Whose “rights” does Geri Jenson want to protect – all women, or just those choosing abortions? She claims that existing legislation requires specific misleading statements (written by politicians or medically uniformed people) to be presented to a woman desiring an abortion, and, that you should support the lawsuit which removes this law.
The following is from a publication entitled “If You Are Pregnant: Information on fetal development, abortion and alternatives-2019” written by Minnesota Department of Health!
Your legal rights (if you chose to use them) … (information) must be provided to you by the abortion physician or his/ her agent at least 24 hours prior to the abortion (which includes) potential medical risks associated with carrying the fetus to term, or associated with the abortion procedure. In a medical emergency to avert the death of the woman or save the woman from substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function, the abortion can be done without any delay.
Abortions performed during the first eight weeks have less than 2.5 percent minor and 0.5 percent serious complications, while the complication rate for first trimester non-surgical abortion (RU-486) is 5 percent (four times the complication rate of aspiration abortion i.e. suction).
The complications associated with abortion increases with advancing gestational age for as Pelvic Infection (Sepsis), Incomplete Abortion, Blood Clots in the Uterus, Heavy Bleeding (Hemorrhage), Cut or Torn Cervix, Perforation of the Uterus Wall, Anesthesia-Related Complications; (and finally future) Premature Birth: Increased risk of premature birth has been shown to be associated with abortion. Premature babies (“preemies”) have higher risk of death in their first year of life and raised risk of autism, cerebral palsy, deafness, blindness, and cognitive impairments (developmental disability).
In 2018, 20 percent of the women desiring an abortion, after reading all the information in the above publication CHOSE not to have their babies aborted by Planned Parenthood. These Mothers-To-Be made a choice for the brothers and sisters who would follow her first-born, that all her children would be as healthy as she could make herself and them. Like the women who chose not to be mothers, do not take away the laws, which lets women choose motherhood.
My research finds no support for Geri’s claims of “specific misleading statements” … “written by politicians or medically uniformed people. I find it hard to believe she is referring to the above MDH documents. The lawsuit brought by two unnamed women and the counsels for the Lawyering Project alleges that “medical providers and their patients had been injured by the laws” (making) “it harder for a provider to provide and abortion and for a woman to access care,” and “the fact (unsubstantiated) is that these laws are unconstitutional and they are harming all Minnesotans!”
Minnesota Solicitor General Liz Kramer argues that the groups don’t have the standing to bring the case as they couldn’t clearly illustrate the harm the laws had caused to the groups.” The proposition that the plaintiffs are asking the court to accept is that anyone with a really strong interest or passion in a big topic like abortion can come forward and challenge any statutes that touch on that topic.
In 2018, 20 percent of the women desiring an abortion, read all the information in the above MDH publication and CHOSE not to have their babies aborted by Planned Parenthood. These Mothers-To-Be made a choice for the brothers and sisters who would follow her first-born, that all her children would be as healthy as she could make herself and them. Like the women who chose not be mothers, do not take away the support, which lets women choose motherhood.
Chuck Flickinger
Hovland
Leave a Reply