Planned Pregnancy to Stimulate Abortion Industry

January 30, 2009







“Blood Money: Getting Rich Off a Woman’s Right to Choose” 


by Carol Everett & Jack Shaw*

.Who Saved Obama’s Life?


The Pro-Choice Movement is really a misnomer.   They only offer one option: abortion.   The following real life story confirms the assertion that Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers care little about real choices such as abstinenance, contraception, or adoption, primarily because the profit is in abortion.

“I’ve never been able to come up with the words to describe the abortion procedure. There are no words to describe how bad it really is. It kills the baby.  I’ve seen sonograms with the baby pulling away from the instruments that are introduced into the vagina. And I’ve seen D & E  ** through 32 weeks done without the mother being put to sleep. Yes, they are very painful to the baby. But, yes they are very, very painful to the woman. I’ve seen six people hold a woman on the table while they did the abortion.”   Carol Everett, former abortion provider

Last night my wife and I were watching television, surfing around.   We came upon an interview program.  Women were talking about abortion.  One of them—-Carol Everett—said she had managed abortion clinics in the DFW area. 

What she described astounded us.   We thought we had heard everything.   This story is unbelieveably horrendous. 

Carol said she had an abortion in 1973 because a third child was not convenient at the time.  Her husband apparently encouraged the abortion.  Almost immediately she realized she had killed her child but somehow that realization drove her further into a lifestyle embracing abortion, almost as if promoting the pro-abortion agenda would somehow assuage her guilt.  Alcohol ‘helped.’

But the truly sinister dimension of this story would come later.

“We opened our clinic and the first month we did 45 abortions. The last month I was there, with two clinics functioning in the Dallas area, we did over 500 abortions a month in that clinic. I was compensated at the rate of $25.00 per case plus one-third of the clinics, so you can imagine what my motivation was. I sold abortions.  I had made $150,000; was on target in 1983 to make $260,000; and when we opened our five clinics, I would have been taking home about a million dollars a year. I expected to make more than that after we were functioning.”

PLANNED PREGNANCY: setting teens up for abortion

Carol describes how her clinics prescribed low dose birth control to teenaged girls, knowing they’d get pregnant, doing this purposefully, in order to stimulate their abortion business through planned pregnancies.  Carol testifies her partners in these abortion clinics gave out low dose birth control pills to teenaged girls, pills that had to be taken daily at a specific time, knowing the girls would misuse them, and likely get pregnant, creating a robust abortion business. 

Of course it makes you wonder how much of this is going on nationwide, in the name of  ‘women’s health services.’

Amazingly, Carol’s entire life was redirected in the most unusual way.  

During her abortion providing career, her partners began disagreeing about how to run their clinics.  So, they hired a business consultant to help them work through their difficulties.  That business consultant turned out to be a pastor.  He ministered to Carol, she left the business, and today, she runs crisis pregnancy centers in the DFW area, supporting women with a range of healthy services, providing real choice: 

The Heidi Group

Carol’s complete testimony  (other testimonies at the bottom of the page)

*Blood Money: Getting Rich Off a Woman’s Right to Choose by Carol Everett & Jack Shaw


**Dilation & Evacuation of a 23-week-old child

(warning: graphic drawings)


Abortion holocaust survivors




IRAQ: What you don’t know will hurt you

January 29, 2009


Warning:  Graphic Video


Excerpt:  by Sgt. Welsh, USMC.

Almost 90% of Americans believe the war in Iraq is and was a waste. The Hollywood media feeds the public wasteful, depressing, and horribly fabricated stories. When did the U.S. military become the bad-guys? We are stereotyped “Generation Kill.” I guess that is all we do. All we do is go to Iraq, hunt innocents and slaughter them. I guess that is what I did for eight months while I was there.

I guess I really didn’t save Iraqi families from being tortured by foreign jihadis. I didn’t set up the first ever Iraqi elections. Or see my brothers blown up, shot, maimed, and killed. Getting attacked from Mosques and hospitals–and you know what?  We just took it, day after day we took it and we kept going. An IED blowing up underneath me each day.  We couldn’t fight back; we were ordered not to. No matter how much vengeful, pent up aggression I felt, or how much I wanted to kill, I didn’t act on it. We have a code, Rules of Engagement. “RULES,” rules that are followed.

But according to then Senator and now President Obama, all I did was air-raid villages and kill innocent civilians.

Joint House Resolution, Authorization to Use Force in Iraq, 2002

Days of Complete Government Irresponsibility

January 29, 2009


“The United States is the largest debtor nation.”    David Walker, former comptroller general of the U.S.


Compare the remarks of Ben Stein (below) and those of David Walker, former federal comptroller of the U.S., the nation’s top accountant. Stein is a conservative Republican, Walker, a Democrat.

Notice how they are saying the same thing: this government is completely and utterly irresponsible when it comes to the nation’s finances, we are headed for financial collapse.

Keep in mind, Walker’s numbers are two years old and do not take into consideration the $2 Trillion in new spending proposed. 

