OB-GYN to Hillary Clinton: ‘No Medical Situation’ Requires Late-Term Abortion, C-Section Delivery Is Safer


Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton addresses the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in Washington, June 10, 2016.
There, now that’s a more appropriate picture. (From politicalillusionsexposed.com)

www.christianpost.com/news/ob-gyn-hillary-clinton-medical-late-term-abortion-c-section-delivery-safer-171022/

In response to Hillary Clinton’s defense of partial-birth and late-term abortions at Wednesday night’s debate, a California obstetrician-gynecologist has reportedly taken to Facebook to decry the claim that third-trimester abortion is necessary to help save the life of the mother.

The Democratic presidential nominee defended her opposition to bans on late-term and partial-birth abortions by arguing that there are cases in which mothers and families are forced to make “the most heartbreaking, painful decisions” because they get news that the woman’s health may be in jeopardy.

As Clinton effectively supports a woman’s right to abort up until birth, she has defended her opposition to 20-week late-term abortion bans by saying that bans should only be put in place at the “very end” of the third trimester and should allow for health of the mother exceptions.

After Clinton’s remarks Wednesday night, Dr. Lawrence Koning reportedly responded to Clinton’s claims in a Facebook post, where he explained that there is “no medical” situation that requires aborting a child.

Koning’s Facebook post was reported by Steve Schultz, the founder of of the websites Breaking Christian News and The Elijah List.

According to Schultz, he and Koning graduated together in 1973. When Schultz saw Koning’s post on his personal Facebook page, he asked if he could publish the quote online, to which Koning is quoted as responding, “Do it!”

As an ob/gyn physician for 31 years there is no medical situation that requires aborting / killing the baby in the third trimester to “save the mother’s life.” Just deliver the baby by c/section and the baby has 95+% survival with readily available NICU care even at 28 weeks. C/section is quicker and safer than partial birth abortion for the mother.

-Lawrence K. Koning, MD, FACOG

[Read more at the link]

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2016/10/22/ob-gyn-to-hillary-clinton-no-medical-situation-requires-late-term-abortion-c-section-delivery-is-safer/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

4 comments on “OB-GYN to Hillary Clinton: ‘No Medical Situation’ Requires Late-Term Abortion, C-Section Delivery Is Safer

  1. Hildabeast is pure evil ! No one should be allowed to kill babies, born or unborn ! She makes me sick ! As does anyone who would vote for this wretch of a ” human ” being !

  2. Hillary Clinton Next to Cardinal Dolan at Al Smith Dinner One Day After Defending Partial Birth Abortion

    by Dr. Susan Berry, 21 Oct 2016

    [Nothing new, but the final paragraph is typical HRC vileness.]

    While campaigning, Clinton has compared pro-life Americans to terrorists.

    “Extreme views about women, we expect that from some of the terrorist groups, we expect that from people who don’t want to live in the modern world, but it’s a little hard to take coming from Republicans who want to be the president of the United States,” she said. “Yet, they espouse out of date and out of touch policies. They are dead wrong for 21st century America. We are going forward, we are not going back.”

  3. If the horror of an HRC presidency isn’t enough to compel one to vote for the Donald, here is yet another reason from a NeverTrump convert: the despicable media. And he’s spot on. I’ve despised the MSM going on 35 years now, but what I’ve seen in the last 8 years is beyond the pale, going full Pravda. If HRC is elected and the “1984” lock on truth continues unabated, blogs like this will be historical relics in 10 – 20 years, along with most of the Traditional Church.

    Why I Now Feel Compelled To Vote For Trump
    Derek Hunter, Oct 23, 2016
    townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2016/10/23/why-i-now-feel-compelled-to-vote-for-trump-n2235899

    … No, what’s changed is me. Not through introspection and reflection, but through watching the sickening display of activism perpetrated by a covert army with press credentials.

    Bias has always been a factor in journalism. It’s nearly impossible to remove. Humans have their thoughts, and keeping them out of your work is difficult. But 2016 saw the remaining veneer of credibility, thin as it was, stripped away and set on fire.

    More than anything, I can’t sit idly by and allow these perpetrators of fraud to celebrate and leak tears of joy like they did when they helped elect Barack Obama in 2008. I have to know I weighed in not only in writing but in the voting booth.

    The media needs to be destroyed. And although voting for Trump won’t do it, it’s something. Essentially, I am voting for Trump because of the people who don’t want me to, and I believe I must register my disgust with Hillary Clinton.

    I am not of the mindset that any vote not for Trump is a vote for Hillary, but a vote for Trump is a vote against Hillary. And I need to vote against Hillary. I need to vote against the media.
    [more at the link]

    • And one more reason, for all the SJW types who think Dems best represent the interests of the poor:

      The Rich Vote Republican? Maybe Not This Election.
      www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/business/rich-vote-republican-not-this-election-maybe.html

      [Pravda central: note the HRC victory spin] For the first time in decades, the wealthy are set to deliver a landslide victory for a Democratic presidential candidate.

      While polling data on the rich is imprecise given their small population, polls of the top-earning households favor Hillary Clinton over Donald J. Trump two to one. The July Affluent Barometer survey by Ipsos found that among voters earning more than $100,000 a year — roughly the top 25 percent of households — 45 percent said they planned to vote for Mrs. Clinton, while 28 percent planned to vote for Mr. Trump. The rest were undecided or planned to vote for another candidate.

      The spread was even wider among the highest earners. For those earning $250,000 or more — roughly the top 5 percent of households — 53 percent planned to vote for Mrs. Clinton while 25 percent favored Mr. Trump. The survey’s margin of error was plus or minus four points.
      —————————–
      also
      Goldman CEO Blankfein ‘Supportive’ of Clinton for Pragmatism

      No surprise there, as GS already paid HRC nearly a quarter-million dollars for her support.
      —————————
      It’s full-press PP, transnational corps and banks, and 4th-Estate propaganda. Has the Illuminati locked it in?

Leave a Reply