CHAPTER 61 — METHODOLOGY AND ASPECTS OF ABORTION
American Life League

We have reached a point in this particular technology where there is no possibility of denial of an act of destruction on the part of the operator. It is before one's eyes. The sensations of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current.

                                                                                        Abortionist Warren Hern.[1]

Anti-Life Philosophy.

We feel it is necessary to encourage an all-out assault upon the human endometrium [uterine lining] at this point in time.

                                                                                               Ronald J. Pion, M.D.[2]

Anything is better than bringing an unwanted child into this already-crowded world. Since the fetus is not a person, it has no rights whatever and therefore should be considered as completely expendable by pregnant women and by society. If it does have any rights, those rights must always take a back seat to the rights of real live born women.

Since it is the woman who gets pregnant and suffers all of the consequences of childbirth, men should have no say in decisions regarding reproductive rights.

Besides, the fetus is a nonsentient organism incapable of feeling pain during the various types of abortion procedures, so abortion is no big deal.

Introduction.

This chapter describes the grisly methods by which preborn children are scalded, decapitated, and torn apart primarily for the sake of mere convenience. No sane person would insist, after hearing these descriptions, that any living creature could be subjected to such torture and not feel pain.

Additionally, this chapter addresses some of the most unique and controversial aspects of abortion, as listed below;

• third-trimester abortions;
• 'pregnancy reduction;'
• the disposal of fetal remains;
• informed consent;
• conscience clauses;
• father's rights; and
• the disreputable nature of abortionists.

For further information on the pain that preborn babies feel as they are killed, see Chapter 75, "Preborns: Fetal Pain."

The Unique Aspects of Abortion.

Abortion is a completely unique surgical procedure, profoundly different in many ways from ethical surgery, as shown in Figure 61-1.

FIGURE 61-1
COMPARISONS BETWEEN ELECTIVE ABORTION AND ETHICAL SURGICAL PROCEDURES

[A medium text size on your computer's 'view' setting is recommended, otherwise, the tables may be discombobulated.]

CRITERIA                           ABORTION                 ETHICAL SURGERY

Purpose of the Procedure     To kill                               To heal

Informed Consent

   Informed consent                 Often legally banned          Required by law
   Husband's consent               Legally banned                  Expected
   Husband informed                Legally banned                 Always
   Parental consent                   Often legally banned         Required by law
                                                                                          for minors
   Parents informed                  Often legally banned         Required by law
                                                                                          for minors

Pre-Operation
  
Facility licensing                   Not required                     Required by law
   Advertising                          Routine and extensive        Almost never
   Payment                              Cash or credit card            Insurance
   Counseling                           Usually a farce                  If required
   Counselor                           'Pro-choice' attitude           Professional
      qualifications                                                                 four-year degree
   Second opinion                   Strongly discouraged          Strongly recommended
   Pre-op examination             On the operating table        Mandatory, detailed
   Correct diagnosis                10-15% performed on       Surgeon disciplined
                                                 non-pregnant women         if incorrect

The Procedure
  
Procedure style                   Assembly-line                     Individual care
   Recovery                            In the taxi                           As required
   Tissue disposal                    Incinerator or garbage        Humane and dignified
                                                                                          burial
   Surgical training                   Not legally required            Required by law
   Non-medical reasons          99+%                                1% - 10%

Post-Operative
   Psychological trauma           Frequent                            Varies; usually rare
   Counseling for                     Complications officially       As required
      trauma                                 labeled 'fiction.'

Because it stands alone in its objectives, performance, and results, abortion is bound to have numerous attributes that set it apart from every other kind of surgery. The following paragraphs describe some of these attributes.

Methods of Abortion.

It's difficult to pull apart a chicken when it is newly killed. You have to cook it first, and then it comes apart very easily. It's the same here [when doing a late-term abortion].

                                                                                    British late-term abortionist.[3]

The Woman and Her Doctor?

One of the most pervasive arguments used by pro-aborts is that the abortion decision must remain between "the woman and her doctor" alone.

Any woman who has ever had an abortion knows that, in the vast majority of cases, the first time she lays eyes on her abortionist is when she has been 'prepped' and her feet are in the stirrups. As abortion clinic chain owner Edward Allred acknowledges, "We try to use the physician for his technical skill and reduce the one-to-one relationship with the patient. We usually see the patient for the first time on the operation table and then not again. More contact is just not efficient."[4]

This quote reinforces the idea that the abortionist is a mere technician, a person who is simply a small part of an impersonal, efficient killing machine whose only purpose is to make its owners huge profits.

Yet the abortionists and their willing toadies continue to insult the intelligence of thinking people with statements like that of Planned Parenthood: "Despite constant references to the "abortion industry" by anti-abortion groups, it does not produce wealth."[5]

Really? Ask Allred, Henry Morgentaler, or any of the other abortionists who run chains of clinics that reap millions of dollars in pure profits each year.

Or ask any pro-lifer who has picketed any abortionist's house, invariably located in only the poshest neighborhood, boasting two or three shining Mercedes, Jaguars, or BMWs in the driveway, with pampered wives and (occasionally) children staring out of the frosted glass windows across the manicured lawn at those disreputable anti-choicers who are disturbing their serenity and peace, far from the blood-spattered garbage cans and meat grinders and little ovens that support them, that clothe them so expensively, that put such rich foods on their table every night.

Yes, there will be a judgment day.

The following paragraphs describe the actual abortion procedures performed by these well-paid technicians.

Suction Abortion.

Also known as 'suction curettage,' this method is used in most first-trimester abortions. The procedure begins with the dilatation of the cervix. Then, a suction curette of the appropriate size, which consists of a hollow tube with a knife-edged tip, is inserted into the cervix and then into the uterus. A suction machine then tears the developing baby apart and deposits the pieces into a bag. The physician's assistant (invariably a woman) is usually stuck with the loathsome task of assembling or checking body parts to insure a complete abortion.

Dilatation and Curettage (D&C).

Also known as 'sharp curettage,' this method is often used during the first trimester. A sharp, knifelike curette is inserted into the uterus and is used to scrape its walls. The baby is cut apart and its body parts are removed and checked for completeness.

Unlike other abortion procedures, both curettage methods have an alternative and entirely legitimate use. Curettage is often performed after miscarriage to insure that the uterus is 'clean,' thereby avoiding the infection that may result from the retention of necrotic tissue, either from the baby or from the placenta.

However, it is vitally important to insure that a baby does not remain in the uterus before this type of D&C is performed; several instances have been reported where women have believed that they have had miscarriages because they passed blood clots or tissues, and sonograms have revealed that they were still pregnant. In some cases, the woman actually lost a recognizable baby, but ultrasound revealed that she was still pregnant with a twin. Ultrasound testing should precede the D&C, or the woman risks an unintentional surgical abortion.

Dilatation and Evacuation (D&E).

This method is generally used during the first half of the second trimester (13 to 20 weeks). The baby is torn apart by special forceps, and the pieces are removed one by one. Larger babies must have their heads crushed so the pieces can pass through the cervix. This method involves the abortionist and staff manually crushing the baby requiring considerable effort at times and makes the abortion more 'real' to them, because upon assembling the parts of the poor little carcass, the staff can see for themselves what they have done. Many nurses have 'burned out' on this procedure and refuse to assist. Abortion-rights groups are enthusiastic about the D&E method because, unlike other second-trimester abortion methods such as saline and prostaglandin, there is absolutely no chance that the baby will survive.

Abortionist Warren Hern, author of the how-to book Abortion Practice, described the D&E method to the Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians in San Diego in 1978 during a presentation entitled "WHAT ABOUT US? Staff Reactions to the D&E Procedure;" "We have reached a point in this particular technology where there is no possibility of denial of an act of destruction on the part of the operator. It is before one's eyes. The sensations of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current."[1]

In his book, Hern also describes some of the more grisly aspects of the D&E abortion; "The procedure changes significantly at 21 weeks because the fetal tissues become much more cohesive and difficult to dismember ... A long curved Mayo scissors may be necessary to decapitate and dismember the fetus."[6]

Usually, the cervix must be dilated for one to three days before such a procedure. The most popular method of cervical dilatation involves the insertion of dried seaweed sticks called laminaria, which absorb fluids and swell, thereby expanding the cervical diameter. Abortionists may also dilate the cervix quickly with a series of stainless steel rods of increasing diameter.

Abortion is a moneymaking business run by totally unscrupulous people. They do not want any of their 'clients' to change their minds once the laminaria are inserted. Therefore, many abortionists tell women that they will die if the laminaria are removed.

Sidewalk counselors routinely hear this typical illogical pro-abortion lie parroted by abortion mill clients who simply do not know any better. The reply is simple: the abortionist must remove the laminaria anyway before the abortion, and the woman won't die then so this means that the seaweed can be removed at any time before the abortion (by any emergency-room physician) without harm to the woman!

If a woman does have laminaria removed and does not go through with the abortion, it is very important to have a doctor monitor the pregnancy closely for signs of damage to the baby or the bag of waters.

Dilation and Extraction (D&X).

Anyone who was disgusted and shocked by the above description of the dilation and evacuation (D&E) abortion procedure should read no further.

Abortionist Marvin Haskell has invented a new abortion procedure he named dilition and extraction (D&X), because "... most surgeons find dismemberment [i.e., D&E] at twenty weeks and beyond to be difficult due to the toughness of fetal tissues at this stage of development."[7]

Haskell, who boasted at a 1992 National Abortion Federation conference that he has committed more than 700 of these late second-trimester and third-trimester killings, describes his technique;

At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left had [sic] along the back of the fetus and "hooks" the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down). Next he slides the tip of the middle finger along the spine towards the skill while applying traction to the shoulders and lower extremities. The middle finger lifts and pushes the anterior cervical lip out of the way.