David Walker, Part 1, recent history, federal budget

David Walker on the nature of the problem, and proposed solutions

Notice, we are doing the opposite of what we need to do. 



I love this. The new kind of politics of hope. Eight hours of debate in the HR to pass a bill spending $820 billion, or roughly $102 billion per hour of debate.

Only ten per cent of the “stimulus” to be spent on 2009.

Close to half goes to entities that sponsor or employ or both members of the Service Employees International Union, federal, state, and municipal employee unions, or other Democrat-controlled unions.

This bill is sent to Congress after Obama has been in office for seven days. It is 680 pages long. According to my calculations, not one member of Congress read the entire bill before this vote. Obviously, it would have been impossible, given his schedule, for President Obama to have read the entire bill.

For the amount spent we could have given every unemployed person in the United States roughly $75,000.

We could give every person who had lost a job and is now passing through long-term unemployment of six months or longer roughly $300,000.

There has been pork barrel politics since there has been politics. The scale of this pork is beyond what had ever been imagined before — and no one can be sure it will actually do much stimulation.

Further, no one can be sure that we are not already at the trough/inflection point of the recession such that this money will be spent mostly after the recovery is well under way.

How long until the debt incurred under this program is so immense that it causes a downgrade in the sovereign debt of the USA? What happens to us then?

This has been a punch in the solar plexus to the kind of responsible, far-seeing, mature government processes that are needed to protect America. This is more than the pork barrel. This is a coup for the constituencies of the party in power and against the idea of a responsible government itself. A bleak day.

Unfortunately, it is only the latest in a long series of such days stretching across decades of rule by both parties, to the point where truly responsible government is only a distant echo of our forgotten ancestors.


Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu. He writes “Ben Stein’s Diary” for every issue of The American Spectator.

Tragic Hilarity

The New Despotism: toxic people, hate-motivated, killers

January 27, 2009

Weather  Underground:  Bill Ayers & Bernardine Dohrn


AS IS OFTEN THE CASE with Leftists who routinely present themselves as being morally superior, once you dig a bit deeper, you find the dark truth.





At first I thought Ayers was joking. I got up; and went to the door. He moved quickly to block me at the doorway. He locked the door and put the chain on it. I went to the couch and sat down and told him that I had no intention of having sex with his roommate and his brother or him. He said that I had no choice but to do as he said if I wanted to get out of there. He claimed that I wouldn’t sleep with his married roommate because he was black — that I was a bigot.”





They joined “the tradition of the great killers.”









Three killed, nine orphaned










Who cares about an old 60s radical?


He is now a special pal of the President, and has worked for decades to radicalize public education.




“The totalitarian mind can reappear in some new and unexpected and seemingly innocuous and indeed virtuous form.   [I]t … will [probably] put itself forward under the cover of a generous doctrine, humanitarian, inspired by a concern for giving the disadvantaged their fair share, against corruption, and pollution, and ‘exclusion.’  “    

Jean Francois Revel, “Democracy Against Itself”   (The Free Press 1993)    pp. 250-251.






 Blankley: Obama’s collectivist nationalism










January 27, 2009

. . . if it wasn’t so tragic.

THESE BIRDS DON’T EVEN TRY TO HIDE THEIR CONTEMPT:  Contempt for certain racial groups, contempt for the middle class, contempt for state’s rights, contempt for professionals, contempt for white construction workers, contempt for economic freedom.

Citigroup has received $45 BILLION in taxpayer funding to stay in business.  That’s $45,000,000,000.00 dollars.  Guess how much Citigroup is worth?   What’s that?   Citigroup is worth $19 BILLION?   You mean our government spent $45 Billion of our dollars to save a private company worth only $19  Billion?  Return on investment?   So far, net loss of $26 Billion. 

Headline yesterday: Citi buys $50M luxury French jet

At our house, we have a Citimortgage at a high interest rate compared to current competitive rates.

Despite good income and a good credit rating, we can’t refinance and lower the rate because the rules have tightened, thanks to abuses by others, including the government. (Do I hear Fannie Mae?)

The value of our home has plummetted, thanks to the abuses of others, including people who don’t pay their bills, the government and run amok corporations.

So I rise to work today, knowing I’ll have to work harder and earn more money so we can pay our Citimortgage, so that Citigroup can squander money, so that the government can confiscate more of our income, to bailout Citigroup and others who have abused the system (do I hear Fannie Mae?), so that the government can rescue us via a $2 TRILLION stimulus package that will only worsen our situation.  The politicians promised mortgage relief but where is it?  Can’t find it!  Don’t want it, but where is it!  

(Oh. And taxes will of course increase. They must. How else will the government pay for enormous increases in government spending  planned by this new government, including paying for condoms to give to kids who don’t use them spiking teen pregnancy requiring state-funded abortions?  Don’t forget national healthcare and subsidies for green jobs putting Americans to work making solar panels nobody will buy.  Stimulus We Can Believe In!)

But here is the capper!

