A look inside the pro-abortionists’ unceasing propaganda machine

By Dave Andrusko

journalhealthpolitics4Pro-abortion propagandists operate in a pincer-like fashion in which the truth is encircled by attackers coming from both sides.

One attack are the “academic studies” which utilize extrapolation, exaggeration, and evasion to “prove” that every pro-life legislative initiative under the sun is counterproductive, at best, cynically motivated, at worse.

Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon, NRLC’s director of education, specializes in debunking these studies which invariably come from academics steeped in pro-abortion advocacy.

The other attack is to dismiss not just a raft of peer-reviewed studies showing that abortion has negative consequences for women (that is to be expected). They also dismiss “embryological and fetal development from information booklets produced by 23 states that require informed consent,” as a recent story at Forbes.com explains.

Emily Mullin, described as “a DC-based science writer, focusing on health and medicine,” uses a study out of Rutgers University –“Informed or Misinformed Consent? Abortion Policy in the United States”–which purports to have “found 31 percent of the information to be medically inaccurate, and that the highest percentages of inaccuracies are found in the first trimester of pregnancy, when 90 percent of women have abortions.”

For now I only have access to the abstract of the study which appeared in the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law.  I will do a follow up story when I do have the full study authored by Cynthia R. Daniels and co-authored by Janna Ferguson, Grace Howard, and Amanda Roberti.

In the absence of the full study, let me make two points.

After we’re told how bad these informed consent materials are, we read, “We discuss the implications of our findings for the question of the constitutionality of informed consent laws as they have been implemented in practice.”

What will the “implications” be, or, more specifically, what difference might it make? If the “state” is providing “inaccurate medical information,” then its informed consent laws will produce what the authors prefer to call (according to Emily Mullin) “misinformed consent.”

Second, here’s an example from Mullin’s story of the verbal shenanigans at work:

Examples of medical inaccuracies include the following: from week 2, “the head has formed”; from week 4, “brain activity can be recorded”; and from week 9, “hiccups begin.” By contrast, a statement rated as medically accurate regarding the same stage of brain development reads: “A ridge of tissue forms down the length of the embryo. That tissue will later develop into the brain and spinal cord.”

What does that remind you of? “Fetus” rather than baby? ”Disarticulation” rather than dismemberment?

How about “Dilating the cervix and using surgical instruments to remove the fetal and placental tissue” rather than what Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy correctly explained as

a doctor inserts grasping forceps through the woman’s cervix and into the uterus to grab a living fetus. The doctor grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn apart limb by limb. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off.”

When it comes to abortion propagandists, truth is always the first casualty.