The Details:

Writer Irin Carmon makes the bold suggestion that pregnancy care is inadequate, claiming that "to most of the medical system, we're secondary to the fetuses we carry," and asserting that during her pregnancy, she was "treated more like an incubator, than a person."

Carmon suggests that abortionists, and abortion "care," are the gold standard for how women should be treated.

It's an article that deals with extremes, and it misses the mark. Carmon claims that abortionists provide superior care, but her arguments are a far cry from what's really going on behind the closed doors of abortion businesses.

Breaking It Down:

Pregnancy care and abortion "care" are not the same

Pregnancy care and so-called abortion "care" are not the same.

Pregnancy care involves caring for two individuals: the mother and the baby. In claiming that a mother's wants and needs are of the utmost importance, Carmon is completely disregarding the small, vulnerable preborn human also in need of care.

Babies require a high level of specialty and focus, even while in utero. Doctors rightly pay attention to the preborn child's needs and well-being, because the ultimate goal is a successful delivery.

On the other hand, abortion is the direct and intentional killing of an innocent human life. Abortion always ends in the destruction of at least one life, and sometimes the injury (physical and/or mental) of the mother. There is nothing caring or compassionate about this.

Abortion is the starvation, poisoning, or dismemberment of a preborn human being. The only way someone could consider this to be "health care" is by focusing solely on the existence of the mother and ignoring the reality that a living, preborn human is purposely killed during an abortion.

Killing isn't compassionate

Carmon paints a picture of abortionists as caring, compassionate individuals who want nothing more than to assist women.

Is is possible to find abortionists like this? Maybe. But by and large, women who have actually received abortions, along with former abortion workers, paint a vastly different picture of what goes on inside abortion facilities.

Women have described cold waiting rooms, filthy exam rooms, and callous staff. They report being laughed at, lied to, dismissed, ignored, isolated, and manipulated.

One young woman described her abortion experience, saying:

“Young women were just lying down in this room and you felt like you should have just been given a number — no love, no compassion, no encouraging words were given, no, ‘It’s going to be ok.’ Nothing. Just hard hearts is what I was around.”

Another woman recounted:

 “I’ll never forget going into the procedure room, laying on the cold table.… The doctor’s eyes were so cold and insensitive, staring at me from behind the mask.”

Traumatizing stories like these have been shared time and again by women who had abortions.

Assembly-line style conditions

Some of the most jarring testimony comes from former abortion workers who see what goes on behind closed doors. Many describe assembly-line type conditions, in which doctors race to commit as many abortions as possible.

Jayne, a former Planned Parenthood worker, said:

There were many things that I could tell you how horrible it was … Blood on the top of tabletops with doctors rushing patients back and having patients that were rushed out, that there was no time to clean those beds in between. And the next patient then on that bloody spot from the prior patient.

Catherine Adair, another former facility worker, confirmed:

 I clearly remember how quickly we were required to work so that the doctors didn’t have to wait for the next abortion … speed was more important than being thorough. Blood spatter was often in the wall, floor and table when the next woman came in for her abortion. It disgusted me, and I always wondered what the woman coming in thought and if she noticed it. Abortion clinics are ONLY interested in money, they don’t care about the safety and well-being of women.

[Lack of] informed consent

Carmon says she's seen abortion workers pay "meticulous attention to informed consent, making sure their patients understood what was happening and their options." Yet the abortion industry at large is working to ensure that the opposite happens.

Nationwide, the abortion industry has fought tooth and nail to repeal laws designed to ensure women have informed consent. Laws like 24-hour waiting periods, mandatory in-person visits with a physician, and ultrasound requirements prior to receiving an abortion are all in place to ensure that women have as much information as possible prior to aborting. Yet the abortion industry continually fights these laws.

When women are fully informed about what abortion really is, they are less likely to abort — and that's bad for business.

Abortion safer than childbirth?

Carmon also cites a 2012 pro-abortion study which claims that abortion is safer than childbirth. This study has never been able to be replicated, and was authored by two pro-abortion researchers. It did not include statistics from Maryland, Washington D.C., New Hampshire, New York City, or California — none of which reported their abortion data.

The study was roundly debunked by Dr. John Ferrer in an article for the Equal Rights Institute.

“It’s a pretty radical claim to say that abortion is 14 times safer than childbirth,” Ferrer said. “It’s so radical, there’s only one source that claims they can prove it. It’s a journal article from abortion-choice researchers Elizabeth Raymond and David Grimes (hereafter, ‘RG study’).”

He also noted (emphasis added):

“The study is careful to avoid false positives for abortion cases, presumably since those would undermine its argument, but not so careful with childbirth cases. This double-standard is all the more troublesome because if the same measure were used for both childbirth and abortion then abortion would appear two to four times deadlier than childbirth. Abortion correlates with higher rates of murder, drug-related death, and suicide, but the RG study excludes those cases from the data while including those cases in the data on childbirth. It’s a flagrant double-standard that, by itself ruins the credibility of the RG study.”

(Read more about the study's flaws here.)

The Bottom Line:

Carmon presents sweeping generalizations to present her point, which is far from reality. Are there cold, impersonal medical professionals who provide inadequate prenatal care? Yes. Could there be kind, loving abortionists? Maybe. But these extremes are outliers, not the norm.

