The anti-abortion myth haunting the pro-choice movement - By Andréa Becker and Dr. Daniel Grossman

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------

The title of the article promises to explain a certain myth that haunts these abortion advocates. We've read the article several times and are unable to identify this myth, repeatedly asserted as existing, yet never articulated. 

The authors are able purveyors of agitprop. They continually trumpet the dangers to women and doctors that the "born alive act" supposedly represents, but are unwilling or unable to identify a single danger. No myths. No medical misinformation. Nothing. Astonishing.

----------------------

Montana’s failed ballot measure was dangerous not only because it threatened providers with jail time but also because it perpetuated a harmful myth.

“Abortion is a popular issue” has been a common refrain in the airwaves as pundits and politicians recount the winners and losers of the midterm elections. Abortion was certainly a motivating factor for voters, who backed ballot measures protecting abortion access in five very politically different states.

One referendum in particular, Montana’s, is a critical bellwether for just how supportive of abortion access the nation is becoming. Fifty-three percent of Montanans voted no, which is particularly notable in a state where 57 percent of voters supported President Donald Trump’s reelection. (Well, Montana also re-elected far left Senator John Tester in 2018, legalized recreational cannabis not too long ago, put a Republican governor in Helena the previous election, and in the most recent election, gave Republican supermajorities to both houses. We're an independent people, and it's a grave mistake to make blanket assumptions about the people of Montana based on their vote on this flawed abortion measure.) 

But what was too often missed amid the political commentary about the efforts to protect abortion access was the way Montana’s failed referendum was worded: Anti-abortion lawmakers intentionally used biased, medically inaccurate, inflammatory language to confuse and outrage voters. (Let's see if the authors will be able to identify any of these. The reader may wish to consult the actual language of the ballot measure.)

The ballot measure claimed to create protections for “infants born alive during abortion,” legislating an imagined situation to demonize and further criminalize abortion providers by threatening a felony charge punishable with a 20-year jail sentence and $50,000 fine. The danger for abortion providers lies not only in the threat of jail time but also within the violent language that went unchallenged in the public conversation. (What violent language? In the ballot measure? Used by pro-life advocates? What specifically is this violent language?)

The overblown myths weaponized by anti-abortion groups are never-ending. (We await the enumeration of these "overblown myths.")

But failing to address anti-abortion myths allows them to persist into perpetuity. (Yes, yes. What myths? Please proceed to address them.)

This specific propaganda effort is particularly tricky; the bill text uses uninformed technical medical language (Yes, yes, yes. What uninformed technical medical language was employed? Specify.)

aimed at portraying abortions later in pregnancy and palliative postnatal care as gruesome and dehumanizing. (We've read the bill and supplied a link to it. To what "gruesome and dehumanizing" language are the authors referring?)

It was yet another reincarnation of a successful anti-abortion campaign during the abortion bans of the Bush years. In 2002, as the nation’s policing and national security surveillance tightened, President George W. Bush signed the so-called Born Alive Infants Protection Act to confuse the public into believing that abortion is infanticide (The public iz sooo stupidz... 

So, please explain the difference between abortion and infanticide. For us stupid people who are so easily confused.)

and limit the autonomy of all abortion patients and providers. (All laws limit autonomy. This is not automatically bad.)

It changed the way some of the public understands later abortion. (In what way? Will the authors ever supply any specifics?)

True, later abortion ("Later abortion." The authors will use this phrase four times. Is this the kind of medically accurate terminology they prefer, a vague reference to the timing of an abortion? 

But we aren't talking about the timing of an abortion. The legislation was in regard to what happens AFTER the child is born, specifically, after a failed abortion. We have left the realm of abortion now that there is an already-born, living child.)

has always been the most controversial aspect of abortion care. But as anti-abortion lawmakers have pushed access out of reach in many states, abortion patients have had to travel even farther to seek care. In recent years, and particularly now post-Dobbs, such travel has only increased costs and logistical hurdles while contributing to widespread delays in care and thus increased rates of later abortions. (We only skimmed the linked article, but we could find no discussion of an increase in "later abortions.")

Even with broad acceptance of abortion legalization, we can’t seem to shake off this misinformation campaign. (Will the authors actually identify this misinformation?)

It persists today, as recently as 2016, when a Republican-led Congress demanded an inquiry and report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the topic. In at least six states, anti-abortion legislators called for medically unnecessary mandatory reporting by abortion providers of cases where a living fetus was delivered—conjuring the assumption that this is a common occurrence. "Conjuring?" What does this mean? So the problem is these legislators want babies who are born alive after botched abortions to be counted, which means this rare occurrence "conjures" an idea that this happens a lot? 

