Representative Joe Walsh, after his recent statement that abortions are never medically necessary, has supposedly "backtracked." I'm not so sure.
Read his "backtrack" (from CBS News):
In the second paragraph, Representative Walsh acknowledges that pregnancies may be life-threatening, but that doctors should work to save "BOTH" mother and unborn child.
Okay, but what happens if doctors have to make a choice between one or the other? Well, according to his statement in the first paragraph, abortion "is not necessary to save the life of the mother." He seems to suggest that this dilemma is factually impossible-- it does not occur.
But wait a minute-- here comes the third paragraph of his statement: "I do of course support medical procedures for women during their pregnancies that might result in the loss of the unborn child."
Did you get that? While abortions are never medically necessary, there are apparently other "medical procedures" that might in fact be necessary to save the mother that might incidentally kill the unborn child. In these cases, a woman and her doctor should have the discretion to determine whether to undergo the potentially life-saving medical procedure.
Regarding this special category of other medical procedures, is not clear what Representative Walsh is talking about. Is he talking about medical procedures that do not save a pregnant woman's life by terminating her pregnancy, but, in attempting to address the mother's condition, accidentally put the life of the fetus at risk? Or is he talking about abortion-- in other words, abortion is okay when it is done only as a means to save the mother's life, rather than as an end in itself (so that abortion is done, but, in purpose, is incidental to the primary purpose of saving the mother's life)?
I don't think it can be the latter, because of Walsh's reiteration that (apart from ectopic pregnancies) abortion is never medically necessary. Therefore, it has to be the former-- medical procedures that do not save the mother's life by killing the fetus but, in execution, accidentally kill the fetus anyway.
If that is the case: I don't know enough about medicine to know if this is a valid-- and very subtle-- distinction, or if this is just doubletalk.
Factually, I think doctors will disagree with the assertion that ending a pregnancy by terminating the pregnancy is never the best method by which to preserve the life of the mother. A recent article in USA Today seems to confirm this. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) does not agree with Representative Walsh, either.
Regardless, what is clear-- after reading Representative Walsh's statement-- is that he did not in fact backtrack on his statement, apart from ectopic pregnancies. News outlets like CBS that report that he backtracked on his statement are allowing him to avoid being held accountable for what I think is a very dubious assertion.
Links:
CBS News: Walsh backtracks: Abortion to save a mother's life is up to her
USA Today article on the medical necessity of abortion (October 19, 2012): Doctors say abortions do sometimes save women's lives
UPDATE: Article from Politico that provides a link to a Walsh-created pdf document of a list of quotes from medical professionals that suggests that abortions are in fact never medically necessary: Walsh walks back abortion comments-- a bit
Read his "backtrack" (from CBS News):
"When it comes to having an abortion to save the life of a mother, I will say again that, outside of the very rare circumstances such as ectopic pregnancies, during which both the mother and baby will die if the baby is not aborted, and other rare health issues, the research is pretty clear that with the advances in modern medicine, an invasive and traumatic procedure like an abortion is not necessary to save the life of a mother.
"In those very rare cases where a mother's life may be in danger past the point of viability for the baby, today's doctors work to induce labor or perform a caesarean section in an attempt to save BOTH lives," the statement continued. "These cases are extremely rare, and they unfortunately are used by the militant pro-choice movement to justify every single abortion.
Does that sound like a backtrack to you? In the first paragraph, he corrects himself when it comes to ectopic pregnancies, but otherwise essentially repeats his primary and controversial assertion: "an invasive and traumatic procedure like an abortion is not necessary to save the life of the mother."
"...While, I do not support abortion, I do of course support medical procedures for women during their pregnancies that might result in the loss of the unborn child. When such an occurrence takes place, that decision on whether to perform that procedure is a very difficult one and one that should be left up to the mother and her family."
In the second paragraph, Representative Walsh acknowledges that pregnancies may be life-threatening, but that doctors should work to save "BOTH" mother and unborn child.
Okay, but what happens if doctors have to make a choice between one or the other? Well, according to his statement in the first paragraph, abortion "is not necessary to save the life of the mother." He seems to suggest that this dilemma is factually impossible-- it does not occur.
But wait a minute-- here comes the third paragraph of his statement: "I do of course support medical procedures for women during their pregnancies that might result in the loss of the unborn child."
Did you get that? While abortions are never medically necessary, there are apparently other "medical procedures" that might in fact be necessary to save the mother that might incidentally kill the unborn child. In these cases, a woman and her doctor should have the discretion to determine whether to undergo the potentially life-saving medical procedure.
Regarding this special category of other medical procedures, is not clear what Representative Walsh is talking about. Is he talking about medical procedures that do not save a pregnant woman's life by terminating her pregnancy, but, in attempting to address the mother's condition, accidentally put the life of the fetus at risk? Or is he talking about abortion-- in other words, abortion is okay when it is done only as a means to save the mother's life, rather than as an end in itself (so that abortion is done, but, in purpose, is incidental to the primary purpose of saving the mother's life)?
I don't think it can be the latter, because of Walsh's reiteration that (apart from ectopic pregnancies) abortion is never medically necessary. Therefore, it has to be the former-- medical procedures that do not save the mother's life by killing the fetus but, in execution, accidentally kill the fetus anyway.
If that is the case: I don't know enough about medicine to know if this is a valid-- and very subtle-- distinction, or if this is just doubletalk.
Factually, I think doctors will disagree with the assertion that ending a pregnancy by terminating the pregnancy is never the best method by which to preserve the life of the mother. A recent article in USA Today seems to confirm this. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) does not agree with Representative Walsh, either.
Regardless, what is clear-- after reading Representative Walsh's statement-- is that he did not in fact backtrack on his statement, apart from ectopic pregnancies. News outlets like CBS that report that he backtracked on his statement are allowing him to avoid being held accountable for what I think is a very dubious assertion.
Links:
CBS News: Walsh backtracks: Abortion to save a mother's life is up to her
USA Today article on the medical necessity of abortion (October 19, 2012): Doctors say abortions do sometimes save women's lives
UPDATE: Article from Politico that provides a link to a Walsh-created pdf document of a list of quotes from medical professionals that suggests that abortions are in fact never medically necessary: Walsh walks back abortion comments-- a bit
Comments