When I ask my Christian friends how they can vote for a candidate who supports abortion throughout out all nine months, their typical reaction is denial. “That’s not true!” they argue, “Abortion is not legal throughout nine months.” Yet that is exactly what Roe v. Wade approved, except where it is limited by state law. Among Americans, 85% do not support abortion in the third trimester, yet 45% of Americans are willing to support a presidential candidate who never met an abortion she can’t support.
Hillary Clinton said about third-trimester abortion, during the third debate with Donald Trump:
“The kinds of cases that fall at the end of pregnancy are often the most heartbreaking, painful decisions for families to make. I have met with women who toward the end of their pregnancy get the worst news one could get, that their health is in jeopardy if they continue to carry to term or that something terrible has happened or just been discovered about the pregnancy.”
Mrs. Clinton's claim that the health of the mother requires an abortion is not valid.
C. Everett Koop, M.D., former U.S. Surgeon General once said:
“Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my 36 years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life. . . . If, toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother’s health, he will take the child by inducing labor or performing a Caesarean section. His intention is still to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby will be premature and perhaps immature depending on the length of gestation. Because it has suddenly been taken out of the protective womb, it may encounter threats to its survival. The baby is never willfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger.”
So, what about the other hard case which Hillary cites as a reason to abort a fully formed child, who is capable of living outside the womb? That, “something has happened or been discovered about the pregnancy?” She is referring to the prenatal diagnostic test, amniocentesis, which can tell a mother if her unborn child has an anomaly such as Down syndrome. This risky test is done during the second trimester of gestation and can also tell the sex of the baby. In up to 90% of the cases where an unborn child is diagnosed with Down syndrome, the mother chooses to abort her baby.
In countries such as New Zealand and Great Britain, recently their National Health Systems pay for diagnostic tests as a cost-saving measure. It costs thousands of dollars in special education and medical treatments for a person with special needs throughout a lifetime, whereas the cost of an abortion after such a test is much cheaper. Does cost alone rationalize discrimination against an entire class of people based upon their chromosomal makeup? What about the dramatic strides in the treatment of Down syndrome and the amazing achievements of individuals whose only ‘fault’ is an extra copy of the twenty-first chromosome? Parents of such individuals are taking to the Internet to voice their opposition to prenatal screening, in a campaign called “Don’t Screen Us Out”, led by a New Zealand organization known as “Saving Downs.”
Support for the right to life of those with Down syndrome is also apparent in the United States, where vice-presidential candidate and Governor Mike Pence of Indiana recently signed into law a bill banning abortion for sex selection or because of fetal anomalies. Hillary Clinton’s allies at Planned Parenthood immediately sued to keep the law from taking effect. This is because Planned Parenthood and Mrs. Clinton will not allow any restrictions on abortions for any reason, regardless of the facts.
And the fact is this: Dr. Brian Skotko of Harvard Medical School did a survey of families and patients who have Down syndrome in 2011. The rate of families with children who had Down syndrome who said they loved their child was 99 percent, which was matched by the self-satisfaction that those with Down syndrome expressed about themselves. Since amniocentesis is only done in a small percentage of cases, it can be assumed that many of these children with Down syndrome came as a surprise to their parents. But love won out.
So do Mrs. Clinton and her cohorts at Planned Parenthood, who are spending millions to get her elected, support abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy? The answer is definitively: “yes.”
What no one can answer with any kind of rational explanation is why.
Abortion seems to be some kind of dogma for the abortion movement, to which no ground can be ceded.
No restriction on abortions for sex selection or disability, no proper burial for the unborn babies’ bodies, and no prosecution for the illegal sale of the organs of aborted babies.
Abortion on demand without apology for nine months. Period.
Is this type of extremist who Americans want in the most powerful office in the world?
Spero columnist Leticia Velasquez is the author of "A Special Mother is Born"