Thursday, April 30, 2009

Legal Abortion on Sharp Decline Among Independents, Liberal and Moderate GOPers

Press Releases


CONTACT: Joy Yearout (703) 380-6674 or
The ‘Blame Social Conservatives Crowd First’ is Wrong: Pro-Life Stand is a Winning Issue
Latest Pew Poll Finds Support for Legal Abortion on Sharp Decline Among Independents, Liberal and Moderate GOPers

Washington, D.C. – In response to today’s release of polling data from the Pew Research Center, Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser offered the following statement:

"The blame social conservatives first crowd rests its premise on sand. No matter what losses conservatives suffer, their mantra is the same: ‘social issues are driving folks away.’ As the polling data released by the Pew Research Center proves, the ‘blame social conservatives’ habit is the very definition of cognitive dissonance. There is a compelling, sharp decline in support for legal abortion over the last eight months. The largest numbers of converts to the pro-life cause have been self-identified independents and liberal to moderate Republicans – the very voters who decided last year’s Presidential election. If Republicans want to improve their electoral performance, standing on the side of Life is one of the best decisions they can make.”

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press was conducted from March 31-April 21 among 1,521 adults. Highlights include:

· Overall support for legal abortion down 8%. The proportion saying abortion should be legal in all or most cases has declined from 54% last August to 46% this month.

· Support for abortion declined by 24% among moderate and liberal Republicans. The Center reported 67% of liberal and moderate Republicans said abortion should be legal in August 2008. In this month’s survey, that number had fallen to only 43%.

· Support for abortion declined by 11% among independents. The Center reported 55% of independents said abortion should be legal in August 2008. In this month’s survey, that number had fallen to 44%.

The Susan B. Anthony List is a nationwide network of Americans, over 156,000 residing in all 50 states, dedicated to mobilizing, advancing, and representing pro-life women in politics. Its connected Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in the political process.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ is a very good add to your list of e-letters/alerts. Please consider that.

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Pro-Life Is Not A Single Issue : Know The Truth About Another Pro-Life Issue

Kate Adamson

In 1995 at the age of thirty-three, Kate Adamson suffered a double brainstem stroke Not yet availablecompletely paralyzing her and leaving her unable even to blink her eyes. Like Terri Schiavo, Kate most basic care of food and water was removed for a full eight days. Fortunately, her feeding tube was restored due to the intervention of her husband.

Author of "Paralyzed but not Powerless", Kate now travels the country as the only professional speaker to have recovered from Locked-in Syndrome. is the official website of the Terri Schindler Schaivo Foundation, that helps families fight for those who cannot fight for themselves. And that pro-life issue is assisted suicide and euthanasia and NO one is exempt from this one IF you or a loved one is deemed not enjoying enough "quality of life."

Additionally, this most certainly concerns the elderly as well as the infirm, injured, ill, and marginalized generally.

The problem is this: most of us are ignorant to the scientific terminology, the dying process, doublespeak of the "they are better off" mindset, and more. This website is one way of being sure that YOU are not ignorant. You may need to decide these decisions and NO one, as I said, can escape the possibility it could happen to yourself or someone you love at any moment.

Brain dead...what is that really? How do you know? It's a term loosely used. What is a "vegetable"? What really happens to the dying person in the 2 weeks it takes for all their body to shut down? Does it hurt? What is quality of life anyway?

Do you want the truth? Go here and see if for youself

Just one example of what this website has to offer to educate yourselves for that time, if that time arrives:

April 25, 2009 (News Alert)

Saturday our special guest will be award-winning author and attorney Wesley J. Smith.Not yet available

Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, an attorney for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, and a special consultant for the Center for Bioethics and Culture.

Attorney Smith has testified as an expert witness in front of federal and state legislative committees, and has counseled government leaders internationally about matters of mutual concern.

Attorney Smith is a frequent guest and friend of America’s Lifeline bringing us up to date on all of the critical issues we talk about each week that are facing our nation today.

So join us this Saturday at 3 PM ET on Talk Radio 860 WGUL for America's Lifeline!

At this website, you are kept abreast of latest news and legislature alerts, for example:
News Alert! Second International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
Quadriplegic Child Found Dead in Storage Facility
Vermont Introduces Assisted Suicide Bill
Final Exit Network is a Death Cult

And upcoming seminars in your area:
5/3 Hankinson, North Dakota
5/14 Reno, Nevada
5/29 - 5/30 Landsdowne, Virginia
6/18 - 6/20 Charlotte, NC
6/26 Hilo, Hawaii

I urge you to study assisted suicide and euthanasia and learn it well. Having taken care of my mother full time at home, I am so thankful I knew about these things.

Please visit and learn all you can....please for the sake of your family.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Abortion Industry Continues Its Lies -- Now About Adoption

From the Susan B. Anthony website:

The Washington Times (WT) wrote a fascinating two-part story on the status of adoption in the United States. Today we take a look at part 1. The series begins by looking at the falling number of infant adoptions. In fact, according to the WT, only one percent of all pregnancies out of marriage lead to an adoption. Meanwhile, a new report shows that there are 10 million American couples looking to adopt. Why the discrepancy?

One reason is abortion. Since 1973, the percentage of unwed pregnant women who seek abortion has skyrocketed to 35 percent. We live in a culture now that encourages women to "get rid" of their problems and seek "quick" solutions. For the millions of post-abortive women, however, these lies have painful, unforeseen consequences. Instead of feeling "relief" like the abortion industry would have them think, many women are still suffering from guilt, depression and trauma decades after an abortion.

But the abortion industry continues to lie, not only about the traumatic experience of abortion, but about adoption as well. The WT spoke with several anti-adoption activists who had this to say:

"No one wants to be an adoptee. No mother who has lost a child [to adoption] fully recovers."

"The adoption system is now virtually a North American phenomena - most other countries realize how barbaric it is toward mothers and children."

"[Adoption] is an industry [in which] young, unwed (and thus powerless) parents are persuaded, through force, coercion or outright lies, to transfer parental rights of their children to older, more affluent couples."

This kind of language is hurtful and misleading. Adoption is an empowering choice for women, who choose ultimate love and self-sacrifice for their children. The WT also spoke with Jessica, a woman who offered her child a bright future with an adoptive family. She sums up the process of adoption by saying, "For me, the joy of watching him grow up in his family far outweighs the grief of separating from him."

Adoption is a beautiful option that embodies the greatest love a mother could have for her child. Women should be praised for their love and care in providing their children with the best future.

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Grassroots For Crisis Pregnancy Centers

Two million red envelopes went to D.C. for the unborn. Now, a wonderful idea can be seen at a grassroots effort to help crisis pregnancy centers. Go for it !

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Rightwing Extremism - Pigeon-Hole to Silence

Today's News & Views
April 16, 2009

Lumping Pro-Lifers In With "Rightwing Extremism"
Part One of Two

By Dave Andrusko

Editor's note. Part Two

reviews Bernie Goldberg's delightful book on how the mainstream media covered Obama. Please send your comments on either or both parts to

If you're a veteran of this the grassiest of grassroots movements, you know that part of the drill for the Pro-Life Movement is to be linked to whomever it is a given commentator is using to try to pigeonhole and marginalize us. You can't just be opposed to the wanton slaughter of defenseless unborn babies. You have to be in cahoots with [fill in the blank]. This recurrence is as predictable as swallows returning to Capistrano.

That does not mean there is an ounce of truth to it. It does mean that smear tactics are a perennial hazard that we face.

My email box is filled with links to the recently published Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report on "Rightwing Extremism" which, in an evidence-free footnote, included pro-lifers.

