Rome – Once Prestigious Lancet The medical journal denounced the overturning of the US Supreme Court ruling Raw vs. Wade As an attack on the validity and independence of “every person born in the United States”.
In its latest release the casebased in the United Kingdom Lancet Criticizes the court for rescinding ‘nearly 50 years of precedent’ and makes the admirable claim that the annulment decision Raw vs. Wade It was “politically motivated, not medical evidence or legal precedent.”
The article echoes similarly article Posted in May by LancetEditing panel for “Why Raw vs. Wade It must be defended,” the editors lamented the court’s reliance on the United States Constitution, dismissing it as “an eighteenth-century document that is ignorant of twenty-first century realities for women.”
The July 2 article warns that the cancellation decision Ro It will “exacerbate existing racial inequalities in maternal and newborn outcomes,” given that the country is already facing a “black maternal health crisis.”
“Black women and childbearing women are twice as likely to have maternal mortality and acute maternal morbidity as white women and childbearing persons,” she declares.
The Lancet Certainly correct in drawing attention to the racial effects of the court’s decision, because abortion in the United States is functional Racist In the institution, black children are aborted at more than three times the rate of white children, which is largely in keeping with the origins of eugenics.
This leads one to assume that new laws banning or restricting abortion will save more black children’s lives than white children, a welcome outcome for those who care about the future of the black community.
Abortion is a human right that “must be guaranteed to everyone” Lancet She states boldly, despite the fact that no major international human rights agreement has recognized abortion as a human right.
The article continues: “The denial of the right to abortion runs counter to the principles of reproductive justice and human rights.” “Crucially, the circumstances in which a person makes these choices matter: The individual must feel safe, supported, and healthy regardless of their reproductive decisions.”
It’s more deceptive language in the abortion lobby, and it’s a language Lancet He equates the right to life with “forced pregnancy,” as if women in the United States routinely engage in sexual relations at gunpoint.
She goes on to stress that pregnancy itself is a “serious illness,” which will come as news to many healthy expectant mothers.
It is also certain that training of healthcare professionals in abortion will suffer from this RoThe magazine’s departure, leaving fewer doctors and nurses willing to perform the procedure.
The journalist insists that abortion is an “important part of obstetric and gynecological training,” and that restrictive abortion laws in some US states will reduce “already limited training opportunities in abortion care for health professionals.”
perfectly aligned itself with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, and Lancet He insists that “it is now important to blog Raw vs. Wadeand access to abortion and the right to privacy in law at the federal level.”
Furthermore, “Professional organizations in the United States should remind clinicians that they do not have a duty to report patients who seek abortion care or who have had an abortion,” the journal stated.
Meanwhile, countries that have already been legalized Raw vs. Wade In state law “the need to increase abortion care capacity by hiring more abortion providers, expanding providers who can perform abortions, increasing the availability of abortion care for out-of-state patients, and creating funding resources for out-of-state patients to pay for medical procedures.” and travel and lodging,” she declares.
In short, the decision to cancel Raw vs. Wade Creating a “public health emergency” Lancet Concludes.
The LancetFounded in 1823 as a medical journal, it has transformed itself into a mouthpiece for what it calls the “Progressive Agenda,” squandering its hard-earned moral and scientific capital on issues like climate change, immigration, and gay rights, and regularly delves into American politics.