Testimony of a Pro-Life Mother

This is the story of a young women I received some time ago. I will let her tell it in her own words:

Let me tell you what happened in 1986. I was 18, and I had missed my period, so I went to a clinic that performs abortions for a pregnancy test. Well, the test was positive, so the “counselor” came to talk with me.

I put the word counselor in quotation marks because a better word to describe this person would be a salesperson. What this woman did was to tell me how difficult it would be to raise a child on my own how my life would be over, and how it would never be able to get child support from the father yada yada yada. Then I asked her about adoption. She then proceeded to tell me about the horrors of adoption. How could I carry a child for nine months and then just give it up? She claimed lots of insurance companies don’t pay for prenatal care you plan on adoption, (a lie) My child would hate me forever for not wanting it. How would I ever know the child would go to a good family? She told me stories about people who adopted children so they would have a “servant” and that these children were mistreated like dogs. She told me this as if it was commonplace! Then this monster of a woman proceeded to tell me, I scared, pregnant girl, that the only real option in a case like mine was abortion.

She told me the baby was not a baby at all, but just a mass of cells, incapable of feeling and not human. I was eight weeks pregnant. Perhaps I should mention that I had become pregnant from a worker in the mental health unit where I had spent some time for attempting suicide. This woman knew this, and fed on my vulnerability. I left with an appointment for an abortion for three days later.

On my way out of the clinic, I was approached by young woman holding a baby. She said “your test was positive, wasn’t it?” I told her yes, and she handed me some pamphlets and asked “before you do anything, would you please just read what these have to say?” That was all she did. I told her yes thanked her and went on my way. When I got home I looked over the pamphlets. Although I am agnostic and these pamphlets did mention God, I looked at them objectively for the facts. I saw a picture of an eight-week-old fetus, complete with fingers, eyes, a nose, mouth, and a beating heart. Part of me thought that this couldn’t be true… in my confused state. I refused to believe that the abortion salesperson had lied to me.

On the pamphlet was a printed number to the local crisis pregnancy center. I decided to give them a call. I remember when I called it was 7:45 PM, and when they answered I asked how late they were open. I was told 8 PM I said “oh okay” and was ready to hang up. The woman on the phone said “wait… are you okay honey? Do you need someone to talk to?” I told her I was pregnant, and I have some questions about the pamphlet I had received. She said that she would stay open for me if I wanted to come out and when I told her I didn’t have a car, she offered to and did come to pick me up at the crisis pregnancy center she took my name and asked me some questions such as when was my last period, Had I had a positive pregnancy test, etc. When she got to the question where she asked about my religious preference, I told her I was agnostic. That was fine, it was a nonissue, she did not proselytize to me at all. What she did do was to answer all the questions I had, told me there about resources available to single mothers, and also told me about adoption resources. When I mentioned what the abortion salesperson said about my baby being a mass of cells, she pulled out a book, “A Child is Born” a well-known book for expectant mothers and others, and showed me a picture of an eight week fetus. The picture looked very much like the one I’d seen in the pamphlet… fingers, eyes, nose, mouth, and a beating heart. Yes, a beating heart… I read medical text that proved this to me. We ended our visit with her telling me that they would be there for me to matter what I decided to do. She reiterated the assistance they provide to expectant and new mothers, and it was substantial assistance. She drove me home.

The next morning I awoke with a clear head and I knew there was no way I could kill my baby. My first instinct was to call the clinic and cancel my appointment. I’m glad I didn’t do that right away, because the more thought about it the angrier I got. Angry that the abortion salesperson had lied to me. Angry that she had most likely lied to many other scared pregnant girls in just the same way. Angry that, all over the country millions of scared pregnant girls were being lied to… coerced into killing their babies.

I decided not to cancel my appointment instead at 10 AM on the appointed day I walked into the office. I looked around at the other girls, yes girls, sitting in that waiting room. I walked up to the reception desk, and in a voice loud enough for everyone to hear I said I would not be keeping my appointment. I asked the receptionist why I had been lied to. I told her the child inside me was a baby and I have pictures to prove it. Then I pulled out pictures of the five week fetus and an eight week fetus. I held them up for everybody to see. I started to read medical literature about when the heart begins beating. This is when two women came around from the back, each taking one of my arms, and told me to leave peacefully or they would force me out. I left all right but not before I had taken a handful of pamphlets and thrown in the direction of the girl sitting in the waiting room. They were all like keystone cops scrambling to pick up the evidence of their lies before any of their customers, saw it!

I walked out the door across the street, and into the car of a friend who was waiting for me. No sooner had I sat down, then I saw two – yes two – of the girls who were waiting in the waiting room walk out. A pro-life activist was born that day. My daughter Katie was born eight months later.

an eight week-old unborn baby
Share on Facebook

Peter Kreeft on Fetal Personhood

Either the fetus is a person, or not; and either we know what it is, or not. Thus there are four and only four possibilities:

1. that it is not a person and we know that,
2. that it is a person and we know that,
3. that it is a person but we do not know that, and
4. that it is not a person and we do not know that.
Now what is abortion in each of these four cases?

In case (1), abortion is perfectly permissible. We do no wrong if we kill what is not a person and we know it is not a person- e.g., if we fry a fish. But no one has ever proved with certainty that a fetus is not a person. If there exists anywhere such a proof, please show it to me and I shall convert to pro-choice on the spot if I cannot refute it.

If we do not have case (1) we have either (2) or (3) or (4). What is abortion in each of these cases? It is either murder, or manslaughter, or criminal negligence. In case (2), where the fetus is a person and we know that, abortion is murder. For killing an innocent person knowing it is an innocent person is murder.

In case (3), abortion is manslaughter, for it is killing an innocent person not knowing and intending the full, deliberate extent of murder. It is like driving over a man-shaped overcoat in the street, which may be a drunk or may only be an old coat. It is like shooting at a sudden movement in a bush which may be your hunting companion or may be only a pheasant. It is like fumigating an apartment building with a highly toxic chemical not knowing whether everyone is safely evacuated. If the victim is a person you have committed manslaughter. And if not?

Even in case (4), even if abortion kills what is not in fact a person, but the killer does not know for sure that it is not a person, we have criminal negligence, as in the above three cases if there happened to be no man in the coat, the bush, or the building but the driver, the hunter, or the fumigator did not know that, and nevertheless drove, shot or fumigated. Such negligence is instinctively and universally condemned by all reasonable individuals and societies as personally immoral and socially criminal; and cases (2) and (3), murder and manslaughter, are of course condemned even more strongly. We do not argue politely over whether such behavior is right or wrong. We wholeheartedly condemn it, even when we do not know whether there is a person there, because the killer did not know that a person was not there. Why do we not do the same with abortion?

See Kreeft’s complete article “Human Personhood Begins at Conception”

Share on Facebook

Abortions Often Linked to Relationship Problems, Study Says

Author: Womancare Services, Inc.

