Crisis Pregnancy Centers: We Won’t Be Fooled

Today is April 1 – otherwise known as April Fool's Day. With that in mind, Choice USA, the National Abortion Federation, and the office of Senator Robert Menendez have deemed it the perfect opportunity to let it be known that we won't be fooled anymore.

Who's fooling us, you ask? Well, it's a problem bigger and much more heinous than a typical April Fool's joke you'd pull on your friends. And it's a problem that's affecting millions of women around the nation. That problem is the Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) that confuse and misinform women around the country.

Crisis Pregnancy Centers are well-disguised as all-options health centers for pregnant women and girls. They are also often well-funded (and sometimes with taxpayer dollars too). While many of them offer inexpensive or free pregnancy tests, they also prey on unsuspecting, vulnerable women, load them with misinformation and lobby them to become parents using fear tactics.

Young women, students, and women in lower-income communities are the most heavily targeted by these centers, with an abundance of misleading and deceptive "bait and switch" advertisements in university, college and community newspapers. Day in and day out, students on campuses across the nation tell the stories of young people being led into such centers, hopeful that they'll find answers and options. Instead, they find misinformation, deception, and intimidation.

The worst part about it is that students and young women are some of the most vulnerable to these bait and switch tactics, and the negative outcomes to their lives as a result. Young women and students typically have fewer financial resources, fewer health care options, and relative inexperience navigating the health care system. It is for these reasons that they are much more likely to be drawn in by the lies in CPC ads offering free and inexpensive services. Women needing unbiased answers and medical care administered by health professionals walk into these CPCs (often staffed by volunteers with little or no medical expertise) unaware that they are being used as pawns by activists with a political agenda who don't truly value their needs and wants.

Ads published in campus and community newspapers make promises like, "Free confidential services, all-options counseling, abortion information, medical referrals, and free ultrasounds." However, the reality is that many women are denied the services they seek, or they are met with no information, misinformation, referrals to Ob/Gyns who refuse to provide abortion care, and forced ultrasounds. Some CPCs have even gone so far as to present pregnant women with congratulatory "new Mom starter kits" complete with baby clothes, whether or not they have made up their minds to become parents.

Choice USA and NAF have teamed up to support a bill that Senator Menendez is rolling out today called the Stop the Deceptive Advertising in Women Services, to help stop these abuses. Young women and students around the country are waging campaigns in their communities already, hoping to inform others about the misinformation doled out by local CPCs. This April 1st will be known as "We Won't Be Fooled Day." Celebrate with us and call your Senators to ask them to co-sponsor the bill too. And together we can ensure that by April 1, 2009, Crisis Pregnancy Centers won't be fooling anyone anymore.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

For more information or to schedule an interview with contact

  • mellankelly1

    I met a woman who claims to work at one of these CPC's and the way in which she supposedly "counsels" women faced with an unwanted pregnancy is dishonest and disgusting.  She offers them false information regarding abortion and an increased risk for breast cancer even though the National Cancer Institute has conducted many studies which consistently showed no association between induced and spontaneous abortions and breast cancer risk (  She also tries to convince them that they will be sure to suffer from PAS – nevermind that the American Psychological Association has not found a link between feelings that follow an abortion and a psychological condition in need of medical care. She even goes so far as to call a woman considering terminating her pregnancy a "child murderer".  These CPC's are misleading and are hurting women and we need to get the word out!

  • invalid-0

    I live in NJ and will be calling Senator Menendez’ office to express my appreciation for his work on this bill and for his willingness to stick his neck out on this issue.

  • invalid-0

    You are wrong about Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) confusing and misinforming women around the country. They are not well-funded (and they do not use taxpayer dollars. Planned Parenthood uses tax payer dollars to give young teenage mothers abortions many times without the parents consent.) They DON’T PREY on unsuspecting, vulnerable women, load them with misinformation or lobby them to become parents using fear tactics. They tell them the truth, that their is a human being growing in them. A LIFE. {At 8 wks of age their are brain waves present. Have you heard of the SILENT SCREAM? Two abortionist looked at a sonogram when they inserted a needle into a woman to abort the fetus. The baby (not a cell or unliving tissue) saw the needle, opened it’s mouth to scream, and jerked way from the needle. They could see the FEAR on the BABY’S FACE. They tried the same procedure again. They BABY-HUMAN BEING had fear on it’s face, screamed, and jerked away from teh needle again. After this the abortionists quit their practice.} CPC gives the pregnant women the truth about having a live growing human being in them. They give them a choice to keep the baby to term and then put it up for adoption or to keep the baby and raise it. They also WILL NOT FORCE a woman not to have an abortion. They are loving and kind to the women. They pray with the women if they want to pray. They are supportive and let the women discuss their fears. They help the women out. They are a NON-PROFIT AGENCY who get DONATIONS from people. Do you know that many woman who have abortions realize later that it is a LIFE and they feel so guilty about it that many seek counseling? Also, many woman can never get pregnant later on, because the fallopian tubes were scared during the procedure. I know a few who had one procedure and can not get pregnant. The uterus could be seriously damaged, some women have bled to death due the uterus or cervix being cut during a doctor’s rush abortion. Sometimes the tools used in abortion are not properly disinfected and the women suffer serious infections. Also, since the baby is not allowed to be brought to term and delivered, the women also can suffer BREAST CANCER later on in life. The MEDICAL FACTS are there, you need to do your research. Just think, the baby that is aborted could be the one who discovers a cure for AIDS, CANCER, MS, CISTIC FIBROSIS, SICKLE CELL ANEMIA, and PAKINSON’S DISEASE. The BABY IS ALIVE. Look around you to the children you see playing in the streets, at the parks, and schools. They were once embryos which later became fetuses and then were born. They were and are HUMAN BEINGS. So is the Baby inside you. It is INNOCENT.
    CPC doesn’t do anything negative that you are saying. They give the mother and child hope for the future.

  • libby8888

    CPC's are garbage facilities intending to keep women barefoot and pregnant.  This whole country, including the new Republican runner for Prez., is all about keeping women down at the bottom levels of poverty. What better way to do this than to limit a woman's ability to control her reproductive system.  How ludicrous to FORCE pharmacists to dispense birth control!  I'd like to see them refuse to fill prescriptions for Viagra.  Already, many states are turning down the money offered in schools for the crappy "Abstinence Only" sex education, as it hurts only women, men don't get pregnant, though I wish they did.  CPCs do have tax payers money for their lies, they DO lie, and they are NOT staffed by professionals.  If men were the ones that got pregnant and had the ultimate responsibility for a child, none of these negative things would be an issue.  They would not tolerate being lied to, they would not tolerate not being given birth control at a pharmacy, and they would make sure women paid child support by PAY or JAIL, period. 

    All the CPCs need to be closed because they are run by biased people with their own agenda for someone else.  They want to force their little opinion on unsuspecting people that deserve the right to make an INFORMED decision.  Informed decisions are not made by biased opinions and lies as is the agenda in CPCs.  

  • mellankelly1

    You say that the fetus "saw the needle, opened it's mouth to scream, and jerked way from the needle" – now you're claiming that a fetus can do something that a newborn infant cannot even do ("seeing" an object and not knowing: a) what it is and b) that it could hurt them, and then "jerking away" from said object.)  Tell me, in this movie… was the fetus also writing poetry?

    • invalid-0

      Anonymous is right. Newborns can sense danger. Newborns feel fear. Infants feel fear. A fetus can sense danger and react in fear. A human has emotions, even in the womb. You were once a fetus. The video is not fake. It’s real as real as you and I. It also shows how an abortion is done. I have seen abortions being done first hand. I have seen the abortionand what the fetus does on a ultrasound. I have seen the baby after it comes out. I have seen partial birth abortions too. I have seen them jab scissors in the back of a baby’s skull when the doctor pulls it out enough to reach the head. He then makes a hole, insert to the baby’s head in back and sucks out the brains. When the baby is dead, they pull it out. The solution they put in a women who wants a emergency abortion replaces the amniotic fluid. It burns the baby and it takes the baby at least 3 days to die in agony. I have seen these bodies. It’s so sad.