When you read something this stupid you are tempted either to overreact or ignore it altogether. Let me try a middle-of-the-road approach.

Just a few words about the overall report produced by DHS's Office of Intelligence and Analysis. The full title is "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."

I skimmed the report the first time through, then read it closely a second time. And then, just to be sure I wasn't missing something, I read it a third time. I needn't have put in that much time. One page into the nine-page report and a fourth-grader could have figured out that the authors had come with a pre-determined conclusion.

Its reasoning is painfully, embarrassingly shoddy and supportive evidence of actual threats non-existent. It's entirely speculative--about what might happen if "x" or "y" comes to pass. A conversation over the water cooler carries as much weight and would be much more balanced.

So how did the report arrive at the conclusion that rightwing extremism "may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration"? Let's back up a second to see how we got swept in.

The report bifurcates "rightwing extremism" into hate groups and those that are "mainly anti-government."

Do pro-lifers hate "particular religious, racial, or ethnic groups"? Of course not, and there is not a shred of evidence in the report that suggests we do. In fact, it is the Abortion Industry that targets minority communities.

How about "antigovernment"? Coursing through the veins of every pro-lifer is an abiding faith in the capacity of government to change. That's why we are active in all 50 state legislatures and in the halls of Congress.

I guess even the dim-witted authors of "Rightwing Extremism" grasped that we fit neither of these categories. So they just lumped us in by employing the all-purpose "may" word. Again, not a word to explain why pro-lifers should be tarred with the extremist brush.

From the earliest days of the Obamamania phenomenon, the "mainstream media" has let us know in unsubtle and unmistakable ways that it is close to un-American to criticize what he proposes or what he stands for. We have never allowed that to stop us from opposing the policies of any man who carries water for the Abortion Establishment with both arms. Nor will we.

I don't do paranoia. But I do believe that "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

Part Two

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Pro-Life Advocates Blast Obama Admin Document Saying Pro-Lifers May Engage in Extremism

There is something about all of this that is making me feel a deep sickness in the pit of my stomach and a sorrow in my soul. For all those pro-life and pro-family people and the recent hit on veterans, I am wondering so seriously what is truly wrong with those who could think that we are to be watched as terrorists. It's so obvious, isn't it, that those who are pro-abortion speak more violently than any of pro-life people. The obscene language, the name can anyone in their right mind (and I mean that sincerely) can say this. It's a sickness but it's not ours. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Washington, DC (
-- News that the Obama administration sent a security document to police and sheriffs' offices nationwide including pro-life people in a list of groups and people who may be likely to engage in terrorism is upsetting the pro-life community.

One respected pro-life attorney says the document is outrageous and raises serious questions about the leadership and direction of an agency that's goal is to protect Americans against a very real terrorist threat.

“This is an outrageous characterization that raises serious questions about the leadership and direction of the agency charged with protecting Americans in the ongoing battle against terrorism,” Jay Seulow, the president and chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, told on Wednesday.

Sekulow said the document sparks questions about whether the Obama administration is turning the work of some key government agencies into political witch hunts.

“Why would the Department of Homeland Security single out groups like pro-life supporters when they should be focusing on identifying and apprehending the real terrorists – like al-Qaeda – groups that have vowed to destroy America?" he asked.

"This characterization is not only offensive to millions of Americans who hold constitutionally-protected views opposing abortion – but also raises serious concerns about the political agenda of an agency with a mandate to protect America," he added.

House Republican Leader John Boehner, a pro-life congressman from Ohio, also complained about the new document.

He said the Obama administration was wrong to label pro-life advocates as terrorists, calling it "offensive and unacceptable."

"Everyone agrees that the Department should be focused on protecting America, but using such broad-based generalizations about the American people is simply outrageous," he said.

In the new document, the Department of Homeland Security warned law officials about a supposed rise in "rightwing extremist activity," saying the poor economy and presence of a black president could spark problems.

Issued on April 7th, the Department of Homeland Security warning is entitled: “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”

According to the Washington Times, a footnote attached to the nine-page report from the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis say the activities of pro-life advocates is included in "rightwing extremism in the United States.”

"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," it says.

The Times indicates the report says the Obama administration could be monitoring the activities of pro-life advocates.

It says the federal government "will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months" to gather information on "rightwing extremist activity in the United States” even though the Obama administration does not have "specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence."

Concerns that the federal government might target pro-life advocates aren’t pie-in-the-sky myths as two pro-life people have already felt the persecution.

In February, an Oklahoma man with a homemade pro-life sign on his vehicle was pulled over and harassed by police for allegedly making a threat against the president.

Chip Harrison said he was driving to work when a police officer followed him for several miles and eventually signaled him to pull over.

The officer mistook the sign, which read "Abort Obama, not the unborn," as threatening.

And in October, a pro-life woman who received an unsolicited phone call from the Barack Obama campaign complained about his pro-abortion position. The call earned her a visit from the Secret Service, who were apparently given erroneous information from the campaign volunteer that she made a death threat.

Monday, April 13, 2009

Pro-Abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Says Foreign Law OK for Legal Decisions

Pro-Abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Says Foreign Law OK for Legal Decisions
Washington, DC ( --
In comments that signal enormous concerns for the pro-life movement, pro-abortion Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has conducted an interview with the New York Times in which she explains why she believes the rulings of foreign judges should be considered in interpreting US constitutional and statutory law. The concern for the pro-life community is that the use of foreign laws and rulings by international courts could promote abortion and euthanasia in the United States by relying on courts and laws that more strongly support those practices. "Why shouldn't we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?" she asked. She added that the failure to engage foreign decisions had resulted in diminished influence for the United States Supreme Court. The Canadian Supreme Court, she said, is "probably cited more widely abroad than the U.S. Supreme Court." There is one reason for that, she said: "You will not be listened to if you don’t listen to others." Wesley J. Smith, a bioethics attorney and euthanasia watchdog responds: “We are supposed to care whether Canadian rulings--which hew sharply to the left--are cited by foreign judges more than those of the US Supreme Court? We are supposed to care if another country's courts interprets its laws and constitution the way we do ours? Our judges are supposed to be diplomats to make other countries feel we respect their views? Baloney. This is an excuse for a power grab.” Smith says Ginsburg and her pro-abortion colleagues want to “remake society according to their own personal views.” He concludes: “The foreign cases that the former head of the ACLU Ginsberg cites will only be the ones with which she agrees--generally from Western Europe or Canada, that reflect her leftist views.

Remember Scott Peterson? Threw his pregnant wife in SF Bay?

Scott Peterson Spends 19 Hours a Day in Prison Cell After Killing Wife, Unborn Baby

by Steven Ertelt Editor
April 13
, 2009

San Rafael, CA ( -- Scott Peterson became a household name in 2003 when he was convicted of killing his wife and unborn child, Laci and Conner, and dumping their bodies in San Francisco Bay on Christmas Eve 2002. Waiting an appeal in his case, which saw him convicted of the deaths of both people, Peterson now spends 19 hours a day locked inside his prison cell.

Peterson pleaded innocent to the charges, which included two counts of murder thanks to a California unborn victims law that holds criminals accountable when they kill or injure an unborn child in an attack on his mother.

In a videotape Peterson made last year in connection with the civil lawsuit Laci and Conner’s family file against him, Peterson said he is a victim of a shoddy investigation by Modesto police that made him appear guilty.

Now, Peterson spends most of his days in a 4-by-9 foot prison cell in notorious San Quentin prison and, ironically adorns his new home with a smiling picture featuring Laci and himself. Though most prisoners decorate their cells with numerous pictures, the one of the woman he was convicted of killing is the only picture that graces his abode.