While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.

Reassessing proper placement of the closed scissors tip and safe elevation of the cervix, the surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.

The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.[7]

The foramen magnum is the large opening in the occipital bone between the cranial cavity and the spinal canal.

Haskell goes on to say that this ghastly abortion procedure can be used essentially all the way to birth; "The author is aware of one other surgeon [J. McMahon] who uses a conceptually similar technique ... Coupled with other refinements and a slower operating time, he performs these procedures up to 32 weeks or more."[7]

Dry medical terminology cannot begin to lend a true cast of horror to the truly Satanic nature of this type of killing. In layman's terms, D&X means that the abortionist has a problem. He wants to do an abortion on a preborn baby of seven or eight months gestation, which has an 80 percent chance of being viable. Since the baby is probably viable, he is faced with the prospect of the "dreaded complication" a live, crying newborn baby. Therefore, he must make sure the baby dies before it is fully delivered.

He uses forceps to twist one of the baby's legs and pull it out through the birth canal, which tears muscles and breaks bones and must cause the baby unspeakable agony, since even pro-aborts acknowledge that seven-month and eight-month preborn babies definitely are capable of feeling pain. Then he punctures the back of the baby's head with sharp scissors and spreads the blades, tearing a massive hole in the soft part of the baby's skull. Finally, he vacuums out the baby's brains and then completes the delivery in just a few seconds.

If any pro-abortionist dares deny that third-trimester abortions actually occur, or if he tries to cover up the horrors of abortion, a pro-lifer should simply describe the D&X procedure in graphic detail. This description will shock and disgust any audience (no matter how 'pro-choice') and will put the pro-abortionist at a distinct disadvantage in any debate. How can anyone possibly defend naked butchery like this?

Note that the above description was taken from a paper presented at a National Abortion Federation conference. The author was recommending it to his richly-dressed and urbane audience, many of whom would presumably 'give it a try' when killing third-trimester babies.

Salt Poisoning.

Also known as the 'saline solution method' or the 'amnio abortion,' this procedure is used for second trimester and early third trimester abortions, but is becoming less popular due to possible complications to the mother.

A salt solution is injected into the amniotic fluid. The baby breathes and swallows this concentration and dies painfully over a period of hours from salt poisoning, dehydration, brain hemorrhage, and convulsions. The baby's skin is often burned off by the solution, and delivery occurs 24 to 48 hours after the baby dies. The skin of the babies is either completely burned or turned a cherry-red color, which is why some abortionists and nurses refer to them as "candy-apple babies."

Dr. Russell Sacco drily observed that "If the abortion is well done, we don't have to watch the baby die. So we inject a salt solution. The result is like putting salt on a slug, but we don't have to watch it."[8]

About 50,000 abortions per year are performed with this method or with prostaglandins, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute.

Anyone who insists that this procedure is painless to the baby is obviously either insane or completely out of touch with reality. Mothers who have undergone saline abortions invariably report feeling the baby's movements increase to a desperate frenzy as its skin and mucous membranes are scalded and it dies in unspeakable agony. Women who have had previous babies and have undergone the prostaglandin amnio abortion describe their dead preborn as "babies" and say that the physical pain of their experience was worse than prolonged childbirth.[9]

These heartbreaking testimonies are commonly dismissed by pro-abortionists as "fantasies."

Another reason the salt poisoning method has become less popular is that sometimes it results in the so-called "dreaded complication" a hardy baby who survives the torture. Therefore, abortionists now generally use hysterotomy or a modified D&E procedure that guarantees the baby's death. The D&E involves surgically cutting off one or more parts of the baby to insure that it dies of shock and exsanguination (bleeding).

During a salt poisoning abortion, all the (usually male) abortionist generally has to do is infuse the deadly solution. The (usually female) nurses are left to deal with live abortions, dead babies, and hysterical mothers.

Writer Judith P. Bourne noted the utter disregard for late-term killers for their nurses when she remarked that "A complaint I hear more than once from nurses in California was of physicians who performed saline injections with more advanced pregnancies and then went home or to their offices, leaving the nurse alone to cope with delivering a large or well-developed fetus. These nurses experienced not only emotional conflict about the abortion, but also anger at having been put in that position by a physician who did not even consult them."[10]

It is not surprising that the mostly-male abortionists leave the mostly-female nurses to clean up after them. This is the same type of sexism condemned by Neofeminists and attributed to Roman Catholic and fundamentalist husbands who allegedly 'oppress' their wives, but the pro-aborts don't seem to make the connection.

One medical writer not only described the nurses' grisly chore, but cut to the heart of one of abortion's great unexplained paradoxes; "Nurses. The experience of participating in any abortion procedure goes directly against the medical emphasis on the preservation of life. On the gynecology hospital floor, amnio abortions are viewed by the nurses as the most upsetting experiences which occur and a symbol of abandonment by the medical staff. The ward nurses' comments speak clearly to the point of being left to cope with an upset patient who delivers late at night ... The nurses found the physical contact with the fetus particularly difficult; it reminded them of the "preemies" just down the hall and made them uncomfortable about their own potential future pregnancies."[9]

Prostaglandin Abortion.

This method is used during the late second trimester and third trimester. A prostaglandin hormone is injected into the uterine muscle, which then begins contractions to expel the baby in an artificially-induced and extremely violent premature labor. The contractions induced by this method are usually sufficiently strong to crush the baby to death before it is delivered.

This method is falling out of favor because it is not uncommon for babies to be born alive. In such cases, the doctor must clandestinely kill the baby or risk a so-called "wrongful life" situation and possible legal action and adverse publicity.

Hysterotomy.

This is simply a Cesarean section performed during the last trimester of pregnancy. The mother's abdomen is surgically opened and the baby is lifted out.

The helpless baby is then either left to die or is killed by the doctor or nurse. According to Planned Parenthood's Alan Guttmacher Institute, about 1,000 hysterotomies are currently performed every year in this country.[11]

Intercardiac Injection.

At about 16 weeks, ultrasound imagery is used to pinpoint the location of the baby so that a long needle may be guided into its heart. The abortionist injects a fluid which causes an immediate heart attack in the little preborn baby, and he dies. This method is most commonly used for "pregnancy reduction" abortions, which are described in more detail later in this chapter.

'Herbal Remedies.'

Abortifacient herbs have been used by women desiring to kill their preborn children for thousands of years. The 'semi-underground press' has distributed a number of books on this subject over the last fifty years.

The reason that these methods are not more popular is that they have numerous profound and severe side effects, and are abysmally ineffective at killing preborn children. And, of course, abortion is now legal, although several women's groups are reopening experimentation with abortifacient herbs, or 'herbal birth control' as a hedge in case abortion is once again criminalized.

Virtually anything can be an abortifacient if taken in great enough doses. Some side effects listed by the Neofeminist press include destruction of muscle and connective tissue leading to bruising and loss of muscle tone, blindness, nerve damage, and even death.

'Menstrual Extraction.'

This is another pro-abortion Newspeak word that substitutes for early abortion. The procedure basically consists of semi-trained women using a homemade contraption constructed of Mason jars, aquarium tubing, corks, and syringes to abort themselves if they suspect that they may be pregnant. The same process can be used to shorten the menstrual period from several days to several minutes.

The primary non-medical purposes of 'menstrual extraction' (ME) are;

• ME allows abortionists to circumvent clauses that include the statement "woman known to be pregnant," and thus allows them to avoid liability. This aspect of ME will become more significant as states move to outlaw abortion.

• ME insulates women from knowing whether or not they are pregnant. They may suspect that they are pregnant, but ME allows them to remain in ignorance, and therefore lets the mechanism of self-denial operate.

For obvious reasons, 'menstrual extraction' is primarily used in areas of the world where abortion is illegal. The complication rate for untrained or semi-trained women aborting themselves with a home-made suction apparatus can be extremely high. However, this didn't stop women in the "Jane" illegal abortion network from performing 12,000 abortions during the period 1969 to 1973, nor did it stop the Federation of Feminist Women's Health Centers from peddling the same crude apparatus after the Supreme Court's 1989 Webster decision until they were stopped from doing so by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Two writers for the virulently pro-abortion Pathfinder Fund reveal the true self-deceiving logic behind menstrual extraction procedures; "Today, a woman faced with a possible but unconfirmed and unwanted pregnancy can walk into a health services clinic or doctor's office and often within twenty minutes have her endometrial lining extracted ... and since menstrual extraction can be performed before a positive pregnancy test is obtainable, it is hard to prove that menstrual induction is an abortion procedure."[12]

The Abortion Pill.

A safe, efficient, and private abortion pill is every Neofeminist's dream. Unfortunately for them, it does not exist, and most likely never will.

The RU-486 early abortion pill has serious side effects, has a very limited range of use, and is just as costly as a surgical abortion, and is now being used ruthlessly by certain developing nations for outright coercive population control purposes.

For detailed information on the various types of abortion pills, see Chapter 34.

Third-Trimester Abortions.

A mere 0.01 percent of all abortions, only about 100-200 procedures, are performed each year after 24 weeks of pregnancy.

                                                                  'Religious' Coalition for Abortion Rights.[13]

Introduction.

When dealing with third-trimester abortions, the anti-life mentality is uncompromising and absolutist for two very good reasons;

(1) the anti-lifer strives to be free of God and actually is striving (whether consciously or unconsciously) to transform himself into a 'little God.' To admit that any anti-life practice is inhumane or unethical would be to admit fault and culpability. This and other strange characteristics of the anti-life mentality are described in Chapter 2 of Volume I.