      • mellankelly1

        Just an aside… but when I saw "Anonymous is right, submitted by Anonymous" I thought "Sybil…  Is that you?"

        • invalid-0

          no sweetheart, it’s another anonymous. Some people just choose not to reveal their name.

      • invalid-0

        The solution they put in a women who wants a emergency abortion replaces the amniotic fluid. It burns the baby

        for at least the last 20 years. Time to update your rhetoric.

        A fetus can sense danger and react in fear.

        No early term fetuses are aware of their surroundings in the womb. They aren’t sentient,so they can’t “react in fear”.

    • invalid-0


      You said:”Now you’re claiming that a fetus can do something that a newborn infant cannot even do (“seeing” an object and not knowing: a) what it is and b) that it could hurt them, and then “jerking away” from said object.)”
      Then Explain these incidences…When my mother was pregnant with me she had an old typewritter that dinged. Everytime it would ding, I would kick her. She made it ding 4 times, I kicked her 4 times. If someone yelled, I responded with a jerk inside of her. As did a friend of mine. Her mother yelled at her and her baby jerked inside of her right at that very moment. Her baby loved to kick at night. One night when he was kicking her, her cat jumped up and layed down on her stomach. Her cat began to purr. All of a sudden, her baby boy stopped kicking. He was listening to the cat’s purr. There is documented proof that the unborn respond to stimuli.

      Also, there was a preganant woman who’s child inside her had a heart problem. The doctors had to open her uterus to operate on her child. Right after the doctor opened the uterus a tiny hand poked through. It grabbed the doctor’s finger and held it. I have provided the link. Please look.

      You can still go to this site.

      Baby Samuel Reaching out of the Womb

      One of the most amazing photographs that you’ll ever see — is this picture of Samuel, a 21-week old baby boy, whose tiny hand reaches out of the womb and grabs the finger of the surgeon who was operating on him, as if to say, “Thanks doc, you did a wonderful job.” It should be seen by the whole world.

      It happened when Dr. Joseph P. Bruner, director of fetal diagnosis and treatment at Vanderbilt University Medical Center was performing a cutting edge procedure on a 21 week old fetus.
      Bruner and Samuel’s parents hope the surgery will alleviate the effects of spina bifida, a disabling birth defect in one or two of every 1,000 babies born.

      During the procedure, surgeons remove the uterus from the mother, drain the amniotic fluid, perform surgery on the tiny fetus, then put the uterus back inside the mother. The procedure took about an hour. There are no words to describe this incredible photo. If this doesn’t set the abortion industry and the pro-choicers back on their ears, then Heaven help us.

      The defenders of a woman’s right to have an abortion, if she so chooses, would have you believe that Samuel is nothing but a non-sentient blob of tissue. Never, again will the abortion clinics, be able to tell these lies to women who are about to have their unborn babies killed. It was almost as if Samuel was shaking the finger of the hand of the man, who was trying to save his life — to thank him for his compassion and effort.

      Samuel Has Been Born!

      Samuel’s parents have written the following:

      Dear friends and family,

      Samuel arrived on Thursday, Dec. 2 at 6:25 pm at Northside Hospital weighing 5 lbs 11 oz and 20 1/2″ long. He was born at 36 weeks but came into the world screaming his head off!

      He did not have to spend any time in a neonatal unit, and came home with us on Monday Dec. 6. After viewing an ultrasound of his brain, Samuel’s neurosurgeon was very optimistic as he does not have any hydrocephalus and the brain malformation has resolved. He is moving his legs very well from the hips and some from the knees. He was frank breech (folded in half) in the womb and the orthopedist feels that he has a good chance for walking. He will begin physical therapy next week in order to work out some of the stiffness in his legs that was a result of his being folded in half in the womb. He is also nursing very well.

      Thank you all for your prayers and support. We are happier than we ever dreamed possible.

      All our love,
      Julie, Alex and Samuel Armas

      Note from Thornwalker

      The text above and the accompanying photos were taken from an Internet page that no longer seems to be available. (The coding has been modified from that that Easy Designer first produced.) The text in the first half has not been altered except that it has been abridged, as much of it dealt with the offenses of the Democratic Party. I think the picture speaks for itself, and in any case the Republican Party has certainly done its part to promote and protect the murder of infants.

      If the owners of this text or photo wish that I remove them from my website, I will do so upon request. Moreover, if anyone has some reason to believe that these photos are not what they purport to be and are instead part of a hoax, I should be happy to learn of these concerns.

      — Ronald N. Neff

  • mellankelly1

    They are a NON-PROFIT AGENCY who get DONATIONS from people.

    CPC doesn't do anything negative that you are saying. They give the mother and child hope for the future.

    Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), ranking member of the House Government Reform Committee, released the investigative report, False and Misleading Health Information Provided by Federally Funded Pregnancy Resource Centers. The report outlines how 20 CPCs in 15 states that received federal tax dollars misled or provided false information to investigators who called asking about their services. According to the report, CPCs have received more than $30 million in federal funding since 2001, while additional "capacity-building" grants have been distributed to 25 centers. Investigators found that 87 percent of these centers give women misleading information, including spreading the myths that choosing abortion increases the risk of breast cancer and sterility – each of which has been debunked by expert scientists, doctors, and breast cancer awareness advocates.

  • mellankelly1

    Do you know that many woman who have abortions realize later that it is a LIFE and they feel so guilty about it that many seek counseling?

    And many women who have had abortions feel relief and are perfectly happy with their choice – Check this out:

    Did you know that studies done have consistantly proven that if a woman suffers from depression prior to becoming pregnant chances are she will suffer from depression afterward regardless of whether she terminates or gestates her pregnancy?  These same studies have consistantly proven that there is no link between feelings that follow an abortion and a psychological condition in need of medical care.

  • invalid-0

    Go to the SILENT SCREAM website. ” My People perish for a lack of knowledge.” God said this.

  • invalid-0

    This is a Human Being. He or she is alive. God gave you life. Your mothers did not chose to abort you. God knew you in your mothers’ womb. He loves you all.
    You are alive. Let a child be born to grow and who knws what good he or she can accomplish. There is a woman who is alive without arms due to a botched abortion. Her mother tried to have her aborted and she survived. She is letting people know what children can do who are not aborted. She helps others. She wants to find a cure for cancer.
    Yes, a newborn can recognize certain objects and be afraid of them. Babies are smart. Don’t underestimate them.

  • invalid-0

    Planned Parenthood gets federal funding and uses tax payers money without their knowledge or consent. One 17 year old was pregnant and wanted to have an abortion. PP was very kind to her until she on the day of her procedure changed her mind and left the clinic. She didn’t go to the CPC. When she asked PP for help to help her with her pregnancy, they were uncooperative. She had the baby, but suffered problems due to no prenatal medical care. A 15 year old girl slept with a 20 year old and got pregnant. The nurse said “we won’t tell anyone. It will be considered a statutory rape.” She had the procedure done without parental consent. They use aborted fetuses for research purposes. Look at both sides of the abortion issue. Look at what they do to aborted fetuses. Abortion is a very high demand commodity. It’s not right to kill a child for profit of its body parts. There is more stem cells in cord blood then in a fetus. Look at yourself. You are alive because your mother chose not to have an abortion. Shouldn’t every child have that chance and right?

    • invalid-0

      Aborted fetuses are not used in stem-cell research. They are too far developed to have many usable stem cells.
      < br/>
      Stem-cell research uses blastocysts that are only a few days old. These blastocysts come from fertility clinics. They are extra fertilized eggs left over from IVF.
      < br/>
      (P.S.: I’m opposed to parental consent laws. It’s the young woman’s decision, not her parents’.)

