No, he wasn't mocking real health concerns. Read on and you will understand.
First of all, the idea of a "health" indication for a third-trimester abortion is fatuous. The standard of care for over fifty years has been to do one of three things:
1. Stop trying to halt premature labor (which the mother's health problem will often trigger) and just allow the baby to be born.
2. Perform an emergency c-section.
3. Induce labor.
These are the procedures that a conscientious physician will perform, usually trying to time decisions to maximize the survival chances of the baby while minimizing risks to the mother. This is the standard of care -- a standard that any woman with a real health problem late in pregnancy deserves.
One of my friends, in fact, had to have three of her pregnancies terminated in the third trimester due to life-threatening health problems. The pregnancies were terminated with emergency c-sections. My friend has three live children from those terminated pregnancies. My daughter had to have her pregnancy terminated in the third trimester due to gestational diabetes. The termination was called "inducing labor" and she has a live child as a result of that termination for health reasons.
It's totally nonsensical to claim that it benefits the mother's health in any way to perform an additional procedure, either before or during the legitimate medical care being provided, to achieve a dead fetus. The procedure in question usually involves jamming a huge needle through the mother's abdominal wall into the baby's heart, injecting the same drug used to execute criminals. What possible health problem can the mother have that would require a doctor to do this additional procedure, which carries a risk of infection, as well as a risk of getting the deadly drug into the mother's bloodstream by accident? Does this even pass the basic logic test?
You can gauge how nonsensical the idea is when you notice that the vast majority of these late abortions are done in outpatient settings. The woman, accompanied by a friend or family member, travels to the outpatient facility. For two or three days, she stays in a motel room with her companion, making a daily visit to the outpatient facility to have procedures done to force her cervix open. What possible medical problem can she have where a doctor would prescribe spending three days in a motel room with a companion who has no medical training? Why, if the woman's health is in danger, would she not be in a hospital, with 24-hour medical supervision?
Obstetricians who specialize in high-risk pregnancies hospitalize their patients. It's not high-risk obstetricians who are doing these procedures. It's abortionists.
When the woman has health problems late in pregnancy, the only logical reason to take extra steps to kill the fetus before you get it out -- is to kill the fetus. There's nothing that benefits the mother's health to subject her to the extra invasive fetocidal process.
Now, lest you think I'm making all this up:
Listen to this psychiatrist discuss the "health" reasons that are used to justify late-term abortions at George Tiller's practice.
Read here what an abortion supporter has to say about Barack Obama's support of late abortions.
And in all the third-trimester abortion malpractice and death cases I've seen, not a single one was being performed for a health reason. Not a single one even for fetal indications such as anencephaly.
Even abortion activist Ron Fitzsimmons admitted that the bulk of these abortions are performed for social reasons.
McCain is not being callous. Obama is -- by pretending that subjecting a woman to the needless risks of an abortion constitutes "health care".
As for NARAL, you can read here about how they stand against common-sense definitions of health, and stand firm for the Doe vs. Bolton definition of "health" -- which is broad enough to sail an oil tanker through.
To email this post to a friend, use the icon below.