On Tuesday, PBS NewsHour interviewed a pro-life activist. But that’s not the term anchor Geoff Bennett wanted to use. He began: “Lynda Bell is president of Florida Right to Life, one of the state’s largest anti-abortion groups, and she joins us now.”
Conservatives are routinely “anti”-everything. Liberals are usually “pro”-wonderful things.
Bennett warned: “Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has now signed two major abortion bans, initially one starting at 15 weeks and more recently one starting at six weeks, before most women even know that they’re pregnant.” Most? Is that right? One study quoted by NPR in 2022 asserted it was one out of five, not “most.”
The anchor pressed on: “And Donald Trump has described a six-week ban as — quote — ‘a terrible thing and a terrible mistake.’ Why can’t Republicans and anti-abortion advocates find consensus on an acceptable path forward, when overturning Roe had been a decades-long pursuit among conservatives and anti-abortion activists?”
Bell pushed back on Bennett’s repeated use of antis: “Well, we pro-lifers — we like to be called pro-lifers, rather than anti-abortion. But we are pro-life. Now, the anti-life community, they want abortion. It doesn’t matter. They don’t care. They want abortion through birth. So they want unfettered access.”
Oh, now you’ve done it! Bennett fought back: “Ms. Bell, that’s not true.”
Pro-abortion journalists need to be handed the 2020 Democrat platform, and find where they suggest any barrier they favor. They don’t:
Democrats oppose and will fight to overturn federal and state laws that create barriers to reproductive health and rights. We will repeal the Hyde Amendment, and protect and codify the right to reproductive freedom…. Democrats oppose restrictions on medication abortion care that are inconsistent with the most recent medical and scientific evidence and that do not protect public health.
Bell pointed out that the current abortion referendum on the ballot says everything it to be determined by the health-care provider:
BELL: So the health care provider, when it says viability, what that means is, it’s going to be determined by the health care provider. So abortion literally could go through birth. That is absolutely a fact.
Now, jumping into your specific question, the six-week bill provided for rape, incest, life of the mother, medical emergency, fetal anomaly. So there were very many exceptions in there for women who needed to have an abortion procedure in these very dangerous situations for them, because we’re not just pro-baby. We’re pro-woman. And we don’t want any woman to experience anything that would be dangerous for them. So we in the pro-life community, we love them both. We love both the babies and their moms.
Then Bennett asked a question that collapses upon itself:
BENNETT: Well, let me ask you this, because the data is clear that states with more abortion restrictions have higher rates of maternal and infant mortality. How are those outcomes consistent with your organization’s stated goal of protecting the sanctity of life?
BELL: Well, I don’t know that that data is absolutely correct, and so I’d love to challenge that data as well. In fact, I’m going to look into that data.
BENNETT: It’s from the Commonwealth Fund. It’s an independent research organization focused on health policy.
First of all, how much chutzpah does it take for pro-abortion journalists to cluck at pro-lifers about infant mortality? Aren’t they for the right to choose infant mortality?
Second, when a journalist calls something an “independent research organization,” don’t bet on it. Their mission statement proclaims in its DEI section: “The Commonwealth Fund has made a commitment to become an antiracist organization.” In its 2022 study, The Commonwealth Fund cites pro-abortion researchers and repeats pro-abortion terms, just like PBS. Expand below:
Introduction
In anticipation of a U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, a number of states passed “trigger laws” that would ban all, or nearly all, abortions once national abortion protections ended. In the months since the Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in June 2022, several of these states have in fact banned abortion in most instances. Other states have enacted bans or severe restrictions since then, and others may do so in the coming months or years…
For our analysis, we compared health status and health care resources in the 26 states that the [pro-abortion] Guttmacher Institute has identified as having “restrictive,” “very restrictive,” or “most restrictive” policies on abortion — which we refer to as “abortion-restriction states” — to those in the 24 “abortion-access states” that, along with the District of Columbia, have not instituted bans or new restrictions on abortion….
Conclusion
Compared with their counterparts in other states, women of reproductive age and birthing people in states with current or proposed abortion bans have more limited access to affordable health insurance coverage, worse health outcomes, and lower access to maternity care providers. Making abortion illegal risks widening these disparities, as states with already limited Medicaid maternity coverage and fewer maternity care resources lose providers who are reluctant to practice in states that they perceive as restricting their practice. The result is a deepening of fractures in the maternal health system and a compounding of inequities by race, ethnicity, and geography….
Increased federal funding for reproductive health care, family planning, maternity care, and care delivery system transformations also could mitigate the impact of the Dobbs decision and state abortion bans on people’s lives. State, congressional, and executive branch actions are all needed to protect the health of women and birthing people and ensure optimal and equitable outcomes for mothers and infants.