  • mellankelly1

    My post regarding federal funds being given to CPC's was a direct response to the following quotes from "Anonymous":

    They [CPC's] are not well-funded (and they do not use taxpayer dollars.  They are a NON-PROFIT AGENCY who get DONATIONS from people.  CPC doesn't do anything negative that you are saying. They give the mother and child hope for the future

    I never once implied that Planned Parenthood did not receive federal funds so I'm not getting the point of your reply.

    She had the baby, but suffered problems due to no prenatal medical care

    Some Planned Parenthood health centers offer prenatal care and some do not.  But all Planned Parenthood health centers can give you a referral for prenatal care… it's too bad this girl didn't ask Planned Parentood for prenatal care or a referral.  IF you're implying that Planned Parenthood refused prenatal care or a referral for prenatal care than you had better have some proof to back up that claim and I would go to the proper authorities imediately (although I find your claim highly unlikely and reeking of "pro-life" urban myth).

  • invalid-0

    It’s not a myth.
    You can see the baby in the womb sensing danger and opening it’s mouth to scream. Obviously, you know deep down inside that abortion is destroying a life and you feel convicted. You condone murder in a mother’s womb. God gave that baby life. Watch the video 1-5. Video 2 shows the abortion as well. Video 3 shows the baby jerking away from the suction tube that will tear it’s body apart.

  • mellankelly1

    Go to the SILENT SCREAM website. " My People perish for a lack of knowledge." God said this.

    This film was debunked by physicians, scientists, and most of its very authors over 20 years ago – please do your research instead of just getting spoon fed with anti-choice propoganda.  "A religion without a Goddess is halfway to atheism" Dion Fortune said this.

  • mellankelly1

    God gave you life. God knew you in your mothers' womb. He loves you all.

    Using your personal beliefs about your God is not a valid argument for denying reproductive rights to all women.  There are plenty of clergy who believe in a womans reproductive rights (see  You may also be interested to know that prior to 1973 many priests, rabis and other religios people helped women with unwanted pregnancies to procure safe abortions… these same religious people were a driving force in legalizing abortion.

    Yes, a newborn can recognize certain objects and be afraid of them. Babies are smart. Don't underestimate them

    To put it very bluntly.. no, newborn infants are not "smart" and I am most certainly not "underestimating" them.  A neonate would no more move away from a needle than an office chair would.  No offense to newborns, I love them and have had three of them… but they lack the cognitive development required to acknowledge what a needle is, let alone make an effort to move away from it (and certainly a fetus would be lacking the same cognative developement).  That is a scientific fact.

  • mellankelly1

    DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED.  The silent scream is false and using it as an argument against abortion is a fallacy.

  • invalid-0

    It isan’t fake. The video is true. You just don’t want to face the truth that a fetus is a living human being totally dependant on it’s mother. I am not using my faith in the one true God as an excuse or anything else. {I’m an ex wiccan. I’m just going to say this on faith… Jesus loves you with all His heart and soul. He died on the cross for all your sins. He arose on the 3rd day. He wants you to come to Him. Give Him your life. In return He gives you eternal life.} I also know the dangers of abortion first hand from friends who have had procedures done; I don’t want others to suffer the same fate. Some of you must have had abortions yourselves. You have been lied to and believe the lies about abortions being good. They aren’t. Childrern are killed, women are having health problems due to the procedures, many women are now very depressed, and can’t have any more childern. I have friends who are scarred inside. They can never have children. Just please think about it. A child can not be born from nothing. At 8 wks their is a heart beat. The child is alive from the point of conception. Look at yourself in the mirror..You would not be here alive today if your mother had chosen to abort you.

  • mellankelly1

     It isan't fake. The video is true

    According to the following medical experts – the Silent Scream is a fake. 

    Sally Faith Dorfman, MD
    Assistant Professor, Albert Einstein College of Medicine,
    Assistant Clinical Professor, Mount Sinai
    Hart Peterson, MD
    Chief of Pediatric Neurology, New York Hospital,
    Clinical Professor of Neurology in Pediatrics, Cornell University Medical Center
    William Rashbaum, MD
    Assistant Clinical Professor, Albert Einstein College of Medicine
    Seymour L. Romney, MD
    Professor, Ob/Gyn, Director, Gynecological Cancer Research, and former Chairman, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine
    Allan Rosenfield, MD
    Professor, Ob/Gyn and Public Health, Acting Chairman, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Director, Center for Population and Family Health, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University
    Herbert G. Vaughan, Jr. MD
    Professor of Neuroscience, Neurology and Pediatrics, Director, Rose F. Kennedy Center for Research in Mental Retardation and Human Development, Albert Einstein College of Medicine
    Ming-Neng Yeh, MD
    Associate Clinical Professor, Dept. of Ob/Gyn Ultrasound Laboratory, Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center. 

    And here is a list of some of the reasons why…

    • CLAIM: The 12-week fetus makes purposeful movements (e.g., agitated movement in an attempt to avoid suction cannula).
    • FACTS: At this stage of pregnancy, all fetal movement is reflexive in nature rather than purposeful, since the latter requires cognition, which is the ability to perceive and know. For cognition to occur, the cortex (gray matter covering the brain) must be present, as well as myelinization (covering sheath) of the spinal cord and attached nerves, which is not the case.

      An example of the reflex withdrawal without pain occurs in an anencephalic (absent brain) newborn. Another known example of the reflex movement at this stage of human pregnancy is thumb sucking in utero.

      What is termed "frantic activity" by the fetus is a reflex response of the fetus resulting from movement of the uterus and its contents induced by operator manipulation of the suction curette or the ultrasound transducer on the abdomen. This same type of response would likely occur with any external stimulus. A one-cell organism such as an amoeba will reflexively move or display a withdrawal reaction when touched.

      In addition, experts in ultrasonography and film technology have concluded that the videotape of the abortion was deliberately slowed down and subsequently speeded up to create an impression of hyperactivity.

    • CLAIM: Ultrasonogram depicts the open mouth of the fetus.
    • FACTS: The mouth of the fetus cannot be identified in the ultrasound image with certainty. The statement that the screen identifies the open mouth of the fetus is a subjective and misleading interpretation by Dr. Nathanson. His conclusion is not supportable.
    • CLAIM: The fetus emits "the silent scream."
    • FACTS: A scream cannot occur without air in the lungs. Although primitive respiratory movements do occur in the later stages of gestation, crying or screaming cannot occur even then. In fact, a child born prematurely at 26–27 weeks' gestation (24–25 weeks' fetal age) cannot scream but occasionally emits weak cries.
    • CLAIM: A fetus is indistinguishable from any of the rest of us.
    • FACTS: A fetus of 12 weeks cannot in any way be compared to a fully formed functioning person. At this stage only rudiments of the organ systems are present. The fetus is unable to sustain life outside the woman's womb, it is incapable of conscious thought; it is incapable of essential breathing. It is instead an in utero fetus with the potential of becoming a child.
    • CLAIM: Fetal head at 12 weeks requires the use of "crushing instruments" for extraction.
    • FACTS: At 12 weeks' gestation (10 weeks' fetal age) and even 1–2 weeks beyond, instrumentation other than a suction cannula is not required when abortion is properly performed. Cannulas for aspiration abortion come in varying sizes, and the larger sizes are adequate for withdrawing the contents of the uterus.

    Would you like me to continue?  Because there are a plethora of facts which disprove the claims in the silent scream.

  • invalid-0

    My mother chose to conceive me. If she hadn’t, and I had been aborted, I would have never known about it, would I? I love my mom, and I would never have wanted her to go through with an unwanted pregnancy. BTW, I’m fifteen weeks pregnant right now with my first child, and I still support abortion rights. It’s about CHOICE. And if, in two weeks after my amnio, if I find out that this child has some terrible genetic disease, I will lovingly terminate the pregnancy. Better to never be born than to live a life, however short, of suffering.