He was sentenced to death by lethal injection in March 2005 and now bides his time approximately five hours a day by playing cards, basketball, and working out with other inmates.

At the time of his conviction, Peterson’s defense team and observers predicted Peterson would face the kind of persecution in prison reserved for child abuses and others who hurt children.

But Samuel Robinson, a lieutenant with the California Department of Corrections told People magazine that hasn’t happened.

"In Scott's case, the perception [among the inmates] is that he killed his wife, and yeah she was pregnant, but he killed his wife. He hasn't encountered the challenges others face who have killed kids individually,” he explained.

Robinson told the magazine that Peterson has a large contingents of female admirers across the country who regularly send him checks that go into his commissary account that he can use to purchase food, personal and grooming items, and items for entertainment, such as playing cards.

"He has a significant amount of money in his account from people all over the world," Robinson said.

Not much has changed in Peterson’s world, where he could be in prison for decades while the death penalty appeals process makes its way through the system, except his view. He was recently moved from a cell with a sliver-windowed view of the Bay to one with a view of the yard.

Robinson said Peterson receives several visits each month from family and friends and his only contact with the outside world is a blog that his family uses to post the comments he types and sends to them. He recently commented on an arrest in the Chandra Levy murder and said the media had the spot light on the wrong person for years, which he condemned.

In the tape in the civil lawsuit, Peterson talked about his grief at losing his wife and unborn baby

."I love my wife," Peterson said. "I love my son. I will always love them. I have always loved them. I should be able to hug them right now. I should be able to hold my son."

Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge Roger Beauchesne ruled after the hearing that Peterson would have to stand trial in the civil case.

The Peterson case resulted in the passage of a national law and measures in state legislatures to provide more protection and justice for pregnant women and their unborn children when they are killed or injured in an attack.

Buzz up!

Planned Parenthood Staffer Condemns Women Who Say They Regret Their Abortions

Planned Parenthood Staffer Condemns Women Who Say They Regret Their Abortions

by Steven Ertelt Editor
April 13
, 2009

Richmond, VA ( -- In a new editorial piece posted on a pro-abortion activism web site, a Planned Parenthood staffer condemns women who regret their decision to have an abortion. The unnamed staffer for Planned Parenthood Health Systems says she is upset women would share how their abortion adversely affected them with other women.

The Planned Parenthood staffer, writing under the pseudonym “StephatPPHS” at the RH Reality Check web site, says she lives three doors down from the Richmond Medical Center for Women abortion business in Virginia.

The staffer says she was upset when she woke up recently to hear pro-life advocates outside protesting abortion and telling women about better options.

The Planned Parenthood official said she saw a woman holding a sign reading "I regret my abortion" who was standing quietly on one street corner outside the abortion center.

The staffer said she felt “discomfort” at the message because “women [are] so freely permitted or expected or encouraged to express regret” about the abortion they have.

Although she doesn’t trust women to discuss their regret and disappointment following an abortion, the Planned Parenthood staff condemned the woman and her sign because it means she doesn’t trust women to make a decision before an abortion.

The woman’s sign “presupposes that the women who are coming to the clinic to seek abortion care (or even the women driving by who have or will consider abortion) have not considered regret among the ways that they might experience this choice,” she writes.

The Planned Parenthood staffer goes on to compare the woman’s negative abortion decision and her sign to protesting outside a fast-food restaurant.

“If I were to stand outside of McDonalds for a month straight strategically standing between the drive thru and the building entrance bearing a sandwich board … I am fairly certain that I would see a lawsuit coming my way,” she said. “I would also be remiss to think that the patron's of MacDonald's were not education [sic] enough to know that among the many possibilities of feelings that may follow a meal at MacDonald's.”

“Who am I to educate people about how I felt after eating fast food? It's insulting,” the Planned Parenthood staff complains.

The Planned Parenthood staffer says “I am proud to work for an organization that will deny abortion care to a woman if there is any hint that that she has not had the freedom to make her choice without coercions from a partner or parent.”

However, Planned Parenthood has repeatedly opposed laws to make the performance of coerced and forced abortions illegal. The abortion business opposed such pro-woman laws in Michigan and in Missouri.

President Barack Obama Warped and Twisted Science With Embryonic Stem Cell Order

President Barack Obama Warped and Twisted Science With Embryonic Stem Cell Order

by Joseph Infranco
April 13, 2009 Note: Joseph Infranco is senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance employing a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

On March 9, with a stroke of his pen, President Obama signed an executive order that provides federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The president’s terse but chilling justification was that “science should trump ideology.” The statement is a masterpiece of legerdemain, disguising its false premise and frightening implications while miscommunicating the nature and meaning of science.

The first problem is the use of the word “science” to mean a coherent body of truth independent of ideology. Science is a systematic way of approaching the study of the material universe; it is a process or method of research, but it can never be free of ideology. As long as experiments are done by human beings, there will be ideologies.

The Nazi scientists who experimented with eugenics or measuring the human reactions of subjects as they froze to death, were practicing science: ghoulish, even devilish science to be sure, but science nonetheless. Setting science above moral considerations is the age-old myth of neutrality, and the subtle self-deception of one who mistakes his view for objective truth.

That’s the trouble with blind spots; by definition we never see our own.

Once science is viewed as a discrete inquiry, separate and apart from ideology, individuals are free to pursue their ideologies with impunity. So long as the activities are cloaked by the cover of “science,” no moral or philosophical inquiries should weigh down progress.

Let’s take a current but little-known topic like chimeras, for example.

The chimera in Greek mythology was a monster with a lion’s head, a goat’s body, and a dragon’s tail. It was universally viewed by the Greeks as a hideous creature, precisely because of its unnatural hybrid makeup; Prince Bellerophon, who was assigned the unhappy task of fighting the creature, became a hero when he slew it. If we fast-forward to today, the chimera, or combination of species, is a subject of serious discussion in certain scientific circles.

We are well beyond the science fiction of H.G. Wells’ tormented hybrids in The Island of Doctor Moreau; we are in a time where scientists are seriously contemplating the creation of human-animal hybrids. The hero is no longer Bellerophon who killed the creature; it is, rather, the scientist creating it.

On one level, the creation of a chimera can be viewed as a purely scientific inquiry.

Someone might ask, “How will human gametes genetically combine with, for example, simian genetic material? Are such unions viable, and if so, how long will these beings live?” These are quintessential scientific inquiries, capable of yielding verifiable results that can be neatly summarized in columns of data and bar graphs submitted to Scientific American.

Does President Obama believe that his “science trump(s) ideology” formula works here? What about the scientific practice of vivisection, or the use of animals in experiments? Would the president even attempt to answer animal “rights” activists with his dismissive answer? If science does indeed rule over ideology, then why should an ideology concerned with animal pain and suffering trump the scientific quest for useful information?

Contrasting the processes of science with the inescapable questions of morality and ideology is a meaningless comparison. It would be like asking, “Do you prefer driving on freeways or driving a BMW?”

Why would the president even make such a statement? Because it short circuits the debate for political objectives. Raising moral questions allows the questioner to be branded as a ranting Fredrick March in Inherit the Wind, determined to stop scientific truth with his narrow and mean bigotries. The inquiry need go no further.

The second problem with the president’s formulation is that it ignores the moral question framing the debate.

People objecting to the president’s actions are not, contrary to the media hype, opposed to stem cell research.