Fannie Mae officials said yesterday they must have $16 BILLION in taxpayer money to stay afloat. (I wonder how much of that will wind up in the Obama re-election fund?)

Only in America do we create and sustain an entire industry (government) to subsidize failure.

Congress gave Treasury $350 BILLION a couple months back. Remember that? The banks got the dough. We don’t know what they did with it, although we hear about $1 million dollar office renovations and huge bonuses for execs in the multi-million dollar range. This new government wants to duplicate that stunning record of accomplishment by releasing another $350 BILLION of taxpayer money to ‘stimulate’ the economy. And the President wants an additional $900 BILLION to ‘stimulate’ the economy.

Two problems with all this: historically, we have NEVER spent our way out of a recession, so this simply will not work. All it will accomplish is a devaluation of currency (ushering in hyperinflation), putting our grandchildren and great grandchildren in debt.

Forget student loans. Newborns are now saddled with debt thanks to the politicians in Washington.

The other huge problem with all this: the so-called bailout funds the President wants to flood the economy with?  That money won’t even be available for two to three years.

So much for the quick fix.

And they wonder why the only institution we have confidence in anymore is the military?

Anyone hear of the Cloward-Piven Strategy? Wouldn’t you be surprised to learn all this economic destruction and resulting centralization of power and wealth in Washington was planned and is being executed purposefully.


One word: CONTROL.   Hey, fellow little people! This is not about helping you. It is about getting you in line.

Americans: your liberty is on the block. You sold it for a bowl of soup, and an interest-only loan with a balloon.

We have no one to blame but ourselves. Spoiled children always pay the piper in the end.

Socialism took over years ago.  We were on the couch, watching football.

Econ Stimulus a Ruse to create One-Party Rule?


January 25, 2009

Excellent history lesson   You cannot find the word “democracy” in our Founding Documents.

Declaration of Dependence !

Abortion: we are praying Mr. President

January 23, 2009

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Encouraging teen pregnancy to stimulate abortion industry.true story


Niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. says President Obama needs change of heart


30,000 in SF March in Protest: Cite Black Genocide    

250,000 protest abortion in D.C. Jan. 22, 2009      Didn’t see or hear about this did you?



In the U.S., two children die every minute from induced abortion, 1,400 African American children killed daily?

Dr. Kagia of KENYA says, “The promotion of and the effort to legalize abortion in Africa is a foreign agenda and a form of recolonization. … I have to ask why Congress wants to fund organizations that work against the will of the majority of the people of democratic countries.”

F.O.C.A. you America

Planned Parenthood Racist: Gets Millions from taxpayers annually

Black genocide?

Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger Racist









The Top Ten

Myths About Abortion


by William l. Saunders, Jr., Cathy Cleaver ruse

& Lucia Papayova


Family Research Council


In order to discuss abortion intelligently, it is a

prerequisite that the facts about it be known. Yet,

the one thing that can be said with certainty is

this: the American people do not understand the

facts surrounding abortion. Instead, their views are

clouded by various “myths.”


In this pamphlet, we separate myth from reality.

From whether abortion is protected under the

Constitution to whether one can truly be “personally

opposed, but pro-choice,” from whether abortion

benefits women to whether it benefits society,

from the frequency of and reasons for abortion to

whether the American people support abortion

“rights” as currently existing, from the question

of an abortion/contraception “link” to the facts

of human development, we look at the important

issues surrounding abortion.


We hope readers will use this pamphlet to educate

themselves and others so they can confidently

enter into the public policy debate and shape a just

resolution of this important issue.




Myth No. 1:


Abortion is legal only during the first 3 months

of pregnancy.




Abortion is legal during all 9 months of



The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade declared

abortion a constitutional right.


The Court divided pregnancy into three trimesters1

but ultimately ruled that women have a right to

abortion any time an abortion doctor deems the

abortion necessary for her “health.”2 The Supreme

Court defined “health” as “all factors—physical,

emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s

age—relevant to the well-being of the patient.”3


This “health” exception gives abortion doctors the

power to nullify any abortion restriction on the

grounds that there are “emotional” reasons for the



myth 1 – footnotes


1 Some Supreme Court cases have also spoken of

“viability” (the point at which the child is able to live

outside the mother’s womb) as a crucial factor in judging

abortion regulations. Two points should be noted

about this. First, the “health exception” (see footnotes

3 & 4 and accompanying text) nullifies any significance

this might have, as an abortion doctor can always claim

to find a particular abortion—even after viability—is

important for the woman’s “health.” Second, though

the Court in Roe thought viability fell between 24 and

28 weeks, children are actually able to survive outside

the womb at earlier ages. See, e.g.: http://www.

html?in_article_id=437236&in_page_id=1774 (child

survived at 22 weeks). Further, the development of the

artificial womb means that, in the future, children may

be able to survive outside the mother’s womb very soon

after the time of conception. Cf., Knight, Jonathan,

“An out of body experience,” Nature Publishing group:

Nature, 12 September, 2002. If “viability” matters,

such developments should entitle unborn children to

legal protection at earlier stages of development.


