By Ed Wallace / Publisher at UtahStandardNews.com / January 23, 2020
Abortion is unlike any other modern social issue debated today and many people are suffering because of it. Millions of American women have aborted a child, and the pain, loss, and emotional need to justify what was done, both on the part of the mother and the part of her loved ones, is strong and deep. Everyone that is touched by an abortion decision is harmed. In addition to the mother and child, fathers, extended family, and abortion clinic employees are also victims of abortion.
The more abortion is understood, the more one realizes it is anti-human, anti-life, and anti-woman. The notion that the Pro-Life movement is in the business of “changing hearts and minds” has, regrettably, been reduced to cliche, but it is nevertheless true.
The modern “pro-choice” movement is desperate to protect the image of abortion as positive and pro-woman. Ironically, their biggest threat is from those they claim to champion: women. Abortion-rights proponents are devastated by the women of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, for example, who stand with their “I regret my abortion” signs and by the powerful Feminists for Life who make the compelling argument that “women deserve better than abortion.”
Pro-life men and women alike can point to the brave women coming forward in ever greater numbers to speak out about how abortion was not an act of empowerment but the result of abandonment, betrayal, and desperation, and how it has negatively affected their lives.
The website www.afterabortion.com, established by a woman who had 5 abortions, provides a place for women to help each other cope with the aftermath of their abortions. There are nearly 2.5 million posts that tell stories of how they were coerced into aborting their children by boyfriends, husbands, friends, and family. They describe how abortion was far from being a choice. They speak of overwhelming guilt, nightmares, excessive drinking, drug abuse, promiscuity, an inability to form or maintain relationships, difficulty bonding with later children, and other ways in which they are suffering.
Abortion advocates are also threatened by the pro-woman/pro-life arguments of the organization Feminists for Life which says abortion is a reflection that society has failed to meet the needs of women. Pro-woman/pro-life arguments are destroying the old “baby vs. woman” dichotomy that has dominated the abortion debate for decades. Women and children are not natural enemies, of course, and it was a perversion of feminism which brought about such a dichotomy in the first place.
Roe-era feminists like Kate Michelman, the former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, proclaimed abortion to be “the guarantor of a woman’s right to participate fully in the social and political life of society.” But pro-life feminists believe this turns feminism on its head because it says women don’t have an inherent right to participate in society, but one conditioned on surgery and sacrificing their children. No woman should have to abort her child to participate fully in society. If a pregnant woman or mother can’t participate in society, the true feminist response is that something is wrong with society.
Pro-Choice defenders are also at odds with the views of America’s first feminists, all of whom opposed abortion. Chief among them was Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who not only led the fight for the right of women to own property, to vote, and obtain equal education, but also spoke out against abortion.
Susan B. Anthony’s newspaper, The Revolution, called abortion “child murder” and “infanticide.” In 1869 Anthony said: “No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!”
Summary: The efforts of modern pro-life feminists are destroying the old “baby vs. woman” dichotomy and is recasting the other side in their true light: not as defenders of women but as defenders of abortion. To be pro-life is to embrace the tenets of non-violence and equal justice for all — the true tenets of feminism heralded by America’s first feminists.
The History of the Abortion Industry
Abortion goes back thousands of years and has been opposed by ethical doctors for as long. The Oath of Hippocrates expressly prohibits performing an abortion. Historically, all medical school graduates took the Oath but due to pressure from liberal pro-abortion groups only one school uses the Oath in its original form, and only 8% of the schools include the ban on abortion in their revised Oath.
In 1795, the atheist and sadist Marquis de Sade published his La Philosophic dans le boudoir which proposed the induced abortion for social reasons and as a means of population control. That was when the social and medical acceptance began even though abortion was not discussed in modern times. De Sade’s writings were the impetus for the spread of induced abortion in western society.
Abortion was commercialized in the 1840’s and rates soared but concern for the welfare of embryos and fetuses also began. While some doctors were performing abortions, others applied their Hippocratic Oath to unborn fetuses while working to outlaw abortion completely. Then, in 1869, Pope Pius IX decreed that “fetal ensoulment occurs at conception rather than at quickening” and abortion became an offense for ex-communication from the Catholic Church. But, women continued to have abortions at the rate of an estimated one in five pregnancies. Today, it is no different: estimates are that 19% of pregnancies in the United States terminate in abortion (excluding miscarriages).
There is also a close connection historically between communism and abortion. In 1920, the former Soviet Union, under the dictator Vladimir Lenin, became the first country to legalize abortion. A 2000 report from the World Health Organization revealed that “Russia and Central-Eastern Europe, with roughly 10 percent of the global population, accounted for up to a third of the 30 million to 40 million abortions registered annually around the world.” In 1990, in nations like Romania, more children were aborted than allowed to be born (three abortions for each birth).
