March 29, 2021 abortion / politics / pro-life 0 Comment

On March 16th, I wrote a “Letter to the Editor” in response to an article printed in the Herald Tribune. The article was written by Abortion provider, Dr. Sujatha Prabhakaran, identified by the editor as a “Guest Columnist.” The article was entitled: “Pregnant women need compassion, not cruel laws.” It was dated 02/21/21. Here is a link to the article: ARTICLE LINK.

My reply was printed in the newspaper on Thursday, March 18th. It was an edited version in keeping with their 200 word limit. Much of the impact of the article was diluted by editing my 800+ words down to 200, so I am reprinting my original reply here for all to read: Would love to know your thoughts on the matter.

To: Roger Brown, Opinions Editor                                                                              March 14, 2021
Herald Tribune

From: Julianne Weinmann, Nokomis, FL

In the Herald Tribune’s “Your Turn” editorial published on February 21 of this year, “compassionate” abortionist, Dr. Sujatha Prabhakaran says she uses knowledge and compassion, not politics, to guide her patient in decisions about abortion.

In truth, her position demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the proposed laws, and a lack of understanding of a mother’s love for her child and the grief process, as well as a lack of knowledge of the available in utero treatments, including surgery, to help babies with birth defects survive birth and thrive in life.

Perhaps this “compassionate” abortionist does not realize she may be using emotionally loaded terms like “compassion” and adjectives like “cruel” to characterize the proposed laws, to push her own political agenda – to preserve her right and the right of corporate goliaths like Planned Parenthood to continue to perform abortions, their most lucrative area of practice, without constraint from those who wish to protect the rights of the unborn.

First let us look at the proposed legislation: Senate Bill 744 and House Bill 351. What and who do they protect? Both bills are written to protect the right of a ”pain-capable” unborn child from abortion – UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. Maybe the “compassionate” abortionist fears that within this bill, there are facts that will engender compassion for the unborn.  Like this fact:

  • “Pain receptors are present throughout an unborn child’s entire body no later than 16 weeks probable gestational  age, and nerves link these receptors to the brain’s thalamus and subcortical plate by no later than 20 weeks probable gestational age, …”

and this fact:

  • “…an unborn child reacts to touch by 8 weeks  probable gestational age, and by 20 weeks probable gestational age, an unborn  child reacts to stimuli that would be recognized as painful if  applied to an adult human, by recoiling or exhibiting other avoidance responses.”

Huh! If they read the text of this proposed legislation, the public in general and expectant moms may start thinking their fetus is a human baby capable of feeling pain!  Where is the compassion for the most vulnerable among us, the unborn, who receive the brunt of the physical suffering of an abortion?

And what about true compassion for the mom?  Peer reviewed studies have shown that abortion is consistently associated with elevated rates of mental illness, compared to women who have not had abortions. And in cases where the fetus died in utero, or died shortly after birth, OB GYN nurses have reported that mothers who are able to hold their babies, love them and grieve their deaths, receive a considerable amount of comfort from this grieving process, while those who undergo an abortion are forced to live with the knowledge that their baby was deliberately aborted and they never got the chance to see and hold the child to say “goodbye.”

Here are a few more doses of “knowledge,” not politics, for the “compassionate” abortionist:
Just 3% of all abortions in the United States are performed for fetal health problems and physical health reasons. The largest percentage of abortions are performed for reasons of the mother’s convenience, career, finances or preferences.

More than 60 million “legal” abortions are performed in the U.S. since 1973, and in 2018, there were 70,083 abortions reported in Florida according to Guttmacher Institute and CDC stats.

So, I ask the “compassionate” abortionist, why does she focus her objection to the proposed bills on the 3% as opposed to citing examples that may relate to the most common reasons for abortions?

Let me end with this.  Who should decide whether someone lives or dies in a mother’s womb?  This “compassionate” abortionist wants to decide. 

But is she ignoring some of the scientific “knowledge” on fetal defects and conditions?  Does she know that not all cases of skeletal dysplasia are fatal? In some cases, fetal surgery can help reverse the effect of pulmonary hypoplasia while the baby is developing in the womb.

Skeletal dysplasia, often known as “dwarfism,” has afflicted some of the most famous people in the world like Peter Dinklage from Game of Thrones and Warwick Davis of Willow, and Harry Earles, famous for his performance in the Wizard of Oz.  What other birth defects would this “compassionate” abortionist want to use as a qualification for abortion? Maybe micro cleft? Famous actor Joaquin Phoenix was born with that.  And how about those born without limbs due to a condition known as fibular hemimelia?  Double amputee, Olympic runner Oscar Pistorius, born with fibular hemimelia, set world records in Paralymics!

MLB pitcher Jim Abbott was born without a right hand and won a gold medal in the 1988 Summer Olympics! One-handed NFL Seattle Seahawks Shoquem Griffin was born with amniotic band syndrome!

Which of these amazing people would the “compassionate” abortionist have decided to terminate in the womb?

Compassion is a wonderful emotion, and when a woman is pregnant with a baby, the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and COMPASSION are deserved by both people involved, not just the stronger one.