Eager to please their boyfriends or spouses, women often choose abortion to keep the relationship steady. But that can’t be counted on, say researchers at Bowling Green State University in a recent study.

When a woman gets an abortion, the couple is more than twice as likely to argue when discussing future children, and nearly three times as likely to experience domestic violence, compared with women who carry the pregnancy to term and raise the child, according to the peer-reviewed journal Public Health published Mar. 24.

“Abortion may play a vital role in understanding the aetiology [cause] of relationship problems,” the journal stated. The study said that abortion within a current relationship causes 116% more arguing when discussing future children, and 196% more domestic violence.

The study was carried out by Dr. Priscilla Coleman, professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University, KY; Vincent Rue of the Florida-based Institute for Pregnancy Loss; and post-abortion researcher Catherine Coyle. The researchers found that abortion affected future relationships as well.

‘For both men and women the experience of an abortion in a previous relationship was related to negative outcomes in the current relationship,’ they wrote.

Although neither the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, nor the sexuality website RH Reality Check commented on the study yet, the Planned Parenthood website states on its health topic answers that, “For some women, having an abortion can be a significant life event, like ending a relationship, starting or losing a job, or becoming a parent. It can be very stressful and difficult. Other women have an easier time after abortion.”

Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/womens-health-articles/abortions-often-linked-to-relationship-problems-study-says-1479934.html

About the Author

Women in Berwyn, Oak Park, Stickney, LaGrange, Cicero, Westchester, and nearby towns who want to learn more about such after-effects to better enable them to make an abortion decision should contact WomanCare Services in Berwyn, IL. WomanCare Services offers help to women facing unintended pregnancies in the near southwest Chicago area. Go to WomanCare Services. Or call 708-795-6000

Share on Facebook

Planned Parenthood and Federal Funds: What you Need to Know

There has been a great deal of talk recently about cutting off Federal funding to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood receives Title X and Title XX funds from state, federal, and local governments to help the poor and needy get birth control. Or at least, that’s the story. Things are not necessarily what they seem at Planned Parenthood.

Pro-life activist Robert H. Ruff picketed outside the third largest Planned Parenthood clinic in the United States. He noticed that the dumpster next to the building was stuffed with computer printouts. He examined the information and discovered that Planned Parenthood had thrown out over two years worth of records, including financial records of over 50,000 office visits.

Using several trips and several cars he took the bags of print-outs home.

In the records, they found some interesting things about Title X and XX funds.

Apparently, when funds are given to PP by the government, there are no rules or guidelines about criteria as to which patients these funds should be reserved for.

If a person receives Medicaid, for example, the government first had to determine that they were in fact poor or disabled. But no such rules govern what Planned Parenthood patients deserve government funding. That means, while a patient on Mediciad must actually be poor or disabled to qualify for medicaid funds, a patient whose visit to Planned Parenthood is paid for by Title X funds need not be. The government INTENDS that such funds be used for poor people, but there is no way to enforce this. According to Ruff and the records he found, he says that PP used the funds to finance birth control mostly for people who , in fact, were of the same demographic of those who paid in cash. Evidence, according to him, that the “free” birth control provided by PP is not only gong to those who cannot pay, but just as often to those who CAN pay.

In fact, in a Planned Parenthood memo to clinic directors, explaining how to qualify clients for Title XX (Government Funds) they gave the following example:

“Example 2: An 18 yer old patient states that she is a full-time college student. She is part-time employed with an average income of $50.00 per week. Her parents send her 150.00 per month for food. They also pay her tuition directly to the University. The student also uses her summer employment savings of $2,000.00 to contribute to her monthly expenses. The student calculates that she uses about 150.00 a month to meet her other expenses. The patient is wearing three gold necklaces, two rings with multiple stones, one has rubies and diamonds, and the other has a black onyx stone with diamonds. She also has a Gucci purse and an obviously new pair of leather shoes. She states that her father is a banker and earns $35,000.00 a year and her mother is part time employed with an income of $10,000.00 a year, the patient has two siblings.

Question: How is eligibility calculated and determined?

Answer: First and foremost, the patient is 18 years old, therefore she is a legal adult. Her parents and siblings are disregarded in determining eligibility….this person would be Title XX eligible and assessed a co-pay of 20%.”

So even a girl who has enough money for expensive jewelry and high fashion clothes is eligible for help from the government to pay for her birth control pills.

But surely, if funds are cut off from Planned Parenthood, some affiliates will go out of business, right?

Well, in the summer of 1986, Planned Parenthood ran out of Title XX funds in certain areas and went cold turkey off federal funds with only medicaid funds, nothing else. They had to charge virtually all their patients straight cash fees. Did the clinics close? Not at all.

The minutes of the PPHSET Board of Directors meeting of Sept 24, 1986: (directly quoted)

“Follow-up- If you recall at the Annual Meeting in May, I presented a pessimistic view of our financial condition going into the summer months. This was primarily due to our running out of Title XX funding in Regions Eleven and Six.

I am happy to report that the gloomy forecast did not come true, for a variety of reasons:

— Absent goverment funding, patients were willing to pay for their own care

…..

As I hope was mentioned in the Treasurer’s Report, we finished 85/86 in the black. This success was due to a number of facts:

The clinic staff successfully shifting patients to cash paying status vs government funding….”

The meeting also mentioned that donations from private organizations helped supplement their income.

So is it true that Planned Parenthood will not be able to survive without government funds?

As if all this isn’t enough, Ruff’s examination of the 50,000 office records revealed something else.

Ruff found that the Planned Parenthood records showed that the organization charged more money for services to clients whose visits were being covered by government funds.

For a pregnancy test Planned Parenthood charged 3 1/2 times more money to Title XX (federal) clients.

If a client paid cash, they were charged 15.75 for a pregnancy test

If they were title XX patients, they were charged a it a whopping 57.93! Just for a simple pregnancy test! When a home pregnancy test can be purchased for several dollars, Planned Parenthood has the goverment paying 57.93 to provide pregnancy tests to patients, many of which aren’t even poor.

BTW, when Medicaid picked up the tab, the cost was 47.18.

The same kind of overbilling occurred with other Planned Parenthood services.

Average cash cost of initial birth control visit: 32.13
Title XX cost: 77.55
Medicaid cost: 63.81

Average cash cost of annual birth control visit: 40.61
Title XX: 85.83
Medicaid: 69.58

Average cost in cash for birth control repeat visit: 25.37
Title XX: 35.94
Medicaid: 25.16

Average cash cost for birth control supply visit: 10.29
Title XX: 35.62
Medicaid: 16.75

(Tables on PGS 24-27)

Should Planned Parenthood continue to receive millions of dollars in taxpayer funds with virtually no oversight as to how these funds are used? I would argue no.