  • mellankelly1

     Look at yourself in the mirror..You would not be here alive today if your mother had chosen to abort you.

    Prove it.  The truth is that nobody knows when a spirit enters a body and nobody can prove that if I hadn't been born to John and Mary Smith that I wouldn't have been born to John and Mary Jones.

    Jesus loves you with all His heart and soul. He died on the cross for all your sins. He arose on the 3rd day. He wants you to come to Him. Give Him your life. In return He gives you eternal life

    While I think it's lovely that you believe that Jesus did all these things for you, I have faith that doesn't involve Jesus as anything other than a prophet.  I love God, God loves me – we're all good.  Anyonymous, we're going to have to agree to disagree on the issue of Spirituality.

    I also know the dangers of abortion first hand from friends who have had procedures done; I don't want others to suffer the same fate.

    I know the benefits of abortion first hand.  Many women know the benefits of abortion as an option to an unwanted pregnancy.  And I pray that any person who is suffering from the choice to terminate a pregnancy or suffering from the choice to give birth gets the professional, unbiased help that they so desperately need.  A good place for a woman who has had an abortion would be:  And a woman suffering depression after giving birth may want to visit:

    Listen, you probably mean well but you are spewing anti-choice rhetoric.  I am woman who had an abortion thirteen years ago and I've had no negative effects psychologically and/or physically.  I certainly do not regret my choice and I thank God that I was lucky enough to live in a time where I was able to obtain a safe and legal abortion.  Every woman is different.  Every womans experience with abortion is different.

  • invalid-0

    Obviously you have never been faced w/ the hard decision to have an abortion. Sure, it’s not a very pleasant thing to do. But it is a woman’s right and noone should make her feel ashamed of doing so. These clinics should have information about abortion, parenthood, and adoption. Every woman has the right to be informed about her choices in this matter, and to not be pushed into doing something she does or doesn’t want to do. I don’t believe in abortion as a contraceptive, but I do believe it is our right to do w/ our bodies as we please. Having an abortion is not a decision a woman takes lightly, or least it wasn’t for me. I had an abortion at the age of 15. And I have NEVER regretted it, nor have I had to have counseling and my fallopian tubes are just fine. Honestly, where did you get your info.? I was only a child when I got an abortion and I didn’t need to be raising one. Also, I had to find my own information about abortions because the clinic in my town “doesn’t believe in abortions”. They wouldn’t even talk to me. As far as I know, having an abortion is still legal and those clinics are funded by MY tax dollars, so I think it is wrong for them to turn someone away for wanting information about abortions. That kind of B.S. is what makes young women shove coat hangers in their vagina or some other unthinkable solution. As for adoption…well, you say that there are plenty of people willing to adopt. Then why are there so many children in foster care? And what about abortions for embryos that have a fatal desease? Should the mother indure 9 months of pregnancy just to have a baby that’s going to die? I am now 28 years old, am married and, earlier this year, had a beautiful baby girl. I had considered having another abortion because my husband had a child (with his ex wife)that died of a rare disease at 6 months old. This disease, he was told, was passed on to children from their father. So, needless to say, he was very scared. I did my research and we went to some specialists and found out that the info that he had gotten previously was incorrect-both parents would have to have the gene to pass on the disease. So, here we are with a wonderful baby girl. But I would have had an abortion if we didn’t find out different and I wouldn’t have never regretted it!! You may think that getting an abortion is evil or wrong, but it’s not your decision to make for someone else!

  • invalid-0

    Planned Parenthood is the only provider of free or low-cost well-woman gynecological care thoughout huge swaths of this country. That is why the taxpayer money.
    Which phony “crisis pregnancy clinics” provide cancer screening and breast exams like Planned Parenthood does? None. They are only interested in mnipulating women at a vulnerable point in their lives; they do not really care about women’s health.

    • invalid-0

      Planned Parenthood doesn’t offer diapers, clothing, exercise videos, free pregnancy and parenting courses, school help and job placement, baby clothes, formula, strollers, help with WIC/federal/state assistance, ……all items that are offered by pro-life pregnancy resource centers. While Planned Parenthood may aid in the choice of abortion, if your choice is parenting the child, then you are told to find help elsewhere (as several friends and family members have experienced firsthand).

  • invalid-0

    interesting. pretty much every time someone blogs this angry anti-choice venom they sign as anonymous. if you’re so self-righteous and proud, so dedicated to your cause, why not sign your name?
    and really, the silent scream stuff is just crap. what you’re claiming is scientifically impossible.

  • invalid-0

    Keep talking. Apparently convincing yourselves that abortion is NOT murder is allowing some of you to believe that is was okay to MURDER your own children. I hope that helps you sleep at night…. Shame! Shame!

  • mellankelly1

    Murder is a legal term.  Abortion isn't murder.

  • invalid-0

    Here is my story:

    I am male.
    I am gay.
    I am a Wiccan Priest (of a long standing coven, not just someone who read a book. I also plan to stay this way. No desire to become an “ex-Wiccan”.)
    I am 35 years old.
    I have no children, nor do I think of having children.
    I am a health administration student researching information on abortion for a report for a class I am taking.

    I wanted to say thank you to everyone who participated in what seems to have become a debate in the above comments sections. It is difficult to locate non-biased information on the Internet regarding this most provocative subject. Obviously, from the mini-bio I gave of myself above, I am probably not the typical person who ponders abortion, visits websites regarding abortion, or frequently considers all the viewpoints and sub-topics that comes with it (just being honest here; I know many wield either a pro-choice or pro-life sword with great pride and to each I offer respect for each conviction).

    The viewpoints I have found here have been not only an interesting read, but have helped me to understand why this issue is so controversial. I can now say I am officially dead-center on the fence with my opinion regarding abortion. I am not trying to “cop out,” but I can understand viewpoints and sympathize with both sides. I don’t mean to come across like I have my head in the sand and have never heard that abortion is controversial, but as mentioned, it isn’t something that affects my daily life. All religious connotations aside, I can appreciate the entries posted by “Anonymous” as they seem to be heart-felt for trying to save lives. The flip side of that coin, I can appreciate “Mellankelly1” et al for pointing out fact, and directing to resources for further concrete, scientific information.

    After having researched several sources, one simple (albeit, not simplistic) question seems to be the spark of this enormous controversy… With whom does the true “Right” reside… with the embryo/fetus/baby who is growing and trying to live, or the woman who should not have governmental entities tell her what she may or may not do with her body? Honestly, the only thing I can say about this subject is that I am glad I am a gay man.

    Again, I just wanted to offer thanks to all the participants for sharing her (or his) viewpoints!

    The best to you all!!

  • mellankelly1

     Honestly, the only thing I can say about this subject is that I am glad I am a gay man.

    Thank you for giving me my first (but hopefully not last) laugh of the day AGP!  I personally do not think that you are alone in your stance regarding abortion.  It appears as if most people who feel "passionately" about this subject have either experienced it first hand (or have the ability to empathize with those of us who have) or have a strong belief, due to religious or spiritual convictions that a "person/baby/child" exists prior to birth.  I think that most people (including me) respect the personal opinions of those with whom they disagree.  However, I do not feel that one persons opinion/belief should deny another her reproductive freedom/rights.  Anyway… just my two cents…good luck with your report!

  • invalid-0

    During my second pregnancy, I was told that my child had a 25% chance of having Down Syndrome. I was asked if I wanted to receive further genetic counselling. I said no. However, I was booked in for an appointment anyways. So I went, and I took my 10 year old son with me. Among other things, I was asked to fill out a form that would indicate any genetic illness in my family. I myself have bipolar disorder. I noted on the form that I was pro-life and did not want to receive any counselling that would suggest abortion. When I met with the counsellor, she repeatedly asked me if I was Jewish or if I had any Jewish blood in my family. (I’m a Christian who takes communion, so I guess the answer to that question is yes, though I didn’t think of that at the time.) I repeatedly refused to consider amniocentesis or any other procedure that would put my child’s life in danger. The counsellor finally said in a huff, “Well, I guess there’s nothing we can do for you here.” Then she looked at my blonde-haired, blue-eyed son and stated, “Well, I guess he’s okay.” The literature I received pretty much recommended abortion for any genetic disorder, calling it “therapeutic” and referring to it as “interrupting” the pregnancy. This is evil at its worst. As one who has suffered greatly due to mental illness yet received healing, I can say that it is never a loving thing to kill a suffering human being. Caring for a person’s needs, making them feel welcome and loved, and bringing healing is loving. There is value in suffering – I know first hand. Please don’t be deceived otherwise. BTW – my daughter is now three, does not have Down Syndrome, and brings me great joy.

    • invalid-0

      >Then she looked at my blonde-haired, blue-eyed son

      hahahaha! it’s good they decided that your baby might be okay because your son was so… Aryan? wow.

  • mellankelly1

    I myself have bipolar disorder.  As one who has suffered greatly due to mental illness yet received healing, I can say that it is never a loving thing to kill a suffering human being

    First I would like to say how wonderful it is that you have received healing for your bipolar disorder and that you appear to have it under conrol.  I might also add that I think your outlook regarding those who suffer and the care they should receive is beautiful.  But I would be remiss if I did not add that your personal experience with mental illness and your attitude towards caring for those who may not be able to care for themselves are not indicitive of every person.  Sometimes the most loving thing a woman could do is "interrupt" her pregnancy with a "therapeutic" abortion; case in point… a woman found out that the fetus she was carrying had Tay-Sachs Disease ( and she and her husband (and their rabbi) consulted and decided that they could not bring a child into the world simply to have it suffer unimaginally and altimately die and decided to have a therapeutic abortion.  They believed that the spirit would eventually come to them in another child if it was meant to be (happy ending: they eventually had a little girl and she is perfectly happy and healthy).  This is why I feel that in the end, the decision of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy (for whatever reason) is between a woman, her loved ones and her doctor.

  • invalid-0

    Mellankelly1 – it’s great that the couple you mentioned were eventually blessed with a happy and healthy little girl. Thanks for the link with info about Tay-Sachs Disease – it was informative. I pray that researchers will be able to develop therapies and treatments to help curb the effects of the disease, and possibly even find a cure. The grief parents face when a child carries a genetic disorder is real – of course they want their children to be happy and healthy. May I point out that even when both parents are carriers, there is only a 25% chance the baby will have the disease. This means there is a 75% chance the baby will not be affected. Even if a child is born with the disease, her or his life is still a gift. Some people live a few minutes after birth, some a few months or years, some a few or several decades. Life is still a gift from the Creator. It is the right of the Creator to determine the beginning and end of life. I know not everyone believes this. I do believe that children who die in the womb, whether naturally, due to discrimination or for whatever reason, have hope of resurrection. This too is the Creator’s right, which no one can take away.

  • invalid-0

    It makes me very happy to see a leader FINALLY take a stance against this type of tax-funded deception. I recently had an abortion and my biggest fear the whole time I was trying to find a reputable doctor was ending up in one of these fake clinics disguised as a women’s health care center. I read some truly CRAZY stories from women in one of my pro-choice groups and I was so scared. It’s not right for women living in a free country to have to FEAR getting false information and intimidation when seeking medical care. Bravo, Menendez!

  • mellankelly1

    It happened when Dr. Joseph P. Bruner, director of fetal diagnosis and treatment at Vanderbilt University Medical Center was performing a cutting edge procedure on a 21 week old fetus.

    Why don't we ask Dr. Bruner what happened, shall we?

    "This photo has become an icon … Depending on your political point of view, this is either Samuel Armas reaching out of the uterus and touching the finger of a fellow human, or it's me pulling his hand out of the uterus … which is what I did." ~Dr. Joseph P. Bruner

    Both mother and fetus were drugged and would not have been able to move on their own and according to Dr. Tulipan, who closed the hole in Samuel's spine, at 21 weeks Samuel, “would have no ability to reach out and grab anything," – do you know why he said this?  Because it is a scientific fact.  When I posted the following on a previous comment:

    A neonate would no more move away from a needle than an office chair would.  No offense to newborns, I love them and have had three of them… but they lack the cognitive development required to acknowledge what a needle is, let alone make an effort to move away from it (and certainly a fetus would be lacking the same cognative developement).  That is a scientific fact

    I was posting a scientific fact that any lay person could research from credible medical sites.  It is not merely my opinion that a fetus would be incapable of sensing a needle (realizing what it was doing there), screaming and then moving away from it, it is a medical and scientific fact.  Why must you shoot the messenger?  Love the messenger, hate the message, right?

    • invalid-0


      If a left winger said the sky was poka dot, you’d believe it merely because it’s said by a left winger. Anyone can say they did a whole bunch of research to disclaim several reseachers that prove a fact. Several sites prove it did happen and you just show one to disprove it. The wool is covering your eyes. It did happen. By the way chicken little. The sky is falling! Go tell everyone. And while you’re at it let them know the sky is poka dot.

  • mellankelly1

    Michael Clancy is a photographer.  Dr. Joseph P. Bruner is a doctor.  Which one would you accept accurate medical information from… the guy who graduated from the University of NE College of Med with an MD and has been in the profession for 29 years or the guy who takes pictures? 

  • invalid-0

    Exactly, The video proves that first the hand is lose and not forming a gripo. Then in the next frame, the baby’s hand is grasping the doctor’s hand. IF the baby was under anithesia it would not have squeezed the doctor’s finger, but stayed open. If the doctor had been pushing the hand back in, he would not have had his finger like that, but on top of the baby’s hand, gently pushing it in.

  • invalid-0

    It’s about time that our legislators targeted these deceptive fake clinics! Women especially young, vulnerable and impressionable women need real information regarding their sexuality and birth control, as well as other reproductive services. Planned Parenthood is wonderful, and a REAL clinic, I went there when I was sexually active in college and they were professional and wonderful every time. Thanks to Planned Parenthood, I used birth control and never got pregnant, so I never needed an abortion. The fake CRC’s should be put right out of business, I wouldn’t even trust them with free STD tests, they are bound to lie to the girls and hope that the disease progresses in their bodies as punishment for sex. Thats what these CRC’s do, they want to curtail young women’s developing sex lives, try to force them to have kids that they don’t want and aren’t ready for, and fill their heads with all sorts of false consequences for having sex outside of marriage. I applaud Senator Menendez and others for their efforts to rid us of the scourge of these fake clinics, and encourage young women who have visited these fake clinics to tell their stories and inform their fellow students all about them!

  • mellankelly1

    Last I checked, my source for the dispute to the phony scenario was the doctor who performed the surgery, Dr. Joseph P. Bruner, not the vast left wing conspiracy to cover it up!  Thats crazy talk, although I did laugh a little at the chicken little comment.  Sorry… I'm not going to trust the word of anyone with an "agenda" – the explanation by the doctor who performed the surgery is quite good enough for me.  Now, if you don't believe in science or doctors, I can see where taking the word of a photographer or a right to life group would satisfy the burden of truth for you.  To each his/her own, right?

  • mellankelly1

    no sweetheart, it's another anonymous. Some people just choose not to reveal their name.

    Wow… thank you ever so much for the information, I was so confused!!!

  • invalid-0

    to back your statement up? C’mon,just one URL,skye. Or are you just talk and no action?

  • invalid-0

    this group of “anonymous”. I’ve seen messages from people on both sides. It’s not really all that hard to choose a screen name, I just use my email name.

  • invalid-0

    Breast cancer

    There is strong evidence linking abortion with breast cancer. A study of more than 1800 women appearing in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in 1994 found that overall, women who had aborions increased their risk of getting breast cancer before age 45 by 50%. For women under 18 with no previous pregnancies, having an abortion after the 8th week increased the risk of breast cancer by 800%. Women with a family history of breast cancer fared even worse. All 12 women participating in the study who had abortions before 18 and had a family history of breast cancer themselves got cancer before age 45.

    27 out of 34 independent studies conducted worldwide indicate a significant link between abortion and breast cancer.
    When was abortion first suspected as a cause?
    Dr. M. C. Pike, at the University of Southern California in l981, published the first serious scientific study that demonstrated a direct association of induced abortion with later breast cancer. He studied 163 women who developed breast cancer before age 33, and compared them with 272 controls. He showed that if a woman had aborted her first pregnancy, her chance for developing breast cancer was increased by a factor of 2.4 times. Pike MC, Henderson BE, Casagrande JT, Rosario I, Gray CE (1981) Brit. J. Cancer, 43:726.
    Give me other definitive studies.
    Certainly one of the definitive studies was by H. L. Howe. Her study was done in upstate New York using official statistics from the New York State Health Department. This was an excellent study by epidemiologic standards and was not subject to any kind of recall memory bias from people asked in questionnaires. It used only hard data. She investigated all the women in this area who developed breast cancer under age 40 and checked to see whether or not they had had abortions. The conclusion was that women who had aborted their first pregnancy had a 1.7 times increased risk of breast cancer. Those who had gone on to abort their second and/or third pregnancy had a 4.0 times increased risk. Howe HL, Senie RT, Bzduch H, Herzfeld P (1989) et al., Int. J. Epidemiol. 18:3004.
    Another was in Washington State: Few studies on this issue receive media attention. This went worldwide and broke the defacto embargo on reporting the abortionbreast cancer link. Janet Daling did a very professional study that could not be discounted. It found:
    – An induced abortion raises a woman’s chance of getting breast cancer before age 45 by 50%. If done before age 18, it increases 150%; if after age 30, it’s up 110%.
    – A woman with a family member with breast cancer who had her first abortion after 30 years increased her risk 270%.
    – All 12 women in the study with a family history of breast cancer, who aborted before age 18 — all 12 — got breast cancer before age 45. J. Daling, Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women, J. Nat. Ca. Inst., Vol. 86, No. 21, 11/2/94, pg. 1584
    Other studies done since then include: Greece: An overall increased risk of 51% was reported in women who had abortions, compared to those who did not. It involved 850 patients in Athens. L. Lipworth, Int. J. of Cancer, April ’95 U.S.A.:
    A statistically significant increased risk of 23% of breast cancer was shown to be attributable to induced abortion. For women over 60 years, the risk was 80%. P. Newcomb et al., Preg. Termination & Risk of Breast Cancer, JAMA 1/24/96, Vol. 275, No. 4, pg. 283
    For a thorough explanation of the Newcomb study above, see Natl. RTL News, 2/6/96, by J. Brind. Paris: “Having at least two abortions if associated with an increased breast cancer risk” of 2.1 times. N. Andrieu, Role of Genetic & Repro. Factors in Br. Ca., Genetic Spidem. 11 (3): 285, 1994
    There are, in addition, many competent studies done in the last 20 years which also confirm this linkage. See: Before You Choose, The Link Between Abortion & Breast Cancer; And: Legalized Abortion and the Sudden Increase of Breast Cancer, both by Scott Somerville, P.O. Box 159, Paeonian Springs, VA 22129.
    These are comprehensive analyses citing 74 studies.
    Has anyone investigated recurrences of previously treated breast cancer?
    Yes, Dr. H. Ownby did this in 1983. This was a study of women who had breast cancer that had been treated and gone into remission. Ownby studied how many of these developed a recurrence of their cancer. His research showed that among women who had carried their first pregnancy to term, 10% had a recurrence of their cancer within three years. Of those women who had aborted their first pregnancy 20% had a recurrence. Among those who had aborted their second and/or third pregnancy also, 30% had recurrences. H. Ownby, Interrupted Pregnancy Poor Prognosis . . . in Breast Cancer, 1983 Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 3:339344
    Fetal Development
    From conception to birth

    Illustration by R.K. O’Bannon Day 1: fertilization: all human chromosomes are present; unique human life begins.
    Click photo to enlarge.

    Day 6: embryo begins implantation in the uterus.
    Day 22: heart begins to beat with the child’s own blood, often a different type than the mothers’.
    Week 3: By the end of third week the child’s backbone spinal column and nervous system are forming. The liver, kidneys and intestines begin to take shape.
    Week 4: By the end of week four the child is ten thousand times larger than the fertilized egg.
    Week 5: Eyes, legs, and hands begin to develop.
    Week 6: Brain waves are detectable; mouth and lips are present; fingernails are forming.

    Week 7: Eyelids, and toes form, nose distinct. The baby is kicking and swimming.
    Week 8: Every organ is in place, bones begin to replace cartilage, and fingerprints begin to form. By the 8th week the baby can begin to hear.

    Click photo to enlarge

    Weeks 9 and 10: Teeth begin to form, fingernails develop. The baby can turn his head, and frown. The baby can hiccup.
    Weeks 10 and 11: The baby can “breathe” amniotic fluid and urinate. Week 11 the baby can grasp objects placed in its hand; all organ systems are functioning. The baby has a skeletal structure, nerves, and circulation.

    Week 12: The baby has all of the parts necessary to experience pain, including nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus. Vocal cords are complete. The baby can suck its thumb.
    Week 14: At this age, the heart pumps several quarts of blood through the body every day.

    Week 15: The baby has an adult’s taste buds.
    Month 4: Bone Marrow is now beginning to form. The heart is pumping 25 quarts of blood a day. By the end of month 4 the baby will be 8-10 inches in length and will weigh up to half a pound.
    Week 17: The baby can have dream (REM) sleep.
    Week 19: Babies can routinely be saved at 21 to 22 weeks after fertilization, and sometimes they can be saved even younger.

    Click photo to enlarge

    Week 20: The earliest stage at which Partial birth abortions are performed. At 20 weeks the baby recognizes its’ mothers voice.

    Click photo to enlarge Months 5 and 6: The baby practices breathing by inhaling amniotic fluid into its developing lungs. The baby will grasp at the umbilical cord when it feels it. Most mothers feel an increase in movement, kicking, and hiccups from the baby. Oil and sweat glands are now functioning. The baby is now twelve inches long or more, and weighs up to one and a half pounds.

    Months 7 through 9: Eyeteeth are present. The baby opens and closes his eyes. The baby is using four of the five senses (vision, hearing, taste, and touch.) He knows the difference between waking and sleeping, and can relate to the moods of the mother. The baby’s skin begins to thicken, and a layer of fat is produced and stored beneath the skin. Antibodies are built up, and the baby’s heart begins to pump 300 gallons of blood per day. Approximately one week before the birth the baby stops growing, and “drops” usually head down into the pelvic cavity.


    Sources Used:
    Bergel, Gary (Produced by NRLC) “When You Were Formed in Secret.” 1998.
    Flanagan, Geraldine Lux. Beginning Life. The Marvelous Journey from Conception to Birth. New York: DK Publishing Inc., 1996.
    Hopson, Janet L. Fetal Psychology. Oct. 1998. 07 Jan 2003.
    Internet Sources:
    “Fetal Development.” 07 Jan 2003.
    “When Does Life Begin? Abortion and Human Rights.” National Right To Life.

    Abortion’s Physical Complications

    NRLC Today

    Teens and Abortion

    Planned Parenthood

    Abortion in the U.S.