Adult stem cells, in fact, have been responsible for virtually all the breakthroughs in this field. An easily missed irony here is that the president’s position on embryonic stem cell research is unequivocally ideological. With virtually no success stories coming from this route, venture capitalists, unsurprisingly, have avoided it in favor of other technologies.

If private investors have no interest in funding embryonic stem cell research, what avenue is left for the ideologue? There is only one: government funding. Insisting that taxpayers foot the bill for unproven technology can only be explained by an ideology that has summarily decided thorny issues, like when life begins.

Let us state the moral objection plainly so there are no misunderstandings: science should not create life for the purpose of destroying it – even to benefit another human being.

This is the crux of the moral and ethical quagmire, and the president’s order ensures that our tax dollars must fund the policy. To better grasp the nature of the moral objection, let’s use a hypothetical situation. Imagine a baby with a defective heart in need of a heart transplant. Let us imagine the parents, to save the life of the child, hiring a surrogate to carry their fertilized egg to create a genetic match for the baby. Let’s further imagine that the surrogate carries the baby to nearly full term, and then a surgeon performs a procedure in utero in which he removes the baby’s heart and provides it to the first baby for the needed transplant. We have created a life, for a part or parts, to save another life. Does the example make you recoil?

Now, the objection may follow that this is a full-term baby able to survive out of the womb and not a “mass of tissues,” as some like to euphemistically refer to a fertilized egg.

Taking that premise, let’s work backward to find a point at which ideology should be ignored. How about taking a developing baby’s lungs at eight months? A liver and pancreas at six months? How about skin for a skin-graft at four months? Bone marrow at three? Who do we trust to draw this line? An unspecified group of men and women whom we collectively refer to as “science?” And whose ideology among the scientists will make the determination?

The president’s explanation for why tax dollars should fund this deplorable practice rings hollow. Science becomes the refuge of scoundrels who are presumed to know better than the rest of us, though they are never required to explain why.

President Obama’s “understanding” of those who disagree with creating life in order to kill it doesn’t change the fact that he did not, in fact, choose science over ideology. Quite simply, he decided to use the money of dissenters to suit his own ideology – that it’s okay to further one life at the at the expense of another that cannot defend itself. The problem with this immoral proposition is that the facts show that little life, if any, is benefiting from the practice, so the effort is ultimately pointless.

This realization is sobering and not hard to see for those who look at the truth. But sadly, many who further the deception have it down to a science.

Sign Up for Free Pro-Life News From

Jay Leno Hosts Fundraiser for Pro-Abortion Group

NBC Talk Show Host Jay Leno Under Fire for Hosting Fundraiser for Pro-Abortion Group
New York, NY ( -- Late-night NBC talk show host Jay Leno is coming under fire for plans to host a fundraising event later this month for a prominent pro-abortion organization. A pro-life group is taking Leno to task for announcing that he will host a dinner for the Feminist Majority Foundation. As the king of late night comedy, Jay Leno has few living peers and he is watched and beloved by millions of American viewers. To Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, that makes it more difficult to understand why he would support a group that Perkins says works against the interests of pregnant women. “On April 29th, Jay Leno and his wife are hosting a fundraiser for the Feminist Majority Foundation, a radical pro-abortion group that not only advocates for abortion on demand, but also for the closing of pro-life pregnancy centers,” Perkins tells Earlier this month, FMF sent an e-mail to its 400 college campus affiliates asking the young abortion advocates to launch protests against their local crisis pregnancy centers. As Perkins said to, FMF wants young women who are most likely to get pregnant and consider an abortion to “protest against facilities that dare to offer women alternatives to abortion and the support they need to choose life.” Perkins and the Family Research Council are calling on pro-life advocates to contact Leno and NBC executives telling them they plan to boycott is program until either Leno backs out of the planned speaking engagement or apologizes. ACTION: Contact NBC CEO Jeff Zucker at or 212-664-2830. You can mail the Jay Leno program c/o NBC, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10112. To send an email to the Leno program, go to:

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Illinois FOCA Dies On The House Floor

After "the Greatest Pro-Life Effort in Illinois Since Roe," FOCA Dies on House Floor

After Loss, ACLU Still Hiding Ball - During Debate with Executive Director Peter Breen on Local Radio, ACLU Attorney Claims, "This Bill is Not About Abortion"!

All Eyes Now Turn to 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for Decision on Parental Notice Law - Will Illinois Retain Its Title, "Abortion Capital of the Midwest"?
After thousands of calls, letters, faxes, and petitions from pro-lifers flooded the offices of Illinois legislators, the state House allowed the Illinois version of the "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA) to die on the floor. Legislators felt enormous pressure during the debate from both sides. While the pro-life side relied on communications from citizens to their legislators, the anti-life side relied on their political action committee, "Personal PAC," which threatened to use its massive wealth to oppose legislators who opposed Illinois FOCA. However, in the end, legislators decided to risk Personal PAC's wrath instead of supporting this radical anti-life measure.

The initial version of the Illinois bill would have forced Catholic hospitals to assist patients in obtaining abortions, forced school districts to provide sex ed instruction to kindergarteners (including instruction on homosexual and transsexual relationships), publicly funded abortions and in-vitro fertilization for every person eligible for state medical assistance, and provided abortionists immunity from most malpractice claims.

One other impact of the bill would have been to repeal the Illinois Parental Notice Act, which is under Federal Court injunction. The Thomas More Society is facing off with the ACLU in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to have that injunction lifted. The matter is currently under consideration, with legal analysts expecting the Court's decision in the near future.


As part of the effort to defeat FOCA, TMS attorney and Executive Director, Peter Breen, recently debated an ACLU attorney on WVON radio in Chicago. When the host, Rep. LaShawn Ford, asked whether FOCA was an "abortion bill," the ACLU attorney refused to acknowledge that abortion had anything to do with it, saying instead that FOCA is only about "reproductive rights"!

While we don't want to pick a winner, let's just say that Peter did a great job in cutting through the ACLU "spin" and getting the cold hard facts about FOCA out to the WVON audience!


Friday, April 10, 2009

Doctors Group Warns Obama Not to Overturn Protections Against Forced Abortions

by Steven Ertelt Editor
April 8
, 2009

Washington, DC ( -- A leading doctors group is issuing a final request to President Barack Obama to not overturn the protections that help them avoid being pressured to participate in abortions. The public comment period on Obama's proposal to remove the rules ends on Thursday.

The Christian Medical Association, the nation's largest association of faith-based physicians, says Obama's proposal would cut off patient access to healthcare professionals and institutions nationwide, especially imperiling the poor and medically underserved populations.

Dr. David Stevens, the head of the CMA, pointed to a new poll showing 87 percent of Americans say it is important to make sure health care professionals are not forced to participate in abortions.

"Rescinding these regulations is dangerous for patients. They may soon find a sign hanging on the door of their doctor’s office or hospital stating, 'Out of business--wouldn't do abortions,'" he told

"Patients have a right to choose a healthcare professional who shares their moral views. No reasonable patient wants a doctor doing a procedure on them with which they are not only uncomfortable but morally opposed to," Stevens added.

The physician continued: "These regulations put teeth into the law and insure patients have the doctors and nurses they need. Removing them sends a clear message, 'It is open season on healthcare professionals of conscience. Discriminate at will.'"

The physicians group is joined by a collection of pro-life organizations also opposed to President Obama's likely move to overturn the conscience clause regulation.

Concerned Women for America president Wendy Wright said the protections the Bush administration put in place are needed.

"Increasingly, health care providers report being discriminated against because of their moral beliefs, despite federal laws and civil rights regulations to protect the freedom of conscience," she said.