(2) the Neofeminists are acutely and properly aware of the principle of "reverse incrementalism;" that is, they are compelled to defend these most reprehensible abortions, because if they 'lose' abortion for the third trimester and for sex selection, for example, they will surely 'lose' abortion in other categories as well (perhaps this phenomenon could be called the 'slippery ski-lift').

The Reality.

Many or most pro-abortionists will deny that third-trimester abortions even exist. However, Census Bureau statistics, which themselves are based upon Alan Guttmacher Institute figures, show that about one percent of all abortions are performed in the third trimester.[14]

Some pro-abortionists actually claim with a straight face that no abortions whatever take place after the 24th week. From their point of view, this is a true statement. All they do is merely define all third-trimester abortions as something other than 'abortions,' as if this will make the atrocity simply disappear. This is done for two reasons: to assuage their own consciences, and to hoodwink a public that is all to ready to accept the lie so the public's conscience remains dulled. Robert Hall explains to us how this neat little semantic trick is performed; "There is no doubt in my mind that these [mongoloid] pregnancies should be and will be terminated; but there is no logical reason why these terminations, if carried out beyond the twentieth week, need be called 'abortions' ... I think we can live with a 20-week definition if later interruptions are performed for humanitarian reasons under a different semantic label."[15]

Most pro-aborts will shrug and say that one percent is a very small percentage. But one percent of 1.6 million is 16,000 third-trimester abortions per year. In light of the fact that fifty percent of all babies are viable with medical help at the beginning of the third trimester, we see that about eight thousand viable babies are put to death in this country each year (the current age of fetal viability is discussed in Chapter 72, "Preborn: Fetal Development)."

The very fact that pro-aborts feel that one percent is a "very small percentage" shows that they really couldn't care less about the killing of viable babies. One way to highlight this extreme stance is to ask the pro-abort if he would think that one percent of all Blacks being lynched in South Africa would be a "very small percentage," and therefore allowable.

Although there are very few abortuaries that kill preborn babies past the 24th week, these few mills commit the vast majority of such grisly procedures. Some abortuaries advertise for abortion well into the third trimester in the Yellow Pages. Atlanta's Midtown Hospital, which does abortions to 26 weeks and beyond, is a typical example.

A lot of attention was focused on the notorious Wichita third-trimester killer, George Tiller, during Operation Rescue's 1991 "Summer of Mercy." It is significant that 6,000 pro-aborts held a counter-rally in Wichita during OR's rescues. Their ardent support for third-trimester abortions was displayed by a plane towing a banner that read "WE LOVE YOU, DR. TILLER!"[16]

Tiller admitted that he profits hugely from such barbaric procedures when he complained in an editorial in a Kansas newspaper that

Sometime in the next legislative session, bills may be introduced to prevent third-trimester abortions for fetal indications. Please call or write your newly elected officials at the state and local levels. Let them know that this option must be preserved for women and families with a damaged fetus ... [Neonatal units] do not guarantee good kids. There are very damaged, very dead, very vegetable-like kids who come out of these neonatal care units.[17]

The "Dreaded Complication."

Occasionally third-trimester abortions result in what doctors commonly call "the dreaded complication:" a live, crying, viable baby.

Abortionist Enrique Gerbi of Detroit Memorial hospital performed an abortion in October 1984 which resulted in the live birth of a 29-week girl. He essentially shrugged and said that "It happens all the time. This is not the first time, and it won't be the last. It happens all the time."[18]

Dr. David A. Grimes, veteran Planned Parenthood abortionist, estimates that from 500 to 3,000 babies survive prostaglandin and hysterotomy abortions every year.[19]

Such "botched abortions" can lead to a curious breed of litigation: the "wrongful life" lawsuit. "Wrongful life" suits are filed on behalf of a child alleging that he should have been aborted. "Wrongful birth" suits are filed by parents that claim that their child should have been aborted.[20] Such litigation has literally inverted the traditional legal theory of "wrongful death" to create the "anti-tort" of "wrongful life."

Whatever the terminology, the very existence of the term "wrongful life" indicates just how far down the slippery slope our legal system has already plunged.

Neofeminist Support.

Judith Hole and Ellen Levine's book Rebirth of Feminism neatly summarizes the radical Neofeminist's attitude towards third-trimester abortions. Note carefully that this same logic is used to justify all abortions, even those committed for convenience, for any reason or for no reason at all. Such a statement could even be used to justify infanticide. The original logic used by the Neofeminists has simply been extended to cover the disposal of viable babies:

 ... any woman who wishes to terminate a late pregnancy undoubtedly has a very good reason and should have the right to do so. In addition, they [radical Neofeminists] argue that the concepts of "quickening" and "viability" are based on religious doctrine and ancient myths about when "life" begins. Any woman who believes in them will not seek an abortion beyond the time dictated by her beliefs. All women, however, should not be required to follow one doctrine.[21]

Obviously, the identical argument could be used to support infanticide or the killing of inconvenient toddlers.

The Massachusetts Experience.

In 1989, anti-life Massachusetts legislators pushed a so-called "Prochoice Amendment" to their state's Constitution. In order to make this Amendment more palatable to many of their colleagues, sponsors wrote that third-trimester abortions would only be allowed to save the life of the mother.

Incredibly, Neofeminists strongly condemned this exception on the grounds that third-trimester abortions should be available for convenience reasons (i.e., economics, to avoid embarrassment, etc.).

Some of the statements by the local radical press in opposition to this Amendment outlined this extreme position. Marlene Fried baldly summed up the basic Neofeminist position in the simplest possible terms as she claimed that "The most basic aspect of abortion rights [is] a woman's right to decide, at any point in pregnancy, for any reason."[22] And the Revolutionary Communist Party insisted that "There are many different reasons why women get abortions. And they are all valid."[23]

The most revealing opposition to the "Prochoice Amendment" was generated by the Reproductive Rights Network of Boston (R2N2). This organization stated that;

The Reproductive Rights Network of Boston believes that it [the 'Prochoice' Amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution] dangerously narrows reproductive rights, and undermines the very movement we're trying to build, by limiting abortion rights to the first 24 weeks of pregnancy ... This represents an alarming compromise of the basic feminist principle that abortion is fundamentally a woman's choice ... Restrictions in late abortion also uphold a disturbing concept that has gotten play in the media and the legislature: that there are morally reprehensible abortions ... Our priority now must be to expand the notion of reproductive rights and to strengthen our message. This is certainly not the time to voluntarily shrink our own demands.[24]

Stubblefield Strikes Out.

In 1985, prominent abortion supporter Dr. Philip Stubblefield, past president of the National Abortion Federation, suggested lowering the upper limit on abortions to 22 weeks. He was certainly not at all concerned about the agony inflicted upon viable babies; he simply wanted to take one small step towards cleaning up the abortionist's filthy public image.

However, Stubblefield was shouted down when he formally presented his proposal to other leading pro-aborts. Abortion lawyer Janet Benshoof of the American Civil Liberties Union demanded that there be no upper gestational age limit, stating as fact that abortion on demand "... is a precondition for all other legal and constitutional guarantees of women's equality."[25]

Despite his questionable motivations for banning third-trimester abortions, Stubblefield appears to be unique among hard-core abortionists. Dr. Frank Chernak summarized the callous opinion of other late-term abortionists toward third-trimester killing in the New England Journal of Medicine; "Prenatal death does not constitute a harm, nor does the prenatal termination of the fetus' life through induced abortion constitute an injury."[26]

'Pregnancy Reduction.'

Introduction.

One of the many undesirable ethical situations that fertility drugs and in-vitro fertilization (IVF) have created is a 'need' for 'pregnancy reduction' abortions. During such a procedure, the woman is deemed to be carrying too many unborn babies, and the abortionist selectively kills one or more of them.

The United States Congress' Committee on Small Business found that many unregulated IVF enterprises deliberately implant an excessive number of embryos during transfer procedures just to increase their chances of success; "IVF success rates are so discouraging that there are some centers trying to do better in terms of creating babies by using multiple [embryo] implants. It shows at the forty-one [leading] centers there were an average of three embryos used. Some centers use more than that. When they do, they sometimes create multiple pregnancies, three, four, five, or six babies.

Then they use fetal reduction, which is killing some fetuses to preserve the health of the mother and to help the other fetuses survive. That is a serious procedure. But because of the lack of pressure to standardize, routinize, and assure quality in the centers out there, we have this kind of dubious activity going on out there.[27]

The Justification.

The usual scenario develops when an infertile woman receives fertility drugs and then is found to be carrying so many babies that the doctor claims that her life or theirs may be endangered.

This is not always the case. In one instance, a doctor told a woman that her five babies would all die, but she chose to carry them all to term. They were all born healthy, and the entire family was the subject of a recent People Magazine cover story.

As always, abortionists lean on the 'hard case' argument. Some women seem to think that twins are too many, and abortionists agree with them. So the 'mother's health' argument, in general, doesn't hold up when you can 'reduce' twins to one child with a sort of abominable reverse 'Sophie's choice.' In other words, the mother is not selecting which of two children will live, but which will die.

In fact, most pregnancy reductions are carried out to kill one of a set of twins. Even in such apparently simple cases, 'pregnancy reduction' is an abysmal failure at delivering its intended result. A recent medical journal article stated that; "The first six twin pregnancies to undergo selective termination at Mount Sinai Hospital 'worked out very badly,' with the unintended miscarriage of four unaffected fetuses as well as the six targeted for abortion. These first attempts involved the use of exsanguination [draining all of the blood from the unborn babies] or injection of saline or an air embolism [to cause heart attacks in the preborn babies], Dr. Berkowitz said."[28]

As with all immoral and cowardly acts of murder, Newspeak is required to insulate the 'doctors' and the 'mothers' from the reality of what they are actually doing. The term 'pregnancy reduction' is a case in point. Others go even further in their self-deceptive language. Dr. Seymour Romney suggests that the 'roulette killing' of some of the babies in a multiple pregnancy be called "enhanced survival of multifetal pregnancies," or ESMP for short.[29]

The Procedure.