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision made the procedure legal in 1973, 50 million abortions have been performed in the United States since (10mil to 20mil more than during communism). In 2015, the most recent year for which data is available, a total of 638,169 abortions were reported, a decrease of 2 percent from 652,639 abortions in 2014 and a historic low. The abortion rate was 11.8 abortions per 1,000 women ages 15-44 in 2015, compared with 12.1 in 2014 and 15.9 in 2006.
Approximately 56 million abortions are performed worldwide each year. The annual abortion rate is now higher in developing regions (37 per 1,000 women) than in developed regions (27 per 1,000 women). Globally, 25% of all pregnancies ended in abortion in 2010–2014.
Today’s abortion climate can be traced back to one person, Margaret Sanger. Sanger was a leading advocate of the eugenics movement, specifically of negative eugenics, which promoted the reduction of sexual reproduction and sterilization of people with undesired traits or economic conditions.
Sanger’s eugenic creed is clearly stated in her speech “My Way to Peace” (1932). The centerpiece of her program was vigorous state use of compulsory sterilization and segregation. The first class of persons targeted for sterilization is made up of people with a mental or physical disability. “The first step would be to control the intake and output on morons, mental defectives, epileptics.” A much larger class of undesirables would be forced to choose either sterilization or placement in state work camps. “The second step would be to take an inventory of the second group, such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection and segregate them on farms and open spaces.” Those segregated in these camps could return to mainstream society if they underwent sterilization and demonstrated good behavior. Sanger estimates that 15 million to 20 million Americans would be targeted in this regime of forced sterilization and concentration camps. In Sanger, the humanitarian dream of a world without poverty and illness has deteriorated into a coercive world where the poor, the disabled and the addicted simply disappear.
Sanger’s eugenics project carried its own racial preoccupation. In a letter of Dec. 10, 1939, to Clarence Gamble (cited here), she explains the nature of her organization’s outreach to the African-American community: “The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” In her autobiography, she proudly recounts her address to the women of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, N.J., in 1926.
She also went on to say, “By all means, there should be no children when either mother or father suffers from such diseases as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, cancer, epilepsy, insanity, drunkenness, and mental disorders.” Despite believing in the general racial superiority of the white race, Sanger preferred intelligent, middle-class African Americans to illiterate, low-class whites. And in a 1957 television interview, Mike Wallace asked Sanger if she believed in sin. The video below shows how she answered: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Or7OgiQ5JU&feature=emb_logo
You can watch the entire 30-minute interview with Wallace here.
For more on Margaret Sanger, click here: 9 Things You Should Know About Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger
Pro-life advocates take issue with public policies that Planned Parenthood supports such as not requiring parental consent for teens to receive abortions saying they separate families and prey upon vulnerable young women.
It has been documented that Planned Parenthood of Utah provides hormonal contraception to underage girls without parental consent or notification (here is their marketing manager Katrina Barker saying as much), and here is PP CEO and President Karrie Galloway clearly admitting as much to Commissioner Lee). While Utah law prohibits this within state agencies and health departments, PP received Title X funding, which stipulates that birth control be provided to minors. Because Title X is a federal program, PP could override state law on this issue, and did until President Trump changed the rules. PP had been the only Title X grantee and only abortion service provider in Utah and they still give hormonal birth control to minors without parental permission.
In 2017, there were 7 “feeder” Planned Parenthood clinics and 9 abortionists in a state with a population of 727,940 women, aged 15 – 49, of which one offered abortion services. In March 2019, the Metro Health Center (Planned Parenthood) and Wasatch Women’s Center, both in Salt Lake City, were the only abortions provider in Utah
The Utah Eagle Forum reported that Utah State Legislators attended a showing of the movie UNPLANNED, on May 30, hosted by the Utah Pro-life Coalition and Governor Gary Herbert. UNPLANNED is the story of Abby Johnson, the former director of a Texas Planned Parenthood Clinic who left the clinic after recognizing the horrors of abortion. Abby became a pro-life leader and has worked to expose the pro-abortion industry.
“Speaking to the legislators at that event, Governor Herbert said, ‘Life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is part of our Declaration…’ It’s pretty hard to pursue life, liberty, and happiness if you are not allowed to grow and develop.”
“Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups have made false accusations against Governor Herbert by claiming he used his elected office to propagate false information about abortion. That is absolutely untrue. The Governor has always supported unborn babies and their mothers and he has told the voters that he is pro-life every time he has run for public office.”
Facts on Human Development
At the very core of the abortion debate is the argument that fetal human life is not really a life until it is born. The truth is, that at the moment when a human sperm penetrates a human ovum or egg, that first cell comes into existence to become a new entity called a “Zygote” followed by the “Morula” and “Blastocyst” stages.