2 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 164-65 (1973).


3 Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 192 (1973). In Planned

Parenthood v. Casey, the Court abandoned the trimester

framework but continued to prohibit laws against

abortion where the abortion doctor deems the abortion

necessary to preserve the mother’s “health.” Planned

Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 879 (1992).


4 After Gonzales v. Carhart, 55 U.S.__ (2007),

laws banning the use of the partial-birth abortion

procedure except in life-threatening circumstances are






Myth No. 2:


Abortion is legal because the Constitution says so.




Legal abortion is the fruit of judicial activism. It

has been imposed upon the country by judges.


The word “abortion” does not appear in the



Nevertheless, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court

ruled that a right to abortion was part of an implied

right to personal privacy emanating from various

constitutional Amendments5 —in other words,

that a right to abortion is an “implied” part of the



It is the chief modern example of judicial activism—

judges imposing their own policy preferences

rather than interpreting the law as written. When

judges act in this manner, they usurp the role of

the legislators, whom the citizens elect to represent

them in deciding disputed, difficult policy issues.

Thus, judicial activism undermines the very basis

of our representative democracy.


This ruling has been sharply criticized by legal

scholars, federal judges, and seven other Supreme

Court justices. Justice Byron White, for example,

said the Court engaged, “not in constitutional

interpretation, but in the unrestrained imposition

of its own, extraconstitutional value preferences.”6

Justice Antonin Scalia said, “the Court should

return this matter to the people—where the

Constitution, by its silence on the subject, left it—

and let them decide.”7


Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an outspoken

proponent of legal abortion, called Roe v. Wade

a “heavy handed judicial intervention” that was

“difficult to justify,”8 and said it was “not the way

courts generally work.”9


myth 2 – footnotes


 5 “The Constitution does not explicitly mention any

right of privacy,” but the Court found “at least the

roots of that right” in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth,

and Fourteenth Amendments, and in the penumbras

of the Bill of Rights. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152-

153 (1973).


6 Thornburgh v. American Coll. of Obst. & Gyn., 476 U.S.

747, 794 (1986) (White, J., dissenting).


7 Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 956 (2000) (Scalia,

J., dissenting).


8 Ruth Bader Ginsburg, “Some Thoughts on Autonomy

and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade,” 63 North

Carolina Law Review 375, 385 (1985).


9 “Comments of Justice Ginsburg to law students at

the University of Kansas,” Associated Press, March




Edward Lazarus, former clerk of Justice Blackmun,

the author of the Roe decision, said, “Roe borders

on the indefensible” because a “constitutional right

to privacy broad enough to include abortion has

no meaningful foundation in constitutional text,

history, or precedent.”10


When the Supreme Court creates a new

constitutional right which has “no meaningful

foundation in constitutional text, history, or

precedent,” it acts beyond the scope of its authority

to interpret the Constitution and thwarts the

will of the American people as expressed in their



Roe v. Wade was an illegitimate decision of judicial

activists. There is no right to abortion in the



11, 2005. Other Supreme Court justices have spoken

against Roe v. Wade. Chief Justice Warren Burger,

who, while voting with the majority in Roe, later called

into question its soundness and pondered whether “we

should reexamine Roe.” Thornburgh v. American Coll.

of Obst. & Gyn., 476 U.S. 747, 785 (1986) (Burger, C.

J., dissenting). Chief Justice Rehnquist, an associate

justice at the time of Roe, filed a dissenting opinion

observing that the Court had to “find…a right that

was apparently completely unknown to the drafters”

in order “[t]o reach its result.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S.

113, 174 (1973) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). Justice

Sandra Day O’Connor said, “the court is not suited to

the expansive role it has claimed for itself in the series

of cases that began with Roe v. Wade.” Thornburgh v.

American Coll. of Obst. & Gyn., 476 U.S.747, 814-815

(1986) (O’Connor, J., dissenting). Justice Clarence

Thomas was more blunt, calling Roe “grievously

wrong.” Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 980 (2000)

(Thomas, J., dissenting).


10 “The Lingering Problems with Roe v. Wade,” FindLaw’s

Writ, Oct. 3, 2002,

lazarus/20021003.html Lazarus favors legal abortion.

Prominent law professors who support legal abortion

have also criticized Roe v. Wade. “[B]ehind its own

verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on

which it rests is nowhere to be found.” Prof. Laurence

Tribe, “The Supreme Court, 1972 Term—Foreword:

Toward a Model of Roles in the Due Process of Life

and Law,” 87 Harvard Law Review 1, 7 (1973). Roe

“is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of

an obligation to try to be.” Prof. John Hart Ely, “The

Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade,”

82 Yale Law Journal, 920, 935-937 (1973).






Myth No. 3:


Most Americans agree with current U.S. abortion



Fact :


The vast majority of Americans strongly disagree

with it.


