Guttmacher offers its own“alternative facts” in phony attempt to debunk studies that highlight abortion’s horrific impact

By Dave Andrusko

I understand that even a pro-abortion think-tank which is not exactly hurting for money is not going to grind out new propaganda on a daily basis. Which is why Guttmacher cranked out,”Flouting the Facts: State Abortion Restrictions Flying in the Face of Science,” by two veteran pro-abortion apologists, Rachel Benson Gold and Elizabeth Nash. It’s a tiresome rehash of the same old, same old assertions using the rusty hook of “fake news” or “flouting the facts” to go a step further to take a shot at “an antiabortion universe” that “has long been an evidence-free zone.”

“Evidence free zone”? Yikes. Kinda harsh, wouldn’t you say?

Let me make a couple of observations here.

#1. Guttmacher loves, loves, loves to self-reference. They are the intergalactic experts so when Guttmacher says, “many observers” (aka Guttmacher) are “deeply concerned that we are entering a fact-free era when it comes to setting policy around sexual and reproductive health and rights,” you know we’re going to get it (the truth as opposed to “alternative facts”) straight from the horse’s mouth.

#2. Gold and Nash tell us there are “at least 10 major categories of abortion restrictions conflict with the established scientific evidence.” That those experts providing “established scientific evidence” are comprised of Guttmacher itself, its friends at hotbeds of pro-abortion advocacy, or medical organizations which eons ago through their lot in with the pro-abortion movement goes unmentioned.

#3. We have rebutted each of Guttmacher’s claims, in many cases often. To take just two examples…. First, the assertion that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer which, as it happens, Dr. Brind discusses in a post today. As is the case with so much pro-abortion blather, time has stood still.

Studies from 2003 and 2004 are trotted out as the last word to disprove than having in induced abortion increases the chances of a woman having breast cancer. Those “rebuttals” were lame over a decade ago and there has been a great deal of evidence from South Asia since demonstrating that the overall risk increase for women who have an induced abortion there is far higher than the risk in the West and in China.

Second, there is what Gold and Nash categorize as “Restrictions Using Fetal Pain as a Pretext.” Really? A “pretext” that an unborn child can experience pain at 20 weeks? Ask yourself this.

Gold and Nash cite two studies that establish 24 weeks as a minimum threshold (if not beyond). I found fascinating that they did not dust off one 2005 pro-abortion study that argued there is no good evidence the unborn can feel pain before 29 weeks! That was preposterous then, it is even more ludicrous now, so maybe that’s why. Point?

Let’s say for the sake of argument it was proven even to Gold’s and Nash’s satisfaction that the unborn child can experience pain at 25 weeks. Does anyone–anyone–believe Guttmacher would change its tune?

Of course not. They would just reach into their bag of excuses and tell us why it’s just too bad the kid experiences pain beyond imagination.

Their conclusion?

The current environment makes it critical to arm policymakers with the facts they need to adopt sound, evidence-based policies that support—rather than thwart—women’s efforts to get the care they need, and to overturn measures that clearly flout the facts.

The only “facts” these “10 major categories of abortion restrictions conflict with” are the “facts” generated by and recycled by the Abortion Establishment, its handmaidens such as Guttmacher, and in-the-tank medical organizations.