The zygote is composed of human DNA and other human molecules, so its nature is undeniably human and not some other species AND it has a genetic composition that is absolutely unique unto itself and different from any other human that has ever existed, including that of its mother. (thus disproving the claim that what is involved in abortion is merely “a woman and her body”)
This DNA includes a complete “design,” guiding not only early development but even hereditary attributes that will appear in childhood and adulthood, from hair and eye color to personality traits. It is also quite clear that the earliest human embryo is biologically alive because it fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.
This is an irrefutable fact, about which there is no dispute in the scientific community, and answers the question, “Is the human zygote merely a new kind of cell or is it a human organism; that is, a human being?” Scientists define an organism as a complex structure of interdependent elements constituted to carry on the activities of life by separately-functioning but mutually dependent organs. The human zygote meets this definition with ease and once formed, it initiates a complex sequence of events to ready it for continued development and growth.
The zygote acts immediately and decisively to initiate a program of development that will, if uninterrupted by accident, disease, or external intervention, proceed seamlessly through the formation (video) of the definitive body, birth, childhood, adolescence, maturity, and aging, ending with death. This coordinated behavior is the very hallmark of an organism.
By contrast, while a mere collection of human cells may carry on the activities of cellular life, it will not exhibit coordinated interactions directed towards a higher level of organization.
Thus, the scientific evidence is quite plain: at the moment of fusion of human sperm and egg, a new genetically unique entity comes into existence which is distinctly human, alive, and an individual organism – a living, and fully human, being. In ALL other aspects of science, nature, and society, we recognize life at its very smallest and simplest forms. A fetus is a baby. That word merely describes the stage of development of a human child. A child who wants the chance at life.
Human beings develop at an astonishingly rapid pace. Within two weeks, the first completed brain cells appear. In three weeks, the heart begins beating, eyes form, the brain, spinal column, and nervous system are virtually complete. By the end of the eighth week, the child, now known scientifically as a “fetus,” has developed all of its organs and bodily structures.
Today, parents can watch their child’s development in the womb by an obstetric ultrasound that produces a real-time video of the child clasping its hands, yawning, getting the hiccups, stretching, covering their ears at a loud sound nearby, and even smiling.
Medicine confirms the child before birth as a distinct human person and fetal surgery has become a medical specialty that includes the separate use of anesthesia to the baby. Some of the surgeries performed on children before their birth include shunting to bypass an obstructed urinary tract, removal of tumors at the base of the tailbone, and treatment of congenital heart disease, among many others.
Human life is a continuum. It is our duty to recognize our common humanity at all stages of development. According to the law of biogenesis, a fetus conceived by human parents, and growing according to the instructions in its own human genetic code, is by definition human. For that matter, an embryo is no less human. Although a fetus doesn’t look like an adult yet, neither does a newborn baby. A human fetus is no less human simply because it is smaller and more delicate.
The “classic” arguments from the pro-choice side are collapsing under the weight of science. “No one knows when life begins” and “It’s a blob of tissue” are frankly on the wane, especially in the context of surgical abortion, which is how the vast majority of abortions are done today. Even people within the pro-choice community have migrated to the scientific side. “Pro-choice” feminist Naomi Wolf, who in a ground-breaking article in 1996, argued that the abortion-rights community should acknowledge the “fetus, in its full humanity” and that abortion causes “a real death.” More recently, Kate Michelman, a long-time president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, acknowledged that “technology has clearly helped to define how people think about a fetus as a full, breathing human being.”
Some defenders of abortion will concede the scientific proofs but will argue that the entity in the womb is still not, or not yet, a “person,” a decidedly unscientific argument that has nothing to do with science and everything to do with someone’s own moral or political philosophy.
Others may suggest “humanness” depends on something spiritual, like the infusion of a soul, but to argue there is no soul until birth or some other time is, by definition, to argue something incapable of proof.
While the science on when life begins is clear, some still claim that “pregnancy” doesn’t begin until the embryo implants itself in the lining of the uterine wall, which occurs about a week later. This is an issue that is very complex and also very simple. Why? Politics, Political Correctness and profit.
In the 1960’s, Planned Parenthood faced a problem: It’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was the driving force for the development of the oral contraceptive—the birth control pill, invented by Endocrinologist Gregory Pincus, who created a test tube rabbit in 1934 and was vilified as a Frankenstein. Sanger also secured funding from biologist, women’s rights activist and heiress Katherine McCormick, and secured FDA approval. The problem was how the pill worked: it reduced the thickness of the uterine lining and would not allow an already-created human being to implant, thereby killing that human being. That is the very definition of abortion and, of course, abortion was illegal. So, how could they sell a product that caused an illegal action?
Easy! Planned Parenthood, working with fellow profiteer, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, changed the definition of abortion by redefining when life began from starting at conception to beginning at implantation. If pregnancy starts at conception, they couldn’t sell birth control, so they conveniently changed it to implantation.
In a 1965 document, ACOG defines: conception as implantation in the womb; defined pregnancy as beginning at conception (implantation); and defined abortion as the termination of a pregnancy.
Voila! Since the pill would prevent implantation, it worked before official pregnancy began and was, therefore, not an abortion. Problem solved! The pill still killed human beings, but, officially, that was not an abortion. The media picked up on it and abortion in the 60’s became the most intimate and the most common of all the issues in the ongoing culture wars.
Because hormonal birth control is so wide-spread and accepted by the general public, the Pro-life movement will continue to have difficultly tackling birth control on a large scale until the public sees abortion as wrong. This public perception has forced a “watering down” of legislation to limit abortion because the definition of pregnancy has been hijacked and implantation has become the false marker for life. This issue is covered in detail in an article by the American Life League: A New Concern in ‘Pro-Life’ Legislation – American Life League
Essentially, the Pro-Choice movement is the product of a masterful and manipulative public relations campaign aided by “fake news” media organizations that glorify the abortion movement while ignoring or vilifying the Pro-Life campaign.
The acceptance of an implantation-based definition of “pregnancy” allows some abortion providers to mischaracterize pills and technologies that work after conception, but before implantation, as “contraception,” making them potentially less subject to regulation and certainly more acceptable and attractive to consumers. Indeed, two institutes who support legalized abortion have pushed for this type of pregnancy re-definition for decades: the Guttmacher Institute (the abortion research institute originally established by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America) and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Sometimes, supporters of legal abortion will concede that an embryo or a fetus is, scientifically speaking, a human being, while denying that it is a person with rights. However, when pressed, they can point to no meaningful distinction between human beings and human persons. “Personhood” is a philosophical term, not a scientific one, and ultimately depends on individual, subjective beliefs rather than common, objective values. We’re either persons or property, and even the staunchest abortion defender will be reluctant to call a human child a piece of property.
Moreover, history is replete with attempts to exclude certain categories of human beings from the class of “persons” enjoying human rights, in an attempt to rationalize such injustices as slavery or genocide. Human rights are meaningless unless they belong to all human beings, without discrimination.
While it is certainly true that a woman’s body is greatly impacted by pregnancy, it is not true that abortion is simply a matter of her choosing to do something with her body. The fetus growing within her womb is a separate person with its own distinct genetic makeup. Abortion does not remove some part of the woman’s body; it destroys the body of a separate, unique individual.
Most people don’t actually know what the abortion procedures are like. The images and gruesome facts are too grotesque to be included in a civilized setting and the writer refuses to present them in this article. However, everyone should have an education on what the procedures are like. The following link will provide that: abortionprocedures.com
Summary: Those who justify abortion by claiming that “no one knows when life begins” are not arguing science but rather their brand of politics, philosophy, or even religion. Their argument is not about when life begins but about when, or whether, that life deserves legal acknowledgment and protection. Objectively and logically speaking, based on a large amount of evidence, abortion is a form of murder as well as child sacrifice. The pro-life movement is speaking out against the unjust—but legal—the killing of unborn human beings.
Although there are many slightly differing legal definitions of abortion throughout the United States, the one that is most important in this work is the moral definition. Across the country, and in the pro-life movement, abortion is considered to be the “purposeful destruction of an unborn child.” When unborn children are treated as non-human and undeserving of thought, consideration or as part of the equation in medical decisions, and killed for convenience, timing or monetary reasons, THIS is abortion. Legal definitions are also an important part of understanding abortion. Current Utah law defines abortion as:
1. the intentional termination or attempted termination of human pregnancy after implantation of a fertilized ovum through a medical procedure carried out by a physician or through a substance used under the direction of a physician;
2. the intentional killing or attempted killing of a live unborn child through a medical procedure carried out by a physician or through a substance used under the direction of a physician; or
3. the intentional causing or attempted causing of a miscarriage through a medical procedure carried out by a physician or through a substance used under the direction of a physician.
As you can see, even in Utah law, INTENT is key.
Many pro-lifers question whether a society that allows the legal killing of more than a million unborn children each year can retain the moral authority to impose the penalty of death. For every execution performed in the United States, there are more than 28,000 abortions. Moreover, the basic principles behind these two forms of legalized killing are fundamentally different.
Abortion is a far more serious threat to human life than the death penalty. Behind legal abortion is the principle that the life of the unborn child does not have intrinsic value, and therefore the state may withdraw protection from that life. Behind the death penalty is the principle that the life of the convicted criminal has so much value that to take that life constitutes the ultimate penalty society can impose.
Therefore, there is no inherent contradiction between opposing abortion and supporting the death penalty in principle. But there is a clear contradiction between opposing the execution of human beings guilty of heinous crimes and supporting the abortion of innocent unborn human beings.
Modern biology instructs that the genetic code that will dictate the entire future of the fetus is formed at the moment of fertilization. The fetus is thus something more than inert matter and the rules of property and of tort have come increasingly to recognize its rights.
Roe v. Wade
Most people do not know what the Supreme Court decided on January 22, 1973. They assume that SCOTUS made abortion legal in the first trimester of pregnancy only, and that it is subject to substantial limits and regulations today. Neither of these assumptions is true.
The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade did not create a limited right to abortion but a virtually unlimited right to abortion throughout pregnancy.
Here’s how: The case involved an 1854 Texas law prohibiting abortion except “for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” The plaintiff, whose real name is Norma McCorvey, desired a purely elective abortion and filed suit claiming the Texas law deprived her of constitutional rights.
Seven members of the Supreme Court agreed. While admitting that abortion is not in the text of the Constitution, they nevertheless ruled that a right to abortion was part of an implied “right to privacy” that the Court had fashioned in previous rulings regarding contraception regulations. (“Privacy” is not in the text of the Constitution either.) They also ruled that the word “person” in the Constitution did not include a fetus.
For a debate on abortion policy, the most important part of the ruling to understand is the new “law” it established, and here is a description of it that you should commit to memory: The Court ruled that abortion must be permitted for any reason a woman chooses until the child becomes viable; after viability, an abortion must still be permitted if an abortion doctor deems the abortion necessary to protect a woman’s “health,” defined by the Court in another ruling issued the same day as “all factors–physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age-relevant to the well-being of the patient.”
In this way, the Court created a right to abort a child at any time, even past the point of viability, for “emotional” reasons. Stated another way, the Supreme Court gave abortion doctors the power to override any abortion restriction merely by claiming that there are “emotional” reasons for the abortion. Abortion advocates want to hide this, of course, but liberal journalists such as David Savage of the Los Angeles Times have reported the truth about Roe, saying the Supreme Court created an “absolute right to abortion” under which “any abortion can be justified.”
The Roe holding was subsequently modified by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a plurality decision that did away with the trimester framework, as well as lessening the degree of scrutiny of regulation from “fundamental rights” analysis to “undue burden analysis.”
The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Act (upheld in Gonzales v. Carhart) approved a ban on a particular kind of late-term abortion procedure. This was the first complete ban on a particular abortion procedure found to be constitutional since Roe v. Wade.
The central holding of Roe v. Wade is important to modern civil rights jurisprudence based on the United States concept of stare decisis, or respect for legal precedent. Under this outlook, losing Roe’s holding would be fatal to an entire constitutional structure, which the Court disfavors.
Some commentators suggest that the limitations of Roe may actually be good for the “pro-choice” movement, as it would allow “pro-life” activists to vent their animosity against judicial activism while forcing the public to create a more moderate legislative solution to the problem. These commentators perceive the American public as more moderate than either the “pro-life” or “pro-choice” movements.
According to the “pro-choice” Guttmacher Institute, The United States has the highest abortion rate in the western world and the third-highest abortion rate of all developed nations worldwide. Since the legalization of abortion in the U.S. in 1973, about 22% of all pregnancies end in abortion and there have been approximately 56 million abortions performed. Half of women procuring abortions have had at least one previous abortion. Roughly half of all abortions are performed on women 24 years old or younger. Women often report that they feel pressured to get an abortion by others in their lives—boyfriends, parents, teachers, friends, employers and others. One survey found that 64% of American women who sought abortions felt coerced into doing so.
The three most frequently cited “hard cases” in which some argue abortion might be justified are rape, incest and protecting the life of the mother. However, Guttmacher also found that women rarely report that they are seeking an abortion for any of those reasons. Out of 1,000 women procuring abortion, only three (0.3%) cite rape or incest as the primary reason, and only one (0.1%) cites protecting her life as the reason for the abortion. 92% of abortions in America are purely elective — done on healthy women to end the lives of healthy children.
A survey of women conducted by the Center for Gender Equality, run by former Planned Parenthood President Faye Wattleton. revealed that a majority of women (51%) believe abortion should either never be permitted or permitted only for rape, incest, or life endangerment. That means a majority of women believe abortion should be permitted only in extremely rare circumstances. What’s more, when asked to rank the top priorities for the women’s movement, the women ranked “Keeping abortion legal” next to last, just before “More girls in sports.”
According to Lydia Saad, a senior editor for the Gallup polling company which has long tracked abortion opinion, “Most Americans favor legal restrictions on abortion that go way beyond current law.”  The way Americans self-identify has changed dramatically over the years. In the mid-1990s, “pro-life” was a distinct minority view. But in May 2009, for the first time, a significantly greater percentage of Americans self-identified as “pro-life” than “pro-choice.”
61% of Americans say abortion should be illegal after the fetal heartbeat has begun,which occurs in the first month of pregnancy. 72% of Americans say abortion should be illegal after the first 3 months of pregnancy. 86% of Americans say abortion should be illegal after the first 6 months of pregnancy.
There is a growing list of prominent “pro-choice” legal commentators who call Roe v. Wade indefensible. The late John Hart Ely of Yale, for instance, argued that Roe was wrong “because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” The law clerk of Justice Blackmun, the Justice who authored the Roe v. Wade opinion, calls it “one of the most intellectually suspect constitutional decisions of the modern era.” The Washington Post’s legal editor says it has “a deep legitimacy problem.” Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been critical of Roe, saying that it “ventured too far in the change it ordered and presented an incomplete justification for its action” and that the Roe decision was “not the way courts generally work.” There are many others.
Overturning Roe doesn’t make abortion illegal, it simply changes the venue of the question: from nine unelected Supreme Court justices to the people, to enact abortion policy through their elected state representatives. Abortion is one of the most important issues of our day, it should be in the hands of the people.
It is impossible to calculate the number of maternal deaths from abortion before Roe v. Wade because they were not reported, so any claim regarding the number of maternal deaths from illegal abortions is purely speculative. However, it is a fact that abortion industry insider Bernard Nathanson admitted to circulating false numbers. Dr. Nathanson co-founded NARAL (originally called the National Alliance to Repeal Abortion Laws and, today, NARAL Pro-Choice America) and was the director of the Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health in New York City, at one time the largest abortion clinic in the western world. In 1979 Nathanson said:
“How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always “5,000-10,000 deaths a year.” I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose that 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.” 
There will always be abortionists willing to break the law and exploit vulnerable women for financial gain. But because a destructive activity will not be completely eradicated is no reason to make or keep it legal (think of drug laws or laws against prostitution). No compassionate person wants a woman to suffer through the personal tragedy of abortion, whether legal or illegal. As Feminists for Life says, women deserve better than abortion. Establishing legal limits to the current “absolute right to abortion” will mean fewer abortions, and that is to the good of women, children, families, and society.
Another abortion industry insider disputed the “back-alley butcher” notion in the decade before Roe v. Wade. In 1960 Dr. Mary Calderone, a former medical director for Planned Parenthood, estimated that 9 out of 10 illegal abortions were done by licensed doctors: “they are physicians, trained as such…Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians.” We don’t have to agree with Calderone that abortion is not dangerous to cite her statement that illegal abortions were done as well as legal ones. In fact, hundreds of women have died from abortion since Roe v. Wade according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and this is likely only a fraction of the actual number because several states (including, significantly, California) have failed to report abortion data for many years and in light of the latitude given to doctors in reporting causes of death (e.g., “hemorrhage” rather than “induced abortion.”)
The experience of other countries shows that restricting abortion does not cause a rise in maternal deaths. Despite its tight abortion restrictions, Ireland has the lowest maternal mortality rate in the world, according to a study by several agencies at the United Nations. Malta also has substantial abortion limitations and yet has among the lowest maternal death rate world-wide, lower than the United States. Data compiled by Polish government agencies shows a marked decrease in maternal deaths once abortion was made illegal.
Summary: The Supreme Court created a virtually unlimited right to abortion, a policy with which most Americans disagree. In fact, our country is not divided down the middle on abortion, but most of America is substantially with the Pro-Life movement. Only 6% -17% of Americans (depending on how the question is asked and by whom) believe abortion should be legal at any time, in all circumstances. As we continue to expose the truth about abortion law and practice, we will move closer to the day that abortion policy-making is returned to the people.
- 2 weeks: First completed brain cells appear.
- 3 weeks: Heart begins beating, eyes form; brain, spinal column, and nervous system virtually complete.
- 4 weeks: Muscle development, arm and leg buds visible, neocortical cells appear, blood flows in baby’s veins separate from mother’s blood.
- 5 weeks: Pituitary gland forms, mouth, ears, and nose take shape.
- 6 weeks: Brain waves can be detected.
- 7 weeks: Cartilage skeleton completely formed, umbilical cord complete, brain coordinates voluntary muscle movement and involuntary organ movement, lips sensitive to touch.
- 8 weeks: Based on nervous system development, a fetus can likely feel pain, teeth present, all organs present save lungs, taste buds and fingerprints forming, responds to tapping on amniotic sac.
- 9 weeks: Fingernails form, can bend its fingers around an object and suck its thumb.
- 10 weeks: All parts of body sensitive to touch; can swallow, squint, frown, and pucker brow.
- 11 weeks: Breathing amniotic fluid and does so until birth, urination, all facial expressions (including smiling) possible, taste buds complete.
- 12 weeks: Can kick, turn over, make a fist, hiccup, cry, open its mouth, press its lips together, and practice breathing.
- 13 weeks: All senses are present, including vocal chords.
- 20 weeks: Can be surprised by loud external noises.
- 23 weeks: A fetus demonstrates REM (Rapid Eye Movement).
- 4 months: Can grasp, swim, and turn somersaults.
- 6 months: Hair growth on head and eyebrows, eyelashes form.
- 7 months: A fetus’ hands can support its entire weight.
- 8 months: Fetus weighs more than 4 lbs., all body systems present.
- 9 months: After this point, the fetus gains a half lb. each week and 41 of the 45 total generations of cell replication have already taken place.
Given this, it is small wonder that 76% of Americans in 2011 disapprove of abortion after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
On June 19th, the Abortion Free Utah Campaign kicked off their press conference at the Utah State Capitol where they announced their goal: end elective abortion in the state.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Births: Preliminary Data for 2008.” National Vital Statistics Reports 58 no. 16 (April 6, 2010). http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_16.pdf.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_16.pdf. Guttmacher Institute. “Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States.” July 2013.
http://guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html.  Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 113, 153-163 (1973).
 Roe at 162-65. “If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to pro-scribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.” Ibid., 163-64 (emphasis added).
 Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 192 (1973). The Courtin Roe said: “That opinion [Doe v. Bolton] and this one, of course, are to be read together.” Roe at 165.
 David G. Savage. “Roe Ruling: More Than Its Author Intended,” Los Angeles Times, September 14, 2005, accessed January 21, 2011, http://articles.lat-imes.com/2005/sep/14/nation/na-abortion14.
 Lydia Saad, “The New Normal on Abortion: Americans More Pro-Life,” Gallup, May 14, 2010, accessed March 16, 2011, http://www.gallup.com/ poll/128036/New-Normal-Abortion-Americans-Pro-Life.aspx. See William McGurn, ” Gallup’s Pro-Life America,” Wall Street Journal, June 1, 2010, accessed March 14, 2011, http://online.wsj.com/ar-ticle/SB10001424052748704596504575272780104 329228.html.
 Gallup Poll, May 7-9, 2009.
 Zogby International Poll, April 15-17, 2004.
 Humphrey Taylor, “The Harris Poll ##18,” Harris Interactive, Inc., March 3, 2005.
 A recent Marist Poll/Knights of Columbus survey found that only 6% of Americans believe “abortion should be available to a woman any time she wants one during her entire pregnancy.” See “Abortion in America,” Marist Poll/Knights of Columbus, July 2009, accessed March 16, 2011, http://www. kofc.org/un/en/news/releases/detail/548612.html. Another survey found that 17% believe “abortion should be legal in all cases. See “Religion and the Issues: Results from the 2010 Annual Religion and Public Life Survey,” Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, September 17, 2010 (17% believe “abortion should be legal in all cases”), accessed March 16, 2011, http://pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Top-ics/Issues/Politics_and_Elections/immigration-en-vironment-views-fullreport.pdf.
 Seventeen percent (17%) said abortion should never be permitted; 34% said abortion should be permitted only for rape, incest, or life endangerment. See Princeton Survey Research Associates on behalf of the Center for Gender Equality, “Progress and Perils: How Gender Issues Unite and Divide Women, Part Two,” (April 7, 2003): 9-10.
 See Lawrence B. Finer et al., “Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives,” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 37, no. 5 (2005): 113-14. This survey shows that only -0.5% of women report that their abortion was because they were “a victim of rape” and only -0.5% report that their abortion was because they “became pregnant as a result of incest.” To determine the number of abortions done to save the life of the mother, see data collected by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which show a drop in Medicaid-funded abortions by over 99% — from 294,600 in Fiscal Year 1977 to fewer than 1,000 in FY 1982 and subsequent years — after the federal Medicaid program began funding only abortions to save the mother’s life.
 Progress and Perils, 4.
 John Hart Ely, “The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade,” The Yale Law Journal, 82 (1973): 920-949.
 Edward Lazarus, “The Lingering Problems with Roe v. Wade,” FindLaw Legal Commentary, October 3, 2002, accessed January 21, 2011, http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/lazarus/20021003.html.
 Benjamin Wittes, “Letting Go of Roe,” The Atlantic Monthly, January/February 2005, 48.
 Ruth Bader Ginsburg, “Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade,” North Carolina Law Review 63 (1985): 376.
 Ruth Bader Ginsburg, “A Conversation with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” University of Kansas Law Review 53 (June 2005): 962.
 Gilda Sedgh et al., “Legal Abortion Worldwide: Incidence and Recent Trends,” International Family Planning Perspectives,
33 (September 2007): 108. Full report available as: http://www.guttmacher.org/ pubs/journals/3310607.html
 Lawrence B. Finer et al., 113-14. This survey shows women have abortions for the following reasons:
- 25% “not ready for a(nother) child/timing is wrong”
- 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”
-  Silent No More Awareness Campaign. See http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org.