According to various national polls:


• 61% of Americans say abortion should be illegal

after the fetal heartbeat has begun11 — which

occurs in the first month of pregnancy.12


• 72% of Americans say abortion should be

illegal after the first 3 months of pregnancy.13


• 86% of Americans say abortion should be

illegal after the first 6 months of pregnancy.14


• Only 16% of Americans say abortion should

be legal at any time for any reason.15


However, Supreme Court decisions make abortion

legal throughout all 9 months of pregnancy, for

any reason.16


Therefore, abortion law today is completely out of

step with Americans’ views on what it should be.


myth 3 – footnotes


 11 Zogby International Poll, April 15-17, 2004.


12 Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N., The Developing

Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th edition

(Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co., 1998): 77, 350.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, 77% of abortions in the United States

occur after the heart of the fetus has begun to beat.

“Abortion Surveillance—United States, 2000,” 52

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (SS-12) Table

7 (Nov. 28, 2003).


13 The Harris Poll #18, March 3, 2005.


14 Ibid.


15 Zogby International Poll, March 10-14, 2006.


16 Roe v. Wade forbids any law against abortion in the

first and second trimester of pregnancy and even after

“viability” if the abortion doctor deems the abortion

necessary to preserve the mother’s “health.” Roe v.

Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 164-165 (1973). “Health”

is defined by the Court as “all factors—physical,

emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s

age—relevant to the well-being of the patient.” Doe v.

Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 192 (1973).





Myth No. 4:


Abortion is rare in United States.




The U.S. has the highest abortion rate in the

western world.


There are 1.31 million induced abortions every

year in the United States.17 24.5 percent of

all pregnancies in the United States end in



That means 3,500 children are aborted every day,

145 children are aborted every hour, and 2 children

die every minute due to induced abortion in the



In fact, the U.S. has the highest abortion rate in

the western world, and the third-highest abortion

rate of all developed nations worldwide.19


The U.S. abortion rate is higher than the abortion

rate in Spain, Ireland, Netherlands, Belgium,

Germany, Switzerland, Scotland, Italy, France,

England, Wales, Denmark, Tunisia, Finland,

Uzbekistan, Croatia, Japan, Israel, Hong Kong,

Canada, Norway, Singapore, Azerbaijan, New

Zealand, Sweden, South Korea, Slovak Republic,

Czech Republic, Georgia, Australia, Kyrgyzstan,

and Puerto Rico.20


myth 4 – footnotes


17 L.B. Finer and S.K. Henshaw, “Abortion Incidence

and Services in the United States in 2000,” Perspective

on Sexual and Reproductive Health 35 (Jan/Feb 2003),



18 An Overview of Abortion in United States, Physicians

for Reproductive Choice & Health and The Alan

Guttmacher Institute, May 2006, http://www.


19 The abortion rate is per 1000 women, age 15-44. Sharing

Responsibility: Women, Society and Abortion Worldwide

(New York: The Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1999),

p. 28,


20 Ibid.





Myth No. 5:


Most abortions in the United States are done for

health reasons or because of rape or incest.


Fact :


Most abortions in the United States have nothing

to do with these reasons.


According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute (a pro-

choice organization), 93.5 percent of the abortions

every year are done for reasons other than health,

rape or incest. Their survey shows women have

abortions for the following reasons:21


25 % “not ready for a(nother) child/timing is



23 % “can’t afford a baby now”


19 % “have completed my childbearing/have

other people depending on me/children

are grown”


8 % “don’t want to be a single mother/am

having relationship problems”


7 % “don’t feel mature enough to raise

a(nother) child/feel too young”


4% “would interfere with education or career



>0.5% “husband or partner wants me to have an



>0.5% “parents want me to have an abortion”


>0.5% “don’t want people to know I had sex or

got pregnant”


Less than 8 percent of abortions every year are

done for reasons of health, rape or incest:


4 % “physical problem with my health”


3 % “possible problems affecting the health

of the fetus”


>0.5 % “was a victim of rape”


>0.5 % “became pregnant as a result of incest”22


Yet, under current U.S. abortion law, all of these

abortions are legal.23


myth 5 – footnotes


21 L. B. Finer, L. F. Frohwirth, L. A. Dauphinee, S.

Singh and A. M. Moore, “Reasons U.S. Women Have

Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives,”

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 37

(2005): 113, 114.


22 The survey also categorizes the reasons for 6% of

abortions as “other,” without further explanation.


23 Roe v. Wade forbids any law against abortion in the

first and second trimester of pregnancy and even after

“viability” if the abortion doctor deems the abortion

necessary to preserve the mother’s “health.” Roe

v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 164-165 (1973). “Health”

is defined by the Court as “all factors—physical,

emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s

age—relevant to the well-being of the patient.” Doe v.

Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 192 (1973).





Myth No. 6:


Abortion is good for women.




Women suffer physically and psychologically

after abortion.


