Consider the recently reported case of a pregnant 17-year-old in Louisiana who wanted to keep her baby. Lamentably, the teen’s mother wanted her to have an abortion. Now, whose choice should hold sway in a “my body, my choice” world? The answer should be clear, if one is actually pro-choice.
Louisiana has an almost total ban on abortion, so the teen’s mother contacted a New York physician, Dr. Margaret Carpenter, in order to secure a prescription for an abortion drug. The doctor mailed the drug to the woman on the basis of a mere questionnaire—no direct consultation. The mother then forced the teen to take the pills, killing the baby.
West Baton Rouge District Attorney, Tony Clayton, charged the teen’s mother with criminal abortion. The NY doctor faces the same charge, but has yet to be extradicted because New York governor Kathy Hochul refuses to send her to Louisiana.
Why would the NY governor refuse extradition? “I will never under any circumstances turn this doctor over to the state of Louisiana under any extradition request. I will do everything I can to protect this doctor and allow her to continue the work that she’s doing that is so essential,” said Hochul.
This quote demonstrates that, at least for Hochul, choice isn't essential; abortion is. She says it explicitly: “I will do everything I can to…allow her to continue the work that she’s doing that is so essential.” If choice were essential, Hochul would do everything to make sure that the person carrying a baby had the ability to decide whether or not to kill the baby. It would make sense then to extradite Carpenter to face the charges and let the argument be made in court whether she contributed to violation of that choice…if choice is the real essential element.
But Hochul’s refusal to extradite, and more importantly her reason for doing so, show that abortion itself is Hochul’s treasured ideal. Carpenter’s ability to go on prescribing abortion pills across statelines to whoever wants them is what must be protected, not choice.
Pro-choice? No, clearly pro-abortion.
Similarly, Carpenter is the co-founder of an organization dedicated to providing abortion drugs to states that jeopardize “women’s access to reproductive healthcare.” There’s that newer phrase again: reproductive healthcare. What is on the reproductive healthcare menu at this organization? Just abortion pills. Therefore, Carpenter is not adamant about reproduction, but destroying it.
In the case at hand, Carpenter had a patient who was quite keen on reproducing, yet Carpenter sent her an abortion drug. Whether Carpenter knew the desire of the teen or not is beside the point, in my view. The point is that Carpenter paints herself as a reproductive caregiver who does not help people have babies…she helps people kill them. She doesn’t mail fertility drugs across statelines. She mails pills that kill babies. Every prescription eventuates in death. And she calls it “healthcare.”
Reproductive healthcare? No, pregnancy destruction and death.
I suggest that we remain sensitive to how words are used by the culture around us, and that we refuse to use terms and phrases designed to desensitize us to what they actually represent. Stories like this one show that even those who use such language don’t really mean what they say.
Comments