Women in Poland Strike to Protest Proposal for Abortion Ban

Polish women donned black, waved black flags and took to Poland’s streets in large numbers on Monday, boycotting jobs and classes as part of a nationwide strike to protest a legislative proposal for a total ban on abortion.
abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/women-poland-strike-protest-proposal-abortion-ban-42524998

Women wore black in a sign of mourning for … for the deaths that they feel some women would face.

statistic needed.

Do You really expect them to be reasonable and operate statistics? :slight_smile:

I hope that Poland doesn’t pass this law. It would be absolutely ridiculous to ban abortions even in the case of a woman’s life being in danger.

Noone proposes to ban abortions if the life of a woman is in danger. You are the evidence that leftist propaganda and desinformation on this law is working. :mad:

Did you not read the article? The article clearly states that Poland is seeking to ban ALL abortions, including in such cases where the woman’s life is in danger.

Then, the article is wrong. I saw the excerpts from the bill which prove the opposite. And talked with the people who initiated it in the first place. If you’re curious: facebook.com/FundacjaPro/?fref=ts

Abortion is never needed to save the woman’s life…EVER

Polish government signals U-turn on total abortion ban

A proposed total abortion ban in Poland will not be implemented, a member of the government has said, describing mass protests against the ban as a lesson in humility for the country’s leadership.

Jarosław Gowin, the minister of science and higher education, said on Wednesday that the protests by women had “caused us to think and taught us humility”.

The comments appear to indicate that Poland’s conservative leadership will withhold support from the highly unpopular proposal to ban abortions even in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is at risk.

Once again, there were not going to ban it in case mother’s life is at risk in the first place.

Let’s look at what the proposed law actually says, and compare it against the old one, shall we?

The old law has:

Art.4a. Abortion can be carried out only by a medical doctor, if:
(1) The pregnancy is a threat to the life or health of the woman
…]
(5) Determination of conditions referred to in point (1) has to be carried out by a different doctor than the one carrying out the abortion, unless the pregnancy poses a direct threat to the woman’s life

It’s quite obvious what when they say direct they mean imminent: you need an external consultation to ensure that there really is a threat (and stop solo abortionists from carrying out abortions under this exception), but if a woman with a ruptured Fallopian tube is brought into ER, then the embryo can be removed without waiting for another doctor to arrive.

The proposed law deletes article 4a in its entirety. Instead, it amends the criminal code as follows:

Art 152. 1. Who causes death of an unborn child is punished by 3 months to 5 years imprisonments.
2. Who commits the act of par. 1. unintentionally, is punished by up to 3 years imprisonment.
…]
4. A doctor does not commit the act of par. 1 and 2 if the death of the unborn child is a consequence of medical procedures required to remove a direct threat to life of its mother

First off, note the difference in approach. The old law says that abortion is a legitimate procedure which can be carried out if the conditions are met. The new law instead says that the doctor will be charged with murder unless the conditions are met.

Next, note the change of wording in in bolded sections. Threat to woman’s health is no longer a good reason. It must be a threat to her life, and it must be direct, which is the exact wording the current law uses to describe an emergency situation (and waves the consultation requirement to save time). A question arises: if no change was intended, why trash a an established regulation and introduce a new one, which is obviously narrower in scope? Red flag. And why remove the safety in the form of opinion of an independent doctor? Another red flag. Why doesn’t the proposal incorporate the current best practice, which is approving life-saving abortions by the hospital’s board of ethics? One more red flag.

So it boils down to the definition of direct threat, which is never defined, and contrary to the old law, we have no context to infer what it means. The proponents have put up a booklet which describes what they think a direct threat is. Now, the very existence of the booklet is another red flag, because it means that they themselves realize that the new regulation is unclear – and you don’t want to have unclear regulations, because you need courts to clarify them, and it means that someone will have to be charged first for the case law to be established. Any doctors volunteering? Yes, I thought so. But wait, who in their right mind would intentionally want to pass an unclear regulation? Red flag.

It gets worse: their booklet makes for an interesting reading, because they are essentially arguing that direct in Polish jurisprudence does not mean imminent but actually expected. (Example: lung cancer is direct consequence of smoking – does not mean you will get it the next day). Pretty impressive until you realize that you can use his reasoning to justify on-demand abortion: since postpartum depression is an expected consequence of childbirth, and can lead to suicide, then it poses a direct threat to woman’s life. Reductio ad absurdum. Red flag.

Bonus: amniocentesis carries a 1-2% risk of inducing miscarriage. That’s 3 years in prison, as the paragraph 4 exemption does not apply – it’s a diagnostic procedure for the child, not a life-saving procedure for the mother. No doctor will risk it. Congratulations, you’ve just killed in utero diagnostics.

The more you dive into this the more you realize how badly written this law is. And because of that, what you dismiss as “leftist propaganda” is in fact a completely valid interpretation of it.

Medical experts disagree with you:

usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/19/abortion-mother-life-walsh/1644839/

In that USA Today article linked above, a case is referenced of a woman having an abortion because of “severe preeclampsia”, Cecily Kellogg. I have been reading about preeclampsia here. The baby needs to be delivered in these cases and “usually” of severe cases happen after the baby is 28 weeks, which is already quite late in the pregnancy.

In such cases, abortion is not needed. If it is determined that the baby needs to be delivered, and there is no other option, then the baby has to be delivered, and the doctors should do what they can to save that baby, as well as care for the mother. If the baby dies because of being born too early in gestation, that is a tragedy, but there is no reason for an aborton, there is no reason to purposely kill the baby to save the mother with preeclampsia.

The Dublin Declaration on Maternal Healthcare has been signed by 1013, as of my posting this here. It states:

“As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.

We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.

We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”

dublindeclaration.com

(Warning: graphic descriptions of abortion described at following link)
Dr Anthony Levatino, who was an abortionist, testified to the Kansas Senate Health & Human Services Committee:

In cases where a mother’s life is seriously threatened by her pregnancy, 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 niglrt at 28 weeks gestation with severe pre-eclampsia or toxemia. Her blood pressure on admission was 2201160. As you are probably aware, 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 hundreds of cases, the number of unborn children that I had to deliberatelv kill was zero.

kslegislature.org/li/b2015_16/committees/ctte_s_phw_1/documents/testimony/20150202_08.pdf

The proposed law is much the same as here in Ireland and we are facing a demand for Amendment 8 to be repealed which would open the door wide to on demand abortions,

Last year there were 26 permitted abortions here on the grounds of risk to the mother. .

See the full report

thejournal.ie/abortions-ireland-26-2188298-Jun2015/

Just read this

breakingnews.ie/world/polish-parliament-rejects-total-ban-on-abortion-758082.html

Does that mean they already have a law as strict as here?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.