Physical complications


Abortion can cause both short-term and long-

term physical complications, and can significantly

affect a woman’s ability to have healthy future



Though there are no requirements for states to

report abortion data to any federal agency, the

Centers for Disease Prevention and Control have

received reports of the deaths of 386 women from

legal abortion between 1973, when abortion was

legalized, and 2003.24


Physical complications include cervical lacerations

and injury, uterine perforations, bleeding,

hemorrhage, serious infection, pain, and incomplete

abortion. Risks of complications increase with

gestational age and are dependent upon the

abortion procedure.25


Long-term physical consequences of abortion

include future preterm birth and placenta previa

(improper implantation of the placenta) in future

pregnancies. Premature delivery is associated with

higher rates of cerebral palsy, as well as respiratory,

brain, and bowel abnormalities. Pregnancies

complicated by placenta previa result in high rates

of preterm birth, low birth weight, and perinatal



myth 6 – footnotes


For more complete references regarding the research

presented in this “myth,” please see Moira Gaul, “How

Abortion Harms Women’s Health,” In Focus (Family

Research Council), December 12, 2007.


24 See



25 S. Lalitkumar, M. Bydeman, and K. Gemzell-

Danielsson, “Mid-trimester Induced Abortion:

A Review,” Human Reproduction, 13 (2007): 37-

52; National Abortion Federation Clinical Policy

Guidelines. Washington DC: National Abortion

Federation, 2007.


26 J.A. Martius, T. Steck, M.K. Oehler, et al., “Risk

Factors Associated with Preterm (<37 + 0 Weeks) and

Early Preterm Birth (<32 + 0 Weeks): A Univariate

and Multivariate Analysis of 106,345 Singleton Births

from the 1994 Statewide Perinatal Survey of Bavaria,”

European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and

Reproductive Biology,” 80 (1998): 183-89.





While the question of whether abortion can

increase the risk of breast cancer is hotly debated,

a number of scientific studies demonstrate that

induced abortion can adversely affect a woman’s

future risk of breast cancer.27


Physical complications from chemical abortion with

the drug RU-486 include hemorrhage, infection,

and missed ectopic pregnancy (a potentially fatal

complication). At least 8 women have died from

RU-486 due to hemorrhage and infection.28


Psychological complications


A “pro-choice” research team in New Zealand,

analyzing data from a 25 year period and controlling

for multiple factors both pre- and post-abortion,

found conclusively that abortion in young women is

associated with increased risks of major depression,

anxiety disorder, suicidal behaviors, and substance

dependence.29 This is the most comprehensive,

long-term study ever conducted on the issue.


Other studies also conclude that there is substantial

evidence of a causal association between induced

abortion and both substance abuse and suicide. 30


A review of over 100 long-term international studies

concluded that induced abortion increases risks for

mood disorders enough to provoke attempts at self

harm.31 Researchers have also identified a pattern

of psychological problems, known collectively as

Post-Abortion Syndrome, in which women may

experience depression, anxiety, anger, flashbacks,

guilt, grief, denial, and relationship problems.32

Post-Abortion Syndrome has been identified

in research as a subset of Post Traumatic Stress



Further, studies analyzing the effects of induced

abortion in adolescents have shown, when

compared to adolescents who give birth, those who

abort reported more frequent problems sleeping,

more frequent marijuana use, and increased need

for psychological counseling.34


27 J.M. Thorp, K.E. Hartmann, and E. Shadigian, “Long-

term Physical and Psychological Health Consequences

of Induced Abortion: Review of the Evidence,”

Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey, 58 (2002): 67-79.


28 M.M. Gary and D.J. Harrison, “Analysis of Severe

Adverse Events Related to Use of Mifepristone as

an Abortifacient,” The Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 40

(February 2006).


29 D.M. Fergusson, I.J. Horwood, and E.M. Ridder,

“Abortion in Young Women and Subsequent Mental

Health,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47

(2006): 16-24.


30 M. Gissler, C. Berg, M. Bouvier-Colle et al., “Injury

Deaths, Suicides, and Homicides Associated with

Pregnancy, Finland 1987-2000,” The European Journal

of Public Health, (July 2005).


31 J.M. Thorp, K.E. Hartmann, and E. Shadigian, “Long-

term Physical and Psychological Health Consequences

of Induced Abortion: Review of the Evidence,”

Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey, 58 (2002): 67-79.


32 A.C. Speckhard and V.M. Rue. “Postabortion

Syndrome: An Emerging Public Health Concern,”

Journal of Social Issues, 48 (1992):95-119.


33 V.M. Rue, P.K. Coleman, J.J. Rue, et al., “Induced

Abortion and Traumatic Stress: A Preliminary

Comparison of American and Russian Women,”

Medical Science Monitor, 10 (2004): SR 5-16.


34 P.K. Coleman, “Resolution of Unwanted Pregnancy

During Adolescence Through Abortion Versus

Childbirth: Individual and Family Predictors and

Psychological Consequences,” Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, (2005): 35(6); 903-911.





Myth No. 7:


Abortion is beneficial to modern society.




Abortion has a negative impact on communities

and society at large.