    Reasons & Arguments for Abortion

    Economic Impact of Abortion

    Abortion Techniques


    Stem Cell Research

    The Basics

    Pain of the Unborn
    National Right to Life

    Fast Facts
    Things every pro-lifer needs to know to help save lives.
    ince 1973, the heartbeats of more than 47 million unborn babies
    have been silenced by “safe, legal” abortion. That’s more than
    all of the combined casualties of every major war in which the
    United States has been involved.
    Step by step, we are winning the battle and stemming the
    tide. As long as there are men and women armed with the facts and
    dedicated to the cause of life, we will be successful in returning
    legal protection to unborn children.
    Since 1973 there have been more
    than 47 million abortions.
    The annual number of abortions has
    nearly doubled since Roe v. Wade,
    from 744,6000 to 1,313,300 for 2000.
    For every 1000 live births, there
    are 306 abortions.
    There are more than 140,000 second
    and third trimester abortions each
    After reaching a high of over 1.6 million in 1990, the number of
    abortions annually performed in the United States has begun to
    drop back to levels not seen since the late 1970s. Thanks to the
    efforts of grassroots pro-life activists, more and more Americans
    have learned that abortion is not about a “blob of tissue,” and
    that these children are more than just statistics. Pro-life
    education has taught America that Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.
    Abortion Stops a Beating Heart
    Developmental Milestones
    Day 1 -Fertilization! All human
    chromosomes are present and a
    unique human life begins.
    Day 22 -The baby’s heart begins to
    beat with the child’s own blood —
    often a different blood type than
    the mother.
    Week 6 -At this stage, brain waves
    can be detected. The child’s mouth
    and lips are present and fingers
    are forming.
    Week 8 -At this stage, every organ
    is in place. Bones and unique
    fingerprints begin to form.
    Week 17 -The baby can now have
    dream (REM) sleep.
    Abortion Statistics:
    Not Just Numbers
    Some years ago Dr. Dianne Irving decided to review the scientific literature to assess the various arguments as to when human life began. She was quite taken aback to find that there was really no disputation in the scientific community at all as to when human life began. They all agreed and had agreed for decades that human life began at conception!

    “The real issue in cloning concerns its immediate product. Although cloning and fertilization are different processes of human reproduction, the immediate product of both processes is the same!.4 It might surprise many that there has been an unaltered scientific consensus for half a century that a real, already existing, live, whole human being begins as a human embryo (or zygote) immediately at fertilization. This is a scientific fact – not an “opinion”, or a religious or theological belief. And public policy debates and decision making should not continue to escape that unavoidable scientific fact. The same is true for cloning. The immediate product of cloning is physically the same – an already existing human being in embryo form. (1)

    The media have focused the statements of a few scientists who aren’t even in the field of embryology and who have equivocated on this issue but have not taken a serious look at the extensive literature by those actually in that field. Dr. Dianne Irving notes in her paper discussing the clear and unanimous consensus of the embryologists that human life begins at conception:

    The question as to when the physical material dimension of a human being begins via sexual reproduction is strictly a scientific question, and fundamentally should be answered by human embryologists–not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists. (2)

    The consensus of which she speaks was highlighted in Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearings back in 1981. They called in the best experts from around the world to brief them on what the scientific community knew about the question, “When does human life begin?” They were unanimous in agreeing that human life undeniably begins at conception:

    Appearing to speak on behalf of the scientific community was a group of internationally-known geneticists and biologists who had the same story to tell, namely, that human life begins at conception – and they told their story with a profound absence of opposing testimony. Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception.

    * “Father of Modern Genetics” Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers: “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion … it is plain experimental evidence.”

    * Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

    * Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded, “I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty … is not a human being.”

    * Dr. Richard V. Jaynes: “To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous.”

    * Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the “Father of In Vitro Fertilization” notes, “Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind.” And on the Supreme Court ruling _Roe v. Wade_, “To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion.”

    * Professor Eugene Diamond: “…either the justices were fed a backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty.” (3)


    1. 1. Cloning: When Word Games Kill
    Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.

    2. When do human beings (normally) begin?
    “scientific” myths and scientific facts
    Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.

    3. When does life begin?
    Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearings, April 23-24, 1981

    P.S. Respectful visitors are welcome to visit us at the Catholic Community Forum to discuss this and other issues further.

    Anthony P. Levatino, M.D., J.D.
    5406 Remington Rd.
    Las Cruces, N.M. 88011
    March 4, 2003
    Mr. Douglas Johnson
    Legislative Director
    National Right to Life
    S12-10th Street Northwest
    Washington, DC 20004
    Mr. Johnson:
    I am a board-certified obstetrician/gynecologist and a Fellow of the American
    College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. I perfomled both first and second trimester
    abortions from 1977 until 1985 including D&E abortions up to twenty-two weeks
    gestation. I was Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Albany Medical
    College from June 1993 to September 2000 during which time I served as both Residency
    Program Director and Medical Student Education Director. I also served as the ACOG
    District II, Section IX Vice Chaimlan from 1995 unti11998. Currently I am engaged in
    the private practice of obstetrics and gynecology in New Mexico. My resume is attached.
    The partial-birth abortion illustrations that I have forwarded to you were painted
    by Mrs. Tanja Butler who is currently a professor of art at Gordon College in
    Massachusetts. They were prepared under my supervision and, in my professional
    judgment, they accurately depict the D&X abortion described by Dr. Martin Haskell in
    his 1992 paper entitled “Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion”.
    This type of late-term abortion later came to be known by the legal term of art “partialbirth
    abortion” because of its similarity to full-term delivery of infants in breech position.
    The images are size-appropriate to a fetus of approximately 24 weeks gestation. This is a
    typical gestational age for partial-birth abortion although many of these procedures are
    performed at even later gestational ages.
    Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions
    Very truly yours,
    Anthony Levatino, MD, ill
    Watson A. Bowes, Jr, M.D.
    211 Huntington Drive
    Chapel Bill, NC 27514
    Phone (Fax) 919-929-3323 e 1-,”1,r) “,”sl(-I\r o~ket’.ll -~jl corn .
    ,,\ ,\, I;” \;;- 10; , ,- .
    March 6, 2003
    Douglas Johnson
    Legislative Director
    National Right to Life Committee
    512 lOth Street NW
    Washington, DC 20004
    Dear Mr. Johnson:
    I served as a full-time faculty member in Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of
    Colorado Health Sciences Center until 1982 and thereafter at the University North
    Carolina unti11999. I am certified in Obstetrics and Gynecology and in Maternal-Fetal
    Medicine by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology .My major academic
    interests were preterm birth, high-risk obstetrics and all aspects of labor and delivery .I
    am a Fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and I served on
    the Committee on Ethics including two years as the Chair of the committee. Currently I
    am Co-Editor-in-Chief of The Obstetrica/ & Gynec%gica/ Survey, a journal with wide
    distribution among American and foreign obstetrician/gynecologists.
    I have reviewed the illustrations of the partial birth abortion procedure painted by Mrs.
    Tanja Bulter. Based on my 37 years of experience in clinical obstetrics, during which
    time I performed many deliveries of premature infants, I can testify that these illustrations
    accurately depict a fetus of approximately 24 weeks gestation and the anatomical and
    spatial relationships are accurate. Also, I believe these illustrations accurately depict the
    method of abortion described by Dr. Haskell in his presentation entitled “Dilatation and
    Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion,” at the National Abortion Federation
    Risk Management Seminar in September 1992.
    ~~:: :e~:’i
    Emeritus Professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology
    University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

    Black-and-White Drawing of Final Stage of a Partial-Birth Abortion
    Click here to see a line drawing of the final stage of the partial-birth abortion procedure. Click here to see a letter from eminent medical authority Watson Bowes, M.D., affirming that this drawing accurately depicts the final stage of a partial-birth abortion on “a fetus of approximately 24-26 weeks gestation.” (PDF document)

