In a recent debate between California Governor Gavin Newsom and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, the topic of abortion took center stage.
As these political heavyweights discussed their approaches to governance, Newsom’s fervent pro-abortion stance came under scrutiny.
Now fact-checkers have launched on Gavin Newsom for spreading this misinformation.
While the debate ostensibly touched on the extreme exception of late-term abortions, Newsom’s defense echoed familiar but misleading narratives about the reasons behind these controversial procedures.
And pro-lifers were justifiably quick to point out the ways in which Newsom gave incorrect facts about abortion.
During the debate, Newsom dodged questions about the protections he would afford preborn children, focusing specifically on late-term abortions.
He asserted, “On the issue of the extreme exception that you highlight as it relates to the issue of later-term abortion, it’s almost always because of a fetal anomaly [or] the life of the mother.”
This narrative, often parroted by abortion advocates, paints a picture of late-term abortions as rare, necessitated primarily by severe health issues.
However, a closer examination reveals that this narrative is not only common but also blatantly false.
Citing a 1988 Guttmacher study, only 2% of women undergoing abortions did so due to fetal health problems.
A 2013 Guttmacher Institute study challenged the prevailing narrative, stating that “most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.”
Pro-abortion researcher Diana Greene Foster, as reported by the Congressional Research Service, admitted that abortions for fetal abnormalities “make up a small minority of later abortion.”
Additionally, a 2010 paper from Julia Steinberg of the pro-abortion Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health revealed that the overwhelming majority of late-term abortions occurred for reasons other than fetal anomalies.
Contrary to Newsom’s portrayal, late abortions are not typically tied to health emergencies.
In genuine health crises, induced abortion, defined as the intentional, targeted killing of a preborn child, is not medically necessary and deviates from standard care practices.
In emergency situations, doctors often resort to emergency inductions or c-sections, where, although the child may not survive, they are not subjected to a prolonged, intentional, and violent process.
This stark contrast challenges the notion that late-term abortions are solely driven by medical necessity.
A late abortion procedure, often spanning several days, raises questions about the underlying motivations, especially considering the financial incentives for abortion providers.
It is crucial to scrutinize whether these multi-day procedures genuinely serve the best interests of the patient or if they contribute to an industry driven by monetary gain.
The financial aspects surrounding late-term abortions cannot be ignored.
Newsom’s commitment to perpetuating misleading narratives may be influenced by the economic interests of abortion providers.
The extended timeline of late abortions translates into higher financial gains for abortionists, providing a potential motive for the spread of deceptive information to maintain the legality of such procedures.
As pro-lifers, it is essential to dissect the layers of misinformation surrounding late-term abortions.
By unveiling the truth, the pro-life movement can better advocate for policies that protect the sanctity of life and challenge the deceptive narratives that jeopardize the well-being of preborn children.
Newsom’s rhetoric serves as a call to action for those dedicated to defending the rights of the unborn and dismantling the myths surrounding late-term abortions.
Pro-Life Press will keep you up-to-date on any developments to this ongoing story.