Despite “pro-choice” predictions to the contrary,

the illegitimacy rate has increased significantly since

Roe. The percent of children born out of wedlock

at the time of Roe was 15.5 percent, but by 2000

that number had increased to 33.2 percent, and by

2004, it increased to 36 percent.35 There is a high

correlation between out-of-wedlock childbearing

and a host of negative social indicators such as

pervasive child poverty.36


Abortion hits minority communities hardest. The

Guttmacher Institute reports that the abortion

rate among black women remains more than twice

the national average, and three times that of white

women.37 The organization Blacks for Life calls

abortion “cooperative genocide.”38


Abortion also has contributed to population

decline and demographic changes. The U.S. birth

rate has dropped to the lowest level since national

data has been available. In 2002 the birth rate fell

to 13.9 per 1,000—down 17 percent since1990.39

This results in a demographic shift to an older

population known as “population ageing” where the

share of the population of working age shrinks and

the labor force grows older.40 This demographic

phenomenon will have negative effects on the

economy, especially as workers reach retirement

age leaving fewer people engaged in productive



myth 7 – footnotes


35 See National Center of Health Statistics, Centers

for Disease Control,

statab/t001x17.pdf and



36 Rector, Robert E., Johnson, Kirk A., Ph.D., Fagan,

Patrick F., and Noyes, Lauren R., “Increasing Marriage

Would Drastically Reduce Child Poverty,” The

Heritage Foundation, Center for Data Analysis Report




37 An overview of Abortion in United States, Physicians

for Reproductive Choice and Health and Guttmacher

Institute, May 2006. Statistics from the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention for 2003 show that

there were 165 abortions among white women per

1,000 live births while the ratio of abortions to live

births among black women was 491 to 1,000. “Abortion

Surveillance—The United States 2003,” Centers for

Disease Control,



38 Jones, Leon, “Imitating the Enemy,” The American

Feminist (Winter 1994/1995), http://www.


39 “Births—Preliminary Data for 2002,” National Vital

Statistics Reports, Centers for Disease Control, Vol.

54, no. 11.


40 “Developing in an Ageing World,” World Economic

and Social Survey 2007, Department of Economic and

Social Affairs, United Nations,







Myth No. 8:


The more that people have access to

contraception, the fewer abortions there will be.




More contraception leads to more sexual

behavior, more unintended pregnancies, and

more abortion.


“Pro-choice” politicians do not want to talk about

abortion; they prefer to promote contraception.

But research here and abroad shows that increasing

access to contraception is not a solution to the

problem of soaring abortion rates. In fact, it makes

the problem worse.


In Sweden, for example, an increase in affordable

access to contraception and the presence of

free contraceptive counseling have resulted in a

substantial increase in the teen abortion rate. The

abortion rate has climbed from 17 abortions per

thousand teens in 1995 to 22.5 abortions per

thousand teens in 2001.41


According to Professor Peter Arcidiacono of

Duke University, increasing teenagers’ access to

contraception “may actually increase long run

pregnancy rates even though short run pregnancy

rates fall. On the other hand, policies that decrease

access to contraception, and hence sexual activity,

are likely to lower pregnancy rates in the long



In the United States, a decrease in contraceptive

use in recent years correlates to a decrease in the

number of abortions. From 1995 to 2002, the rate

of contraceptive use decreased from 64 percent to

62 percent,43 while the number of abortions fell

from 1,359,400 to 1,293,000.44


myth 8 – footnotes


41 Edgardh, K., et al., “Adolescent Sexual Health in

Sweden,” Sexual Transmitted Infections 78 (2002):




42 Peter Arcidiacono, et al., “Habit Persistence and Teen

Sex: Could Increased Contraception Have Unintended

Consequences for Teen Pregnancies?” (Oct. 3, 2005),

Working Paper,

pdf, p. 29.


43 “Contraceptive Use,” Facts in Brief, The Alan

Guttmacher Institute (March, 2005), http://www. These numbers

represent use among all women age 15-44, and

thus, because many women in this age group would not

be sexually active, the rate of use among sexually active

women would be higher.


44 L.B. Finer and S.K. Henshaw, “Estimates of

U.S. Abortion Incidence, 2001-2003,” The Alan




Much has been made of the emergence of the

Morning After Pill, or “emergency contraception.”

Putting aside the fact that this drug can work either

as a contraceptive or as an abortion, research shows

that it has not reduced abortion rates. In Britain,

the abortion rate actually increased from 136,388

abortions in 1984 to 185,400 abortions in 2004

despite increased use of the Morning After Pill.45

Anna Glasier, director of the Lothian Primary Care

NHS Trust in Edinburgh Scotland, acknowledges

that use of the Morning After Pill “is not going

to make a big difference [in] abortion rates.”46

Similarly, a recent study in the San Francisco Bay

area showed no difference in pregnancy rates in

women with greater access to the Morning After

Pill, confirming previous studies showing no

significant differences in pregnancy or abortion

rates among women with greater access.47


Guttmacher Institute (August 3, 2006) http://www.


45 Reinberg, Steven “Emergency Contraception

Doesn’t Lower the Abortion Rate,” HealthDay News

(September 15, 2006).





