How much different this article would have looked had it been fair and balanced.
And had it crazily only included thoughts from life affirming organizations and spokespersons? I can already hear the accusations of right wing ideological spin.
But the article ABC posted yesterday entitled, “Immigrants lured to cheap, do-it-yourself abortion,” was 1) totally misleading; 2) misplaced blame; 3) seriously mashed terms; and 4) led with a fraudulent sob story.
ABC reporter Susan Donaldson James wrote a truly shoddy piece and should be ashamed of herself, although I’m sure she’s not. About numbers 1, 3, and 4, from the article:
Kelly, a part-time hairdresser from Atlanta, took 5 little white pills at 7 a.m. and will take 5 more before her 6-week-old fetus is completely aborted.
“I am going through this as we speak,” said Kelly, who did not want her last name used. “What I read about it was really scary. I didn’t sleep at all last night, I was so anxious.”
At first, the cramping pain and bleeding was "like a bad period" - but later "it got worse" and even the painkiller hydrocodone didn't help.
But Kelly could deal with the emotional event in the privacy of her own home and at about half the cost of a surgical abortion.
Kelly induced a miscarriage with misoprostol, sold under the brand name Cytotec, an FDA-approved drug for treating stomach ulcers....
Safe and effective, the drug is used globally to prevent women from post-partum hemorrhaging and is widely prescribed in combination with RU-486 in the US to induce miscarriage.
But for some low-income women, misoprostol has become a do-it-yourself abortion tool.
That wasn't the case with Kelly. An ultrasound revealed her fetus had no heartbeat and she would eventually miscarry. But like many women, she elected a medical rather than a surgical procedure because it was cheaper and carried a lower out-of-pocket cost -- about $20 for the prescription.
Kelly is under the care of a doctor, but many women, particularly immigrants, are uninsured or don't have access to health care, and end up in emergency rooms or without professional care when things go wrong.
How confused and misleading! Kelly wasn't undergoing an induced abortion, which is defined as such if the baby has a heartbeat when the procedure is initiated. Kelly was medically inducing a miscarriage (not mentioned until the 7th paragraph). Her baby had died naturally. Furthermore, Kelly was under a doctor's care (not mentioned until the 8th paragraph).
Donaldson James also engaged engaged in opposite-world terminology. The one time in her story to this point the term "abortion" would have been appropriate was when describing the use of Cytotec for the 2nd half of the RU-486 abortion cocktail. But then D-J called it "induc[ing] miscarriage."
And if Cytotec abortions are so "safe and effective," why did D-J get so dramatic with descriptions of pain and fear and secrecy - of a mother given a prescription by her physician to complete a miscarriage? I'm confident that had D-J's intended spin been to promote a legal RU-486 abortion obtained through Planned Parenthood she would have nixed any drama and conveyed only happiness and relief.
Actually, I don't understand the point of this story. In large part it was written to promote public funded abortions in healthcare:
Health experts say illicit use of the drug underscores the barriers that many women face when trying to access reproductive care, particularly immigrants and women of color.
They worry that the amendment in the passage of the new health care law to ban the use of federal funds in Medicaid and insurance exchanges for abortion could further marginalize women's access to reproductive care.
"What the amendment does is if you are poor, you cannot get an abortion," said Jessica-Gonzalez-Rojas, deputy director of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health. "Wealthy women can pay out of pocket and have access to clinics and services."
But that's the way it has always been. Rich women have always had access to abortion. Legalizing abortion in 1973 was supposed to erase the access barrier between wealthy and poor. Furthermore, most abortion mills are located in poor and minority areas. What more do they want? Oh yes, for us to pay for them. But why now the urgency? The federal government hasn't subsidized elective abortions for 34 years, since the Hyde Amendment was enacted.
But I digress. As I said, I don't understand the point of this story, because it concludes with ominous concerns about making abortion illegal again:
"There is a perception that Latinas are not pro choice, and many women we work with have different feelings about abortion, but we all agree about access," said Jessica Gonzales-Roja. "It shouldn't be restricted. We have all seen friends die in underground abortions. We know the reality of what happens when abortions are not legal."
What the heck? And another kicker? The mother whose baby tragically died of natural causes at the beginning of the story, Kelly, doesn't support taxpayer funding of abortion:
Kelly understands the prohibitive cost of abortion, but supports restrictions on federal funding.
"A woman can choose to do what she wants, but it's up to her to pay for it," she said. "It's not up to insurance or Obama care. It's not the government's responsibility. I stand 100% for choice, but not with my tax dollars."
D-J never mentions whether Kelly has insurance, but I'm betting she does.
And about my #2 complaint about this article, "misplaced blame," whose fault and responsibility is it when a woman gets pregnant? I thought comprehensive sex ed and wanton, free access to birth control was supposed to stop that?
Finally, all those "experts" quoted in the story? Every single one promotes or commits abortion. In order of appearance:
