When abortion is not a choice
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
Charles Reichley
Published: June 18, 2008
I oppose abortion, because taking the innocent life of an unborn child is wrong, and inconsistent with the respect for life embodied in the foundations of our country. One look at an ultrasound reveals the
human qualities of the unborn. I was reminded of this when I saw the fetuses with their tiny hands and feet presented at the recent “Bodies” exhibit crossing the country.
But news stories reveal other disturbing aspects of the culture of abortion, that should give even pro-choice advocates pause to reflect on the dangers of encouraging infanticide as a lifestyle choice.
In the spring of 2007, a 16-year-old girl got pregnant with her 16-year-old boyfriend. It seems the girl decided she’d have the baby. But Cindi Cook, the mother of the boy, had other ideas. Cindi thought
having a child would interfere with her son’s plans for college. So, she pressured the girl into having an abortion.
Now, Georgia has a parental consent law, which some pro-choice advocates oppose as unnecessarily restrictive. So Cindi pretended to be the girl’s mother, and paid for the girl’s abortion at the Northside
Women’s Clinic in Chamblee, Georgia. Cindi is now serving a year in prison, and the girl is coping with the loss of the child she wanted.
If abortion was illegal, there would be little chance a woman like Cindi could force a girl to get an abortion or find a doctor to perform the procedure. But some women are pressured into having abortions by
their own parents, the fathers and their friends and peers — pressure that exists at least partly because the procedure is legal, acceptable, and even encouraged.
Manon Jones was an 18-year-old girl living in England with her Muslim boyfriend Naeem Muzzafar. She got pregnant, and was looking forward to having the child. But an out-of-marriage birth would “bring
shame” to her boyfriend’s parents, because of their faith. It was an agonizing decision, but in the end her love for Naeem, and fear of losing him, drove her to an abortion in June of 2005.
Two weeks later, she was dead of complications from the procedure, a victim of her choice to kill her child and the pressure of the acceptability and legality of the procedure. We talk about the “woman’s
right to choose,” but some women don’t really get much of a choice.
In other areas, our laws recognize the problem of women, and especially younger girls, being pressured into actions against their best judgment. We have statutory rape laws because we know that older
men can talk younger girls into sex that isn’t “consensual” — but we then allow those men to talk those same girls into abortion. And places like Planned Parenthood are alleged to have protected some
men by hiding records and violating reporting procedures.
And we have support groups for women in abusive relationships. But if those same women show up for an abortion, we assume they have “chosen” when it’s just as likely the same abusive man who has
violated the woman has forced her to “choose” to take the life of her child.
Now, the fact that some women are forced or coerced into abortions is not by itself a reason to ban abortions. But most pro-choice advocates claim they oppose abortion and wish nobody ever needed
one. So when women are having abortions against their will, or their better judgment, you would think we could at least agree to enact laws to help protect women from this pressure. Like strengthened
parental notification laws, counseling to ensure women are making a free choice and informed consent laws.
But instead, the big push is for something called the “Freedom of Choice Act” — a law that will eliminate every single state and federal law currently regulating abortion, including parental notification,
counseling, and informed consent laws, as well as the law against partial birth abortions.
Barack Obama supports FOCA, which isn’t surprising because as a state legislator, he even opposed a law to protect already born babies from being killed. He argued that even though the baby was
alive and breathing, it still couldn’t be a “person” because the mother wanted the baby dead.
Gianna Jessen is one such baby. Her mother had a saline abortion 31 years ago, but the procedure “failed,” and she was born alive. Fortunately, her abortionist wasn’t in the room, and the nurse called
an ambulance. She won’t be voting for Obama.
Charles Reichley has been a Prince William County resident since 1981. He can be reached at critically .
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.

Reader Reactions
Posted by ( RonCharest ) on June 23, 2008 at 11:02 am
Barnun,
You continue to equate a woman’s right to obtain sound medical advice, and ability to obtain medical care, unencumbered with lawyers, police, judges, news media, and hordes of screaming lunatics waving signs, with protecting rapists. Why?
If the laws currently on the books protect rapists then let’s have the discussion on how best to deal with predators who prey on children, which still protecting the privacy rights of those children.
Dealing with predators in a way that respects the privacy of children victims is different than the issue of whether a woman has the legal right to control her body. You insist on linking the two issues. Why?
I’ll agree that fatehr’s have rights and should have a say-so in the birth of their child. But I again see this as an issue aside from a woman’s right to control her own body. If you want a discussion on this issue, we can have that. But again, this is an issue different than a woman’s right to obtain sound medical advice, and ability to obtain medical care, unencumbered with lawyers, police, judges, news media, and hordes of screaming lunatics waving signs.
So once again, I ask you:
“How can you oppose abortion on the basis of an unborn child’s “Right to Life,” but support our war in Iraq which has taken the lives of an estimated tens of thousands of pregnant women along with their unborn children?”
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Grant Gary Jacobsen ) on June 20, 2008 at 3:06 pm
We need to be clear on our facts. The “morning after” pill, also called Plan B, is not an abortifacient. Never was.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( RonCharest ) on June 20, 2008 at 10:10 am
You have a good point, Sammy B About expanding the use of contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
This administration, which is so opposed to abortion, has also restricted the availibility of sex-education that teaches anything other than abstinence, which has now resulted in higher levels of unwanted teen pregnancies and STDs. Some Conservatives governments at the state and local levels, are now beginning to limit the availability of birth-control pills under various regulations and laws.
