If you are leaving a shopping center in Florida, or you have stopped for gas at a turnpike rest stop, you may be approached by someone collecting signatures. It happened to me one day a couple of weeks ago. A man in a blue vest asked me if I was a Floridian and a voter. When I said yes, he told me that with enough signatures we could put an amendment in the state constitution “To keep women safe.” Those were his words. When I pressed him for details, I learned the truth. And I declined to sign.
The amendment that the ACLU and other abortion activists are pushing to get on the ballot for 2024 would, if passed, do the very opposite of keep women safe. It would endanger women and eliminate all the commonsense medical safeguards that have been established to protect them. Let me explain.
The proposed amendment states: “No law shall prohibit, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.”
The implications of this language are vast. Any reasonable medical guardrail around a chemical or surgical abortion would be prohibited - for instance, a pre-procedure ultrasound is currently required to determine the age and location of the baby. This is a non-invasive test that only takes a few minutes, but it is vital, as it eliminates the grave risk of attempting a chemical abortion on a baby already too large or ectopically located. Maternal hemorrhage, sepsis and even death have resulted from chemical abortion under these conditions. As a radiologist, every day I’m called on to use ultrasound to “date” a pregnancy for an expectant mother who is unsure when her last period was. This is extremely common, especially in younger women and teens. And I’m always on the look-out for an ectopic pregnancy which is an emergency.
Of course, if you are running an abortion business, the ultrasound requirement simply cuts into profit by adding to the cost of the procedure in time, equipment and personnel. But there’s no doubt it protects patients.
Also on the chopping block under the proposed amendment is the current requirement that only a physician may perform an abortion, and that the same physician must inform the patient, 24 hours before, of the risks of the procedure, and of the age of the baby. If approved, the amendment would remove this time for reflection, a time in which mothers, having new information, may freely choose a different path. It would also make it possible for a non-physician to perform a surgical abortion, and a receptionist or other staff member to assess the patient and dispense chemical abortion pills. This is because, in Florida, a “healthcare provider” means any employee of the facility, even an employee with no medical training.
Of course, a main goal of the proposed amendment is to legalize elective abortion through all 40 weeks of pregnancy. The amendment language ensuring no limits is this: abortion after viability shall always be permitted “when necessary to protect the patient’s health.” “Health” has been defined and interpreted by courts to include psychological or emotional and other factors. Moreover, the “healthcare provider” making that determination can be any employee of the abortion facility, from the abortionist to the receptionist.
Contrary to what most people might believe, the vast majority of second- and third-trimester abortions are elective - performed on healthy babies of healthy mothers. In fact, the most common reason given for late term abortions is simply delayed decision-making. But late term abortion involves an unique and awful reality: science indicates that fetuses feel the pain of the dismemberment involved in abortion as early as 14 weeks. If you doubt this, do a little research into fetal analgesia during fetal surgery. You can be sure that no doctor would operate on a 15-week fetus without first properly anesthetizing her. The sheer barbarity of second and third trimester abortion cannot be overstated.
Abortions, whether chemical or surgical, whether first or third trimester, have enormous medical, social, and ethical implications. Obviously for the baby who loses his or her life, sometimes quite painfully, but also for the mother, who undergoes a psychologically costly and physically risky procedure. If, and when, you are approached by the man in the blue vest as you go about your daily activities, decline to sign. Florida women, and Florida babies, deserve better.
Grazie Pozo Christie, M.D., is a Senior Fellow for The Catholic Association and host of the nationally syndicated radio show Conversations with Consequences. She practices radiology in the Miami area, where she lives with her husband and five children.
Protect Life, Decline to Sign
3
0
21.12.2023
If you are leaving a shopping center in Florida, or you have stopped for gas at a turnpike rest stop, you may be approached by someone collecting signatures. It happened to me one day a couple of weeks ago. A man in a blue vest asked me if I was a Floridian and a voter. When I said yes, he told me that with enough signatures we could put an amendment in the state constitution “To keep women safe.” Those were his words. When I pressed him for details, I learned the truth. And I declined to sign.
The amendment that the ACLU and other abortion activists are pushing to get on the ballot for 2024 would, if passed, do the very opposite of keep women safe. It would endanger women and eliminate all the commonsense medical safeguards that have been established to protect them. Let me explain.
The proposed amendment states: “No law shall prohibit, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.”
The implications of this language are vast. Any reasonable medical guardrail around a chemical or surgical abortion would be prohibited - for instance, a pre-procedure ultrasound is........
© Townhall
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Donald Low
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
