Web Letters: The Killer Complicity of Fox News

Ironically, for those "right-to-lifers" who allow an exception for a direct threat to the life of the mother and/or a clinically dead or a fatally deformed fetus, Dr. Tiller was the least culpable, from a pro-life point of view, of all doctors performing abortions! Very few, if any, of his late-term abortion surgeries could be described as "casual terminations" of potential human life simply for the "convenience of" the patient or other "trivial" reasons. However, the vast majority of the much more commonly performed early-term abortion surgeries, performed by a much larger number of abortion doctors, might be categorized as "casual, trivial, or convenience only" from a "pro-life" point of view.

Has anyone done an objective analysis of the doctor's patient history, both surgical and non-surgical? More specifically, has anyone calculated the percentage of Dr. Tiller 's abortion surgeries performed because of a pregnancy's direct physical threat to the life of the mother (due to cancer, severe cardiovascular problems, kidney failure, dangerously high blood pressure, etc.)? What percentage were performed due to in utero problems with the fetus (such as death, fatal deformity, lack of a functioning organ or brain, etc.)? And how many times did he decline to perform an abortion, and what were the reasons given?

If any of his abortion surgeries were ever justified by the mental impairment of the mother, was she just temporarily depressed, or were there multiple mental/physical/circumstantial disabilities or problems such as schizophrenia, retardation, autism, drug/alcohol addiction, statutory rape, cerebral palsy, etc. that might preclude quick and easy adoption for any resulting birth child?

It is also ironic that the gut-level instinct of first impression leads liberal/progressive types to initially empathize with the plight of the "victims of convenience," whether that be the convenience of lax regulation in order to provide easy profits for big business or the convenience of inadequate funding of (or even cuts in) state and federal spending necessary to provide the richest taxpayers with "conveniently" large tax cuts. A prochoice position requires some study and analysis before an enlightened conclusion is arrived at. (It's not "rocket science," but it's not mindless gut instinct either.) But once you know the facts, it is a lot easier to justify legal late-term abortion surgeries in your gut as well as in your mind.

Early-term, "convenience" abortions also trouble the liberal gut. Only when we thoughtfully consider the lack of sex education, access to appropriate contraception and inadequate responses to poverty are we able to conclude that there are far fewer "convenience" or "trivial" abortions than is thought. This rationalization process is rather easy for me, as I am beyond atheism. But my heart goes out to the religious liberal or progressive.

Rivko Knox

Phoenix, AZ