————————————————

Source: Robert H. Ruff “Aborting Planned Parenthood: Documented Proof of Planned Parenthood’s Systematic Exploitation of Teenagers and Taxpayers” (Lewiston, NJ: Life Cycle Books, 1988)

 

Share on Facebook

Pro-Choice Anger, Grief Revealed in Blog Post

In a recent article on Jezebel, a pro-choice author discusses the abortion she had after she visited a pro-life pregnancy resource center. Her grief and guilt after the abortion, and her willingness to blame the pro-lifer’s for her suffering, offers a window into the pro-choice mindset.

Here is a write up by Kelsey Hazzard, who is the president of Secular Pro-Life, which can be found here.

Today’s post is a review of an article on Jezebel, in which a pro-choicer describes visiting a pregnancy help center, viewing her unborn baby on a sonogram, and then having an abortion. The author now rails against pregnancy centers.

What I see above all in this story is a deep-seated grief that has been transformed into misdirected anger as a psychological defense mechanism. I cannot emphasize enough that I do not intend to demonize this woman. We all experience misdirected anger at times. But I think it’s important for us to examine this closely, to try to understand the whirlwind of emotion, so that we can serve women in crisis pregnancies better.

The author was a 21-year-old pro-choicer who thought that she was only a couple weeks pregnant, and planned to take an abortion pill. But she learned from the pregnancy center that she was actually three and a half months along. They provided her with a sonogram, which confronted her with the humanity of her unborn baby:

“Then she turned the monitor to me. I have so many little brothers and sisters. I was with my mother the first time she heard my younger siblings heartbeat. There was a heartbeat now, too.

. . .

I clutched my hand to my stomach and in the sonogram screen, an arm lifted. I took my arm away and the arm went back down. “Put your hand back up!” the older woman said. I did, and the tiny hand went up again. That’s the moment that I can’t get out of my head, to this day.”

After speaking with a counselor, she was considering the possibility that she “could be a good mother.” But she was ambivalent, and didn’t make a follow-up appointment. She returned home, to a boyfriend who was eager to “take care of it.” He took the sonogram printout and hid it from her– but it was too late to undo her knowledge.

“For me, the real anger didn’t come until later when I actually went through with the abortion. I’m not saying it’s ever easy for anyone, but all I could think about that day was the sonogram and that hand. There were tears streaming down my face when I was going under. I remember the anesthesiologist telling me, “Don’t worry, it won’t hurt,” and I remember thinking, That’s not what I’m crying about.”

Of course, she was crying about the fact that her child– whose movements she watched, whose heartbeat she heard– was about to die.

But this self-insight is fleeting. She apparently thinks that if only she had been able to maintain her ignorance of human development, everything would have been fine. She blames the pregnancy center for allowing her to see the situation for what it really was. And now, she wants to impose her wished-for ignorance on other women by fighting sonogram laws.

Some things are just too much for the human heart to handle, and the knowledge that you’re responsible for the death of a real live human being is one of them. She initially felt that the pregnancy center volunteers were honest and kind. But she can no longer feel that way, not after making the decision she made. And so, she demonizes the pregnancy center movement in an effort to avoid her grief. It isn’t working, though: she says that “It’s taken me the two years since [the abortion] not to break down every time I think about it.”

This is the pain that thousands of women experience each year. This is why pro-lifers must be proactive in reaching out to women hurt by abortion, and it is why we must continue helping women choose life. Willful ignorance is not the answer.

sonogram at three months
Share on Facebook

Planned Parenthood “Facts”: Abortion Is Safe

The facts about abortion and it’s potential dangers are not widely known.

Why don’t people know more about abortion? Why is a website like this one even necessary? So much of what we hear about abortion consists of half-truths, distortions, and outright lies. Let’s examine some of the ways in which people are deceived about abortion.

Planned Parenthood has a website aimed at teenagers called Teenwire.

The site allows teenagers to e-mail questions to Planned Parenthood “experts” about birth control, sex, and abortion. In one “Ask the Experts” article (found at http://www.teenwire.com/ask/2005/as-20050228p974-abortion.php) the question of abortion’s safety is addressed.

The question:

Dear Experts,

Is abortion safe?

greenie, 02.28.05

The answer:

Dear greenie,

Yes. Abortion is a very safe procedure. It’s about twice as safe as a shot of penicillin, and is 11 times safer than giving birth. Contrary to what you may have heard, abortion does not increase the risk of:

birth defects, premature birth, or low birth weight in future pregnancies

breast cancer

ectopic or tubal pregnancy

miscarriage

Hope this information helps!

Take care,

teenwire.com Editors

 

Planned Parenthood is quick to assure teens that there are no physical dangers to abortion. However, they do not offer a single study or citation to prove abortion’s safety.

So…let’s look at what the studies say:

Abortion Increases Risk of Later Miscarriage by 60%

Source: N. Maconochie, P. Doyle, S. Prior, R. Simmons, “Risk factors for first trimester miscarriage” results from a UK-population-based case-control study,” BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Dec 2006. Abstract available at www.blackwell-synergy.com.

Women who have abortions are more likely to experience ectopic pregnancies, infertility, hysterectomies, stillbirths, miscarriages, and premature births than women who have not had abortions.

Source: Strahan, T. Detrimental Effects of Abortion: An Annotated Bibliography with Commentary (Springfield, IL: Acorn Books, 2002) 168-206.

More studies confirming higher risk of ectopic pregnancy:

Daling,et.al., “Ectopic Pregnancy in Relation to Previous Induced Abortion”, J. American Medical Association 253(7):1005-1008, Feb. 15, 1985;

Levin, et.al., “Ectopic Pregnancy and Prior Induced Abortion”, American J. Public Health 72:253, 1982; C.S. Chung, “Induced Abortion and Ectopic Pregnancy in Subsequent Pregnancies,” American J. Epidemiology 115(6):879-887 (1982).

Death or disability of newborns in later pregnancies

Cervical and uterine damage may increase the risk of premature delivery, complications of labor, and abnormal development of the placenta in later pregnancies.

Sources: “Post-Abortal Endometritis and Isolation of Chlamydia Trachomatis,” Obstetrics and Gynecology 68(5):668- 690, 1986);

P. Sykes, “Complications of termination of pregnancy: a retrospective study of admissions to Christchurch Women’s Hospital, 1989 and 1990,” New Zealand Medical Journal 106: 83-85, March 10, 1993; S Osser and K Persson, “Postabortal pelvic infection associated with Chlamydia trachomatis infection and the influence of humoral immunity,” Am J Obstet Gynecol 150:699, 1984;

B. Hamark and L Forssman, “Postabortal Endometritis in Chlamydia-Negative Women- Association with Preoperative Clinical Signs of Infection,” Gynecol Obstet Invest 31:102-105, 1991;

Strahan, Detrimental Effects of Abortion: An Annotated Bibliography With Commentary (Springfield, IL: Acorn Books, 2002) 169.

