News reports on the treatment of the recently deceased Joan Rivers and her original physician’s hospital privileges have attracted the attention of pro-life commentators. Rivers’ family is looking at a possible lawsuit due to what some describe as a botched procedure that left the entertainer in extremely critical condition, ultimately resulting in her death.
Some in the pro-life movement have pointed out that the Rivers case suggests yet another reason why abortionists should have hospital admitting privileges or else be denied the opportunity to practice their craft. At the same time, the record is clear that judges do not agree and persist in striking down such requirements.
But what is really at stake in these discussions is sometimes not at all clear. So let’s review the basic facts in the Rivers case and then compare them to the case of the botched abortion.
Rivers was having a routine outpatient surgical procedure done on her vocal cords when she stopped breathing and went into cardiac arrest. She was immediately rushed to a hospital in New York City. Rivers chose to have the procedure done, and one must assume that her physician made her aware of possible risks.
In the case of a botched abortion, there are many extenuating circumstances, depending on the case, but there is one overriding fact that remains a constant in all such cases. The expectant mother has entered into an agreement with a physician—an abortionist—who makes his money killing children.
In America, the law protects the practice of aborting children. Some in the pro-life movement argue that, because of this, every state should have requirements that those who perform such acts have hospital privileges in the case of an emergency. Yet the fact remains that the act of abortion is unethical and, therefore, a violation of the natural law. It is nonsense to argue that those who perform such acts will themselves behave in an ethical manner—a reason why so many “legal” abortions wind up being “botched” abortions. All one needs to do is review the record to see the folly in expecting an unethical practice in the one sense to equate with good medical ethics in another sense.
This is why American Life League’s Jim Sedlak, among others, has provided insights on where the pro-life movement is going awry when it argues for the passage of laws requiring hospital privileges for such butchers:
While pro-lifers get caught up in trying to argue for these kinds of laws, statements are made that you would never expect from a pro-life person. In fact, after the Alabama decision, one pro-life leader, who is one of the strongest fighters for life in the country, actually argued that these laws are needed to protect women who are choosing to have an abortion.
This has brought us a long way from the days when it was clearly recognized that the energies of the pro-life movement were focused on saving the baby, praying for the woman, and finding a way to show women that abortion was not her only solution to her perceived problems.
Indeed, many in the pro-life movement are easily diverted from the goal when statements like those of NBC’s Dr. Nancy Snyderman—regarding the Rivers case—resound with pro-life leaders as providing yet another argument in favor of laws requiring hospital privileges for abortionists.
Let’s take a reality check! Abortion is wrong. The victims are innocent children, and it is our obligation to be their voice. Let us fight to protect each individual preborn child, no matter his stage of biological development. When we succeed, the practitioners of mayhem and death will be out of business for good.
That is the goal.