Fact Checking NYT Abortion Editorial

Recently, the New York Times published a polarizing editorial by Dr. Warren Hern of Boulder, Colorado. For many years Dr. Hern has performed late term abortions and even opened his own abortion clinic. His shocking claim in the recent editorial is captured in its title: “Pregnancy Kills. Abortion Saves Lives.” But does Dr. Hern’s claim hold water?

He begins by writing, “Pregnancy is a life-threatening condition. Women die from being pregnant. We have known that for thousands of years.” This is, of course, true on the surface. However, it overlooks the great medical progress the Western world has made over the last couple of centuries. The maternal mortality rate in the United States is 26.4 per 100,000 live births. While this rate is much higher than Western European countries with smaller non-White populations, it still represents a very low level of risk for nearly all mothers. So, while all human activity, even merely living, includes some risk, pregnancy is certainly not a very dangerous condition. Therefore, Dr. Hern’s initial claim is somewhat misleading.

Hern then gets to the substance of his argument, writing that “By comparison, a study in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology on abortion mortality from 1998 to 2010 found that for the 16.1 million abortions performed during that time, the overall death rate was 0.7 per 100,000 procedures. The death rate for early-abortion procedures — those that took place within the first eight weeks of the pregnancy — was less: 0.3 per 100,000. Pregnancy is dangerous; abortion can be lifesaving.”

First, abortions performed in the event of a pregnant woman’s medical emergency are so few in number that they are statistically irrelevant. So, Hern’s argument in favor of abortion, even if accepted, would actually apply to exceedingly few women in the US who want an abortion.

Second, Hern’s claim that “the overall death rate was 0.7 per 100,000 [abortion] procedures” is transparently false. The actual death rate is 100% because the procedure always results in the death of a living human being – namely, the baby.

Third, abortion doctors themselves have admitted that abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of a woman. Sometimes the life of the mother or baby may be lost during efforts by doctors to save their patients in rare and extreme medical emergencies, however, this is different than setting out to destroy the baby’s life from the outset.

Therefore, we can determine that Hern’s claims in his recent editorial are both misleading and false. They leave out vital information and ignore medical progress and human technological advancements. Hern’s editorial should be understood as a promotion of his political agenda rather than an informed and unbiased judgement from an expert in the field of medicine.

3 comments

  1. Murderers will always make lame excuses for their crimes in an effort to salve their own conscience. Hern is no exception. Just another murderer, who will be held accountable for his serial killings. He deserves nothing less.

    1. Murderers will always make lame excuses for their crimes in an effort to salve their own conscience.

      I respectfully disagree. The Hern’s of the world have no interest in salving their already seared consciences; they make lame excuses for their crimes in an effort to preserve their illicit profession and livelihoods. Such persons are well advised to pay particularly close attention to God’s Holy ordinances and the severe penalties their serial violation will most assuredly incur. Which of course persons so far gone as Mr. Hern will very likely never come to understand due to the Pharoic hardness of his heart. We may rest assured, as the Bible clearly teaches, and as you say, that such persons already “have their reward.”

  2. First, abortions performed in the event of a pregnant woman’s medical emergency are so few in number that they are statistically irrelevant. So, Hern’s argument in favor of abortion, even if accepted, would actually apply to exceedingly few women in the US who want an abortion.

    Well, yeah, and the same thing applies to the actual number of women eager to murder the fruit of their wombs due to rape or incest. All this is, as I think you imply, is obfuscation; it’s sleight of hand not altogether different than a magician successfully performing his tricks before an audience not especially prepared or equipped to understand what is actually happening right before their ‘lying eyes.’ The whole purpose of which (for Hern and his ilk) is to keep his illicit infanticidal industry alive and thriving. Which is to say, to enrich himself at the expense of countless murdered babies, and untold numbers of women who bear the emotional scars of having succumbed, in a moment of weakness and vulnerability, to the lure of these devils beguiling them to not only know, but willingly participate in, pure evil. “Hath God said?”

    Meanwhile, this whole idiotic idea so often bandied about that we can’t or shouldn’t legislate morality is invariably exposed for the pure nonsense it is in such diatribes. “Invariably” I say, because there is literally no way of escaping the logic of it, so finely woven into the fabric of the universe moral suasion is. What Hern is arguing at the end of the day is that it is wrong, therefore immoral, to deny women the “right” to murder their own offspring in the womb. As I’ve explained many many times in the past, whenever one (inescapably) makes a distinction between right and wrong, good and evil, (s)he is necessarily taking a moral position. Therefore, and moreover, virtually, if not quite literally, every single law on the books is based on a moral position; someone’s moral position. Per abortion in particular, and the unregenerate infanticidal maniacs who perform and advocate for it based on these obfuscatory and spurious “arguments,” payback, as they say, is going to be hell. Same with the spiritual great grandchildren of the radical abolitionist lunatics who condoned and thirsted for the shedding of innocent blood based entirely on the selfsame puritanical spirit, which now declares that ‘if we wanted the government in our wombs we’d go f*ck a senator.’ Proving in part, and beyond a shadow of a doubt, that “that most abhorrent of all phenomena,” in R.L. Dabney’s words, is an infidel woman.

    Pr. 6: 16-19 (KJV):

    16These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

    17A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

    18An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

    19A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.