47 T. Raine, et al., “Direct Access to Emergency

Contraception through Pharmacies and Effect on

Unintended Pregnancy and STIs,” Journal of the

American Medical Association 293 (2005): 54-62. www.





Myth No. 9:


Abortion, particularly early abortion, does not

take the life of a human being.




Every abortion takes the life of a human being.


At the time of fertilization, when a sperm

penetrates the ovum or “egg” cell, a new human

organism comes into existence, with a complete

and unique genetic code.48 This is a scientific fact,

not a religious claim. Those who claim not to know

“when human life begins” are making a political

statement, not a scientific one.


Human beings develop at an astonishingly rapid

pace. The cardio-vascular system is the first major

system to function. The blood is circulating and

the heart begins to beat at 21 or 22 days (3 weeks),

and can be detected on ultrasound.49 By the end of

the eighth week, the unborn child has developed

all its organs and biological systems.50 20 weeks

after fertilization (5 months), unborn children feel



Some try to distinguish among human beings,

arguing that some are worthy of respect (because

they possess certain characteristics), while others

are not. This assertion contradicts the basic premise

of Western law and of our Constitution—the

equality of all human beings. As the Declaration

of Independence says, all human beings are created

equal. It would be perilous to abandon this point

of view and to adopt a philosophy that puts into

the hands of some human beings (the powerful) the

right to decide whether other human beings (the

weak, the unpopular, the defenseless) are to be

counted as members of the human family.


myth 9 – footnotes


48 “Human development is a continuous process that

begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a female is

fertilized by a sperm (or spermatozoon) from a

male,” Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. The

Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology,

6th edition (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co., 1998);

“The Development of a human being begins with

fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized

cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte

from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism,

the zygote,” Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology, 3rd

edition ( Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975): 3;

“The time of fertilization represents the starting point

in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual,”

Carlson, Bruce M. Pattern’s Foundations of Embryology,

6th edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996): 3.


49 Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. The Developing

Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th edition

(Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co. 1998): 77, 350.


50 England, Marjorie A., Life Before Birth, 2nd edition

(London: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996).


51 Anand, K. J, “Pain and Its Effects in the Human

Neonate and Fetus,” New England Journal of Medicine

317 (November1987): 1321-9.





Myth No. 10:


I can be “personally opposed, but pro-choice.”




That is impossible.


While it is true that some people claim to be

“personally opposed, but pro-choice,” that position

is, logically, impossible to hold. People who profess

this opinion say that while they would not choose

abortion themselves, they would not deny women

the option to choose it. They appear to think that

what is a wrong choice “for them” might not be

wrong “for someone else.” However, what happens

in an abortion is an objective fact, not a subjective

judgment. During an abortion a human being

who is unborn—and therefore innocent of any

wrong-doing—is killed. Since abortion is, thus,

objectively unjust, anyone who supports the “right”

of others to have abortions necessarily supports

such unjust acts (the killing of innocent, unborn

children). Further, a choice to be “personally

opposed but pro-choice” is necessarily a choice in

favor of the legalization of abortion (so that the

“choice” to abort is available to others). And that

means the person who makes such a choice accepts

that innocent, unborn children will be killed by

abortions, albeit by other people. Thus, while one

can say that one is “personally opposed but pro-

choice,” what one necessarily means is “I support

the right to kill innocent human beings.”





Additional Resources from





Partial-Birth Abortion on Trial


Presenting excerpts from the testimony given

by abortionists in one of the federal trials on

the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, FRC

attorneys Cathy Ruse and Bill Saunders take the

abortionists’ own words and put them together

in this striking pamphlet. It is nothing less than a

collection of admissions by the abortion industry,

under oath, about the reality of abortion.




Politicized Science: The Manipulated Approval of

RU-486 and Its Dangers to Women’s Health BC07A01


RU-486’s ability to bring an end to a human life

developing in the womb is known to all, but the

drug’s considerable harmful effects on women’s

health have been minimized or ignored completely.

Several organizations, including Family Research

Council, have unearthed a vast amount of

information regarding safety concerns about the

drug, as well as evidence documenting the Clinton

Administration’s manipulation of the FDA approval process.

This pamphlet provides an overview of what we now

know about the drug’s approval and the dangers posed by

RU-486 to women’s health.




William l. Saunders, jr. is Senior Fellow and Director

of the Center for Human Life & Bioethics at Family Research

Council. A graduate of the Harvard Law School, he was featured

in its inaugural Guide to Conservative Public Interest

Law in 2004.


Cathy Cleaver ruse is Senior Fellow for Legal Studies

at Family Research Council. She received a law degree from

Georgetown University and was Chief Counsel for the U. S.

House of Representatives Constitution Subcommitee.


Lucia Papayova is an attorney in Slovakia. She served as a

Witherspoon Fellow at Family Research Council in 2007.


The authors wish to thank Michael Fragoso and Moira Gaul

for their help in the production of this pamphlet.