By Dave Andrusko
As I read “Abortion Rights in Peril—What Clinicians Need to Know,” the first thing that struck my mind was the Latin phrase quid pro quo, or, in the vernacular, one hand washes the other.
This “perspective” appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine.
I first learned about its existence from an alert sent out by the Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood’s one-time think-tank, which, public policy-wise, remains as tightly tethered as ever.
The author, Guttmacher tells us, is Elizabeth Nash, described as a “policy expert.” Not mentioned is that Nash is Guttmacher’s “policy expert.”
This is how the Abortion Industry works. Guttmacher cranks out a piece which the Medical Establishment eagerly publishes, giving it unearned credibility.
Another example. As we discussed elsewhere today, [“Yes, pro-abortion research confirms, the Hyde Amendment does save lives”], Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) offers up a study about how terrible the Hyde Amendment is for saving two million babies and gives an advanced copy of the study to Vox.com, a pro-abortion site which serves as a megaphone for any and all pro-abortion propaganda.
It’s a classic example of the “Appeal to Authority” fallacy. Guttmacher may compile oodles of statistics, many of them more-or-less accurate, but the conclusions it draws are its own, based on its commitment to abortion-on-demand.
Likewise with ANSIRH. Its “research” is accepted uncritically by most media outlets which don’t have the time (or expertise) to critique the study, even if, on the off chance, they might want to.
By contrast, Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon, NRLC’s Director of Education & Research, has the expertise and takes the time to show how often ANSIRH’s conclusions don’t follow from the evidence it offers up.
For example, Dr. O’Bannon wrote a five-part series which dismantled ANSIRH’s “Turnaway” series.
Lesson? Turn to NRL News Today and NRL News where we offer the best and most thorough debunking of the Abortion Industry’s bogus studies.