Two abortionists acting as “independent fact-checkers” on abortion for Facebook have turned to The Washington Post to pen an op-ed slamming Facebook’s decision to drop the “inaccurate” claim against Live Action and Live Action president Lila Rose — at least for now, until they review the matter further. The social media giant has not said the biased “fact-check” will be removed permanently; however, the two original “fact checker” abortionists have dug in their heels, continuing to erroneously promote abortion as a legitimate and even lifesaving medical procedure.
Given that abortionists Daniel Grossman and Robyn Schickler are neck-deep in the abortion industry with ties to major abortion advocacy groups, it should come as no surprise that they insist that abortion is medically necessary. Grossman is on the Board of NARAL Pro-Choice America [Editor’s note: Grossman left the NARAL board on September 26, 2019, a month after the fact check], a major abortion advocacy group with political motives. He is also on the Board of Whole Woman’s Health, an abortion chain with a history of health code violations. He’s also a liaison member of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Schickler is a fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health, the mission of which includes advocating for abortion. She is also part of the Fellowship in Family Planning belonging to the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California San Francisco, which trains abortion providers. These two abortionists have a lot to lose if they admit that abortion isn’t medically necessary.
“Last month, the anti-abortion group Live Action posted a video to the Facebook page of its founder Lila Rose, claiming abortion was never medically necessary, and Facebook asked the fact-checking site Health Feedback to review it (emphasis added),” admitted Grossman and Schickler. “Health Feedback reached out to us as medical professionals, and we both commented that the video was inaccurate.”
In the article for The Washington Post, the two again make the claim that abortion is “the fastest and safest way to save the pregnant woman’s life.” But over a thousand OB/GYNs have attested to the fact that abortion — especially during the second and third trimesters of pregnancy — is too long and complicated of a process for it to be safe for a woman in a true emergency situation. The Dublin Declaration is signed by these medical professionals who vow to “uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.” In addition, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists holds to this view, with a membership of approximately 2,500.
Grossman and Schickler also claim that Facebook’s decision to review the situation before committing to calling Rose’s statement “false news,” is “a dangerous development.” But the truth isn’t dangerous to Americans — it’s dangerous to Facebook, who stands to take a lot of heat from the powerful abortion industry if it treats pro-life groups with respect.
The truth is that the medical situations these abortionists point to in their claim that abortion is medically necessary don’t actually require abortion.
“Ask any obstetrician and they will surely have a tale to recount: A woman’s water breaks at 20 weeks, and she develops signs of infection — not only in her uterus but in her blood; a patient with a placenta previa, where the placenta covers the uterine opening, begins to have heavy bleeding at 19 weeks; a woman pregnant at 21 weeks develops severe preeclampsia, characterized by high blood pressure, that affects her liver. These babies cannot survive outside the uterus, and an abortion is medically indicated to save the woman’s life,” they claim.
If a “woman’s water breaks at 20 weeks, and she develops signs of infection — not only in her uterus but in her blood” doctors would deliver the child alive and in some hospitals attempt to help the child knowing there is a great risk he will not survive. They would not take the added time to kill the baby before delivering him.
When a patient has “placenta previa, where the placenta covers the uterine opening” and “begins to have heavy bleeding at 19 weeks,” abortion is actually a terrible and dangerous idea. Dr. Christina Francis, Chairman of the Board of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists explained in a statement:
Placenta previa is a condition in which the placenta covers the cervix, making a vaginal delivery impossible due to the possibility of life-threatening hemorrhage if labor occurs. These are frequently diagnosed in pregnancy on ultrasound around 20 weeks, however approximately 90% of these will resolve on their own before delivery. If significant hemorrhage occurs due to a placenta previa (which again is so rare prior to viability that no incidence is even reported), the patient should be taken for an emergency C-section which is the most expedient way to get her bleeding under control. It would be medically dangerous and irresponsible to try to do an abortion since any instrumentation through the cervix would pierce the placenta and cause immediate massive bleeding. An abortion would take significantly longer in this case and be much risker for the mother.
And when “a woman pregnant at 21 weeks develops severe preeclampsia, characterized by high blood pressure, that affects her liver” — known as HELLP syndrome — abortion is still not the answer. Francis explains:
Per the Society of Maternal Fetal Medicine, the incidence of severe pre-eclampsia prior to 34 weeks is only 0.3% of all pregnancies (incidence of HELLP syndrome would be significantly lower). Prior to 22-24 weeks the incidence is significantly lower. It is not the common situation in the pre-viable period that Drs. Grossman and Shickler would like people to believe. When HELLP syndrome does occur, it necessitates early delivery – not an abortion. In this situation, separation of the mother and fetus can occur in a way that respects the dignity of both of their lives, and if possible, save both.
In each of these situations, however, it’s true the baby has little chance of surviving. Neither Live Action nor Rose has ever claimed that these children would always survive. They have simply stated that it is not medically necessary to deliberately kill them. Grossman and Schickler claim it is vital and a legitimate medical treatment to kill a preborn child and say that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists backs them up. The only problem there is that the ACOG is a heavily pro-abortion organization.
“That doesn’t make us biased; it makes us good doctors,” claim Grossman and Schickler. But if a pregnant mother wants her baby, how is it being a good doctor to kill that child before delivering him or her rather than delivering the child and attempting to save both lives? Delivery is going to happen either way. With abortion, the child is killed first. In preterm delivery, the child is born alive. Putting the guilt of the child’s purposeful death rather than through natural causes on the mother does not make for a good doctor.
The two abortionists attempt to validate their false position as “independent fact-checkers” by comparing abortion to heart surgery — as if there is any comparison to make. Heart surgery is life-saving. That is its purpose. Abortion is life-ending. That is its purpose. A cardiologist is in the business of saving people. Abortionists are paid to kill. There is a huge ethical difference.
Grossman and Schickler also claim that telling women abortion is never medically necessary is “traumatizing” to women who have had complications during pregnancy and lost their children. It would be traumatizing to learn that your doctor — whom you trusted — had unnecessarily killed your baby when he could have delivered your child early and alive, regardless of the chances of survival. But there are also countless women walking around thinking they had abortions when they didn’t, because they were led to believe preterm delivery is an abortion when it isn’t.
For example, actress Milla Jovovich tweeted in May that she had an abortion, saying she went into preterm labor at 4 1/2 months pregnant. Taking the time to kill a child through abortion when a woman goes into preterm labor doesn’t make any sense. It is highly likely that Jovovich delivered her baby, who was too young to survive because doctors couldn’t stop labor. This is not an abortion, but she believes it is, and that is traumatic.
While it’s true that, as Grossman and Schickler say, “Medical misinformation harms our patients, and it’s our duty as doctors to stand up for them,” they are the ones spreading medical misinformation. They are attempting to convince women that it is sometimes necessary to kill their children to save themselves. What a burden for a woman to carry for the rest of her life because an abortionist had an agenda and money to make.
“Like” Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary!