Is “Jane Young” an abortionist?

Do you believe an abortion mill is a “sanctuary” where “abortion caregivers” perform “nurturing” abortions? The person who founded the website does. This individual, who goes by the name “Jane Young,” claims to be a woman who has experienced a most blissful murder and chose to post pictures of her own aborted victim to counteract the graphic images held by pro-life protesters – a move that minted a new star in the pro-abortion world. But is “she” everything she claims to be?

Color me skeptical, but I don’t buy it. The author’s every word demonizes pro-life protesters while elevating those who dismember unborn babies to the status of demigods. Her cloying account has the depth of a cardboard cutout, and her obsessive adulation for abortionists would make even NARAL’s most fevered PR hand blush. Its rhetorical excesses force one to question the author’s honesty on every front, including the writer’s purported identity.

In an op-ed in the Guardian, Young claimed her mother had an illegal abortion in a foreign country “and almost died.” (Cliche 1, check.) Another beloved friend was “mortified” by pro-life protesters holding signs en route to her appointment. (Cliche 2.)

Soon, Young returned to the clinic for her own abortion, when she bolted into action with her spontaneous education campaign. “Due to the security risk to patients and abortion caregivers, the clinic had moved down the street,” she wrote. (Cliche I’ve-already-lost-count.) As she walked, she was palpably “afraid of being harmed by the anti-abortion protesters,” although she admits most just “prayed silently.”

This specter lifted when, upon opening its “bulletproof” doors, she experienced nirvan, meet the most venerable of all medical professionals: abortion providers.

In real life, abortionists are people like Kermit Gosnell, Abraham Alberto Hodari, or Carol Everett. But in Young’s psychodrama, they are inevitably described as “abortion caregivers” imperiled by misogynistic troglodytes seeking to hinder their selfless service to womyn everywhere.

She did not merely receive a Planned Parenthood sales pitch before climbing onto an unsanitary table; her “psyche [was] held by empathetic professionals.”

The abortion industry profiteers did not merely make a depressing and potentially life-threatening service more tolerable; they created “a safe, warm space within the clinic, they genuinely cared for my overall well-being and were nothing short of professional.”

They were not helpful or comforting; they were “hands-down incredible…These caregivers are true heroes.”

In her public statements these “caregivers” are mentioned at least as much as the women who use their services – supposedly like herself – and inevitably presented in embarrassingly superlative terms. But when one likens an abortion mill to a “sanctuary,” that makes abortionists the priests and shamans of a very bloody religion whose sacred rites Young does not like to see mocked.

When she took her pictures, she made sure that “none of the abortion caregivers were in any of the shots out of respect for their privacy and security.” After they, they were just “doctors that were trying to do their jobs.”

Young claimed pro-lifers’ “heartless use of lifeless fetus images” was “just propaganda…being used as a weapon” to leave the public “cheated, lied to and manipulated.” Is this picture of Feng Jianmei’s forcibly aborted child a “fraud”? Isn’t the allegation that the child depicted here – who looks just like the child in the photos Young besmirches – revictimizing Feng and the millions of women forced into an abortion Chinese authorities would prefer they not depict?

Abortions differ. Some methods – particularly the one forced upon unwilling multitudes in China – leave a corpse like this one. Others reduce the unborn child to little more than a collection of mutilated body parts swimming in a cocktail of its own blood. That does not mean, as this writer claimed elsewhere, “There was no dead baby in the jar.”

“I think the biggest misconception about abortion in the U.S. is that it is always a barbaric experience,” she writes. “The very act of abortion has been propagated as murder and women and abortion caregivers have been vilified as murderers…Rather, it has been secure, clean and I would argue, even nurturing.”

The use of the word “nurturing” takes us into the kind of bizarre fantasyland that exists only in recruitment pamphlets.

When Young makes policy pronouncements, they center around the caregiver/hero/high priests.

She claimed, “It is absolutely imperative that every measure is taken to keep abortion legal and safe for women to obtain and for their caregivers to perform.” (Emphasis added.) She also demands pro-lifers be barred from protesting within several feet of clinic entrances – a demand abortionists have long made.

Young claimed she took a low dose of pain-killers so she could remain awake to snap these pictures without being seen. But could an abortionist not as easily snap a few unnoticed photographs while her, or his, patient was sedated into a light sleep?

Could the reason that no abortionist is in the picture – a fact Young takes pains to explain away – be caused by the fact that she was the abortionist?

It wouldn’t be the first time an abortionist had profited by lying about his work, taking unethical advantage of women, and denying the humanity of his unborn victims.