Pro-abortionist turns reality into myths and myths into reality
By Dave Andrusko
You would think pro-abortionists would at least concede that, like a broken clock, pro-lifers would be correct at least twice a day.
But you would be wrong. We are wrong, wrong, and wrong again.
A recent example–like today–runs at the pro-abortion site rewire news under the cutesy headline, “The Worst ‘Alternative Facts’ About Abortion.”
After a tedious and tendentious beginning, Sofia Resnick gives us her litany of “myths” and “the reality.” The “myths” include
- Abortion Is Dangerous for Women’s Health
- Abortion Causes Breast Cancer
- Abortion Causes Mental Illness
- Abortion Causes Premature Birth
- Fetuses Can Feel Pain at 20 Weeks’ Gestation
- Medical Abortions Can Be Reversed
As always, it would take triple the time and space to prove that, in fact, Resnick has it exactly backwards: her realities are the myths. To take just a couple of examples…
As Prof. Joel Brind has demonstrated in exhaustive detail, there is a biological imperative why an induced abortion increases the likelihood of a woman having breast cancer. See, for example, here, here, and here.
Resnick’s sophisticated, fair-minded, balanced response to the likes of Brind and others? It’s an “unfounded claim” held to by a small cadre very much like “climate change deniers.” Of course Resnick misrepresents (or doesn’t understand) the science between the “Abortion-Breast Cancer” link, so it’s easier to debunk what Brind et al. are not saying.
What about fetal pain? Very much like the deniers of the ABC link, Resnick acts as if the science behind fetal pain stopped a decade or more ago. For example, Resnick chooses not to even hint that there is a bevy of more recent studies that have come out of Asia showing an even stronger association.
Likewise she harkens back to a 2005 study that appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association to buttress her argument. But in truth, as NRLC explained in great detail in its rebuttal of this “trumped up ‘study’ on fetal pain,” the study was produced by pro-abortion activists. There was “no new laboratory research reported in the article–it was merely a commentary on a selection of existing medical literature.” Their conclusion “is disputed by experts with far more extensive credentials in pain research than any of the authors.”
But about reversing (stopping) a chemical abortion which involves two drugs ? Again, she misunderstands what proponents are saying.
No one is denying that some pregnancies will continue if the woman simply does not take the second drug, misoprostol.
What they are saying is that odds of saving the baby greatly increase if after taking the first drug [Mifeprex], the woman is given large dosages of progesterone in order to counteract the first pill.
And so it goes. Name calling, using out-of-date, biased studies to support her contentions and ignoring more recent evidence that supports the truth of what Resnick insists on callings “myths,” and either deliberately misrepresenting the case being made by pro-lifers or an inability to understand what they are asserting.
Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, go directly to nationalrighttolifenews.org and/or follow me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha. Please send your comments to email@example.com.