-  “Feminists for Life Mission,” Feminists for Life, accessed January 24, 2011, http://www.feministsforlife.org/.
-  Ibid.
-  Tamar Lewin, “Legal Abortion Under Fierce Attack 15 Years After Roe v. Wade Ruling,” New York Times, May 10, 1988, accessed March 15, 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/10/us/legal-abortion-under-fierce-attack-15-years-after-roe-v-wade-ruling.html?scp=2&sq=&pagewanted=all.
-  The Revolution, April 9, 1868 . See also The Revolution, July 8, 1869.
-  Susan B. Anthony, The Revolution, July 8, 1869.
- 7% “don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child/feel too young”
- 6% “other” (this category had no further explanation)
- 4% “would interfere with education or career plans”
- 4% “physical problem with my health”
- 3% “possible problems affecting the health of the fetus”
- -0.5% “husband or partner wants me to have an abortion”
- -0.5% “parents want me to have an abortion”
- -0.5% “don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant”
- -0.5% “was a victim of rape”
 A federal law on the subject would be limited by the reach of the Commerce Clause according to the current view of the Supreme Court. And any effort to amend the Constitution would require passage by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fifths of the states, no easy feat.
 Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America (New York: Doubleday & Co., 1979): 197.
 Mary S. Calderone, “Illegal Abortion as Public Health Problem,” American Journal of Public Health 50 (July 1960): 949, accessed January 21, 2011, http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/re print/50/7/948.pdf.
 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have received reports of the deaths of 439 women from induced abortion since Roe v. Wade; the latest year reported is 2006. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Abortion Surveillance–United States, 2007,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Surveillance Studies, 60, no. SS-01 (2011), accessed March 16, 2011, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pre-view/mmwrhtml/ss6001a1.htm?s_cid=ss6001a1_w. See “Induced Termination of Pregnancy Before and After Roe v. Wade,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 268 (Dec. 1992): 3231-3239.
 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Abortion Surveillance–United States, 2007,” 3, 36.
 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Pregnancy-Related Mortality Surveillance–United States, 1991-1999,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Surveillance Studies 52, no. SS-02 (2003), accessed March 22, 2011, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5202a1.htm. This same report also found that “among women whose pregnancies ended in a spontaneous or induced abortion, infection was the cause of death for 34% of the women, followed by hemorrhage (22%) and other medical conditions (16%).” See also Isabelle L. Horon, “Underreporting of Maternal Deaths on Death Certificates and the Magnitude of the Problem of Maternal Mortality,” American Journal of Public Health 95 (March 2005): 478-82 (“thirty-eight percent of maternal deaths were unreported on death certificates. Half or more deaths were unreported for women who were undelivered at the time of death, experienced a fetal death or therapeutic abortion, died more than a week after delivery, or died as a result of a cardiovascular disorder” (emphasis added). In an investigation of state documents David Reardon et al. found that three abortion-related deaths occurred in 1989 in Maryland, though official Maryland statistics showed no abortion-related deaths for that year. See “Deaths Associated with Abortion Compared to Childbirth–a Review of New and Old Data and the Medical and Legal Implications,” Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy 20 (2004): 279-327.
 The risk of death from maternal causes in Ireland is 1 in 100,000. See World Health Organization, “Maternal Mortality in 2005: Estimates Developed by WHO, UNFPA, and The World Bank,” accessed April 4, 2011, http://www.who.int/whosis/mme_2005.pdf.
 The risk of death from maternal causes in Malta is 8 in 100,000, in the United States it is 11 in 100,000. In Cuba, where abortion is highly liberalized and widely practiced, the rate of maternal death is 45 in 100,000. Ibid., 25-27.
 In 1990 when abortion was legal in Poland, there were 70 maternal mortalities; in 2005, when abortion was illegal, maternal mortality related deaths were 24. See Center of Information Systems of Health Care, “Demographic Situation in Poland,” Statistics Research Program of Public Statistics, 2001-2003; and Polish Central Statistical Office, “Demographic Yearbook,”1995-2003.
 Silent No More Awareness Campaign. See http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org.
 “Feminists for Life Mission,” Feminists for Life, accessed January 24, 2011, http://www.feministsforlife.org/.
 Tamar Lewin, “Legal Abortion Under Fierce Attack 15 Years After Roe v. Wade Ruling,” New York Times, May 10, 1988, accessed March 15, 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/10/us/legal-abortion-under-fierce-attack-15-years-after-roe-v-wade-ruling.html?scp=2&sq=&pagewanted=all.
Utah Standard News depends on the support of readers like you.
Good Journalism requires time, expertise, passion and money. We know you appreciate the coverage here. Please help us to continue as an alternative news website by becoming a subscriber or making a donation. To learn more about our subscription options or make a donation, click here.
To Advertise on UtahStandardNews.com, please contact us at: firstname.lastname@example.org.