In a guest column on Cleveland.com, Anita Rios, president of the Ohio Chapter of the National Organization for Women, insists that if Ohio passes a 20-week abortion ban, poor women will suffer.
In a column riddled with ineffective argumentation, as well as a consistent misspelling of Roe v. Wade as “Row v. Wade,” Rios fails to make her case. Instead she displays typical pro-abortion paranoia, which sees any restriction on abortion as usurping human rights and an act of discrimination against women, especially poor women. As endemic in the pro-abortion lobby, the preborn baby is the ignored victim.
“What I do not accept is that by blocking access and diminishing access to safe and legal abortions state legislators are trying to impose their values and religious beliefs on women seeking to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.”
Rios’ comments on how state legislators are basing their decisions on personal values and/or religious beliefs are not substantiated with evidence. However, what is substantiated with evidence is what Rios fails to address: the 20-week mark of fetal development. This halfway point of pregnancy is when the baby is making vast changes, biologically. But Rios denies that, too:
“Ohio’s proposed 20-week abortion ban, which has no medical basis, is clearly an effort to challenge current standards and would probably result in a lawsuit that would end up before the Supreme Court. The state legislators who are behind this effort are probably hoping for that outcome and are indifferent to the women who their actions will harm and to the tax payers who will pay the legal bills.”
It’s difficult to understand how anyone with even a cursory medical knowledge can believe that a 20-week abortion ban has “no medical basis.” As WebMD notes, “…the baby can suck a thumb, yawn, stretch, and make faces. Soon — if you haven’t already — you’ll feel your baby move, which is called ‘quickening.'”
One look at a sonogram of a 20-week baby will give anyone a picture of the humanity of children inside of the womb.
Rios’ persistence in arguing what lawmakers are “probably hoping,” or what will “probably result in a lawsuit” further displays her speculative writing, which has no journalistic basis.
Meanwhile, her thesis statement insists that this proposed ban would harm poor women the most. It’s hard to comprehend how poor women will somehow be the primary victims. This proposed ban has nothing to do with targeting poor women.
These types of comments from the pro-abortion crowd are just a mask or trigger words to suppress the real issues: their fear that abortion legislation might limit their unhindered desire to kill a baby at any point before birth, all in the name of human rights.
Rios’ misspelling of the landmark abortion case seems to be reflected in her ignorance of her argument. She says:
“Row [sic] v. Wade did not create abortion, it just opened access to safe and legal abortions for women who did not live in a liberal big city, or who were not wealthy enough to travel to one. Putting in place a 20-week abortion ban will cause countless women needless suffering and waste scarce tax dollars on litigation.”
Rios argument that it will cost taxpayer money on litigation isn’t valid. If she is so concerned with taxpayer money, then she can simply not engage in litigation.