Studies indicating higher risk of breast cancer after one or more abortions:

M. Segi, et al “An Epidemiological Study on Cancer in Japan,” GANN, Vol. 48, Supplement: April, 1957. (abstract not available)

Pike et al (1981) Br Journal of Cancer 43 Oral contraceptive use and early abortion as risk factors for breast cancer in young women

Nishiyama (1982) Shikoku Ichi 38: 333-43 (In Japanese)

Laing et al (1993) J National Med Assoc. 85:931-9 Breast cancer risk factors in African – American women: the Howard University Tumor Resistry experience.

Laing et al (1994) Genetic Epidemiology 11:A300

Rohan et al. Am J Epidemiol 1988 Sep;128(3):478-89 A population-based case-control study of diet and breast cancer in Australia.

Bu et al. (1995) Am J Epidemiol 141:S85

Ye et al. (2002) Br J Cancer 87:977-981

Brinton et al. (1983) Br. Journal of Cancer 47:757-62 Reproductive factors in the etiology of breast cancer.

Rosenburg et al. (1988) Am J Epidemiology 127:981-9 Breast cancer in relation to the occurrence and time of induced and spontaneous abortion.

Marcus et al. Am J Public Health 1999 Aug; 89(8):1244-7 Adolescent reproductive events and subsequent breast cancer risk.

Palmer et al. (1997) Cancer Causes Control 8:841-9 Induced and spontaneous abortion in relation to risk of breast cancer.

Lazovich et al. Epidemiology 2000 Jan;11(1):76-80 Induced abortion and breast cancer risk.

Daling et al. Am J Epidemiol 1996 Aug 15;144(4):373-80 Risk of breast cancer among white women following induced abortion.

Daling et al. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994 Nov 2;86(21):1584-92 Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion.

Laing et al. J Natl Med Assoc 1993 Dec;85(12):931-9 Breast cancer risk factors in African-American women: the Howard University Tumor Registry experience.

White et al. (1994) J Natl Cancer Inst 86:505-14 Breast cancer among young U.S. women in relation to oral contraceptive use.

Newcomb et al. (1996) JAMA 275:283-7 Pregnancy termination in relation to risk of breast cancer.

Howe et al. Int J Epidemiol 1989 Jun;18(2):300-4 Early abortion and breast cancer risk among women under age 40.

Andrieu et al. Br J Cancer 1995 Sep;72(3):744-51 Familial risk, abortion and their interactive effect on the risk of breast cancer–a combined analysis of six case-control studies.

Hirohata et al. (1985) Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 69:187-90 Occurrence of breast cancer in relation to diet and reproductive history: a case-control study in Fukuoka, Japan.

Ewertz & Duffy (1988) Br J Cancer 68:99-104 Risk of breast cancer in relation to reproductive factors in Denmark.

Lipworth et al. (1995) Int J Cancer 61:181-4 Abortion and the risk of breast cancer: a case-control study in Greece

Rookus & van Leeuwan J Natl Cancer Inst 88:1759-64 Induced abortion and risk for breast cancer: reporting (recall) bias in a Dutch case-control study

Talamini et al. (1996) Eur J Cancer 32A:303-10 The role of reproductive and menstrual factors in cancer of the breast before and after menopause

Watanabe & Hirayama (1968) Nippon Rinsho 26:1853-9 (in Japanese, no abstract available)

Dvoirin & Medvedev (1978) Meth Prog Breast Cancer Epidemiol Res, Tallin 1978. USSR Acad Sci pp 53-63 (In Russian)

Le et al., (1984) British J Cancer 72:744-51

Luporsi (1988) British J Cancer 72:744-51

Wu et al. (1996) Br J Cancer 73:680-6

Robertson C, Van Den Donk M, Primic-Zakelj, MacFarlaneT, Boyle P. The association between induced and spontaneous abortion and risk of breast cancer in Slovenian women aged 25-54. Breast 2001; 10:291-8.

Source: Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

Interestingly enough:

“It is known that having a full-term pregnancy early in a woman’s childbearing years is protective against breast cancer….Interruption during the first trimester of a first pregnancy causes a cessation of cell differentiation, which may result in a subsequent increase in the risk of cancerous growth in these tissues.”

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. Web site, “Abortion and Breast Cancer: The Issues” 3 (visited Sep. 5, 1997) http://www.igc.apc.org/ppfa/ab-breas.html]

So…even though numerous studies have shown that abortion does increase the risk of breast cancer and the fact Planned Parenthood has actually admitted to that risk, the organization is hasty to assure teenagers that the risk does not exist.

Teenagers coming to Planned Parenthood for abortions and birth control contribute millions of dollars to the organization every year.

Perhaps the link between profits and lying is a bit easier to see?

Share on Facebook

The Koop Report : The REAL Story

On July 30, 1987, then-President Ronald Reagan directed his Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, to prepare a report on the effects of abortion on women. Prolife and prochoice groups disagree about what the results of that request were. Prolife activists say that Koop never wrote a report, but instead sent a letter to Reagan saying that there were no “unassailable” studies. Prochoice activists say that there was a Koop report that said abortion is perfectly safe. Which side is telling the truth? Both are — if you know the inside story.

How can that be? The story is complex, and getting to the bottom of it took many hours in Library of Congress, digging through Congressional record. Follow this carefully.

Koop didn’t want to write the report, for an assortment of personal and professional reasons. He tried repeatedly to beg off, but Reagan kept pestering him. Koop foisted the task off on his staff. The research and preparations for the planned report evidently became largely the task of one George Walter.

Walter listed a lot of folks he “consulted” about research into the effects of abortion women. Superficially, it looks as though Walter had a crew of mostly prochoice researchers, with token prolife researchers, bring forth their evidence. But what really happened is that Walter contacted the prochoice researchers at the Centers for Disease Control, and they forwarded a list of 250 research articles to him. These articles were selected by people who wanted to be able to say good things about abortion, and to avoid saying anything negative about abortion. Therefore, these articles were not representative of research on abortion. They were the 250 articles that CDC staff felt painted abortion in the best possible light.

After the meetings and the literature review, Koop felt satisfied that his staff had gone through sufficient motions to satisfy Reagan. Koop then drafted and sent a letter to the President, concluding that there had been no unassailable studies of the long-term impact of abortion.

Koop directed his staff to drop the project on January 10, 1989, hoping Reagan would be content with the letter and would drop the subject. Nevertheless, George Walter proceeded to re-write the report, submitting it to Koop on January 17. Walter’s cover letter said, “This document was reviewed and concurred with by our unofficial consulting group. It represents a balanced, well-written document which is directed to the general public. Its underpinning is scientifically sound and presents a solid, common sense approach to this important public health problem.”

However, the report was not concurred with by many scientists studying abortion, such as Thomas Hilgers, Wanda Franz, Matthew Bulfin, Leonard Aaro, and Thomas McDonald. How then could it be a balanced report? It would seem so only to those who already had a strong pro-abortion bias. For example, the report says that problems such as infertility, miscarriage, and ectopic pregnancy “are no more frequent among women who experienced abortion than they are among the general population of women.”

