(Right to Life of Michigan) Remember Deborah Nucatola? Planned Parenthood’s top doctor who explained how to crush a baby’s body in order to harvest more intact body parts? Though she was spirited away from the public eye when the Center for Medical Progress video investigation broke, she remains busy at work.
Nucatola co-authored a study in the current October 2016 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology. Her study examined the most efficient way to kill unborn children in a late-term abortion.
When you watch the Center for Medical Progress videos, you’ll see Nucatola and others often discussing “didge,” or “didging;” the practice of using the drug Digoxin before an abortion. While invented to treat heart conditions, in massive doses Digoxin causes a heart attack. Those looking to buy and sell the body parts of aborted babies did not want a “didged” baby; they needed the baby’s organs as fresh and pure as possible for experimentation or implantation into rodents.
Nucatola’s study compared the results from injecting Digoxin directly into the baby to just injecting it into the amniotic fluid. The terms in the study are “intra-fetal” injections to achieve “fetal asystole” before performing a “dilation and evacuation.” What do those terms mean? A needle is inserted through the woman’s belly and into the baby’s body and the lethal drug is administered to give the baby a fatal heart attack. The baby is then examined to determine if the desired outcome was completed. A “failure,” as the study calls it, is the baby surviving the lethal dose, only to die later through bleeding to death or shock as her arms and legs are literally torn off of her body in a dismemberment abortion.
Nucatola’s study coolly concluded that injecting the drug directly into the baby led to fewer “failures” than injecting it into the amniotic fluid for the baby to inhale. The “sample size” of the study was 270 babies between 20 and 24 weeks of pregnancy.
Why give a baby a massive heart attack before dismembering her? One of the worst outcomes for an abortionist is a born-alive baby. Abortionists are legally required to treat babies who survive abortions the same as any other baby, but because of lax abortion clinic regulations they often are not equipped to provide proper life-saving care. The goal of the abortion is after all not to end the pregnancy, but to end the baby’s life, even if it’s past the point of viability.
The way this study is written you would never know it is talking about giving viable babies fatal heart attacks. A medical journal dedicated to the arts of welcoming life into this world should be no place to calmly discuss the most efficient ways of disposing of “unwanted” lives.
Deborah Nucatola is not alone. When the topic of late-term abortion comes up in a political context, euphemisms and medical terms are deployed by politicians to distract people from the reality of abortion. In a few days we’ll all be voting on a candidate, Hillary Clinton, who firmly supports late-term abortions, even during the process of birth. [Editor’s Note: This story was originally published prior to the general election.]
Prolifers can cut through the fog and hold the abortion industry and their political allies accountable simply by asking them to plainly describe what they support. History has shown that people are more likely to support injustices when they can rely on euphemisms to pretend to the public and even their own consciences they aren’t engaging in an injustice.
You never know when that honesty might change the mind of even the most hardened abortion supporter.
Editor’s Note: This article was originally published at Right to Life of Michigan’s blog on October 26, 2016, and is reprinted here with permission.