How do the authors know that these are rare occurrences if they oppose counting them? Why should they not be counted? If  they are indeed rare, why all the hyperventilating against preserving these baby's lives?

So far, the authors have not explained anything. They haven't listed any myths. They haven't identified any propaganda. They haven't even explained why it is bad to require care for living babies.)

Anti-abortion advocates in several states pounced on pro-choice legislators who tried to explain the medical rarity of these situations and how a provider might respond to offer the best care possible. Anti-abortion advocates conflated abortion with infanticide time and time again, (This is the second use of the word "infanticide," both times used in contradistinction to abortion. But again the authors do not explain anything. How are abortion and infanticide different? Why is it important? How does it come to bear on the issue?)

including then-President Trump himself. (Gratuitous mention of the hated former president.)

Like the disproportionate focus on all later abortion procedures, anti-abortion advocates are magnifying an incredibly specific, yet visceral, aspect of abortion care (Again we note that a born alive child is no longer in the realm of "abortion care.")

in an effort to sow abortion stigma towards all procedures. (Well of course. People who oppose abortion will want to stigmatize abortion, just as the authors are wanting to stigmatize what they oppose. So why is it bad to stigmatize?)

According to the CDC, there have been 147 such cases between 2003 and 2014. Putting that into context, these cases comprise 0.0003 percent of all live births, 0.001 percent of all abortions, and 0.05 percent of all infant deaths during this period. (Ah, so they do want to count them. But they oppose counting them, because the number is statistically insignificant. That is, only a few babies are dying after a botched abortion, so it doesn't matter.

And the authors, spewing propaganda, are complaining about propaganda...)

According to the CDC data, 97 of the 143 documented cases involved a complication or one or more congenital anomalies experienced by the pregnant person. In these cases, it appears that labor was induced (??? Is induced labor the same thing as an abortion?)

either because the pregnant person (mother) was having a medical complication, such as severe preeclampsia or placental bleeding, or because of a severe fetal malformation. Importantly, when this happens, it is known that the fetus cannot survive long after birth, either because of the gestational age of the fetus or because of the severity of the congenital anomaly, and comfort care is typically provided until the infant dies. (So a severely deformed baby is the same thing as an otherwise healthy baby when it comes to abortion... And notice the casual admission that this is an infant dying.)

More than just perpetuating stigma, (Wait, what? Pro life efforts to change public opinion regarding abortion is stigmatization?)

“born alive” proposals harm providers and patients. (Didn't the authors just tell us how statistically insignificant these situations are? And, how are providers and patients harmed? Will the authors EVER identify a specific?)

Given that the majority of these cases took place during a pregnancy that was likely very much wanted but could not continue safely, such legislation can make a painful situation worse. Once a provider determines that a patient is pregnant with a fetus (a baby) with a condition that is believed to be incompatible with life, (Less than 1% of abortions are for fetal abnormality.)

the patient has three options: abortion, palliative care, or full neonatal resuscitation and treatment. If measures like Montana’s succeed, providers could be legally bound to attempt full neonatal resuscitation, regardless of the patient’s wishes and despite any evidence against its long-term success. (The legislation does not say this.)

In other words, rather than protecting fetuses, (Um, babies. A post-born fetus is a baby. Let's use medically accurate terminology, shall we?)

these proposals could make it harder for providers to do their jobs and for patients to make choices for themselves and their families during an already difficult time. (The authors simply repeat their assertions without explaining anything.)

While exceptionally rare, these cases provide vivid anecdotes for anti-abortion advocates, and are one piece of a broader misinformation campaign aimed to confuse and scare the public and ultimately foster public approval for banning abortion. (Wow. We are nearing the end, and have yet to discover any misinformation, confusion tactics, or myths.)

Now post-Dobbs, it’s more critical than ever to tackle abortion myths and misinformation to lessen their rhetorical power—and particularly to defang the “ick factor” of abortion that antis use to rally support. Otherwise, the public remains confused and misinformed, while stigma and myths continue to hog the spotlight.

Andréa Becker, PhD is a medical sociologist, researcher, and writer (Not a medical doctor...) 

at the University of California, San Francisco’s research program Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH). (This is an abortion advocacy group, not a medical research organization. She's essentially a propagandist.)

Dr. Daniel Grossman is a professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences (Ahh, a medical doctor, who happens to be the head of this organization. It seems that all the other staff are women, at an organization devoted to advancing a women's issue, abortion. Hmm, we wonder how they feel about that.)

at the University of California, San Francisco and director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH).