Pro-life news brief 4-22-13
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- Longtime abortion advocate and abortionist David Grimes tries to intentionally deceive Washington Post readers with this quote:
David Grimes, former head of the CDC’s abortion surveillance branch, said clinics like Gosnell’s were commonplace before Roe v. Wade, the court case that legalized abortion. Today, the problem of substandard clinics is so small that the branch, which investigated problem clinics, no longer exists, he said.“The legalization of abortion stands out as a public health triumph,” he said. “Over 1,000 women died every year from illegal abortion in the 1940s. Now it’s less than a handful a year. That’s the story, not one aberrant doctor in Philadelphia.”
Wait. 1,000 women died every year in the 1940’s? Wasn’t abortion legalized in the 1970’s? Why is Grimes using statistics from 30 years before abortion was legalized to make his case?
Oh yeah, that’s right – because in 1972, 39 women (as opposed to over a thousand) died from illegal abortion. An additional 24 women died from legal abortion in 1972.
- Philadelphia’s NBC affiliate has an article on how the reactions of abortionist Kermit Gosnell’s jury have become less visible:
“It was way more visible, the reaction of the jurors, in the beginning. You could read the emotion on their faces,” [NBC10 reporter Emad] Khalil said.
As time marched on, however, jurors barely reacted, according to Khalil, at even the most gruesome details or images.
“There’s only so much the brain can handle,” said [jury consultant Melissa] Gomez, who has a Ph.D. in Psychology. “It’s not that it becomes less disturbing or upsetting, but it’s just not as shocking.”
- Gosnell reportedly turned down several plea deals:
Dr. Gosnell has rejected several plea deals from prosecutors, the last before jury selection started March 4. The offer would have let him serve life in a federal prison rather than in the Pennsylvania system, and let his wife, Pearl, 52, keep their West Philadelphia home.
- Also at the Washington Post, Rickie Solinger has a column about abortion myths which is unsurprisingly filled with its own myths.Ramesh Ponnuru points out that Solinger can’t even cite the source of one of her claims accurately.
[Photo by Susan Schary/NBC10]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
It looks like the abortion apologists are out in full force. They are trying to “change the narrative”, to use their lingo; the rest of us just call it lying.
It is BIG BUSINESS..killing kids for profit!!!
Gosnell and many others like him throughout the country are proof that the legalization of abortion served to ultimately provide cover for abortionists. What was supposed to be a panacea that would usher in an era of safe abortions has turned into a nighmare.
The liberals who support abortion and their fellow travelers in the main stream media pervailed upon the oversight agencies to turn the other way when investigating reports of shoddy practices and conditions. Nothing was to stand in the way of access to abortion, including even pathetic conditions in abortion mills. The effect was to ignore the blatant abuses in the industry and in the end it resulted in these deplorable situations we are now discovering as having existed for decades.
The irony is that prior to RvW many of those doctors who did secret abortions probably paid more attention to the health of the mother lest their handiwork be discovered by authorities if their patients ended up in the hospital…which could surely have spelled the end of their careers as doctors, and maybe even some time in jail.
Pre Roe v Wade a Dr. Gosnell would have been hounded out of the medical profession. Post Roe v Wade Gosnell was protected for decades by an ideological default favoring access to abortion at all costs, including even as we are learning the death of women and born alive infants.
Pre Roe v Wade a doctor accused of “snipping” would have been met with cries from every part of society for the most severe of punishments. Post Roe v Wade the media for the most part ignores it.
Five myths about abortion:
1. Laws against abortion have always been based on concern about unborn life.
No, that’s what pro-abortionists say. They say all pro-lifers care about are the unborn children. Now they want to change the narrative and say that’s not what we care about. Make up your minds.
Pro-lifers have always cared about the unborn, mothers and their families. Unfortunately there has at some times by some groups been an overemphasis on the preborn children to the neglect of mothers and families. Now we are passing and trying to pass all kinds of laws to protect the lives and health of the mothers, and they just can’t stand that their lies are being exposed.
2. Until Roe v. Wade, back-alley procedures killed countless women, and that risk would return if abortion were outlawed.
Solinger sounds like he’s arguing for the pro-life movement. This has long been the argument of pro-abortionists. Thirty-nine women’s deaths by illegal abortions, and 24 by legal abortions in 1972, the year before Roe v Wade. That’s hardly countless. The fact is that many pro-abortionists later admitted lying and highly exaggerating the number of deaths by illegal abortions in order to win Roe v Wade. One of them was the late former abortion practitioner Dr. Bernard Nathensen.
Again it seems they are trying to change the narrative because the lies weren’t working, and take credit for telling the truth. Is this because of the Gosnell case, and the growing realization by many that he is not an isolated case?
3. Roe led to a huge increase in the number of abortions.
Oh and we are supposed to believe the Guttmacher Institute, the research branch of Planned Parenthood, when they say this isn’t true. The number of abortions most certainly did increase dramatically in the years following Roe v Wade, to the tune of over 56 million in 40 years, and over 3500 daily. That’s a lot more than one million a year, and it’s doubtful there were 1 million abortions a year before Roe v Wade.
4. Women who end their pregnancies tend to suffer various psychological and physical illnesses.
That is a fact, and one liberal university’s “comprehensive” (usually meaning empty) study and an American Psychological Association Task Force, both of which have vested interests in the abortion industry, are hardly any more reliable sources for abortion “facts” than the Guttmacher Institute. These so called findings are a painful kick in the head of all those who have suffered greatly following abortions. Just another example of how heartless the abortion industry and its supports really are behind all the lies about women’s rights and women’s health.
5. “Choice” guarantees woman the opportunity to decide whether to become a mother.
What a load of garbage. Birth control is readily available free or cheap. If you can afford shampoo, you can afford birth control. The pro-abortionists are the ones who don’t want to provide women with choices. That’s why they only talk about abortions, push for abortions, and have abortion quotas at Planned Parenthood. That’s where the money is and that’s where their political power lies.
What’s tragic is how many people believe these lies.
Hi Jerry,
You’re so right.
I remember the days pre Roe and no “horror story” ever held a candle to this. Gosnell exists because legal abortion allowed him to open a shop of horrors with the full blessing of the law.
Jerry, my brother once worked mob detail as a police officer and to this day, when trying to determine what mobsters may have done, he will always say “….thinking like the mobsters do, I would have done this or that with a body I need to dispose of very quickly and thoroughly so I’m sure this is what happened….”
Maybe Gosnell’s house of horrors, as well as Carhart’s et.al., wouldn’t have happened either if those advocating for legal abortion had instead asked themselves….”with virutally no laws regulating abortion or who sets up “clinics”, thinking like a criminal does, isn’t this a golden opportunity to prey on vulnerable women and make money hand over fist”?
Hi Victor,
On a previous thread, a poster pointed out that the country of Finland has a much lower abortion rate, which he attributed to better sex ed. and birth control.
Another poster posted a link that Finland in fact has much stricter abortion laws than the US, apparently not just any dirtball off the street can open a facility and women cannot so easily obtain them.
Oh, so apparently stricter abortion laws do in fact decrease the “need” for abortion and perhaps encourage a little more stringent use of birth control.
Hi Mary:
….”with virutally no laws regulating abortion or who sets up “clinics”, thinking like a criminal does, isn’t this a golden opportunity to prey on vulnerable women and make money hand over fist”?
Certainly that was the thought for some people well placed and capable of pulling it off. When we read the early advocates of legal abortion such as Nathanson we see how it was a cabal of liars who were in a position to exercise disproportionate influence over legislatures and in some cases even judges and thereby stand to gain. Somehow Planned Parenthood, guilty as heck, always gains from legal abortion and comes up smelling like a rose.
Hi Jerry,
Good point about PP. I must admit though that I’ve never seen mammograms, birth control counselling, STD treatment, or prenatal exams result in so many paramedic calls.
Nathanson admitted to blatant lying and making up the numbers of abortion “deaths”. It would seem like some serious questions and research on the part of our media was called for. Fortunately for Nathanson et.al. the media was in their pockets.
Hi Mary:
It is nauseating, worse, it is downright dangerous to the freedoms we enjoy and to the commonly held values of our republic when media fails to do its job.
Sometimes I wonder if it might serve our cause better if we pooled our efforts and resources to make a major play in the media….creating our own major news organizations or aggressively purchasing newspapers and the like. Why can’t we get billioinaires on our side?? Maybe it is just the nature of big money to go against us.
“Oh, so apparently stricter abortion laws do in fact decrease the “need” for abortion and perhaps encourage a little more stringent use of birth control.”
Right, Mary. And in fact that “need” for abortion would drop to almost zero if we had the most stringent law of all, the only just law we could have: Therapeutic abortions when abortion is clearly the only way to save the life of the mother.