"Forcing doctors, nurses, pharmacists or others in the health care field to violate their conscience will ultimately jeopardize patients. It would force ethical people out of the profession entirely to accommodate the temporary demands of a few," she added.

Wright agreed with Stevens that Obama's move would be bad for health care and bad for lower income patients.

"If health care providers are forced to perform objectionable procedures it will push qualified, ethical people out of the profession completely, exacerbating the crisis of fewer health care workers in an already diminishing field. This will hurt the poor the most, since many health providers in underserved populations are faith-based," she said. "It will reduce access to health care for everyone."

Marjorie Dannenfelser, the head of the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life women's group, also participated in a press conference today with Wright, Stevens and others opposed to the potential Obama move.

She told Obama would be going against his mantra of finding common ground on the abortion debate.

"True common ground means respecting the rights of conscience for everyone, not bulldozing over their freedoms in order to please the abortion industry," she said.

Over 10,000 Susan B. Anthony List activists have sent comments in support of healthcare providers’ right of conscience to the Department of Health and Human Services.

Another 35,000 Americans have used the web site to speak out as well and countless thousands of pro-life advocates have responded after learning of Obama's potential move on

ACTION: Here are some things you can to tell President Obama to not remove the protections for doctors and hospitals:

You can express your opposition to the Obama proposal by emailing The deadline for submitting comments is April 9.

Comments may be submitted electronically on the Web site (by entering 0991-AB49 in the search box).

Several pro-life groups have also banded together to offer, a web site with tools to make it easy for pro-life people to respond to Obama's likely decision to rescind the medical protections.

June 20, 2008
Who's Roe?

Who was the Jane Roe of the infamous 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision, legalizing abortion on demand?

She was Norma McCorvey, and according to Catholic News Agency she has made "her first-ever television commercial to lament her role in the case."

There are things you may not know about McCorvey. Find out by viewing the ad, produced by Virtue Media:

Norma McCorvey A.k.a. Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade Affidavit

Affidavit of Norma McCorvey
The "Roe" of Roe v. Wade


8122 Datapoint, Suite 812
San Antonio, Texas 78229
(210) 614-7157
Attorney for Amicus Curiae
Norma McCorvey
Anne O'Conner, Esq.
509 Stillwell Corner Rd.
Freehold, NJ 07728
(732) 303-0440
Local Counsel for Norma McCorvey





Civil Action No. 99-2692 (GEB)

Affidavit of Norma McCorvey

Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Curiae

Norma McCorvey, being of full age deposes and says:

1. "My name is Norma McCorvey, and I reside in Dallas, Texas. I was the woman designated as "Jane Roe" as plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the United States. On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that it was unconstitutional for my state to prohibit doctors from performing abortions.

2. Because of my role in Roe v. Wade, how that decision came about, and my experiences working at abortion clinics, I can provide the Court with information and a perspective unavailable from other sources. I have a compelling interest in this litigation. My case was wrongfully decided and has caused great harm to the women and children of our nation. I have an interest in stopping that harm and I have an interest in disclosing the facts which expose the weakness of the underlying assumptions which led to that incorrect decision.

3. Virtually the entire basis for Roe v. Wade was built upon false assumptions. No meaningful trial to determine the real facts was ever held. The misrepresentations and deceptions that plagued Roe v. Wade are presented to this Court to show why there is a dire necessity for a trial to ensure that the true facts regarding the nature of abortion and the interests of women are heard. These facts, which were neither disclosed to me in 1970 nor to the plaintiffs of this case before they had an abortion, are critical for understanding the issues involved. They point out the deficiencies not only of the procedure in Roe v. Wade, but in the Court's decision which was rendered in a vacuum devoid of findings of facts. Consequently, we obtained a decision in Roe v. Wade based upon what abortion advocates wanted women to be able to do, not what women were truly capable of. In this case, witnesses and accurate, current, relevant scientific evidence are available to this Court, on all relevant fact issues. In 1973, in Roe, that evidence was neither offered nor available. We now have the benefit of twenty-seven years of experimentation. Such absence of evidence led to both a factually and legally unsound decision.

4. While the experience of being Jane Roe over the past twenty-seven years has been very difficult, my life has been filled with hardship from the beginning. Although I was an emotionally abused child, and a sexually abused teenager, I believe the worst abuse was inflicted by the judicial system. In retrospect, I was exploited by two self-interested attorneys. Worse, the courts, without looking into my true circumstances and taking the time to decide the real impact abortion would have upon women, I feel used me to justify legalization of terminating the lives over thirty-five million babies. Although on an intellectual level I know I was exploited, the responsibility I feel for this tragedy is overwhelming. Because the courts allowed my case to proceed without my testimony, without ever explaining to me the reality of abortion, without being cross-examined on my erroneous perception of what of abortion really is, a tragic mistake was made by the courts, a mistake that this Court has the opportunity to remedy.

5. Prior to my pregnancy with the "Roe" baby, I gave birth to two other children. My first, a daughter, was adopted by my mother. It is difficult to part with my child, yet I have always been comforted by the fact that my daughter is alive and cared for. My second daughter was raised by her father, a young intern at Baylor Methodist Medical School. He was kind enough to want to get married and make a home, but I wasn't ready for that kind of commitment. Later, when I became pregnant with the "Roe" baby, I was really in a predicament. My mother expressed her disapproval of my having given birth out of wedlock. She told me how irresponsible I had been. My mother made it clear that she was not going to take care of another baby.

6. Certain that I was pregnant, I waited for a while before I went to the doctor. While I was waiting to be examined, I questioned the ladies there about whether they knew where a woman could go to have an abortion. A lady told me where an illegal clinic was located and told me that it would cost $250.00. Following our discussion, I told the doctor that I wanted to have an abortion, but he refused stating that abortion was illegal. He didn't believe in abortion and gave me the phone number of an adoption attorney.

7. When I had saved about two hundred dollars, I took a cross-town bus to the illegal clinic, which turned out to be a dentist's office that had been closed down the previous week. For some reason, I felt relieved yet angry at the same time. All my emotions were peaking; first, I was angry, then I was happy, and then I'd cry. From the abortion clinic, I took the bus to my dad's apartment and decided to speak with the adoption attorney. The adoption attorney set up the meeting and referred me to Sarah Weddington, the attorney who represented me in Roe v. Wade.

8. Although Weddington and I were about the same age, our lives were quite different. She was a young attorney, and I was homeless and lived in a park. Unconcerned about politics, I sold flowers and an underground newspaper describing the types and availability of illegal narcotics. I am not proud of my jobs. At the time I sought simply to survive.

9. Following the adoption attorney's introduction, Weddington invited me out to dinner. I agreed. At our initial meeting, I met with Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, her friend. Both Weddington and Coffee had recently finished law school and they wanted to bring a class action suits against the State of Texas to legalize abortion, not nationally. We discussed the case over a few pitchers of beer and pizza at a small restaurant in Dallas.

Weddington, Coffee, and I were drinking beer and trying to come up with a pseudonym for me. I had heard that whenever women were having illegal abortions, they wouldn't carry any identification with them. An unidentifiable woman was often referred to as Jane Doe. So we were trying to come up with something that would rhyme with "Doe". After three or four pitchers of beer, we started with the letter "a" and eventually we reached "r" and agreed on "Roe". Then I asked "What about Jane for the first name?" Janie used to be my imaginary friend as a child. I told them about her and how she always wanted to do good things for people, and it was decided -- I became Jane Roe, by the stroke of a pen.