Koop instructed Walter to shelve the draft, and not to release any report about abortion from his office. Instead, Walter released the draft under Koop’s name.

Koop didn’t even read the final report until he was brought before a Congressional committee. During his testimony, he repeatedly tried to distance himself from the report with vague statements about not having read it.

Walter said that the bulk of the consulting was with Carol Hogue at the CDC and with Jackie Forrest of the Alan Guttmacher Institute. (To give you some perspective, Carol Hogue tries to claim that abortion enhances fertility by pre-stretching the uterus, like you’d stretch a balloon before you blow it up.) Walter admits that he elected to not study the impact of abortion on rape or incest victims, or those aborting for fetal abnormalities. In other words, he deliberately excluded from their study the women already known to be at highest risk for both physical and emotional sequelae.

Jackie Forrest told Congress, “I met with Dr. Koop and his staff members twice during the course of his review of research on the health effects of abortion. The first meeting was the initial group meeting held by Dr. Koop, in fall of 1987. The second was with other representatives of the Alan Guttmacher Institute in the summer of 1988. In addition, I was asked to meet and consult with Dr. Koop’s staff to provide more detailed information about pertinent research by AGI and to present findings from studies that were in process in 1987 and 1988.” She said that she wished “that Dr. Koop and his staff had issued a full report on their research review,” and that she wanted “to commend them for undertaking the project in a very professional manner.” This is akin to getting a glowing review of a report of the health effects of smoking from R.J. Reynolds. Notice also that Ms. Forrest said lamented that Koop and his staff had not issued “a full report.” In speaking to Congress, Ms. Forrest recognized that there was no officially released Koop report, merely the draft she had helped to prepare.

When noted abortionist/abortion promoter Jaroslav Hulka was “asked to present the complications of legal abortion to the Surgeon General,” he instead “organized a literature review around the following question: Why did the United States legalize abortions?” Hulka evidently never presented to Koop any evidence of legal abortion complications, despite the existence of such evidence in research performed by abortion advocates such as William Brenner and Philip Stubblefield. Clearly, Hulka treated the proposed report as an opportunity to propagandize in favor of legalized abortion rather than as an opportunity to have existing research reviewed by the Surgeon General.

Touting his “over 9 years” in the Abortion Surveillance Branch of the CDC, abortionist David Grimes claimed, “The medical evidence concerning the safety of induced abortion in the United States is clear and incontrovertible.” As proof of legal abortion’s safety, he points to the Joint Programs for the Study of Abortion (JPSA, pronounced “GYP-sah”), which got all of its information from abortionists’ records. Grimes had met with Koop to convince him that the data was indeed conclusive — that abortion is quite safe. He claimed that the risk of death from legal abortion is “less than the risk of death from an injection of penicillin,” and cites as his source the 1982-83 CDC Abortion Surveillance Summary, which never mentions penicillin. He also asserted, “Legal abortion has not been found to impair a woman’s ability to have children in the future,” citing Willard Cates, Carol Hogue, and Christopher Tietze.

First, this constitutes incestuous citing, basing his conclusions on the biased research of some of the most avid proponents of abortion. Second, this assertion is patently false, since many acknowledged abortion complications impede future childbearing capability. Third, even Hogue, et al., admit the effects of multiple abortions are not even remotely known — and nearly half of all abortions are repeat abortions.(Family Planning Perpsectives J/A 1996, p. 143) Fourth, second-trimester abortions have been shown to at least potentially affect future childbearing unfavorably even if no complications are noted at the time. So Grimes is lying on at least 4 counts with this single statement.

Grimes also makes the obviously false blanket statement that “the risk from pregnancy and childbirth is about seven times higher than that from induced abortion.” At that time, it was known that by 16 weeks, abortion was at least as dangerous as childbirth, and that the risks increased exponentially after 16 weeks. No blanket statements can be made comparing the risks of abortion to the risks of childbirth, even if one assumes that current data are reliable, because there is no single “abortion” risk to compare to a single “childbirth” risk. Abortion risks vary widely depending upon the woman’s health, the stage of pregnancy, the skill of the practitioner, and the method chosen. Childbirth risks vary according to many

factors as well, including how much prenatal care is provided.

Others that Koop met with included the American Public Health Association, the American College of Obestetricians and Gynecologists, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America — notoriously pro-abortion groups. (This is akin to asking tobacco growers and cigarette companies to prepare a report on the health effects of smoking.) Koop and Walter met with no pro-life medical groups, despite the number of respected and notable professionals in these groups. The few pro-life professionals consulted were treated as individuals speaking for themselves rather than as representative of a large number of their colleagues. His input from those opposed to abortion was almost exclusively limited to religious groups. Is it any wonder his data were skewed?

Koop made the ridiculous statement that “…obstetricians and gynecologists have long since concluded that the physical sequelae of abortion were no different than those found in women who carried pregnancy to term or who had never been pregnant.” First of all, only a few obstetricians and gynecologists have concluded any such thing — most notably Jaroslav Hulka and David Grimes. Second of all, it is absurd on its face. Is Koop claiming that a woman who has never been pregnant — some nun in a convent — is going to develop a utero-colonic fistula (a hole between her uterus and colon) spontaneously? That her cervix will just spontaneously drop off? That her empty uterus will rupture all by itself? This assertion is straight from George Walter’s unauthorized report, which we have already established was written and approved by people who make absurdly broad and insupportable statements about abortion’s safety. Clearly, Koop’s mind had been muddled by his contact with these people, both on his staff and in consultation.

The “Surgeon General’s Report” or “Koop Report” on abortion is non-existent. There exist only the Koop letter and the unauthorized report prepared by George Walter in consultation with some of the most avid and enthusiastic promoters of legal abortion. Many scientists and physicians would vehemently disagree with the tone and content of the report. Therefore, any presentations of the report as reflecting Koop’s independent conclusions, or accepted scientific knowledge, are at best based on colossal ignorance, and at worst are a deliberate attempt to deceive. Any statements by Koop on the safety of abortion are based on what appear to be a concerted effort by abortion advocates to turn the Surgeon General into an abortion industry spokesman.

By Christina Dunigan

Share on Facebook

Pro-Choice “Facts”: The Story of Becky Bell

The story of Becky Bell, a teenager who died in 1988, has been used by pro-choice groups for decades to rally the public against laws that would require parents to be notified about their teen’s abortions. One can simply do a google search to find examples of abortion rights groups discussing her story. But what really happened?

Pro-Choice groups contend that Becky Bell was pregnant and afraid to tell her parents. Since her home state had a law that required parents to be notified of their teen’s abortions, she had an illegal abortion (or self-induced an abortion, the story varies) and died from a resulting infection.

