‘Perhaps no subject illustrates the Leftist bias in Big Science better than the abortion issue. If the leading journals and science reporters actually respected observational science, they would have to agree with the pro-life position: that human life begins at conception. Instead, they fall in line with the radical Left on this subject as well as all their other current hotbed issues. A lot has happened since April 29 when we reported on Big Science’s activity promoting abortion, and how a major Supreme Court document was leaked to the press. Take a look.
After this list of recent evidence, we will see an ID scientist with a good rebuttal from actual science and logic.
The Court is ignoring science (Diana Greene Foster in Science Magazine, 19 May 2022).
This essay appeared in America’s leading science journal from the AAAS, with no rebuttal. Foster’s title indicates that she sides with the leftists currently protesting the draft opinion in Dobbs that would overturn Roe v Wade – a document was leaked illegally by a still-unidentified staffer at the Supreme Court. Foster is claiming that her pro-abortion stance is scientific. Let’s see.
The research revealed that patients who were able to receive an abortion were more than six times more likely to report aspirational 1-year plans than those who were denied one. They are more likely to have a wanted child later and better able to take care of the children they already have. Because the majority of abortion patients are already parents, this means that being able to obtain an abortion has powerful, multigenerational impacts.
By contrast, if people are forced to carry a pregnancy to term, they are more likely to experience lasting financial hardships. After being denied an abortion, women had three times greater odds of being unemployed than those who obtained abortions and had four times higher odds of being below the federal poverty level.
Foster’s “science” consisted only of surveys of 1,000 women in the so-called Turnaway Study, commissioned by former justice Anthony Kennedy. It had nothing to do with biology. It only measured subjective feelings of women who had abortions and those who did not. Most importantly, it said nothing about the human life inside the womb. The tacit conclusion is this: if something is inconvenient, and is getting in your way, or is making you unhappy, kill it. Treat it like you would a nuisance dog or cat or gopher.
The US Supreme Court is wrong to disregard evidence on the harm of banning abortion (Nature Editorial, 5 May 2022).
The world’s leading science journal preceded by two weeks the AAAS in jumping on the bandwagon to fight the Supreme Court’s draft opinion, claiming the high moral ground: it is “wrong” to ban the killing of babies (imagine!). Nature makes similar quasi-scientific arguments that only concern the health and convenience of the woman.
Abortion bans will extract an unequal toll on society. Some 75% of women who choose to have abortions are in a low income bracket and nearly 60% already have children, according to one court brief submitted ahead of the December hearing and signed by more than 150 economists. Travelling across state lines to receive care will be particularly difficult for people who do not have the funds for flights or the ability to take time off work, or who struggle to find childcare.
So what’s their solution? Kill the baby who had nothing to do with the problem? These crocodile tears fail to point out that Planned Parenthood puts their abortion centers in poor neighborhoods that are mostly black and minority. Some 40% of abortions are of black children, even though they make up just 7% of the population. This harks back to the plan of racist eugenicist evolutionist Margaret Sanger (31 July 2020), who saw minorities as less fit than whites; abortion was her way of reducing the numbers of the poor and unfit (Fox News). Sanger’s arguments still gain traction; they were reiterated recently by Janet Yellen, Biden’s Treasury Secretary (Daily Wire, 10 May 2022). Nature‘s editors are just as guilty of promoting eugenics. Rather than helping poor women, they want to eliminate them.
Abortion funds are in the spotlight with the likely end of Roe v. Wade – 3 findings about what they do (Gretchen Ely, The Conversation, 13 May 2022).
As a social work professor who studies reproductive health care, I have led research that reviewed thousands of case records of patients who requested assistance from abortion funds to help pay for a procedure that they could not afford.
Dr Ely’s article consists only of statistics about how abortion funds are allocated to women seeking abortions, and how overturning Roe might make them harder to get. Her euphemism (linking abortion with “reproductive health care”) reveals her pro-abort position. Again, nothing is said about the vulnerable living human being inside the womb. Her silence treats “it” as a non-person.
The Lancet warns US Supreme Court over abortion (Medical Xpress, 13 May 2022).
Editors of one of the leading medical journals in the world, The Lancet in Britain, give their support to protestors who are fighting the draft Supreme Court decision. Look for any sign of balance, or any concern for the life of the unborn, or any analysis of whether the Roe decision in 1973 was a good legal decision. It’s not there. Instead, you will find slogans and hate speech that could have been shouted by Chuck Schumer, Senate Majority Leader, who literally threatened two pro-life justices (Kavanaugh and Gorsuch) from the steps of the Supreme Court during their confirmation hearings (YouTube).
“The fact is that if the US Supreme Court confirms its draft decision, women will die,” the publication said.
“The justices who vote to strike down Roe will not succeed in ending abortion, they will only succeed in ending safe abortion.”
“Alito and his supporters will have women’s blood on their hands,” it concluded, referring to justice Samuel Alito, who authored the draft majority opinion of the court that was leaked last week.
Less than 1% of abortions take place in the third trimester – here’s why people get them (Katrina Kimport, The Conversation, 17 May 2022).
Kimport’s article begins with a stock photo of 9 smiling young women with the caption, “If Roe v. Wade is overturned, more people could find themselves needing a third-trimester abortion.” Is that a scientific argument for abortion? No. Like the other articles emanating from Big Science and its lapdog Big Science Media, it is another argument for the convenience of the mother. Knowing that late-term abortion is unpopular even among those who support abortion “rights,” Kimport tries to make the case that there aren’t very many of those now, but there will be more if Roe is overturned (see fear-mongering in the Baloney Detector). Her evidence is anecdotal, not scientific:
Other women described barriers that weren’t directly related to policy. One young woman, for example, was so afraid that her parents would judge her for becoming pregnant and wanting an abortion that she took no action toward getting the abortion. By the time she felt able to confide in her brother, who was able to get her an appointment for an abortion, she was in the third trimester of pregnancy.
Such an argument, though, is inconsistent, because it assumes that late-term abortion is bad. So if early-term abortion is good, where does she draw the line to where it becomes bad? Like the others, she completely overlooks the issue of whether the baby growing within the mother, with its own genome, sex and human potential, has a right to life.
Roe v. Wade FAQ: What if abortion rights law gets overturned? (Live Science, 4 May 2022).
Devoid of any pro-life arguments, this article, pretending to be objective, ends up only telling women where they can still get abortions if Roe is overturned.’ The rest of the article may be read at https://crev.info/2022/05/big-science-goes-all-in-for-abortion/