Abortion is a deliberate act with the sole intention of killing a preborn child. This violence, and those who perpetrate it, can never be offered as a loving, compassionate alternative.

Carmon suggests that abortionists, and abortion "care," are the gold standard for how women should be treated.

It's an article that deals with extremes, and it misses the mark. Carmon claims that abortionists provide superior care, but her arguments are a far cry from what's really going on behind the closed doors of abortion businesses.

Breaking It Down:

Pregnancy care and abortion "care" are not the same

Pregnancy care and so-called abortion "care" are not the same.

Pregnancy care involves caring for two individuals: the mother and the baby. In claiming that a mother's wants and needs are of the utmost importance, Carmon is completely disregarding the small, vulnerable preborn human also in need of care.

Babies require a high level of specialty and focus, even while in utero. Doctors rightly pay attention to the preborn child's needs and well-being, because the ultimate goal is a successful delivery.

On the other hand, abortion is the direct and intentional killing of an innocent human life. Abortion always ends in the destruction of at least one life, and sometimes the injury (physical and/or mental) of the mother. There is nothing caring or compassionate about this.

Abortion is the starvation, poisoning, or dismemberment of a preborn human being. The only way someone could consider this to be "health care" is by focusing solely on the existence of the mother and ignoring the reality that a living, preborn human is purposely killed during an abortion.

Killing isn't compassionate

Carmon paints a picture of abortionists as caring, compassionate individuals who want nothing more than to assist women.

Is is possible to find abortionists like this? Maybe. But by and large, women who have actually received abortions, along with former abortion workers, paint a vastly different picture of what goes on inside abortion facilities.

Women have described cold waiting rooms, filthy exam rooms, and callous staff. They report being laughed at, lied to, dismissed, ignored, isolated, and manipulated.

One young woman described her abortion experience, saying:

“Young women were just lying down in this room and you felt like you should have just been given a number — no love, no compassion, no encouraging words were given, no, ‘It’s going to be ok.’ Nothing. Just hard hearts is what I was around.”

Another woman recounted:

 “I’ll never forget going into the procedure room, laying on the cold table.… The doctor’s eyes were so cold and insensitive, staring at me from behind the mask.”

Traumatizing stories like these have been shared time and again by women who had abortions.

Assembly-line style conditions

Some of the most jarring testimony comes from former abortion workers who see what goes on behind closed doors. Many describe assembly-line type conditions, in which doctors race to commit as many abortions as possible.

Jayne, a former Planned Parenthood worker, said:

There were many things that I could tell you how horrible it was … Blood on the top of tabletops with doctors rushing patients back and having patients that were rushed out, that there was no time to clean those beds in between. And the next patient then on that bloody spot from the prior patient.

Catherine Adair, another former facility worker, confirmed:

 I clearly remember how quickly we were required to work so that the doctors didn’t have to wait for the next abortion … speed was more important than being thorough. Blood spatter was often in the wall, floor and table when the next woman came in for her abortion. It disgusted me, and I always wondered what the woman coming in thought and if she noticed it. Abortion clinics are ONLY interested in money, they don’t care about the safety and well-being of women.

[Lack of] informed consent

Carmon says she's seen abortion workers pay "meticulous attention to informed consent, making sure their patients understood what was happening and their options." Yet the abortion industry at large is working to ensure that the opposite happens.

Nationwide, the abortion industry has fought tooth and nail to repeal laws designed to ensure women have informed consent. Laws like 24-hour waiting periods, mandatory in-person visits with a physician, and ultrasound requirements prior to receiving an abortion are all in place to ensure that women have as much information as possible prior to aborting. Yet the abortion industry continually fights these laws.

When women are fully informed about what abortion really is, they are less likely to abort — and that's bad for business.

Abortion safer than childbirth?

Carmon also cites a 2012 pro-abortion study which claims that abortion is safer than childbirth. This study has never been able to be replicated, and was authored by two pro-abortion researchers. It did not include statistics from Maryland, Washington D.C., New Hampshire, New York City, or California — none of which reported their abortion data.

The study was roundly debunked by Dr. John Ferrer in an article for the Equal Rights Institute.

“It’s a pretty radical claim to say that abortion is 14 times safer than childbirth,” Ferrer said. “It’s so radical, there’s only one source that claims they can prove it. It’s a journal article from abortion-choice researchers Elizabeth Raymond and David Grimes (hereafter, ‘RG study’).”

He also noted (emphasis added):

“The study is careful to avoid false positives for abortion cases, presumably since those would undermine its argument, but not so careful with childbirth cases. This double-standard is all the more troublesome because if the same measure were used for both childbirth and abortion then abortion would appear two to four times deadlier than childbirth. Abortion correlates with higher rates of murder, drug-related death, and suicide, but the RG study excludes those cases from the data while including those cases in the data on childbirth. It’s a flagrant double-standard that, by itself ruins the credibility of the RG study.”

(Read more about the study's flaws here.)

The Bottom Line:

Carmon presents sweeping generalizations to present her point, which is far from reality. Are there cold, impersonal medical professionals who provide inadequate prenatal care? Yes. Could there be kind, loving abortionists? Maybe. But these extremes are outliers, not the norm.

Abortion is a deliberate act with the sole intention of killing a preborn child. This violence, and those who perpetrate it, can never be offered as a loving, compassionate alternative.