An T Ngo and Late Term Abortions

The Reality of Later-Term Elective Abortions: A Question for Pro-Choice Advocates

Recently, the news surrounding An T Ngo, a woman from Easley, South Carolina, has once again put the spotlight on the controversial issue of later-term abortions. In a shocking act, Ngo reportedly performed a partial-birth abortion on herself, resulting in the death of her infant. Ngo allegedly used a letter opener to stab the child as she was giving birth, then continued to stab him after birth until her child was dead. She allegedly then placed the deceased baby in a plastic bag. The police investigation into this incident, which has been described by law enforcement as “gruesome” and unprecedented, has drawn attention to the reality of later-term abortion practices. According to the Fox Carolina report, the murder of the infant was considered to be an extremely disturbing and rare occurrence. Easley police chief Brandon Liner commented that it was unlike anything he had ever seen in his career, emphasizing the brutality of the act. While this tragic case is extreme, it serves to highlight a broader question: Should later-term abortions, especially those performed for elective reasons, be legally allowed?

The Claim of Medical Necessity

Pro-choice proponents often justify the legality of later-term abortions by claiming that they are rare and typically performed only when a mother’s health or life is in danger. They argue that such procedures should remain legal for cases of medical necessity, where the fetus has severe abnormalities or the mother faces life-threatening conditions.

However, research from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) contradicts this claim. According to KFF’s issued brief on abortions later in pregnancy, while some later-term abortions do occur due to fetal abnormalities or risks to the mother, a significant number are sought for personal reasons, including financial difficulties, lack of support, or emotional factors. This is similar to the reasons why women may choose abortions in the earlier stages of pregnancy. The KFF report highlights that while later-term abortions are less common, they are not as rare as proponents of the “medical necessity” argument suggest, and many occur well beyond the point of fetal viability or potential harm to the mother’s health.

By emphasizing data like this, we can see that the assumption that later-term abortions are almost exclusively due to medical emergencies is misleading. In reality, many women seek these procedures for personal reasons, which is consistent with the reasons behind earlier abortions.

The Case of Kermit Gosnell

The issue of later-term abortions and their ethical implications is not new. In fact, the notorious case of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, a Philadelphia abortionist convicted of multiple counts of murder, underscores the dark side of later-term abortion practices. Gosnell operated a clinic where he routinely performed illegal late-term abortions, even as the babies were born alive. He and his staff would then carry out the horrific practice of "snipping" the spinal cords of the newborns to ensure their deaths.

Gosnell’s actions were not just the result of medical necessity but were motivated by his pursuit of profit, conducting elective abortions far beyond the legal limit. His case revealed that, in some instances, later-term abortions are not only elective but carried out under dangerous and unsanitary conditions. While Gosnell’s case is extreme, it raises crucial questions: How many other abortionists are operating in similarly unregulated conditions? Should women be allowed to undergo elective abortions at such late stages, even up to birth, without proper scrutiny and regulation?

The Debate: Should Late-Term Abortions Be Allowed?

The case of An T Ngo and the larger context of elective late-term abortions bring us to an uncomfortable question for pro-choice advocates: should later-term elective abortions, including those performed up until birth, be legal?

Pro-choice arguments often center around the belief that women have the right to control their bodies and make decisions about their pregnancies without government interference. However, when it comes to later-term abortions, we must ask whether this principle extends to procedures performed at advanced stages of pregnancy, when the fetus is viable outside the womb and could survive with medical assistance.

The issue is not merely one of bodily autonomy but one of ethics and the value of human life. If we are willing to accept elective abortions up to the point of birth, does this signal that we, as a society, are devaluing the lives of unborn children? Is it morally acceptable to allow the termination of a pregnancy at any point for reasons unrelated to the health or life of the mother or fetus? And perhaps more importantly, should these procedures be allowed to continue without greater scrutiny or regulation?

The Need for Honest Discourse

The story of An T Ngo and the discussion of late-term elective abortions compel us to engage in a more honest and open discourse about the realities of abortion laws in the United States. Pro-choice rhetoric often claims that later-term abortions are rare and reserved for medical emergencies. However, the data from the Kaiser Family Foundation and troubling cases like Kermit Gosnell’s show that these procedures are sometimes sought for reasons that reflect a broader societal attitude toward life and choice.

As the conversation around abortion continues to evolve, we must ask ourselves: Should society allow elective abortions at such late stages of pregnancy? Are we willing to accept that a woman’s right to choose can extend to ending a pregnancy even as the fetus approaches full-term? And if not, what regulations or reforms should be put in place to protect both the rights of women and the lives of the unborn?

Ultimately, this is not just a question for lawmakers—it’s a question for us all. If we are serious about addressing the ethics of abortion, we must face the uncomfortable realities of later-term elective abortions and consider whether our laws truly reflect the value we place on human life.