Former abortionist: Abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of the mother

We hear a lot from the pro-abortion crowd that "most third trimester abortions are done to save women's lives". Perhaps we should see if there is any truth to that.

Below is what former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino has to say about it.

By Sarah Terzo | October 21, 2016 , 10:53am

At the October 19, 2016 presidential debate, Hillary Clinton defended abortion in the third trimester. She claimed that abortions at these late stages are necessary to save the lives of women; therefore, abortion must remain legal. But former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino has testified that abortions never have to be committed to save a woman’s life.

Dr. Levatino committed over 1,200 abortions before his pro-life conversion, which he talks about here.

In a video, he illustrates the third trimester induction procedure.

An induction abortion requires slowly dilating a woman’s cervix over the course of several days. Laminaria is then placed inside the woman’s body to absorb fluid and slowly open the woman’s womb, readying her body to expel her baby. An injection of digoxin is then used to kill the child, and the woman goes into labor to deliver her child stillborn.

Levatino explains the procedure in the following video:

On May 17, 2012, Dr. Levatino testified before Congress in support of the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act:

In cases where a pregnancy places a woman in danger of death or grave physical injury, a doctor more often than not doesn’t have 36 hours, much less 72 hours, to resolve the problem. Let me illustrate with a real-life case that I managed while at the Albany Medical Center. A patient arrived one night at 28 weeks gestation with severe pre-eclampsia or toxemia. Her blood pressure on admission was 220/160. A normal blood pressure is approximately 120/80. This patient’s pregnancy was a threat to her life and the life of her unborn child. She could very well be minutes or hours away from a major stroke.

This case was managed successfully by rapidly stabilizing the patient’s blood pressure and “terminating” her pregnancy by Cesarean section. She and her baby did well.

This is a typical case in the world of high-risk obstetrics. In most such cases, any attempt to perform an abortion “to save the mother’s life” would entail undue and dangerous delay in providing appropriate, truly life-saving care. During my time at Albany Medical Center I managed hundreds of such cases by “terminating” pregnancies to save mother’s lives. In all those cases, the number of unborn children that I had to deliberately kill was zero.
...

liveactionnews.org...

So we see by the statements made by Dr. Anthony Levatino that when it comes to saving a woman's life on the third trimester of her pregnancy, that it is not viable to perform an abortion because it takes too long to perform and abortion and instead in most cases to save the woman doctors have to perform a Cesarean section, which will also in most cases save the child.

So you see, when the pro-abortion camp claims that "most third trimester abortions are necessary to save a woman's life" these people are simply lying because an abortion takes too long and it's not viable at that stage to save a woman's life.

Roe vs wade
Law of the land.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Didn't you see the 3rd presidential debate?

To save the mother is a very valid reason for abortions according to Hillary, of course that big dummy Trump was basically saying the same thing as this post.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Roe vs wade

Says what? In relation to the OP, do you think?

a reply to: Phage

Abortion laws are not going to change.
The vast majority of abortions are not from rape or incest either.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

That is insane. Third trimester abortions are rare and illegal almost everywhere unless to save the life of the mother.

So, this one doctor notes one case where the mother was stabilized and a cesarean was done and mom and baby were fine. That is great for that case.

It is not possible in all cases. They are very few and sad.

I believe late trimester abortion procedure has been described before, I think there are more than one.

I wonder what it is you are tring to prove here? Crazy women just kill their babies in the 3rd trimester and doctors allow it? Your point is revolting. Not true. And just a horrible stance for the women who have had to go through it.

As fetal surgery advances, and obstrics in general advances, there may never be a need for this in future. We are not there yet.

a reply to: Bluntone22

So, no answer to my question.

a reply to: Phage


I think abortion after half way is murder.

a reply to: Bluntone22
You are welcome to your opinion.

So, your comment about Roe v Wade was irrelevant to the OP?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

There is NO pro-abortion crowd.

a reply to: Phage

The point is that The COTUS overrides the testimony of one doctors single anecdote.

This Dr is trying to get abortion banned.


BluntOne made a valid point.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

BluntOne made a valid point.

How so?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The first video does not work.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Hazardous1408

BluntOne made a valid point.

How so?

Because the entire point of the OP, behind the illusion of educating ATS, is simple proselytism for the pro-Life crowd.
I'm one of them, but I don't believe the doctor, whose whole agenda is to fight the constitutional decision of Roe v Wade.

How isn't it relevant?
In your opinion.

originally posted by: reldra

There is NO pro-abortion crowd.

The so called "pro-choice" crowd is never about saving the life of the child, it is always about abortion no matter what and making it sound like choosing abortion is "for the freedom of the woman". It is in reality a pro-abortion camp.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bluntone22
You are welcome to your opinion.

So, your comment about Roe v Wade was irrelevant to the OP?

Not really.
This will change nothing with abortion laws or the way people feel about those laws.
The thread will end up just like every other abortion thread.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I just looked at the second video. The women who had to do this for health reasons, carry a dead baby inside of them in this procedure for a couple of days? I can't imagine the terror and sadness that leads to this.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Phage

Abortion laws are not going to change.
The vast majority of abortions are not from rape or incest either.

The "pro-choice/pro-abortion" crowd are in fact trying to change the law.

Roe vs Wade actually says the opposite about abortion on the third trimester to what the pro-choice/pro-abortion crowd says it does.

...
Trimester framework

The Court ruled that during the first trimester of pregnancy, a woman has an absolute right to an abortion and the government cannot interfere with that right. In the second trimester, the woman still has a right to an abortion, but the state has an interest in protecting the woman’s health. Therefore, while states cannot ban abortion in the second trimester, they can protect the woman’s health by requiring physicians and clinics to meet certain standards (e.g., cleanliness requirements) in order to perform abortions. States can pass laws concerning abortion in the second trimester only so long as they intend to protect the woman’s health. In the third trimester of pregnancy, the Court decided that the state has a right to protect the life of the unborn if it so chooses. Because the unborn child is viable—she is capable of surviving outside the womb—the state’s right to protect the unborn is now more important than the woman’s right to have an abortion. Thus, in the third trimester, states may pass laws that significantly restrict or even prohibit abortions, as long as there are exceptions for when abortion is necessary to preserve a woman’s life or "health."
...

www.mccl.org...


The pro-abortion crowd, and Hillary Clinton claim that Roe vs Wade gives the woman the right to decide to have an abortion up to the day the baby is due, and this is a lie.

It's a horrifying and disgusting act yet I don't much care either way.
The natural rights in me tells me its wrong, that those persons are murdered.
The utilitarian in me tells me that most women who have abortions do not have long term thinking patterns, cannot judge risk, are of lower IQ, and my taxes will have to pay for them so it is a good thing those women do not have offspring.
The authoritarian in me simply says to tie tubes/snip people when they have multiple children out of wedlock and then we don't have to deal with this issue as much.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

How isn't it relevant? In your opinion.

Roe vs. Wade takes no position on late term abortion other than leaving it up to the states.