living (and pain-capable) child is dismembered limb from limb, and then the rest of her body is removed in pieces, with the skull the last body part to be crushed by forceps. A D&E can be done in a single day, though this is riskier for the mother than the typical two to three days, because of the rapid and more forcible dilation involved. Sometimes a feticide is used to kill the preborn child prior to dismemberment.
A D&E is usually committed on a child from 13 weeks to 24 weeks gestation (11 to 22 weeks post-fertilization). It should be noted that children born prematurely have survived beginning at 21 weeks gestation.
In an induction abortion (more often utilized in the third trimester), the child is injected with a feticide (often digoxin or potassium chloride) — either into the amniotic fluid, the head, or the heart — to induce cardiac arrest and death. The woman’s cervix is gradually dilated and she eventually gives birth to a stillborn baby.
An induced abortion is typically used for a preborn child at 25 weeks gestation and later — well past the time a preborn child can survive outside the womb with medical assistance.
CLAIM #1: “Childbirth gone wrong”
Senator Whitehouse claimed, “When a late-term abortion is needed, it is a childbirth gone wrong.”
It seems that Sen. Whitehouse may be referring to the incorrect idea that intentionally killing a preborn child may be necessary in an emergency situation.
Every pro-life state law makes allowances or exceptions for allowing a physician to use his or her reasonable medical judgment and take whatever action is necessary to save the life — or even health — of the mother. But it is not necessary to dismember a child, whether that child is old enough to survive outside the womb or not. In fact, if a mother wanted that child, how horrendous would it be to unnecessarily tear that child into pieces when the doctor could have delivered that child intact, allowing for the mother to see and even hold her baby, and to grieve? And it should be obvious that death by lethal injection wouldn’t be necessary in such a case, either.
However, if a woman already in the process of childbirth/labor (or even during a medical emergency such as preeclampsia), that child can be delivered to save the mother’s life/health, even if the child is too premature to survive, Sometimes this may become necessary, such as in cases of PPROM that lead to infection or sepsis. However, the child does not need to be intentionally and directly killed — which is the goal of an induced abortion. A maternal-fetal separation that is meant to “prevent the mother’s death or immediate, irreversible bodily harm with proportionate risk to the fetus, which cannot be mitigated in any other way” is not an abortion, as noted by a Practice Guideline released by the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG).
Intentional killing during a “childbirth gone wrong” is unnecessary. No one needs to intentionally and actively kill, dismember or lethally inject a child to ensure her demise before she makes it out of the womb.
Senator Whitehouse must learn the difference between an emergency delivery and intentional killing.
In addition, the Senator should learn what pro-abortion research already says about why late-term abortions happen. As previously noted by Live Action News:
A study from the pro-abortion group ANSIRH found that women seeking third-trimester abortions do so for reasons that “are not so different from… abortions before the third trimester….” The study noted that women have abortions in the third trimester for multiple reasons, including the fact they didn’t know they were pregnant, they had difficulty arranging abortions, or the baby had a health problem or disability. (None of the abortions in this study were committed due to the mother’s health being at risk.)
A 2016 report from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute revealed that at least 75% of abortions at 13 weeks and beyond were elective — meaning the mother chose to abort her baby after the first trimester, without any indication of a medical condition or emergency.
The flawed, pro-abortion Turnaway Study even claimed that from 2008-2010, about half of the women who had abortions after 20 weeks said they did so for elective reasons, including that they didn’t realize they were pregnant, couldn’t decide whether they should abort, couldn’t figure out where to go or how to get to the facility, or had trouble coming up with the money.
CLAIM #2: “A tragedy happening to a family who wanted that child”
Senator Whitehouse claimed, “And I think we need to understand when this late term abortion gets bandied about what you’re dealing with is a tragedy that is happening to a family who wanted that child and have suddenly been confronted with a moment in which they have to make what is probably going to be the worst decision of their lives.”
He added, “The family has painted the room. It has bought the crib. Maybe even decided on the baby’s name and has gone to the hospital to welcome the new baby into their family in what is supposed to be a happy event. And then things went wrong. Then the alarm started pinging. The lights started flashing. The medical professionals started rushing in, and the question became, who lives and who dies.”
Again, Sen. Whitehouse seems to be incorrectly equating late-term abortion with a legitimate medical intervention during a pregnancy emergency.
Infamous late-term abortionist Warren Hern, who has killed preborn children late in pregnancy for decades, recently stated in an interview that the state of being pregnant is reason enough to kill a woman’s child in a late-term abortion:
Interviewer: “Do you ever get any women in their second half of the second trimester or in the third trimester that say they have no medical problems. They just don’t want the baby. They change their mind. Would you do it?”
Abortionist: “Of course…. That happens all the time.” pic.twitter.com/j8iRp0WgE5
— Robert A. J. Gagnon (@RobertAJGagnon1) November 12, 2024
READ: Top Myths DEBUNKED: Late or ‘late-term’ abortions
Recall the definition of an abortion or induced abortion above. It’s not necessary to intentionally kill that child in an emergency situation, nor is it necessary to intentionally kill a child diagnosed with a life-limiting condition.
According to AAPLOG’s Practice Guide, which discusses both ethical and unethical actions to end a pregnancy, unethical actions include:
Dismemberment or disarticulation of a living fetus or embryo
Actions utilizing a drug, device or procedure to cause fetal or embryonal death prior to or during delivery
Actions causative of fetal or embryonal death
Previable delivery without proportional risk of maternal death or immediate, permanent, irreversible bodily harm, which cannot be mitigated in any other way, or that which is performed without informed maternal consent
Post-viable delivery with intentional death of the fetus or neonate
There is absolutely no reason for any of these actions to be taken — unless the whole intent is to ensure that the child ends up dead.
CLAIM #3: “The mom’s life is often at risk… The baby’s life may be at risk.”
Senator Whitehouse claimed:
The mom’s life is often at risk and she may have other children she needs to care for.
We’ve already discussed above how every pro-life state law allows for a medical intervention to save the mother’s life, and often health.
He added:
The baby’s life may be at risk. And one or both may die.
This is why the definition of “abortion” was the first thing discussed in this article.
Induced abortion is intentional and direct killing done to ensure the death of a child. It is not logical to advocate actively killing a child at risk of death. None of what Senator Whitehouse is saying here makes any sense at all in light of the actual definition of abortion.
If a baby’s life is at risk, delivering the baby as quickly as possible (perhaps by emergency C-section, as so many children are born each year) clearly seems to be appropriate action. There is no reason to dismember or lethally inject the child first.
Whitehouse added:
In that environment the doctors and the family own that decision. Government has no place in that room at that point.
Actually, it is an entirely proper function of government to protect innocent and defenseless human life. And if the “decision” is for a doctor and family to choose to intentionally and directly kill a child, this is not their legitimate right.
Just as the government intervenes if a born child is abused or intentionally killed, so the government should seek to protect innocent human beings before birth. In fact, the government already does this in some ways; the government warns pregnant women about substances that may harm their developing children in the womb. The government prosecutes individuals who bring harm to or kill a child in the womb — unless that person is the child’s mother. In other words, government plays a proper role in protecting human beings. The problem is, this protection is entirely inconsistent when it comes to human beings in the womb.
While Whitehouse may feel it is “really offensive, really morally wrong” to “try to shove the state legislature into that room” (which seems odd, given the fact that these comments were made at a confirmation hearing for the federal position of HHS secretary and had nothing to do with a state legislature), the “Rhode Island OBGYNs” who allegedly told him about “when these procedures [late-term abortions] have to be deployed” are wrong.
Dismemberment and lethal injection never “have to be deployed” against any innocent human being.