The 'pregnancy reduction' procedure has been in use for more than a decade now and is now generally standardized. A needle is inserted through the mother's abdominal wall into her uterus and potassium chloride is injected into the hearts of the 'surplus' babies at random. They die and are reabsorbed by the mother's body.

Two doctors described the procedure in the New England Journal of Medicine;

Using ultra-sound to locate each fetus, the doctors would insert a needle into the chest cavity of the most accessible fetus and place the needle tip directly into the heart of the baby. Potassium chloride was then injected into the heart and the heart was viewed on the ultrasound screen until it stopped beating. Even at 9 weeks, 3 of the 12 fetuses selected for elimination presented problems. The heart continued to beat and the procedure had to be repeated.[30]

Other 'doctors' described how they killed two of five babies in a slightly different procedure; "At ten weeks gestation, a reduction in the number of embryos was performed at the Clamart Clinic in Paris. Guided by real-time ultrasonography and under abdominal local anesthesia (lidocaine 1 percent), ten milliliters of amniotic fluid from each of the two sacs was aspirated [drawn out] through a ten centimeter long, 21-gauge needle. The tip of the needle was then directed into the thoracic [chest] cavity of the fetus and a mixture of 1 milliliter of dolosal and 3 milliliters of xylocaine was injected. The needle was left in place for up to ten minutes until cessation of cardiac activity was seen. If the initial injection was unsuccessful, it was repeated after ten minutes."[31]

The Psychological Impacts.

It would seem logical that the babies who are lucky enough to avoid the random 'death needle' may suffer extensively from 'survivor syndrome' when they grow up if they find out about their narrow escape. This syndrome is typically found in children whose parents chose to abort siblings. How much stronger will the 'survivor syndrome' be in children who escape death by mere millimeters, children who, just by chance, are still alive?

And what of the mother? The vast majority of women who undergo embryo transfer or IVF have been infertile for an extended period of time and spend an average of $11,000 for their assisted reproduction procedures. They obviously want a baby in the worst possible way.

So, after she experiences the intense joy of realizing that she is finally pregnant, she is then told that she has too many babies. She has to lie on her back for at least twenty minutes while a needle pierces her abdomen and womb and injects poison into one or more of her baby's hearts. Some of her children will die because of the off-chance that their existence may compromise the health of her other children.

What must this do to these poor mothers?

Disposal of Fetal Remains.

A fetus is nothing! You won't get me to say I'm sorry for the fetus. Abortion is much more important than the life of a child that doesn't exist.

                                                                           Abortionist Howard I. Diamond.[32]

Introduction.

Pro-abortionists consider living preborn babies to be utterly worthless. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that they should find it morally acceptable to perform repulsive experiments upon them, dispose of them in landfills along with dead animals, ransack their organs, and even make them into paperweights and works of 'art.'

Pam Crosby, Clinical Coordinator at Prince George's Reproductive Health Services, showed the repulsive and utter indifference of experienced killers towards their helpless victims when she described how her clinic dumped second-trimester babies in its trash; 'For the most part it [fetal remains] is thrown out like in many doctors' offices. If you had a wart removed or whatever (chuckle) you could make that analogy."[33]

Babies = Garbage.

It is very important to the pro-abortionists to deny any vestige of humanity to the preborn, no matter how trivial. To allow them a decent and humane burial would be to admit that maybe the preborn should be accorded some dignity, and that maybe they do have intrinsic worth.

Marvin R. Weisberg operated a pathology laboratory in Santa Monica. His business went bankrupt, and a huge metal storage container in his backyard was repossessed as a result. A crane could not lift the box, so it was opened. It was crammed with 17,000 aborted babies weighing a total of three and a half tons. Weisberg also had 400 aborted babies stored in his house. 42 of these weighed five or more pounds.[34]

Local pro-life activists offered to bury the babies in a dignified and humane manner, but the American Civil Liberties Union and the Feminist Women's Health Centers filed suit to stop the burial, because, as they alleged, the preborn babies were only "unwanted biological tissue," and such burial would, of course, "violate the separation of Church and State."[35]

In Wichita and in other cities, pro-lifers have discovered aborted preborn babies as large as six pounds (full-term) being burned as garbage along with dead dogs, cats, and birds thrown out by local Humane Society offices.[36]

Such atrocities are becoming rare. An Austrian company manufactures tiny stainless-steel ovens that incinerate the corpses of the dead aborted babies cleanly and efficiently. More than half of its sales are to abortuaries in the United States.

Does anyone out there feel a chill wind from the past anymore?

Fetal Experimentation.

Nazi doctors performed repulsive experiments upon concentration camp inmates during World War II. This 'research' included severing women's breasts (while they were still alive) in order to measure their fat content, immersing men in frigid water until they died in order to test the insulating capacity of flight suits, and injecting various poisons and viruses into victims.

Those possessing the Nazi mentality have had another half-century to refine their atrocities. Their helpless victims are now the preborn children of our country. Some of the experiments that abortionists perform on these babies are so repulsive that they seem to be almost unreal.

An anesthetist at Pittsburgh's Magee Women's Hospital described before the Pennsylvania Abortion Commission how third-trimester babies were deliberately aborted alive and then packed in ice for shipment to laboratories. She said that "It was repulsive to watch live fetuses being packed in ice while still moving and trying to breathe, then being rushed to a laboratory."[34]

A Stanford doctor also testified that experiments included "slicing open the rib cage of a still-living human fetus in order to observe the heart action."[34]

Other experiments have included severing the heads of preborn babies to measure gas flow across membranes and deliberately keeping late-term aborted preborn babies alive as long as possible in pressurized vessels for the purpose of researching extracorporeal gestation.

For more information on fetal experimentation and fetal organ harvesting, see Chapters 73 and 74, respectively.

Dead Babies As Art.

It may seem impossible to believe, but some warped and twisted minds consider the sad little carcasses of aborted preborn babies suitable objects for jewelry and artwork for public display.

During the second half of the 1980s, several 'artists' "created" earrings and other forms of adornment that featured small preborn babies encased in plastic or plexiglass. These "works" were widely praised by art critics.[37]

In 1989, the "Helms Degenerate Art Show/Protest" at New York City's Black and White in Color gallery received a symbolic $500 National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) subgrant from "Artist Space." This show featured Shawn Eichman's "Alchemy Cabinet," which displayed her own dismembered second-trimester aborted baby next to the obligatory twisted, bloody wire coat hanger. Eichman (no relation to Adolf) proudly described her display as "Degenerate with a capital 'D.'"[37,38]

These displays were vigorously defended by the Art Establishment because all of the artists were pro-abortion and were transmitting a Neoliberal message. After Eichman's 'work' drew a barrage of protests, National Council on the Arts member Jacob Neusner proposed that the NEA adopt language prohibiting the funding of works of art that "utilize and part of an actual human embryo or fetus."

He was laughed at, and his proposal was defeated by the lopsided score of 10 to 2. Three council members privately said to him that "You can make beautiful earrings out of pieces of fetuses."[38]

Of course, if aborted babies are in good condition, they can be very aesthetically pleasing. What better conversation piece to have on one's desk than a perfect little preborn child?

In 1976, investigators discovered that a Chicago biological supply firm was supplying bodies and organs of preborn aborted babies as paperweights. They charged $90 for the brain of a preborn $70 for a set of its lungs, and $60 for its intestines. An encased baby foot went for $70 and the complete 10-week baby cost $97.80.[39]

Informed Consent.

All reputable [abortion] clinics do their best to obtain a truly informed consent, and to refer patients needing further counseling to an appropriate community agency. Most clinics refuse service to those they believe are not informed and have not made a decision or who will feel exploited at some later date.

                                                                                               Planned Parenthood.[5]

It seems unlikely that a woman will obtain adequate counsel and support from the attending physician at an abortion clinic ...

Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 91 (1976).

The Big Lie.

One of the most persistent lies of the pro-abortionists is their very labeling of themselves as 'pro-choice.'

The word 'choice' implies a decision made without undue pressure and with all pertinent facts available for inspection.

However, the pro-abortionists fanatically resist any attempts to tell women about their preborn babies. Pro-life sidewalk counselors are assaulted, blocked, and sued in attempts to keep them from giving any information to women entering abortuaries. 'Doctors' and 'counselors' are instructed in manuals to deceive patients and to refuse to discuss the preborn baby. And Planned Parenthood and their detestable ilk battle any initiative or legislation requiring informed consent.

Finally, the gaze of the entire pro-abortion movement seems to be directed away from what they are doing. Arch-abortionist Warren Hern displays this deep denial when he wrote that "Television interviews, in particular, should focus on the public issue involved (right to confidential and professional medical care, freedom of choice, and so forth) and not on the specific details of the abortion procedures."[6]

Some quotes by these 'anti-choice fanatics' against informed consent for women are shown in Figure 61-2.

FIGURE 61-2
STATEMENTS BY PRO-ABORTIONISTS OPPOSING INFORMED CONSENT

Vital signs should be observed regularly, and a Doppler [for listening to the fetal heartbeat] inaudible to the patient should be used at intervals to determine the presence or absence of fetal heart tones ... This [informed consent] is a controversial area, but most professionals in the field feel that it is not advisable for patients to view the products of conception, to be told the sex of the fetus, or to be informed of a multiple pregnancy.

Abortionist Warren Hern. Abortion Practice. 1984, J.B. Lippincott Company, pages 145 and 304.

Sonography in connection with induced abortion may have psychological hazards. Seeing a blown-up, moving image of the embryo she is carrying can be distressing to a woman who is about to undergo an abortion, Dr. Sally Faith Dorfman noted. She stressed that the screen should be turned away from the patient. Staff members may also be affected by sonographic images and may need opportunities for venting their feelings and reconfirming their priorities, Dr. Dorfman said.

Obstetrics and Gynecology News editorial, February 15-28, 1986.

Another set of questions involves the opposition. Has your audience seen anti-abortion propaganda? Are you debating a Right-to-Lifer? Is the opposition bringing slides or pictures? Try to insist that they not be allowed to ... Find out if your opposition is bringing audio-visuals. Try to insist that you will only speak if they do not ... Explain that you are equally repulsed by the [pro-life] photos, that you are human and love children and babies as much as anyone else ... The pictures they [the audience] have seen must be discredited. They have been magnified so much as to remove the facts from scientific perspective. Really, in early stages, the fetus is smaller than a fingernail, can fit into a walnut shell, and is much like menstrual flow to the naked eye. We would be repulsed by a magnified picture of an eyeball in formaldehyde also.

Looseleaf booklet entitled "Organizing for Action." Prepared by Vicki Z. Kaplan for the National Abortion Rights Action League. 51 pages, 1974. See especially page 24, "Organizing a Speakers Bureau," and pages 29 and 32, "Introduction to Debating."

Health care professionals bear a responsibility for communicating realistic information about abortion to women in their care. They should assume responsibility for dispelling old wives' tales about the harmful effects of the procedure. Informed consent is a necessary ingredient of care, but as with any other procedure, the individual client and her characteristics should be evaluated before deciding just what is informed consent. Communicating information can be punitive or supportive.

E. Dorsey Smith. Abortion and Health Care Ethics. Quoted in Mary K. Culp's review on page 7 of the October 24, 1985 National Right to Life News.

Their Kind of Informed Consent.

Notice that the last quote in Figure 61-2 shows that 'informed consent' can be anything that a 'counselor' or abortionist wants it to be. The pro-abort version of 'informed consent' certainly never includes information on fetal development, because such data would, of course, be "punitive." Notice also that any information on the physical or psychological harm of abortion is dismissed out of hand as "old wives' tales" (a sexist and exploitative term if ever there was one)!

Smith goes on to admit that the majority of nurses are pro-life (because of their "Catholic background," the bigot conjectures), and recommends that any nurse in the obstetrics-gynecology field who is pro-life would best serve everyone's interests by getting out of nursing!

Keep the Public Ignorant as Well.

It is not only pro-abortion individuals who resist informed consent; well-known pro-abort organizations are leading the charge to suppress information on abortion not only in the clinics, but in the public arena as well!

This is a good tactical move on the part of the pro-abortionists. They always tell us that the majority should rule in our "pluralistic society," but conveniently ignore the fact that a comprehensive nationwide Newsweek poll showed that a whopping 88% of the American public supports women seeking abortions being "counseled on the dangers and on alternatives to abortion." Only 9 percent disagreed.[40]

At the October 1989 annual conference of the National Abortion Rights Action League, pollster Harrison Hickman stated in a workshop entitled 'Framing and Selling the Pro-Choice Message' that "Probably nothing has been as damaging to our cause as technological advances that show pictures of the fetus."[41]

Dr. Vincent Rue is the country's leading expert on post-abortion syndrome and is Executive Director of the Sir Thomas More Marriage and Family Center, based in Downey, California. According to him, Planned Parenthood successfully pressured the publishers Harper & Row into canceling Dr. Anne Speckhard's book Psycho-Social Stress Following Abortion.[42]

The abortionists are correct, of course. If the public ever gets wind of just how blatant their lies and killing are, abortion will be a thing of the past.

Censorship NOW.

Human Life of Washington (the state Right to Life affiliate) placed a series of ads on Washington Transit Authority busses. These ads consisted of a photograph of a 17-week old unborn baby swimming in its mother's womb with the caption "ENJOY LIFE. GOOD THINGS COME IN SMALL PACKAGES." The objective of the ads was not to stop abortions, but to warn the public about the effects of alcohol syndrome, substance abuse, and diet on fetal development.

The Reproductive Rights Task Force of the Seattle Chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW) immediately initiated a telephone campaign directed against Washington Transit, claiming that the photos and ads were, in NOW's lofty opinion, "too graphic."[43] The Washington Transit Authority quickly broke its contract with Human Life and obediently pulled the ads.

A NOW spokeswoman explained that "NOW works to promote and protect the human rights of women. It is in keeping with the work that we do that we protest advertising the intent of which is harmful to the health and well-being of women, and which deprives women of their full rights as human beings."[44]

When asked how the advertising was "harmful to the health and well-being of women," and how it "deprives women of their full rights as human beings," the NOW people refused to answer.

In other words, NOW does not even want the public to know basic facts about human reproduction, because the sight of a healthy unborn baby might make some women change their minds about abortion!

No Pictures, Please.

Color photographs of beautiful living preborn babies are anathema to pro-abortionists. They label the use of such photos in debates "disgusting" and "exploitative." Naturally, a pro-life debater can embarrass his opponent by asking just how such a photo is "disgusting" or "exploitative."

Many pro-aborts, after having been thrashed in a series of debates, simply refuse to debate pro-lifers any more. Others will not debate if any graphics are used by pro-lifers. This is all part of the desire to keep the public ignorant.

Abortionist Warren Hern writes that "In Colorado, the pro-choice community has decided after some period of disagreement and discussion to refuse all invitations to debate.

On the other hand, schools make frequent requests to present both sides of the abortion issue to students ... If the sponsors want both sides presented, however, the presentations must be made on different occasions. We insist that visual aid materials not be presented by either side.[6]

Conscience Clauses.

Introduction.

The pro-abortionists say that those who do not agree with them should remain neutral and uncommitted on the issue. However, in reality, the anti-life mentality demands that everyone support its viewpoint wholeheartedly. The reasons for this are subtle but understandable. The anti-life personality must never be confronted with accusations of wrongdoing which would breach the thin veneer of self-denial and cause the person to go through the painful process of self-examination.

No Pro-Life Doctors.

Pro-aborts would like to see all pro-life doctors lose their licenses. If this sounds ludicrous, consider the situation which now exists in Great Britain.

The British National Health Service does not allow gynecologists to refuse to perform abortions, and conscience clauses are unheard of under the socialized medical system. One doctor was advised that "There is no room for Catholics in this part of the National Health Service."[45]

The same state of affairs used to exist in this country. With the eager backing of every pro-abortion group in the country, many medical schools used to grill prospective applicants on their views and then refuse admission to all candidates who dared express any opposition to or uneasiness about abortion. Many obstetrics-gynecology graduates were refused residencies for the same reason.

Studies performed by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) and by Eugene F. Diamond, M.D., found that two-thirds of all medical schools either asked their applicants about their views on abortion (which has absolutely nothing to do with academic accomplishments or competence), or admitted that the subject was broached during interviews. Some school interviewers stated that an applicant's opposition to abortion would be a negative factor on his record. Fully one-sixth of the schools said that opposition to abortion by students created insurmountable "administrative difficulties" that would be considered when it was time to award slots in new medical school classes. One paper revealed the reason for this bias; "Studies have shown that students who come in contact with women seeking abortions learn the proper medical techniques and are more likely, later in their careers, to have tolerant attitudes about abortion and to be willing to perform the procedure."[46]

For years, the Residency Review Committee of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology held that a doctor had to know abortion procedures in order to be considered "competent and safe," and the Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology (CREOG) listed abortion as a skill that all doctors should learn and practice.[47]

Finally, Senator Richard S. Schweiker (R-Pa.) introduced S.784 in February of 1977 and, in November of the same year, an attachment to S.2159, the 'Conscience Clause' of the Public Programs Act of 1973 amendments, in order to correct medical school bias against pro-lifers.

Of course, pro-abortion groups still contest the right of physicians to not perform abortions. All pro-abortion groups oppose medical 'conscience clauses' for doctors and nurses. The so-called 1990 "Freedom of Choice Act," sponsored by virtually all pro-abortion United States Congressmen and Senators, would have specifically banned all conscience clauses.

This idiocy commonly occurs at the state level as well. In March 1991, pro-abort Maryland legislators passed a law that repealed the state's 24-year old conscience clause and mandated that hospitals that do not make abortion referrals (including Catholic hospitals) will no longer be protected by insurance. Pro-lifers accurately tagged this law the "Abortion Industry Protection Act of 1991." The only restriction in this law is a parental-notification clause, which can be overridden if the abortionist decides the minor is mature enough to make her own decision.[48] Obviously, in the eyes of an abortionist, all minors are mature enough to make such a decision. After all, there's money to be made!

Many pro-aborts have gone so far as to claim that any pro-life medical professional is, by definition, incompetent and must immediately get out of medical practice![49]

How's that for 'freedom of choice?'

Perhaps sensing that the war on individual conscience clauses would be a tough battle, the pro-aborts have turned their attention to pro-life medical institutions.

In late 1990, United States District Court Judge Herbert Murray ruled that the Catholic St. Agnes Hospital of Baltimore would lose its accreditation as an obstetrics and gynecology teaching facility if it did not teach its residents how to abort and sterilize.[50]

Maryland has a conscience clause, but Judge Murray simply dismissed it as "irrelevant."

St. Agnes is one of 41 Catholic hospitals in the United States with obstetrics/gynecology residency programs. Acceptance to the St. Agnes residency program requires adherence to its pro-life philosophy.

The litigation began 1986 when the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) withdrew the hospital's accreditation for program "deficiencies." St. Agnes sued the ACGME, but Judge Murray ruled that the ACGME move was "justified" because of its "compelling interest in satisfactory physician education."[50]

In other words, Judge Murray was stating that, if you are a pro-life doctor who doesn't perform abortions, you are by definition improperly educated and incompetent! The implications of this bizarre ruling are almost unlimited.

Father's Rights.

The basic human [abortion] right necessarily involved would be destroyed if a husband could insist that the child be born ... It is impossible to give him [the husband] a veto over his wife's abortion, if her constitutional rights respecting childbirth are to be effective, and such power is also utterly inconsistent with our emerging concepts of fundamental women's rights in general.

                                                                                              Nancy F. Wechsler.[51]

Introduction.

Pro-abortionists are the most sexist creatures on earth. They seek to deny men any input whatever regarding the decision on whether or not to become a father. The Neofeminists constantly blubber about their "reproductive rights" while simultaneously ignoring the same rights for men.

At the same time the Neofeminists viciously defend this glaring double standard, they wonder why men do not respect them and support their demands for full equality.

The reaction of Louise Tyrer, vice-president of medical affairs at Planned Parenthood, was typical of the utter callousness that pro-abortionists show towards any rights other than their own; "But it doesn't matter how much men scream and holler that they are being left out [of the abortion decision]. There are some things that they are never going to be able to experience fully. I say, 'tough luck.'"[52] And Marjorie Reiley Maguire and Daniel C. Maguire, members of the bogus religious group 'Catholics' for a Free Choice, counsel that "Nor is [abortion] a question of the man's rights. You have no moral obligation to consult him or to consider his desire that you continue the pregnancy."[53]

The Danforth Decision.

The United States Supreme Court ruled on father's rights in its Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth decision of July 7, 1976.

Among other findings, the Court held that any requirement that a husband or parent be informed about a wife's or minor's abortion is unconstitutional.

This decision stripped fathers of any legal right whatever to protect their own preborn children. The father therefore has less of a right to protect his own child than abortion referral agents have to arrange its death, the abortionists to kill it, or the State to declare his slightest opposition unconstitutional and punishable. His relationship to his own child is deemed much less important than his relationship to a piece of property say a car stereo.

On the other hand, the Danforth decision enforced "mandatory fatherhood" for those men who did not want a child. In summary, a father has literally no voice whatever in the decision to have or not have a child. And this glaring and hurtful inequality is ignored by the same Neofeminists who are demanding equality themselves.

In his dissent, Justice Byron White stated that "It is truly surprising that the majority finds in the United States Constitution, as it must in order to justify the result it reaches, a rule that the State must assign a greater value to a mother's decision to cut off a potential human life by abortion than to a father's decision to let it mature into a live child."

The Conn Decision.

In this allegedly "advanced" American society, with its ridiculously inverted values, the almighty State has mandated that a father's right to protect his own preborn children takes a back seat to a woman's literally unlimited right to abortion even if the reason given is profoundly trivial.

The Conn v. Conn case was the first pure 'father's rights' litigation brought to the attention of the Supreme Court of the United States, and decisively demonstrated that fathers have no rights whatever regarding their preborn children.

In this court case, James Bopp of National Right to Life represented Erin Andrew Conn of Elkhart, Indiana, who won a court order in June 1988 barring his wife, six weeks pregnant, from having an abortion. She defied the court injunction and the wishes of the father of her preborn child and obtained an abortion with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union. Her lawyer, Richard A. Waples of the Indiana ACLU, stated in legal papers that "she did what she had to do to protect both her physical and emotional health." Sounds like a pretty serious reason to get an abortion, doesn't it?

In reality, court documents showed that she had the abortion because she had planned a trip to the beach and wanted to look good in her new bathing suit![54]

A state appeals court eventually overturned the ruling of the trial court, and the Indiana Supreme Court upheld the appeals court ruling. A dissenting judge mused that "At least up to now, no right has been determined to be absolute."

On November 14, 1988, the United States Supreme Court unanimously refused to hear Bopp's appeal of the appeals court, and therefore essentially agreed that a father has no rights or claim whatsoever to his unborn child. It is really not surprising that the Supreme Court refused to hear this appeal, because even it is constrained by its own prior rulings, in particular the Danforth decision. For pro-abortionists, every case is a "hard case" even this one. When challenged about the trivial nature of such abortions, pro-aborts will either duck the question or stupidly assert that a woman's self-image is much more important than the life of her child.

According to a national poll, more than half of all fathers including married men are not even told that their child has been aborted.[55]

Public Opinion Polls on Father's Rights.

Pro-abortionists love to quote heavily-doctored public opinion polls that 'show' that 75 percent (80 percent, 88 percent, pick a number that sounds good) of all American adults think that abortion should remain legal. They bring up these polls in order to paint pro-lifers as a tiny (but always 'vocal') minority who should be ignored by the public. They also point to the polls to shore up their assertion that the 'majority' should rule and abortion should remain legal.

Naturally, pro-aborts ignore public opinion polls that go against their positions.

The most well-documented and well-known poll on national abortion attitudes was performed by the Boston Globe and WBZ-TV on March 27-29, 1989. Two questions addressed spousal rights regarding abortion;

RESULTS OF POLL QUESTIONS ON SPOUSAL RIGHTS

QUESTION: "In this case, do you think it should be legal or illegal for a woman to obtain an abortion?"
                                                                 Illegal               Legal
"Mother wants abortion
   but father wants baby:"                              72%                 14%

"Father wants abortion
   but mother wants baby:"                            75%                 11%

This extensive poll clearly shows that three-quarters of the American public wants each spouse to have essentially a "veto power" over the abortion decision. Yet pro-abortionists still insist that the pro-life view is a "minority position" that should be ignored by the general public. As always with selfish pro-aborts, their own rights are paramount, and the rights of everyone else take a distant second place.

For information on how lying pro-abortionists conduct phony public opinion polls and doctor other polls to reflect their own viewpoints, see Chapter 76, "Public Opinion Polls on Abortion."

Impacts on Fathers and Relationships.

While Neofeminists demand total control over the abortion decision, they callously disregard the feelings and needs of men, whom they lock out of the process with grim determination. And while they demand that men be more 'sensitive' and 'caring,' they mandate that men may have no say in the decision regarding whether or not their own child lives.

This selfish hypocrisy can only lead to anger and hurt on the part of men and a subsequent tremendous strain on relationships.

Researcher Arthur Shostak surveyed 1,000 men waiting in abortion mills while their girlfriends and wives were being aborted. He tallied and analyzed their responses to his questions on their feelings and concluded the following;

• 42% of the boyfriends had offered to marry the woman;
• 25% of those who did not offer to marry the woman offered child support;
• Most of the men, regardless of their feelings toward abortion, offered to
    pay the costs of the abortion 'procedure;'
• 39% of the men believed that life began at conception or when the nervous
    system began to function; and
• 26% believed that the abortion was the "killing of a child."

Shostak's study, not surprisingly, found a vast range of emotions among the men. They feared for the women's health, felt guilty about the abortion or the pregnancy, felt self-doubt, and also anguish and pain over the loss of their children and over the entire abortion 'experience.'[56]

Just as childbirth is not a trivial issue for a woman, abortion is not a trivial issue for a man. University of Maryland psychologist Arnold Medvene says that "Abortion is one of the major death experiences that men go through. It resurrects very important, very primitive issues, memories, and feelings."[57]

When men are purposely and systematically shut out of such an important decision, they (being men) must take some kind of action to relieve their frustrations. Clinical studies have shown that men become angry when they are purposely omitted from an important decision that involves their own family, and they feel deceived and manipulated. The man may not show his anger at the time of the abortion, but it will eventually express itself through "hooking," a process of reacting angrily to a situation that he associates with the abortion.[58] In other words, he may feel strong emotions when he sees a child that is the same age as his aborted child would have been, or when he sees a pregnant mother. This kind of reaction is remarkably similar to those of women suffering from post-abortion syndrome (PAS).

Most commonly, however, a man reacts to an abortion that was committed over his objections by dumping his wife or girlfriend. One study showed that three-fourths of the relationships between married and unmarried couples fell apart within one month of the abortion.[59]

One organization that compiles information on father's rights and engages in litigation that is intended to reverse the current atrociously biases state of affairs is Fathers for Life, whose address and telephone numbers are listed below.

Father's Rights Legal Services Association
3623 Douglas Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50310
Telephone: (515) 277-8789
(515) 233-2750

The Disreputable Nature of Abortionists.

Introduction.

Abortionists are the pariahs of our society they dispose of unwanted human beings, a filthy and repulsive business that is nevertheless looked upon by society as a necessary and vital public service by those people who believe abortion should remain legal for just the exceptions "rape, incest and me."

Abortionists are generally looked down upon by their more talented and principled peers. Many abortionists are mere technicians, performing only abortions that even Neofeminists believe can be done safely and efficiently by lay people. Their days are spent steeped in death, performing the same simple procedure over and over again, until they become virtual mechanisms, without feelings, morals, or spirit.

It is not surprising that these people are dredged from the bottom of medical school classes, get into medicine just to make money, and commit violent crimes with alarming frequency.

Check Your Consciences at the Door, Please.

Through history, doctors have committed the most grisly atrocities imaginable. But they do not just decide one day to violate the laws of nature and of man; they must first go through the process of gradually deadening their consciences to the point where they can justify or rationalize any violent, perverted or unnatural act. Nazi abortionist Josef Mengele (The "Angel of Death") and his fellow mass murderers went through this process, and modern-day abortionists have described it as well.

Writer Magda Denes quotes a doctor who has managed to deaden his own conscience to the point where nothing affects him any more not even late-term abortions;

You have to become a bit schizophrenic. In one room you encourage the patient that the slight irregularity of the fetal heart is not important, everything is going well, she is going to have a nice baby, and then you shut the door and go into the next room and assure another patient on whom you just did a saline abortion that it's fine if the heart is already irregular, she has nothing to worry about, she is not going to have a live baby. I mean you definitely have to make a 180-degree turn, but somehow it evolved in my own mind gradually, and I have no trouble now making the switch ...[60]

Denes also shows us that some people not only support and facilitate abortion, they have descended to the appalling state where they get almost sexually excited when discussing late-term killings. Denes quotes social worker Dora Greenwald; "It's a really interesting thing that is happening. It's fascinating, when you can think about it clinically and not get involved in the babies, or the people ... Several times I saw really beautiful things happen, I mean it's physically beautiful. Sometimes you can see the vagina opening up and the entire thing coming out at once ... It's a really interesting thing, and it got me very excited."[60]

Crimes By Abortionists.

El Paso abortionist Raymond Showery was convicted of murder in 1976 for drowning a baby who survived one of his abortions and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. Miami abortionist Hipolito Barreiro was arrested and charged with manslaughter after he killed four women in four years. Fort Lauderdale abortionist Theodore Lehrer handcuffed his wife, tied her to a table, raped her, and then forcibly aborted her. Buffalo abortionist Barnett Slepian attacked pro-lifers with a baseball bat for the heinous offense of singing Christmas carols outside his home.

Indianapolis abortionist Pravin Thakkar aborted three of his girlfriends without their knowledge or consent. One of the babies he murdered was 8 months old. He was sent to federal prison for 16 years. Boston abortionist Kenneth Edelin bungled a late-term abortion and strangled the baby to cover up his incompetence. His conviction was overturned by an appeals court and today he is Chairman of the Board of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and has narrated Planned Parenthood videos aimed at teenagers. He also became chairman of the National Abortion Rights Action League Medical Advisory Committee shortly after he had killed the baby.[61]

The list of the incredible violence committed by these white-coated thugs goes on and on and on. And yet, the pro-aborts, like good little robots, continue to vigorously defend them and attempt to muddy the water by hypocritically calling pro-lifers 'violent.'

For a list of more than 100 major cases of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape, forced abortion, robbery, kidnapping, infanticide, and other serious crimes committed by abortionists and pro-aborts, see Chapter 19 of Volume I, "Anti-Life Violence."

Britain is Infested Too.

One of the prime indicators of the abortionist's hideous reputation is that it is the same all over the world. They are by nature violent liars and murderers, because their unholy father Satan has been a liar and a murderer from the beginning.

A major British newspaper clearly identified the effect that free and easy abortion is having on Britain's medical profession;

The drastic increase in the number of abortions is having a corrosive effect on Britain's doctors. The law has allowed unscrupulous medical men to amass huge sums, bringing general discredit on the profession. Undesirable students, says the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, are specialising in the subject because they see fortunes to be made.[45]


References: Methodology and Aspects of Abortion.

[1] Abortionist Warren Hern, addressing the Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians at their 1978 convention in San Diego. Presentation entitled "WHAT ABOUT US? Staff Reactions to the D&E Procedure." Quoted in The Advocate (publication of Advocates for Life Ministries, Portland, Oregon), March 1986, page 15.

[2] Ronald J. Pion, M.D., Alan J. Wabrek, M.D., and William B. Wilson, Jr., M.D. "Innovative Methods in the Prevention of the Need for Abortion." Sarah Lewit (Editor). Abortion Techniques and Services: Proceedings of the Conference, New York, N.Y., June 3-5, 1971. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica, 1972.

[3] British abortionist describing a new late-term abortion procedure. Quoted in HLI Reports, June 1986, and in "Just Another Piece of Meat?" ALL About Issues, August-September 1986, pages 51 and 52. The umbilical cord is cut on the first day, and, after the preborn baby dies and begins to decay, the abortionist pulls it apart.

[4] Abortionist Edward Allred, quoted in The San Diego Union, October 12, 1980. Also quoted in Anthony Perry. "Doctor's Abortion Business Is Lucrative." ALL About Issues, December 1980, pages 10, 14, and 15.

[5] "Let's Tell the Truth About Abortion." Pamphlet distributed by Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood. 1985, 22 pages. Fight Back Press, Post Office Box 61421, Denver, Colorado 80206. Pages 9 and 12.

[6] Warren Hern, M.D. Abortion Practice. 1984, J.B. Lippincott Company, pages 154, 323, and 325.

[7] Martin Haskell, M.D. "Dilatation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion." Contained in National Abortion Federation. Second Trimester Abortion: From Every Angle. "Fall Risk Management Seminar, September 13-14, 1992, Dallas, Texas. Presentations, Bibliography & Related Materials." 1992.

[8] Russell Sacco, M.D., quoted in James Long. "Infants Aborted Alive: Officials Wink at Laws." The Oregon Journal, March 14, 1982, pages 4 and 5.

[9] Nancy B. Kaltreider, Sadja Goldsmith, and Alan J. Margolis. "The Impact of Midtrimester Abortion Techniques on Patients and Staff." American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, September 15, 1979, pages 255 to 238.

[10] Judith P. Bourne. "Health Professionals' Attitudes About Abortion." Sarah Lewit (Editor). Abortion Techniques and Services: Proceedings of the Conference, New York, N.Y., June 3-5, 1971. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica, 1972.

[11] Holtrop and Waife. Uterine Aspiration Techniques in Family Planning (Second Edition). The Pathfinder Fund, 1979.

[12] Alan Guttmacher Institute figures, quoted by Richard D. Glasow, Ph.D. "Abortion Statistics Paint Grim Picture." National Right to Life News, May 28, 1987, pages 5 and 16.

[13] 'Religious' Coalition for Abortion Rights. "Words of Choice." 24-page propaganda booklet, 1991, Washington, D.C., page 5.

[14] United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Reference Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States. 1990 (110th edition). Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.

[15] Robert E. Hall, M.D. "Time Limitation in Induced Abortion." In Sarah Lewit (Editor). Abortion Techniques and Services: Proceedings of the Conference, New York, N.Y., June 3-5, 1971. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica, 1972.

[16] Steve Otto. "Choice Supporters Rally, Assail Operation Rescue." People's Daily World, August 31, 1991, page 7.

[17] George R. Tiller. "Don't Prohibit Third Trimester Abortions." Letter to The Hays [Kansas] Daily News, January 6, 1989, page 4. Also see Tiller's quote in Michael Martinez. "Late-Term Abortions at Clinic Draw Clients, Foes From Many States." Washington Post, August 22, 1987, page A5.

[18] Leslie Bond. "Another Abortion Survivor at Detroit Memorial Hospital." National Right to Life News, July 31, 1986, page 7.

[19] David A. Grimes. "Second-Trimester Abortions in the United States." Alan Guttmacher Institute, Family Planning Perspectives, November/December 1984.

[20] Lisa Andrusko. "A Fact of Life: Is Abortion Legal Only in the First Three Months of Pregnancy?" National Right to Life News, January 23, 1986, page 1.

[21] Judith Hole and Ellen Levine. Rebirth of Feminism. Quadrangle Books: New York, 1971. Page 288.

[22] Marlene Fried. "Pro-Choice Agendas After Webster." Against the Current, November/December 1989, page 20.

[23] "Women Are Not Incubators!: The Assault on Abortion Rights." Revolutionary Communist Party of the United States, Revolutionary Worker, November 6, 1989. Also distributed as a special reprint booklet, page 6.

[24] Reproductive Rights Network of Boston. "R2N2 Opposes Coalition's Amendment." Sojourner: The Women's Forum, April 1990, page 8.

[25] Richard D. Glasow, Ph.D. "Public Revulsion to Late Abortions Worries Pro-Abortionists." National Right to Life News, November 21, 1985, pages 5 and 9.

[26] Frank Chernak, et al., "When is Termination of Pregnancy During the Third Trimester Morally Justified?" New England Journal of Medicine. Volume 310, No. 8, page 502.

[27] Committee on Small Business. Consumer Protection Issues Involved in In Vitro Fertilization Clinics." Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1988. Pages 26 and 27.

[28] "Selective Abortion in Multiple Gestation." Obstetrics and Gynecology News, August 1-14, 1989.

[29] As quoted in Debra Evans. Without Moral Limits: Women, Reproduction, and the New Medical Technology. Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1989. Page 116.

[30] "Selective Abortion, AKA Pregnancy Reduction." New England Journal of Medicine, April 21, 1988. Also see R.L. Berkowitz, L. Lynch, U. Chitkara, I.A. Wilkins, K.E. Mehalek, and E. Alvarez. "Selective Reduction of Multifetal Pregnancies in the First Trimester." New England Journal of Medicine, April 21, 1988, pages 1,043 to 1,047.

[31] Rene Frydman et al. "Reduction of the Number of Embryos in a Multiple Pregnancy: From Quintuplet to Triplet." Fertility and Sterility, August 1987, pages 326 and 327.

[32] Abortionist Howard I. Diamond of Beth Israel Medical Center. Quoted in Norma Rosen. "Between Guilt and Gratification: Abortion Doctors Reveal Their Feelings." New York Times Magazine, April 17, 1977, page 78.

[33] Pam Crosby, Clinical Coordinator at Prince George's Reproductive Health Services, on the clinic dumping second-trimester babies in their trash. Quoted in Debra Braun. "Bodies of Aborted Babies Thrown in Trash at Maryland Clinic." National Right to Life News, December 8, 1983, page 5.