A movie was made about Becky Bell’s life and you can still find the story flying around the internet and on the websites of various pro-choice groups. While most of the better known groups have since stopped repeating the Becky Bell story because of the evidence against it, the story still pops up from time to time.

Carolyn Gargaro, a respected pro-life scholar and author, discusses the truth behind the Becky Bell story.

Her article (which can be found here in its entirety) is quoted below.

“Becky Bell was a 17-year old Indiana girl who reportedly died of an illegal abortion on September 16, 1988.

“Pro-choice” and Feminist organizations, especially Planned Parenthood and Eleanor Smeal’s “Feminist Majority Fund,” immediately seized on Becky Bell’s death and stated as fact that it was directly caused by Indiana’s parental consent laws. They dubbed Becky the “first known victim of parental consent laws” and launched massive media campaign and enlisted her parents to hit the talk show and lecture circuit to denounce parental notification and consent laws all over the country – the law that they claimed “caused Becky’s death.” As Ms. Magazine put it, “She Died Because of a Law.” [1]

This received a lot of media attention for awhile, until the National Right to Life Committee got a copy of the post-mortem report, which showed no sign of either induced abortion or infection in or near the reproductive organs. What the report did show was that Becky Bell died of a deadly and fast-acting form of pneumonia, similar to that which killed Muppets creator Jim Henson, which had neither originated in nor had affected the reproductive system. She had contracted this especially lethal form of pneumonia at about the same time that she had a miscarriage

Various doctors have confirmed that Becky Bell did not die from an induced abortion. Dr. John Curry, former head of the Tissue Bank at Bethesda Naval Hospital, reviewed the coroner’s pathology report. He noted that the report listed massive infection in Becky Bell’s lungs and in other areas of her body, but there was no evidence of infection on the outside of her uterus or within it. He also stated that the germ that killed her was a common pneumonia germ “… which is unlikely to originate from a contaminated abortion procedure.” [2]

The physician who personally examined Becky’s body, Dr. John Pless, head of forensic pathology at Indiana University Medical Center, stated that “I cannot prove she had an illegal abortion. I cannot prove she had anything but a spontaneous abortion [miscarriage].” [3]

Former abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson also concluded, after examining the medical evidence, that: “There is no infection in or around the uterus, no pus, no odor to the uterus, and no peritonitis. The serosa of the uterus is described as “smooth and glistening. In the case of a septic abortion, this tissue would be shaggy and discolored … Indeed, there is no evidence for an induced abortion at all: no marks or stigmata of instrumentation in the genital tract … In short, the cause of death here was probably overwhelming pneumonia unrelated to the abortion/ miscarriage.” [4]

Finally, Dr. Curtis Harris, president of the American Academy of Medical Ethics, consulted in detail with four leading specialists in the fields of infectious disease, infertility, pathology, and obstetrics/gynecology. The opinion of these five national experts was unanimous : That Becky Bell had an incomplete miscarriage ( not an induced abortion); that her uterus was not marked or infected at all; and that the cause of her death was pneumonia brought on by the aspiration of vomit, and that this pathology was not related to the miscarriage in any manner. [5]

Shortly after NRLC started distributing copies of the autopsy report and calling for a review of the coroner’s report concluding the death was a result of a “septic abortion” (which the post-mortem contradicted), Mr. and Mrs. Bell dropped out of sight and Eleanor Smeal never said another word about it.

Less than six months after Becky Bell’s death, Erica Richardson, a Maryland sixteen-year-old, died from a legal abortion. [6] Erica underwent the abortion without her parents’ knowledge or consent. Where is NARAL’s outrage at Erica’s death? Perhaps there is none because her death did not further their pro-choice agenda.

It is a tragedy that Becky Bell died, but is also a tragedy when the pro-choice movement purposely lies and exploits her death to further their own agenda.”

In case there is still any doubt, here is a quote from Becky’s autopsy report:

“”The uterus, fallopian tubes and ovaries are present. They are of usual size and shape for age. No tumors are present. There is evidence of recent pregnancy with recent partial abortion. The uterus is enlarged consistent with current pregnancy of age approximately 2-3 months. The cervix is dilated uniformly without evidence of mucosal or submucosal injury. Extruding from the cervical os is hemorraghic and necrotic red-tan and grey-brown tissue consistent with products of conception. The lower third of the uterine cavity has only the flat mucosa without obvious evidence of instrumentation. However, the upper 2/3 of the uterine cavity has a mixture of blood clot and necrotic and hemmorraghic products of conception. There are no recognizable fetal parts, and the amniotic membrance has been ruptured, leaving only a small area recognizable as thin blue-tan glistening membranes. There is no evidence of hydatid mole or invasive chorio-carcinoma. The serosa of the uterus is smooth and glistening and without exudate, and there are no areas of perforation or pus in or around the uterus. The right ovary has a 1 x 1 1/2 x 1 inch bright yellow corpus luteum. The remainder of the ovaries shows unremarkable for age ovaries. There are no injuries of the vagina.”

Note: The term “abortion” in medical parlance (and as it appears on death certificates) usually refers to a “spontaneous abortion” or miscarriage.) Had Becky had an actual “abortion” – illegal or otherwise, the report would have read “induced abortion.”

Doctor J.C. Wilke goes on to explain the autopsy report:

” That she was pregnant is obvious. The cervix in a 17-year-old’s first pregnancy would have to be stretched open by an abortionist, causing some tearing of the lining of that cervix, even by the most gentle dilation. If a trained abortionist had performed an abortion, there would have been evidence of scraping, trauma, scratching, and tearing. Had an untrained person attempted an abortion, there would have been much more damage to the cervix and uterus. To have a cervix “dilated uniformly without evidence of mucosal or submucosal injury” totally rules out the use of any instrumentation; rather, it tells any physician that this was a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage), not an induced abortion.

The description of what “extrudes” from the “cervical os” (cervical opening) is the normal leftover from a nearly completed miscarriage. The report then further states that the lower third of the uterus was “without obvious evidence of instrumentation.” The report describes the remaining tissue in the upper two-thirds as exactly what one would expect from a miscarriage. Then the report speaks of the serosa, which is the outer covering of the womb, which is described as “smooth, glistening and without exudate.” Exudate would be pus or oozing if the organ was infected. If this had been a case of septic abortion, this tissue would be shaggy and discolored (not “smooth, glistening and without exudate”). Further, the report stated, “there are no areas of perforation or pus.” Finally, there are “no injuries of the vagina.” Clearly she did not have an induced abortion. The autopsy report of the lungs and pleural (chest) cavities take up over half a page of single-spaced reporting, and describe the near total destruction of those organs by infection.”(7)

It is sad that pro-choice advocates would exploit the death of one teenager and concoct a false story while ignoring the deaths of many teenagers from legal abortions. For the stories of some of these teens, as well as adults, go here.

One example is Jammie Garcia, age 14.