In my opinion, the Conservatives push to ban abortion, exhibited by Mr. Reichley, is not about saving innocent lives. It’s about controlling who and how people enjoy sex.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( barnun ) on June 20, 2008 at 9:09 am
Ron, I dont beleive my reply was howls of outrage. Your statement was an effort to avoid my standing questions to you. you like to also avoid the facts that current abortion laws will protect a rapist, whether that is a gym teacher, the neighbor, an uncle, step father etc. you take the most extreme stance on this subject to the far left wanting unlimited termination at will taking nothing else into consideration. Again, you dont believe in equal rights with this subject. you also choose to dispute any printed articles that do not agree with your extreme point of veiw. Just because I only took the time to offer one link to one article by no means insinuates that was the one and only such case. for some reason you seem bent on protecting child predators within your extreme veiws and I just dont understand that from you, planned parenthood or anyone else.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/may/07051504.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200705/CUL20070516a.html
http://www.childpredators.com/
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Sammy B ) on June 19, 2008 at 8:26 pm
To be fair though, I agree with Mr. Reichley that a live-born infant should be kept alive. Of course, since laws restricting late-term abortions have been upheld, this should not be a frequent concern.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Sammy B ) on June 19, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Mr. Reichley criticizes the system of legal abortion for occasionally allowing mild to severe coercion of pregnant women while supporting an alternative which would coerce 100% of women. It is a pity that he chose this illogical argument when there are a few perfectly logical ones to support his views. I actually do have serious doubts about the morality of legal abortion, but rhetoric like this just plants me all the more firmly on the fence.
Honestly, I would find it so refreshing if a columnist, instead of just waving a pro or anti banner, would decry the fact that there are so many unintentional pregnancies in this country to begin with given the easy availability of contraception and suggest a solution. Getting people to just take the pill, use condoms or, preferably, both would be such a better fix for the abortion problem than simply telling women no.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( RonCharest ) on June 19, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Barnun,
Once again, your answer to my simple question:
“How can you oppose abortion on the basis of an unborn child’s “Right to Life,” but support our war in Iraq which has taken the lives of an estimated tens of thousands of pregnant women along with their unborn children?“
Is to reply with howls of outrage and insults.
As far as the Panned Parenthood case, the state attorney general who was/is attempting to gain access to their medical records was a Republican appointee and extreme opponent of any reproductive choice including (if I remember the case correctly) even to the point of opposing women’s ability to have access to birth-control pills. I’ll let you verify that if you want to.
What interests me is the hypocrascy of Conservatives demanding that the medical records of 14 year old girls should be made public information, but the medical records of a suspected prescription drug abuser such as Rush Limbaugh should be kept private from state prosecutors who already had probable cause to investigate.
Note: The ACLU backed both Limbaugh and Planned Parenthood on the issue of public access to medical records, showing once again that Liberals follow consistent philosophies and principles even when it works against their own interests.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( barnun ) on June 19, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Ron, that is a huge twist of words and facts. I could ask you this question. How can you support abortion and yet feel murder, taking the life of another, is a crime. How can you support abortion and yet oppose the war ? How can you support abortion and yet think the Va tech shooter is a criminal ?
Planned parenthood acts within the gray area’s of the law. The states attorney general was in dispute with them, not some local pro life group. I’ve offered concessions on this issue. first trimester only abortions. I think a woman should know by then whether she was raped. A national registry, the women have a right to 1 uncontested abortion. After that we the children their rights. The morning after pill to be taken in the presence of a Dr and this does not count as the 1 registered abortion. If women have the right to an abortion then men have the right to pay the cost of an abortion and walk away, whether the woman has it or not. Beyond the one, any woman should have the right to an abortion if the doctors feel she could not physically survive pregnancy. rare, but it can happen. Dna testing for all under age girls to make sure they were not raped, protecting the girls not the rapist.
But you don’t want or beleive in equal rights
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Grant Gary Jacobsen ) on June 19, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Nothing new here. Interestingly, LOTS of middle-aged men think they are smarter than doctors and have higher morals than female patients. Anecdotal stories to the contrary, first-trimester abortions are safer than going to term with a pregnancy.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( RonCharest ) on June 19, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Nice Try Barnun,
But after reading the article you kindly linked to, all I get is that Planned Parenthood is using all LEGAL means at it’s disposal to not be forced into releasing what Planned Parenthood considers confidential medical records that may or may not even have anything to do with abortions.
Reichley’s statement was:
“And places like Planned Parenthood are alleged to have protected some
men by hiding records and violating reporting procedures.”
Which is obviously intended to mean “Planned Parenthood is ILLEGALLY supressing information that should under law be made available to the public.“
Big Difference Barnun. But feel free to send me another link. It’s apparent Mr. Reichley has no intention of backing up his statements with references.
I’m still waiting for you to give me a coherent explanation as to how you can oppose abortion on the basis of an unborn child’s “Right to Life,“ but support our war in Iraq which has taken the lives of an estimated tens of thousands of pregnant women (along with their unborn children). Bonus points if you can get Mr Reichley to also explain this, as he’s another big proponent of our war on Iraq.
Report Inappropriate Comment