Not just a clump of cells after all: Portland approves bereavement leave for abortions

AP Photo/Steve Helber

If abortion has no more moral meaning than excising a “clump of cells,” why would it require a mourning period? Maybe someone should ask the city of Portland, which unanimously added abortion to its “pregnancy loss” bereavement benefit this month. Any woman — excuse me, pregnant person — who gets an abortion can get three days off of work to deal with the “loss”.

Portland, Oregon, is the latest city to provide bereavement leave for people experiencing pregnancy loss, including abortions.

The city’s amended bereavement leave policy allows city employees to take up to three days of paid leave if they’ve had a miscarriage, stillbirth or any other type of pregnancy loss. The policy covers time off for people to recover from an abortion “irrespective of whether deemed medically necessary,” according to the text.

The city council approved the changes unanimously earlier in October.

The regulation carefully avoids using the A-word. However, its definition of “other loss” makes it obvious:

“Other loss” is defined as any other loss of pregnancy including termination, irrespective of whether deemed medically necessary, and loss incurred during fertility treatment.

This bereavement leave certainly makes some sense for miscarriages, which are devastating to both mothers and fathers. Whether it requires a separate leave category is a matter of debate, but it follows in the context of bereavement — the loss of a loved one. There are usually some restrictions to this in place as to the extent of affinity, and that’s also in Portland’s regulation. It requires either a relation recognized in blood or law (ie, through marriage) or some sort of “close affinity.”

This makes absolutely no sense in terms of abortion, especially given how the abortion industry defines the act. Supposedly, “termination” isn’t a “loss” at all! They steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the scientific fact that conception creates an individual human life, which means that there isn’t a “loss” at all in their definition. Furthermore, given that termination without a determination of medial necessity makes this entirely elective, what is there to “bereave”?

Now, of course we pro-lifers know that abortions do involve emotional damage, but that’s because we also acknowledge that abortion involves much more than simply excising a clump of cells. Pro-abortion activists reject that idea and the moral implications of the act altogether. Of late, the fad among them is to be proud of their abortions and declare how much their lives improved by having aborted their babies. Spencer Brown provides us a recent example of this:

One has to imagine that the city of Portland sides much more with that faction, and yet here we have the city providing bereavement for an act to which it refuses to assign any moral implications at all.

Perhaps this is nothing more than Portlandia being Portlandia, attempting to suck up to a constituency without thinking through the implications at all. However, it’s also revealing that the first impulse in this situation was to assume regret and mourning from an abortion. The city council got that much right, at least.