Jammie Garcia had her abortion performed by John Coleman at Hachamovitch’s A to Z abortion facility on February 18, 1994. Four days later, on February 23, she was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit of a Houston hospital, with spiking fever, chills, nausea, pain, respiratory distress, a distended abdomen, low blood oxygen levels, and foul-smelling discharge. An examination revealed inflammation and a tear in her cervix that was oozing pus. “J.G.’s” condition deteriorated, and she died in the Intensive Care Unit on March 2.

Christina Dunigan reviewed her autopsy report and says:

“Jammie’s body was wracked with abscesses, spreading infection that had entered her body through the damage the abortion had done to her uterus. Her brain was swollen. As near as Mona [another researcher] and I could figure, Jammie’s fetid fluids had made their way up through her damaged bowels and into her lungs.”

Her death prompted an investigation of the clinic where she died.

The March 1994 inspection revealed that the staff were inadequately trained in how to properly sterilize instruments. The administrator, Kristen Hing Fehr, was evidently aware of the fact that the autoclave used to sterilize instruments was not functioning properly. As for the instruments themselves, “two loop forceps, two tenaculums and one curette were found to have small particles of dried brownish-dark red material on them. Three speculums were found to have small particles of dried clear material on them.” “The only sterilized abortion tray in the procedure room was found to contain a curette with a loop whose edge was visibly jagged instead of smooth.”(8)

Although this death happened over a decade ago, in my experience, no pro-choice group has ever been observed discussing Jammie’s case- or admitting that Planned Parenthood’s policy of fighting clinic regulations contributed to it.

NOTES

1. Rochelle Sharp, “She Died Because of a Law,” Ms., July/August 1990, 80-81.
2. Dave Andrusko. “They Have No Shame!” National Right to Life News , August 16, 1990.
3. Joe Frolik. Cleveland Plain Dealer , September 9, 1990, page 1.
4. Bernard Nathanson, M.D. “In Memoriam: The Becky Bell Story.” Bernadell Technical Bulletin , November 1990, pages 4 and 5.
5. Dave Andrusko. “They Have No Shame!” National Right to Life News , August 16, 1990.
6. James A. Miller. “A Tale of Two Abortions,” Human Life International Reports, March 1991, 14.
7. Dr.& Mrs. J.C. Wilke “Why Can’t We Love Them Both” http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_28.asp
8. Source: Travis County District Court Cause No. 94-07517

Share on Facebook

Pro-Choice “Facts”: Illegal Abortion Deaths

Another extremely common lie told by pro-choice organizations like Planned Parenthood is that thousands of women died of illegal abortions before Roe V. Wade. For example:

Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman recently wrote,

“After all, those of us who remember when birth control was illegal and when 10,000 American women a year died from illegal abortions don’t have to imagine a world without choices. We were there.”

I don’t know what world Ellen Goodman was living in. Let’s look at some real statistics and facts:

1932309_10153443532109768_7699929616656573128_n

In the year prior to Roe v. Wade (1972), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports in their Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (Sept. 4, 1992, Vol. 41, No. SS-5) that 39 women died from illegal abortion in the U.S.(41 died that year from legal abortions). That is a far cry from 10,000. And note that more women died from legal abortions- something no one on the pro-choice sides ever admits to.

Mary Calderone, former director of Planned Parenthood, estimated in a July 1960 article from the American Journal of Public Health that 90% of all illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians in good standing. She writes the following:

“Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physicians. In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind. In New York City in 1921 there were 144 abortion deaths, In 1951 there were only 15; and, while the abortion death rate was going down so strikingly in that 30-year period, we know what happened to the population and the birth rate. Two corollary factors must be mentioned here: first, chemotherapy and antibiotics have come in, benefiting all surgical procedures as well as abortion. Second, and even more important, the conference estimated that 90 percent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such; and many of them are in good standing in their communities. They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is…abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous.”

Yes, this was written by the director of Planned Parenthood. Now here is another quote by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the co-founder of N.A.R.A.L. (now the NARAL Pro-Choice America) who was instrumental in lobbying for legal abortion.

“How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In N.A.R.A.L., we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always “5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year.” I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the “morality” of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible.”

This was quoted in Dr. Nathanson’s book Aborting America

Interestingly,

“Between 1967 and 1970 sixteen states legalized abortion. In most it was limited, only for rape, incest and severe fetal handicaps or deformities, and when the pregnancy jeopardized the life of the mother (all of which constitute only 5% of the abortion cases today). There were two notable exceptions – California in 1967 and New York in 1970 legalized abortion on demand.

Legalizing abortion should have eliminated some deaths related to illegal abortions. That is not the case. In the years from 1963-1969, there were an average of approximately 55 deaths per year due to illegal abortions. In 1970, after this initial wave of laws legalizing abortions, there were 109. Deaths from abortions increased.

By the year before the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision allowing legal abortion on demand in all fifty states. Now abortion was legal in all fifty states and back alley abortions eliminated with their alleged total of maternal deaths. In 1973 there should have been a sharp drop in abortion-related deaths if abortion advocates were right that legalizing abortion would make abortion safe.

There were 25 deaths resulting from legal abortion in 1973, 26 in 1974 and 29 in 1975.

Some have claimed that the number of illegal abortion-related deaths were not reported accurately or under-reported. Yet, when a woman was seriously injured by an abortion, she went to another doctor for care. The abortion practitioner was rarely involved at that point. The new doctor in many cases had to attempt to save the mother’s life. In cases of maternal death, this new doctor was required to report, and falsification of the death certificate was a felony. Therefore, prior to legalization of abortion, it’s safe to say deaths from illegal abortions were rarely covered up.” From “The Myth of Mass Back-Alley Abortion Deaths” athttp://www.vanderbilt.edu/sfl/illeg.htm cited:

Abortion Surveillance 1985, Center for Disease Control, Table #18.
Induced Abortion: World Review 1983, by Christopher Tietze, The Population Council, p 103
Maternal Mortality Surveillance 1979-1986, Centers for Disease Control, M&M Weekly report July 1991, Vol. 40, No. SS-1.

Pro-life writer and activist Christina Dunigan reveals the following in an article on her site that can be found here.:

“It’s disengenuous, to say the least, to credit a few states loosening abortion restrictions starting in 1968 with the huge decline in septic illegal abortion deaths during the nearly twenty year period preceeding the change. Abortion guru Christopher Tietze attributed the decline in abortion deaths during that period to improved abortion techniques (especially the development of vacuum aspiration), improved emergency care (including improved antibiotic and blood transfusion therapy), and a contraceptive-driven drop in unwanted pregnancies….To find more than 1,000 women dying a year from abortions (and this includes miscarriages and legal abortions performed on moribund women in attempts to save their lives), you have to go back to WWII – before antibiotics were available to treat abortion-related infection…legalization of abortion wasn’t a public health miracle preventing 5,000 to 10,000 maternal deaths a year. It did prevent SOME deaths, right? Guess again. The CDC’s intensive abortion mortality surveillance in the early 1970’s showed a reversal in the downward trend. The reduction in illegal abortion deaths was being more than offset by an increase in legal abortion deaths. The prochoice response was not to address the problem. Instead, the CDC dismantled their aggressive mortality surveillance and instead just counted deaths that were voluntarily reported to them. It’s no great surprise that the number of reported deaths went down — they were no longer looking for deaths to report.”

graph showing the number of deaths of women from illegal abortions. Notice that the main drop in the numbers takes place well before Roe versus Wade, when the vast majority of abortions were still illegal. This was due to the increased availability of antibiotics.

