Several years ago, the Journal of Medical Ethics published an article in which the authors argued in favor of what they oxymoronically called “after-birth abortions,” also known as infanticide.
The article led to an outpouring of revulsion and disgust, so much so that the editors of the journal were forced to offer a justification for publishing it. The editors did not necessarily agree with the authors’ support of post-abortion infanticide; instead, they acted in support of free inquiry and rational thought.
But what might have been a rather grisly thought experiment then is becoming a grisly reality today. Babies who are fully born survivors of late-term abortions are left to die — the CDC reported at least 143 babies between 2003 and 2014 were born alive and subsequently died after an attempted abortion — and new laws are being proposed and passed sanctioning such infanticide.
Those who favor removing virtually all restrictions on late-term abortions most usually justify their position by claiming most of these abortions take place only in cases of severe fetal abnormalities or to protect the life of the mother. However, several studies have shown otherwise. A 2013 study published by the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute found that “most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.”
It is unbelievable that we are discussing the question of whether to resuscitate a viable baby no matter how he or she is born. In all my 32 years of being a childbirth educator and a maternity nurse it has never been a question. What has changed to make it a question now?
Some bring up the need for a late-term abortion to save the mother’s life. This has never been a medically indicated need in all my years of practice. In those very rare cases when the pregnancy becomes a threat to the mother’s life, what is necessary is to separate the child from the mother, not to kill the child. Once the child is delivered, he or she should then be given the appropriate medical care — including end-of-life care for those children born with severe abnormalities that may soon lead to death.
Yet all too often, children who survive a late-term abortion — what one doctor decades ago dubbed the “dreaded complication” — are instead left to die. One survivor of a late-term abortion told Congress she was intended to be left to die in a bucket of formaldehyde. Tragically, many other such examples of aiding or allowing survivors of late-term abortions to die can be given.
Moreover, legislation is progressing in some states to remove what little protections exist for children targeted by late-term abortions. New York recently passed a law repealing protections for children born alive during an abortion procedure. A proposed law expanding late-term abortion failed in Virginia, but not before the bill’s chief sponsor admitted that it allows abortion up to the point of labor and delivery, even if the sole reason for choosing the abortion was for the mother’s mental health.
This is why I urge Sens. Susan Collins and Angus King to vote for the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (S. 311), which is expected to come before the Senate on Feb. 25. A newborn baby who survives an abortion is just that: a new human life as fully deserving of resuscitation, proper medical care and the law’s protection as any other newborn baby.
Regardless of how a viable baby enters this world, not giving the boy or girl any care is still infanticide.
Janice Wood, R.N., is a retired nurse. She worked at Miles Memorial Hospital in Damariscotta for over 30 years focusing on obstetric, childbirth education and lactation consulting.