10. The young lawyers told me that they had spoken with two or three other women about being in the case, but they didn't fit their criteria. Although I did know what "criteria" meant, I asked them if I had what it is that it took to be in their suit. They said yes, "You're white. You're young, pregnant, and you want an abortion." At that time, I didn't know their full intent. Only that they wanted to make abortion legal and they thought I'd be a good plaintiff. I came for the food, and they led me to believe that they could help me get an abortion.

11. During our meeting, they questioned me, "Norma don't you think that abortion should be legal?" Unsure, I responded that I did not know. In fact, I did not know what the term "abortion" really meant. Back in 1970, no one discussed abortion. It was taboo, and so too was the subject of abortion. The only thing I knew about the word was in the context of war movies. I had heard the word "abort" when John Wayne was flying his plane and ordered the others to "Abort the mission." I knew "abort" meant that they were "going back". "Abortion", to me, meant "going back" to the condition of not being pregnant. I never looked the word up in the dictionary until after I had already signed the affidavit. I was very naive. For their part, my lawyers lied to me about the nature of abortion. Weddington convinced me that "It's just a piece of tissue. You just missed your period." I didn't know during the Roe v. Wade case that the life of a human being was terminated.

12. After our meeting, I went to my father's apartment and began to drink alcohol heavily. I was depressed with my plight in life. I tried to drown my troubles in alcohol. Shortly thereafter I even attempted suicide by slitting my wrists. When my father questioned me about what was troubling me, I responded that I was pregnant again. When he asked me what I was going to do, I responded that I was thinking about having an abortion. He inquired, "What is that?" I said, "I don't know. I haven't looked it up yet."

13. Shortly thereafter, Weddington and Coffee presented the affidavit for my signature at Coffee's office. I told them that I trusted them and that I did not need to read the affidavit before I signed it. I never read the affidavit before signing it and do not, to this very day, know what is written in the affidavit. Both Weddington and Coffee were aware that I did not read the affidavit before I signed it. At no time did they tell me that I had to read it before they accepted my signature. I told them that I trusted them. We called ourselves "the three musketeers." I know now that is one place where I went wrong. I should have sat down and I should have read the affidavit. I may not have understood everything in the affidavit and I would have probably signed it anyway. I trusted the lawyers.

14. My lawyers never discussed what an abortion is, other than to make the misrepresentation that "it's only tissue". I never understood that the child was already in existence. I never understood that the child was a complete separate human being. I was under the false impression that abortion somehow reversed the process and prevented the child from coming into existence. In the two to three years during the case no one, including my lawyers told me that an abortion is actually terminating the life of an actual human being. The courts never took any testimony about this and I heard nothing which shed light on what abortion really was.

15. In 1972, Sarah Weddington argued in the courts, presumptuously on my behalf, that women should be allowed to obtain a legal abortion. The courts did not ask whether I knew what I was asking for. The abortion decision that destroyed every state law protecting the rights of women and their unborn babies was based on a fundamental misrepresentation. I had never read the affidavit and I did not know what an abortion was. Weddington and the other supporters of abortion used me and my circumstance to urge the courts to legalize abortion without any meaningful trial which addressed the humanity of the baby, and what abortion would do to women. At that time, I was a street person. I lived, worked, and panhandled out on the streets. My totally powerless circumstance made it easy for them to use me. My presence was a necessary evil. My real interests were not their concern.

16. As the class action plaintiff in the most controversial U.S. Supreme Court case of the twentieth century, I only met with the attorneys twice. Once over pizza and beer, when I was told that my baby was only "tissue". The other time at Coffee's office to sign the affidavit. No other personal contacts. I was never invited into court. I never testified. I was never present before any court on any level, and I was never at any hearing on my case. The entire case was an abstraction. The facts about abortion were never heard. Totally excluded from every aspect and every issue of the case, I found out about the decision from the newspaper just like the rest of the country. In a way my exclusion, and the exclusion of real meaningful findings of fact in Roe v. Wade, is symbolic of the way the women of the nation and their experiences with abortion have been ignored in a national debate by the abortion industry. It is what the abortion industry thinks is good for women which is presented. Not the reality of their experiences.

17. Later in life I was confronted with the reality of Roe v. Wade. My personal Involvement in Roe v. Wade was not my only experience with abortion. Unskilled and uneducated, with alcohol and drug problems, finding and holding a job was always a problem for me. But with my notoriety, abortion facilities, usually paying a dollar an hour more than minimum wage, were always willing to add Jane Roe to their ranks. My medical training as a respiratory therapist at Baylor University was my only medical training, but I always could work at an abortion facility. Always in control, I could either make the women stay or help her leave. My duties were similar to those of a LVN or an RN, such as taking patients' blood pressure and pulse and administering oxygen, although I never took any statistics or temperatures. Basically, I would stand inside the procedure room, hold the women's hands, and say things to distract them by saying, "What is the most exciting, or happiest period of your life?" Meanwhile, the abortionist was performing what is represented as a "painless" procedure and the women were digging their nails into me in an effort to endure the pain.

18. I worked in several abortion facilities over the years. In fact, I even worked at two clinics at the same time, and they were all the same with respect to the condition of the facilities and the "counseling" the women receive.One clinic where I worked in 1995 was typical: Light fixtures and plaster falling from the ceiling; rat droppings over the sinks; backed up sinks; and blood splattered on the walls. But the most distressing room in the facility was the "parts room". Aborted babies were stored here. There were dead babies and baby parts stacked like cordwood. Some of the babies made it into buckets and others did not, and because of its disgusting features, no one ever cleaned the room. The stench was horrible. Plastic bags full of baby parts that were swimming in blood were tied up, stored in the room and picked up once a week. At another clinic, the dead babies were kept in a big white freezer full of dozens of jars, all full of baby parts, little tiny hands and feet visible through the jars, frozen in blood. The abortion clinic's personnel always referred to these dismembered babies as "tissue." Veterinary clinics I have seen are cleaner and more regulated than the abortion clinics I worked in.

19. While all the facilities were much the same, the abortion doctors in the various clinics where I worked were very representative of abortionists in general. The abortionists I knew were usually of foreign descent with the perception that the lax abortion laws in the United States present a fertile money-making opportunity. One abortionist, in particular, would sometimes operate bare-chested, and sometimes shoe less with his shirt off, and earned a six-figure income. He did not have to worry about his bedside manner, learning to speak English, or building a clientele.

20. While the manners of the abortionists and the uncleanliness of the facilities greatly shocked me, the lack of counseling provided the women was perhaps the greatest tragedy. Early in my abortion career, it became evident that the "counselors" and the abortionists were there for only one reason - to sell abortions. The extent of the abortionists' counseling was, "Do you want an abortion? Ok, you sign here and we give you abortion." [sic]. Then he would direct me, "You go get me another one." There was nothing more. There was never an explanation of the procedure. No one even explained to the mother that the child already existed and the life of a human was being terminated. No one ever explained that there were options to abortion, that financial help was available, or that the child was a unique and irreplaceable. No one ever explained that there were psychological and physical risks of harm to the mother. There was never time for the mother to reflect or to consult with anyone who could offer her help or an alternative. There was no informed consent. In my opinion, the only thing the abortion doctors and clinics cared about was making money. No abortion clinic cared about the women involved. As far as I could tell, every woman had the name of Jane Roe.

21. Typically, most of the women would cry as soon as the suction machine was shut off, or, at some point. Sometimes I thought that they realized what had been done to their babies. Once, I heard a woman call her mother and say, "I just killed my baby. I'm so glad you never killed me!"