Ruth Garnett was an abortion provider who performed over 40,000 abortions between 1918 and 1968. She never lost a patient. She is quoted saying the following:

“There was nothing secret about my clinic in the Broadway Building. We had no locks on any of the doors except the one leading to a hall, which we locked at night. The majority of our cases were referrals from licensed physicians and surgeons. Women came and went in my clinic with scarcely more fuss than there would be in keeping an appointment at a beauty salon. Many girls came to me during their lunch hour and returned to work the same afternoon with no distress.”

From The Abortionist: a Woman against the Law by Jackie Solinger (New York: the Free Press, 1994) page 16

If all this isn’t enough, take into consideration this quote by Dr. Alan Guttmacher, the first president of Planned Parenthood:

“The technique of the well-accredited criminal abortionist is usually good. They have to be good to stay in business, since otherwise they would be extremely vulnerable to police action.”

He made this statement in his book, which was published in 1959.

Alan F. Guttmacher, M.D. “Babies by Choice or by Chance” Doubleday and Co. Inc, 1959

Further, please consider:

“In 1972 I began seeing a marked increase in the number of patients who had had legal abortions. At that time I also began seeing patients with significant complications after legal abortions.”

Matthew Bulfin, M.D. “A New Problem in Adolescent Gynecology” Southern Medical Journal, August 1979.

And

“Not only do deaths from illegal abortions continue to occur, but constitutional abortion has added its own casualties….Indeed, exhaustive study has shown that maternal deaths resulting from legal abortions are replacing those due to illegal abortions.”

Mark E. Chopko, Phillip H. Harris and Helen M. Allvare, Phi Kappa Phi Journal, Fall 1989

To read about deaths from legal abortions, go here:

 

Share on Facebook

South Dakota Bill Would Legalize Killing Abortion Doctors?

Of all the lies and half-truths used by the pro-choice movement, few have been as blatant as the rumor going around the Internet that a bill in South Dakota will make it legal to murder abortion providers. Mother Jones published an article with the title “South Dakota Moves To Legalize Killing Abortion Providers.”

The article, which can be found here says, among other things:

“If the bill passes, it could in theory allow a woman’s father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion -even if she wanted one.”

Other pro-choice leaders have weighed in on this bill as well. For example Vicki Saporta, the president of the National Abortion Federation, the professional association of abortion providers, stated “The bill in South Dakota is an invitation to murder abortion providers.”

According to Saporta and other pro-choice activists, this bill legalizes murder of abortion providers by anyone — a crazed pro-life fanatic, an angry boyfriend, or anyone else.

Let’s take a look at what the bill actually says.

The complete text of the bill, HB117I, can be found here.

In order to avoid confusion, or any accusation of selective editing, I will reproduce the entire text of the bill.

This is what the bill says:

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to provide that the use of force by a pregnant woman for

the protection of her unborn child is an affirmative defense to prosecutions for certain crimes.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:

Section 1. It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution for homicide as defined in 22-18-1 or 22-18-1.1 or assault as defined in 22-18-1 or 22-18-1.1 that the defendant is a pregnant woman who used force or deadly force against another to protect her unborn child if:

(1) Under the circumstances as the pregnant woman reasonably believes them to be, she would be justified under 22-16-35 in using force or deadly force to protect herself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force she reasonably believes to be threatening her unborn child; and

(2) She reasonably believes that her intervention and use of force or deadly force are immediately necessary to protect her unborn child.

Section 2. The affirmative defense provided in section 1 of this Act does not apply to:

(1)Acts committed by anyone other than the pregnant woman;

(2) Acts where the pregnant woman would be obligated to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing, or to comply with a demand before using force in self-defense. However, the pregnant woman is not obligated to retreat before using force or deadly force to protect her unborn child, unless she knows that she can thereby secure the complete safety of her unborn child; or

(3) The defense of human embryos existing outside of a woman’s body

Emphasis mine

That is the entire bill. That is what is making the abortion advocates so upset. The bill clearly states, in plain, simple language, that only the pregnant woman would be allowed to use force. Not an antiabortion activist. Not an angry boyfriend or husband. The woman. No one else.

Ironically, this bill is not directly about abortion at all. Rather, it is to allow pregnant women to engage in force to protect herself and her unborn baby. Under current South Dakota law, a pregnant women may defend herself with force if an attacker is trying to kill her. But if the attacker merely wants to make her miscarry — if she is the victim of an angry boyfriend or husband who is trying to kick her in the stomach and kill her baby, she does not have the legal right to resist with force. This law would allow the woman to defend herself even if her own life is not in danger. It is about protecting the woman and her wanted pregnancy.

It is ironic that the pro-choice movement is fighting so hard against the rights of women who want to be pregnant to keep their children safe. Pro-choice is supposed to be about giving women choices — the choice to have an abortion, or the choice to have a baby. Yet the pro-choice community is up in arms about a bill that would protect a woman’s right to have her baby despite interference by anyone else- usually men.

There is a reason for this bill. There is an epidemic of violence in this country aimed at pregnant women. There have been multiple cases of murder by men who are angry at a woman for being pregnant and want her to have an abortion. Often, when a woman refuses an abortion against her boyfriend or husband’s wishes, threatening him with years of child support, the husband or boyfriend turns violent and either tries to abort the child himself, or actually tries to eliminate the problem by killing the woman. Most people are not aware of how extensive this problem is. in fact, murder is the leading cause of death among pregnant women in this country.(1)

Here is one example from South Carolina:

South Carolina Man Arrested: Beat Pregnant Girlfriend, Killed Baby

Rather than legalize killing abortion providers, this bill would protect women and their wanted pregnancies. The leap of logic taken by pro-choice groups to apply this bill, which clearly and in simple terms states that only the pregnant woman may use force, violent antiabortion extremists killing doctors is staggering.

Footnotes

1.I.L. Horton and D. Cheng, “Enhanced Surveillance for Pregnancy-Associated Mortality-Maryland, 1993-1998,” JAMA 285(11): 1455-1459 (2001); see also J. Mcfarlane et. al., “Abuse During Pregnancy and Femicide: Urgent Implications for Women’s Health,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 100: 27-36 (2002).

 

Share on Facebook