[34] Syndicated columnist Nick Thimmesch. "Bizarre Cases of Abortions Gone Awry." St. Louis Globe-Democrat, June 19-20, 1982, page 5.

[35] Leslie Bond. "16,500 Aborted Babies Buried, But Without Religious Services." National Right to Life News, September 26, 1985, page 6.

[36] Dave Andrusko. "Fetal Bodies Incinerates Along With Animal Remains in Wichita, Kansas." National Right to Life News, August 18, 1983, pages 1 and 11.

[37] "American Liberty Upside Down Aborted Fetus As Art is Censored." ALL About Issues, February 1984, pages 28 and 29.

[38] "Some Praise 'Fetus Earrings:' NEA Council Defeats Commonsense Reforms Inside Washington." Action News (Pro-Life Action League, Chicago), December 1990/January 1991, page 15.

[39] William Brennan. The Abortion Holocaust. St. Louis: Landmark Press, 1983. Pages 77 and 78.

[40] Ann McDaniel. "The Future of Abortion." Newsweek Magazine, July 17, 1989, pages 14 to 27.

[41] Human Life of Washington State. Human Life News, January/ February 1990, page 1.

[42] Charles Isenhart. "Experts Discuss Impact of 'Post-Abortion Syndrome.'" National Catholic Register, June 24, 1990, pages 1 and 9.

[43] "Pro-Life Ad Pulled From Seattle Buses." Portland, Oregon Catholic Sentinel. November 3, 1989, page 22.

[44] Living World, Volume 5, Number 2, page 28.

[45] "The New Scandal: Doctor on the Make." London Daily Express, January 12, 1973.

[46] Eugene F. Diamond, M.D. "Do the Medical Schools Discriminate Against Anti-Abortion Applicants?" Linacre Quarterly, February 1976. Also see Doug Harbrecht. "School Bias on Abortion Attacked In Bill." The Pittsburgh Press, November 5, 1977, page 18. Also see news release from the office of Senator Richard S. Schweiker (R-Pa.), dated Friday, November 4, 1977, entitled "Pro-Life Med Students Would Be Protected Under Schweiker Amendment."

[47] Barbara L. Lindheim and Maureen A. Cotterill. "Training in Induced Abortion By Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency Programs." Alan Guttmacher Institute, Family Planning Perspectives, January/February 1978, pages 24 to 28.

[48] "Maryland Bans the Pro-Life Conscience With New Law." Our Sunday Visitor, March 10, 1991, page 17.

[49] One example of such a demand may be found in Marc D. Stern's article "Abortion Conscience Clauses," in the November 1975 edition of the Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, pages 571 to 627. Further information on pro-abortion opposition to 'conscience clauses' can be found in Germain Grisez and Joseph M. Boyle, Jr. "The Liberty to Stand Aloof." The Human Life Review, Winter 1979, pages 80 to 88, and Jonas Robitscher. "How Psychiatrists Usurp Authority: Abortion and the Draft." The Human Life Review, Summer 1981, pages 24 to 41.

[50] Jack Fowler. "Prolife Hospital Faces Sanctions." National Catholic Register, February 3, 1991. Pages 1 and 9.

[51] Nancy F. Wechsler. "Consent Parents, Husbands And on Behalf of Incompetents." Sarah Lewit (Editor). Abortion Techniques and Services: Proceedings of the Conference, New York, N.Y., June 3-5, 1971. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica, 1972.

[52] Quoted in John Leo. "Sharing the Pain of Abortion." Time Magazine, September 26, 1983, page 78. For more information on men's role in abortion, see the book by Arthur Shostak, Gary McLouth and Lynn Seng. Men and Abortion: Lessons, Losses, and Love. Praeger Publishers, 1984.

[53] Marjorie Reiley Maguire and Daniel C. Maguire. "Abortion: A Guide to Making Ethical Decisions." 'Catholics' for a Free Choice, September 1983.

[54] In re Unborn Baby H., No. 84C01 8804JP185, slip opinion at 1-2 (Vigo County, Indiana Circuit Court, April 8, 1988). Also see "Woman Defies Court, Father, Aborts Child." Washington Times, April 15, 1988.

[55] Marie Shelton. "Abortion Often Causes Guilt, Regret, Poll Finds." Sacramento Bee, March 19, 1989, page A7.

[56] Arthur B. Shostak. "Abortion as Fatherhood Glimpsed: Clinic Waiting Room Males as [Former] Expectant Fathers." Presented to the Eastern Sociological Society Meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in March of 1985, page 4.

[57] Tamar Jacoby. "Doesn't a Man Have Any Say?" Newsweek Magazine, May 23, 1988, pages 74 and 75.

[58] Jane Steinhauser, M.D. "Abortion's Impact on the Father and Familial Relationships." Presented at a conference entitled Healing Visions II, the Second National Conference on Post Abortion Counseling, at the University of Notre Dame, on July 20, 1987.

[59] Vincent M. Rue, Ph.D. "Forgotten Fathers: Men and Abortion." Life Cycle Books, Post office Box 792, Lewiston, New York 14092-1792. 1986.

[60] Dora Greenwald, MSW, and John Szenes, M.D., quoted by Magda Denes. "Performing Abortions." Commentary, October 1976, pages 33 to 37. A truly frightening and profoundly sickening article by a doctor who observes and describes in graphic detail a number of saline abortions and their results. She acknowledges that abortion is killing, but a type of "necessary" killing.

[61] Edelin is listed as chairman of the National Abortion Rights Action League Medical Advisory Committee in a 1978 NARAL fundraising/propaganda letter entitled "Your Town Could Be Next ..." Also see "Ppersonalities." Communique, March 1, 1991, page 4, by the American Life League. Leslie Bond. "Abortionist Charged for Aborting Wife Against Her Will." National Right to Life News, June 23, 1988, page 9. Paul Likoudis. "Buffalo Abortionist Attacks Pro-Lifers with Baseball Bat." The Wanderer, December 15, 1988, page 1. Ken Kusmer. "Abortions Cost Doctor 16 Years." The Oregonian, August 1, 1991.


Further Reading: Methodology and Aspects of Abortion.

Magda Denes. In Necessity and Sorrow: Life and Death in an Abortion Hospital.
New York: Basic Books, 1976. Reviewed by Jenny Westberg. This book portrays a sad, ugly, and gruesome (but true) picture of the abortion industry. This is not a book for the faint-hearted. Incredibly, the author remained pro-abortion after writing it, which shows how deeply some people can deceive themselves and ignore reality. David Reardon, in his work Aborted Women: Silent No More, speculated that Denes wrote this book in order to numb herself to the awful reality of her own abortion.

Eugene F. Diamond, M.D. This Curette for Hire.
Order from: Life Issues Bookshelf, Sun Life, Thaxton, Virginia 24174, telephone: (703) 586-4898. The author discusses the deterioration of medical ethics and the critical role of the doctor in all anti-life activities: abortion, fetal experimentation, sterilization, euthanasia, infanticide, sex therapy, and more.

Louise Kapp Howe. Moments on Maple Avenue: The Reality of Abortion.
New York: Macmillan, 1984. Reviewed by Jenny Westberg. The title's claim that this book presents the "reality of abortion" is either naive or deliberately dishonest. The book gives an Alice-in-Wonderland view of the industry. The abortionists wear white hats; the counselors fairly ooze compassion and understanding; and the patients undergo quick and easy "procedures," none of which results in a dead baby. And everyone lives happily ever after, especially the aborted women. This book is recommended for science fiction aficionados.

Jonathan B. Imber. Abortion and the Private Practice of Medicine.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986. 164 pages. Reviewed by William May in the November 6, 1986 issue of National Right to Life News. This fascinating book not only describes in detail the various methods of abortion, but interviews in detail 25 of the 26 ob/gyn doctors who serve a middle-sized Northeastern city. Some of these doctors do not do abortions, some do, and some used to, but stopped for various reasons. The attitudes and details of daily living of each of these doctors, and their interactions with other doctors who do not share their views regarding abortion, make interesting reading.

Making Health Care Decisions: A Report on the Ethical and Legal Implications of Informed Consent in the Patient-Practitioner Relationship.
Volume 1: Report. Serial Number 040-000-00459-9, 1982, 208 pages. Volume 3: Appendices, Studies on the Foundations of Informed Consent. Serial Number 040-000-00469-6, 1982, 257 pages. Order by mail from Superintendent of Documents, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by telephone from (202) 783-3238.

Bernard Nathanson, M.D. The Silent Scream.
Order from: Life Issues Bookshelf, Sun Life, Thaxton, Virginia 24174, telephone: (703) 586-4898. This is the book form of the film that provoked an international scream of protest and a futile pro-abort effort to discredit and censor it. The book, like the film, describes a suction abortion from the baby's point of view. The book also includes pro-abortion rebuttals to Nathanson's film The Silent Scream and the answers to those rebuttals.

E. Dorsey Smith. Abortion: Health Care Ethics.
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1982. 241 pages. Reviewed by Mary Kay Culp on pages 7 and 15 of the October 24, 1985 issue of National Right to Life News. Among other gems, this rabidly pro-abortion nurse writes that informed consent is punitive, and that all pro-life nurses should get out of obstetrics/gynecology, regardless of their level of competence.

Wrongful Life: Birth as the Result of Negligence, January 1970 Through September 1988.
Includes 627 citations to selected English and foreign language publications. Serial Number 817-004-00018-1, 1988, 33 pages. Order by mail from Superintendent of Documents, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by telephone from (202) 783-3238.


© American Life League BBS — 1-703-659-7111

This is a chapter of the Pro-Life Activist's Encyclopedia, published by American Life League.


Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
www.ewtn.com