22. The doctors always hid the truth from the mothers. I would say about eighty-percent of the women would try to look down during the abortion and try to see what was happening. This is the reason the doctors would start with the scalpel: to make sure there was just blood and torn up "tissue" for the women to see. Specifically, I remember one woman who came in for an abortion, a pretty, sweet young woman about eighteen years old, with a teddy bear. During the procedure she looked down and saw the baby's hand fall into the doctor's hand. She gasped and passed out. When she awoke and asked about what she saw, I lied to her and told her it didn't happen. But she insisted that she had seen part of her baby. A few weeks later, when she returned for her follow-up exam, she was a changed person: her sweetness had died and had been replaced with an indescribable hardness. I . could not look her in the eye. It took quite a few beers that night to make that particular day go away.

23. In all of the clinics I worked in the employees were forbidden to say anything that could talk the mother out of an abortion. The experience of abortion began to take its toll on me. While the abortionists' counseling was non- existent, my counseling technique gradually became different depending on my mood and the stage of my career. In later years, I would sometimes take all the instruments that were used in an abortion procedure and purposely leave a little of the blood on some the instruments. Laying the instruments out on the little table in front of the woman, I would tell her that, "This is the first instrument that is going to be inserted into your vaginal area." It would have just had a little smudge of blood, and I thought it was very dramatic. In retrospect, I don't even know why I was doing these things. It was as if I was trying to talk these women out of the abortion-- something we were forbidden to do. In other counseling sessions, I would demonstrate the position and warn her that the instruments were sharp, and that if she moved the doctor might slip, and puncture her uterus, and she would bleed to death. In other situations, when a woman asked me how much it cost, I asked her in response how much she wanted to pay to kill her baby. She replied, "They told me it wasn't a baby." I responded, "What do you think it is inside you, a fish?" Other times I would comfort them after the abortion by saying, "It wasn't a baby. It was only a missed period." Sometimes when I managed to make the women unsure, I would offer to refund their money except for the ultrasound.

24. I obviously advocated legalized abortion for many years following Roe v. Wade. But working in the abortion clinics forced me to accept what abortion is. It is a violent act which kills human beings and destroys the peace and the real interests of the mothers involved. This court must do what was not done in Roe v. Wade. It must have a trial and make findings of fact based upon real evidence. Abortion must be publicly defined. The humanity of the child must be determined. The exploitation of the women must be looked at. The health risks must be examined. The abusive practices of the abortion industry must be waived and the mothers' real interests must be considered.

25. After I saw all the deception going on in the abortion facilities, and after all the things that my supervisors told me to tell the women, I became very angry. I saw women being lied to, openly, and I was part of it. There's no telling how many children I helped kill while their mothers dug their nails into me and listened to my warning, "Whatever you do, don't move!" I can assure the court that the interest of these mothers is not a concern of abortion providers.

26. Because I was drunk or stoned much of the time, I was able to continue this work for a long time, probably much longer than most clinic workers. It is a high turnover job, because of the true nature of the business. The abortion business is an inherently dehumanizing one. A person has to let her heart and soul die or go numb to stay in practice. The clinic workers suffer, the women suffer, and the babies die.

27. I respectfully request that this court allow me to act as a friend of the court as this court decides the question presented, including the question of whether it is a violation of the mother's rights if they can't sue the doctors who performed involuntary or uniformed abortions.

Norma McCorvey
A.k.a. Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade
Sworn to and subscribed before me this the 15 day of March, 2000.

Take A Second Look at Abortion is the link to a great site for facts. FACTS, not opinion. I recommend you take a walk through this site. Below is a sample of just one small area of all that is there:

Roe Reality Check

Brief, informational booklet highlighting 15 basic facts about Roe v. Wade
or its impact.

To order full-color print copies, call 1-866-582-0943 and ask for Item #0532.

#1: Abortion is legal through all 9 months of pregnancy.

#2: Abortions are rarely done for maternal or fetal health problems, or in
cases of rape or incest.

#3: Most Americans actually oppose U.S. abortion law.

#4: Legal commentators who support legal abortion have said Roe is not good constitutional law.

#5: Supreme Court Justices have criticized Roe v. Wade.

#6: The U.S. abortion rate is among the highest of all developed countries in the world.

#7: Most American women do not support Roe v. Wade.

#8: Most abortions are done after the fetal heart has begun beating.

#9: Nearly half of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one.


Even a child who is partially born can be legally aborted. — UPDATED, see note below.


If Roe is overturned, abortion policy will be decided through the democratic process in each state.

#12: Roe has often been cited by state and federal judges to endanger human beings already born.

#13: Abortion is outside mainstream medicine.


Legalized abortion has made it easy for others to pressure women into having abortions.

#1 myth: “High Court Rules Abortions Legal the First 3 Months.”[1]
FACT: Abortion is legal through all 9 months of pregnancy.

In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court ruled that abortion may not be restricted at all in the first trimester.[2] In the second trimester abortion may be regulated only for the mother’s health.[3] After “viability,” abortion may be prohibited except where necessary to preserve the mother’s health. [4]

Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton, defined maternal “health” as: “all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age - relevant to the well-being of the patient.”[5]

Thus, abortion is legal -- and cannot be prohibited -- in the 7th, 8th, or 9th months of pregnancy if any of these reasons is invoked.[6]

“[N]o significant legal barriers of any kind whatsoever exist today in the United States for a woman to obtain an abortion for any reason during any stage of her pregnancy.”[7]

#2 myth: Most abortions are done because of maternal or fetal health problems, or in cases of rape or incest.
FACT: Abortions are rarely done for these reasons.

According to an Alan Guttmacher Institute survey,[8] women cite these as the main reason for an abortion in a very small percentage of cases each year:

  • 1% “rape or incest”
  • 3% “woman has health problem” (physical or mental)
  • 3% “fetus has possible health problem”[9]

For all other abortions, the main reason cited is:

  • 21% “unready for responsibility”
  • 21% “can't afford baby now”
  • 16% “concerned about how having a baby could change her life”
  • 12% “has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood”
  • 11% “is not mature enough, or is too young to have a child”
  • 8% “has all the children she wanted, or has all grown-up children”
  • 1% “husband or partner wants woman to have abortion”
  • 1% “doesn't want others to know she has had sex or is pregnant”
  • <0.5%>
  • 3% “other”

Under Roe v. Wade, abortions for these reasons or any other reason must be legally permitted.[10]

#3 myth: Most Americans favor U.S. abortion law.
FACT: Most Americans actually oppose it.

A recent Harris Interactive poll claims 52% of Americans favor Roe v. Wade and 47% oppose it.[11] But the poll describes Roe as "the U.S. Supreme Court decision making abortions up to three months of pregnancy legal."

That's wrong. The fact is, Roe made abortion legal through all 9 months of pregnancy.[12]

In the same poll, 72% of Americans said abortion should be illegal in the second three months of pregnancy, and 86% said abortion should be illegal in the last three months of pregnancy.

Even support for abortion in the first three months is open to question. In a 2004 Zogby International poll, 61% of Americans said abortion should not be permitted after the fetal heartbeat has begun.[13] This occurs in the first month.[14]

So why do 52% of Americans say they favor Roe v. Wade?

Because they don't really know what Roe did.

#4 Roe said the Constitution includes a right to abortion.
Yet even legal commentators who support legal abortion have said Roe is not good constitutional law.

Roe v. Wade is "a very bad decision...because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."[15]

- John Hart Ely, Yale Law School professor

"As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible… [It is] one of the most intellectually suspect constitutional decisions of the modern era."[16]

- Edward Lazarus, former clerk to Justice Blackmun (who authored Roe)

"Since its inception Roe has had a deep legitimacy problem, stemming from its weakness as a legal opinion."[17]

- Benjamin Wittes, Washington Post legal affairs editorial writer

"One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found."[18]

- Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School professor

#5 Supreme Court justices have criticized Roe v. Wade.

"I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment" in Roe v. Wade.[19]

- Justice Byron White

"This Court's abortion decisions have already worked a major distortion in the Court's constitutional jurisprudence…no legal rule or doctrine is safe from ad hoc nullification by this Court … in a case involving state regulation of abortion."[20]

- Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

Roe v. Wade "destroyed the compromises of the past, [and] rendered compromise impossible for the future… [T]o portray Roe as the statesmanlike 'settlement' of a divisive issue…is nothing less than Orwellian."[21]

- Justice Antonin Scalia

Roe v. Wade "was grievously wrong."[22]

- Justice Clarence Thomas

"Roe v. Wade…ventured too far in the change it ordered and presented an incomplete justification for its action."[23]

-Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

#6 myth: The U.S. abortion rate is relatively low.
FACT: It is among the highest of all developed countries in the world.

In 1973 the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade deemed "every [abortion] law - even the most liberal - as unconstitutional."[24]

Today the U.S. has the highest abortion rate in the western world, and the third-highest of all developed nations worldwide.[25]

There are 1.31 million induced abortions annually in the U.S., or 3,500 every day.

24.5% of all U.S. pregnancies end in abortion or 3,500 every day; 24.5% of all U.S. pregnancies end in abortion. [26]

#7 myth: Most American women support Roe v. Wade.
FACT: Most do not.

Roe v. Wade legalized abortion throughout pregnancy, for virtually any reason[27].

Yet according to a national survey of women published by the Center for Gender Equality, "only 30% think abortion should be generally available."[28]

In fact, most women say abortion should be substantially limited or never permitted:

  • 17% said abortion should never be permitted.
  • 34% said abortion should be permitted only in cases of rape, incest, and to save the woman's life.[29]

And when asked to rank 12 issues in order of importance for the women's movement, women ranked "Keeping abortion legal" next to last.[30]

#8 myth: Most abortions are done before fetal organs are functioning.
FACT: Actually, the vast majority are done after the fetal heart has begun beating.

A fetal heart begins to beat at about 21 or 22 days after fertilization.[31]

That's at about 3 weeks of development.

77% of abortions in the United States are done well after this point.[32]

#9 myth: U.S. abortion law has not encouraged the use of abortion as a method of birth control.
FACT: Nearly half of all abortions are performed on women who have already had at least one.

Today, 48% of women having an abortion in the United States have had at least one previous abortion.[33]

In some states the rate of repeat abortions is much higher.

In Maryland, for example, 71.4% of those having an abortion

have already had at least one. And 16.4% have had at least three prior abortions.[34]

PLEASE NOTE: Reality Check #10, first written in 2005, has been updated in light of the Supreme Court’s majority decision in Gonzalez v. Carhart (April 2007).

#10 myth: Abortion is legal only when the fetus is in the womb.
FACT: Even a child who is partially-born can be legally aborted.

Partial-birth abortion kills a fetus during the process of delivery.

At first, abortion providers said it was rare, and used only on women whose lives were in danger or whose fetuses were damaged.

But Ron Fitzsimmons, then the Executive Director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted he had "lied through my teeth."[35]

He admitted that most partial-birth abortions are not done for "extreme circumstances" but are "primarily done on healthy women and healthy fetuses."[36]

In 2000 the Supreme Court said states cannot ban partial-birth abortion even with an exception to save the mother's life.

The Court said such a ban violates "the woman's right to choose" established by Roe v. Wade.[37]


In the April 2007 case, Gonzales vs. Carhart, the Court upheld a federal ban on partial-birth abortion, saying it is not unconstitutionally vague, and does not impose an undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion. The ban defines partial-birth abortion in terms of precise anatomical markers, depending on whether the fetus is delivered head-first or in a breach presentation. A partial-birth abortion is an abortion procedure in which the practitioner:

"(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and

"(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus. ..."

#11 myth: If Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion will automatically be illegal in the U.S.
FACT: If Roe is overturned, abortion policy will be decided through the democratic process in each state.

Before Roe v. Wade, all states permitted abortion if necessary to save the mother's life, and some permitted abortion in additional circumstances.[38]

But Roe deemed "every [abortion] law - even the most liberal - as unconstitutional."[39]

As a result, no state can prohibit any abortion at any time during pregnancy.[40]

If Roe is overturned, policy decisions about abortion will be made by the citizens of each state through the democratic process, rather than by courts.

Some states will place limits on abortion, in others there will likely be few limits.[41]

Not until Roe v. Wade is reversed
will the people be able to govern themselves again
on the important public policy issue of abortion.

#12 myth: Roe v. Wade is only about a woman’s right to abortion, not about a right to take life in general.
FACT: Roe has often been cited by state and federal judges to endanger human beings already born.

In 1986, relying on Roe, the Supreme Court invalidated a law intended to ensure care for children born alive during attempted abortions.[42]

In 1983, a U.S. district court invalidated a federal regulation to prevent medical neglect of handicapped newborns in hospitals receiving federal funds. The court said the regulation may “infringe upon the interests outlined in cases such as … Roe v. Wade.”[43]

In 1980, a New York court cited Roe in a “right to die” case, arguing that the “claim to personhood” of a terminally ill comatose patient “is certainly no greater than that of the fetus.”[44]

In 1993, a Michigan judge cited Roe in dismissing criminal charges against Jack Kevorkian and declaring that the state law against assisted suicide was unconstitutional.[45]

And in 1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit relied heavily on Roe and its successor, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in finding a constitutional “right” to assisted suicide.[46]

While some of these rulings were later modified or reversed, they all underscore how Roe v. Wade has been used to argue that ideas of privacy and liberty can trump life itself -- after as well as before birth.

#13 myth: Abortion is standard medical practice; only religious hospitals and some physicians refuse to provide it.
FACT: Even abortion advocates acknowledge that abortion is outside mainstream medicine.

The vast majority (86%) of all U.S. hospitals whether religious or secular, public or private, do not participate in abortions.[47]

71% of abortions in the United States are performed in free-standing abortion-dedicated clinics. Only 5% are performed in hospitals, 2% in physicians’ offices and 22% in other kinds of clinics.[48]

A New York Times Magazine article reports, “The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed by a small group of doctors. (Some 2 percent of OB-GYN’s carry the burden, performing more than 25 per month).”[49]

The medical community’s stigmatization of abortion is acknowledged by Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, which says one of its “primary strategic goals is to eradicate the stigma that has become attached to abortion and abortion providers within mainstream healthcare.”[50]

#14 myth: Roe v. Wade empowers women to choose freely whether abortion is their best option.
FACT: Legalized abortion has made it easy for others to pressure women into having abortions.

Not freedom, but “lack of control over one’s life” is associated with high abortion rates, as is “lack of financial and social resources.”[51]

An on-line survey of women who had abortions showed that many women feel pressured by the baby’s father: 85% of fathers offered no encouragement to continue the pregnancy. When women said they wanted to continue the pregnancy, the fathers’ dominant reactions were; “Slightly Upset 60%, Mad 38%, Very Angry 43%”, compared to “Happy .7%.” 73% of fathers suggested an abortion. [52]

80% of the women surveyed experienced guilt, 83% regret, 79% loss, 62% anger, and 70% depression.

Even a website which encourages women to consider abortion “so they can freely decide if it is their choice”[53] elsewhere posts personal stories describing pressure, coercion or abandonment by the baby’s father.[54]