    Watson A. Bowes, Jr, M.D
    211 Huntington Drive
    Chapel Hill, NC 27514
    Phone (Fax) 919-929-3323
    e-.m::’a il .T,’.’L.C”,)1,V,”p,s”;(-.”-,i,r-o,”c, I’Q tlllall.corn
    March 6, 2003
    Douglas Johnson
    Legislative Director
    National Right to Life Committee
    51210thStreetNW ~
    DC 2 0004 _iC,;j
    L~ ~!ii’.{‘.
    DearMr. Johnson
    I served as a full-time faculty member in Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of
    Colorado Health Sciences Center until 1982 and thereafter at the University North
    Carolina until 1999 .I am certified in Obstetrics and Gynecology and in Matemal-Fetal
    Medicine by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology .My major academic
    interests were preterm birth, high-risk obstetrics and all aspects of labor and delivery .I
    am a Fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and I served on
    the Committee on Ethics including two years as the Chair of the committee. Currently I
    am Co-Editor-in-Chief of The Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey, a journal with wide
    distribution among American and foreign obstetrician/gynecologists.
    I have reviewed the illustration of the partial birth abortion procedure that is found on the
    web site, Based on my 37 years of
    experience in clinical Obstetrics, during which time I performed many deliveries of
    premature infants, I can testify that this illustration accurately depict a fetus of
    approximately 24-26 weeks gestation and the anatomical and spatial relationships are
    accurate. Also, I believe the illustration accurately depicts one of the steps in the method
    of abortion described by Dr. Haskell in his presentation entitled “Dilatation and
    Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion,” at the National Abortion Federation
    Risk Management Seminar in September 1992.
    Emeritus Professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology
    University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

    About “Dilation and Evacuation” (D&E) Dismemberment Abortions
    At the same developmental stage at which most partial-birth abortions are performed — in the fifth and sixth months — many unborn children are killed with a different abortion method called “dilation and evacuation” (“D&E”). It also is very brutal and painful to the unborn child, as depicted in a series of illustrations produced by a professional medical art firm.

    Copyright Ó 2003 Nucleus Medical Art, all rights reserved.
    To go to the main list of resources on partial-birth abortion, click here.
    To go to the list of information on medical issues pertaining to partial-birth abortion, click here.
    To go to the list of information on the pain inflicted on the unborn child, click here.

    The Pain of the Unborn Child

    National Right to Life Statement on U.S. House Vote on Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act — December 6, 2006
    Statement of Administration Policy on the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (H.R. 6099) — December 6, 2006
    (To view or download PDF version, click here.)
    NRLC Update: U.S. House to vote on Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act on December 6, 2006 — Update issued December 1, 2006
    NRLC letter to U.S. House members regarding upcoming vote on Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (H.R. 6099). — November 27, 2006
    Revised version of Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (H.R. 6099) — September 19, 2006
    (PDF file)
    NRLC Rebuttal to Pro-Abortion Paper on the Pain of Unborn Humans — August 25, 2005
    “Fetal-Pain Study Omits an Abortion-Rights Link” — August 24, 2005
    Some of the Methods Used

    To see medical illustrations of a “dilation and evacuation” (D&E) abortion, a method often used during the second trimester, click here.

    To see medically accurate illustrations of the partial-birth abortion method, usually used during the fifth and sixth months (and sometimes later), click here.

    NARAL statement on Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act — January, 2005
    Factsheet: Pain of the Unborn: What Does An Unborn Child Feel During an Abortion? –September 15, 2004
    (PDF file — requires free Adobe Acrobat Reader)
    NRLC cites federal court findings to urge cosponsorship of Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act — September 1, 2004
    Statement by Senator Sam Brownback (R-Ks.) on introduction of the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (S. 2466) — May 20, 2004
    Statement by Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) on introduction of the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (H.R. 4420) –May 20, 2004
    Report of Dr. Kanwaljeet S. Anand, expert on fetal pain, to U.S. federal court reviewing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act — January 15, 2004
    (PDF file — requires free Adobe Acrobat Reader)
    Memo from NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson to science and medicine editors/reporters on “medical pseudo-science that endangers women and their babies” (the anesthesia-kills-babies myth) — January 2, 1996
    (PDF document — requires free Adobe Acrobat Reader)

    Members of Congress Propagate the “Anesthesia Myth” (NRLC quotesheet, early 1996)
    (PDF document)
    “Leading doc tells Congress pro-choicers ‘misinformed’,” New York Post — March 22, 1996
    (PDF document)
    Statement of Norig Ellison, M.D., president, American Society of Anesthesiologists — March 21, 1996
    (PDF file)

    Statement of David J. Birnbach, M.D., president-elect of the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology — March 21, 1996
    (PDF document)

    Statement of Jean A. Wright, M.D., associate professor of pediatrics and anesthesia, Emory University School of Medicine, on the capacity of unborn children to feel pain during a partial-birth abortion. — March 21, 1996
    (PDF document)

    Statement of David H. Chestnut, M.D., professor of anesthesiology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, on the effects of anesthesia on an unborn child — March 21, 1996
    (PDF document)

    Documents preparatory to March 21, 1996 hearing in House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee on “Fetal Death or Dangerous Deception? The Effects of Anesthesia During a Partial-Birth Abortion.” Letter from subcommittee chairman Charles Canady (R-Fl.) about lack of medical experts willing to defend claims of pro-abortion groups; letter from NARAL President Kate Michelman declining to testify; witness list for the hearing. — March, 1996
    (PDF document)
    “Anesthesiologists Question Claims in Abortion Debate.” American Medical News — January 1, 1996
    (PDF document)
    Revealing exchange between Norig Ellison, M.D., president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, and Mary Campbell, M.D., medical director of Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, regarding whether anesthesia causes fetal death — November 17, 1995
    (PDF document)
    Testimony of Norig Ellison, M.D., president, American Society of Anesthesiologists, before the Senate Judiciary Committee — November 17, 1995
    (PDF document — requires Adobe Acrobat Reader)
    Partial-birth abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell addresses the fetal pain issue in 1993 interview with Cincinnati Medicine (“it’s a lot like pets”) (PDF file)
    HomeIssue Info Stay Informed Special Events Legislation About Us


    Health Care Reform


    Human Cloning





    By Douglas Johnson
    Legislative Director
    National Right to Life Committee (NRLC)
    (202) 626-8820
    November 5, 2003
    For the latest updates on the partial-birth abortion issue,
    keep an eye on
    WASHINGTON, D.C. — When President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (S. 3) into law on November 5, 2003, pro-lifers saw the culmination of an eight-year struggle led by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) and congressional pro-life leaders
    The bill represents the first direct national restriction on any method of abortion since the Supreme Court legalized abortion on demand in 1973.
    A Gallup-CNN-USA Today poll conducted in late October found that among “young adults” (age 18-29), the ban is favored 77-19%, while among the older groups, support was 68-25%. A Gallup poll conducted last January, which specified that the method is “conducted in the last six months of pregnancy,” and has a life-of-mother exception, found 70% for a ban.

    Past polls of obstetrician-gynecologists and registered nurses found strong majorities of both groups in favor of making partial-birth abortion illegal (documentation below).
    The bill bans “partial-birth abortion,” and it legally defines a partial-birth abortion as any abortion in which the baby is delivered “past the [baby’s] navel . . . outside the body of the mother,” OR “in the case of head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother,” BEFORE being killed. The complete official text of the bill being signed by President Bush, in a searchable format, is here:
    The bill would allow the method if it was ever necessary to save a mother’s life. Such an exception has been part of the legislation since it was first introduced in 1995. Nevertheless, it is still not uncommon to see news reports that the bill would “never” allow the procedure, or to say flat out that it does not contain an exception to save a mother’s life. CBS Evening News, for example, has made this error repeatedly over the years. An October 21, 2003, CBS Evening News report suggested twice that the bill would “never” allow a “late-term abortion,” a compound fallacy.
    “Partial-birth abortion” is a legal term of art, defined by Congress as a matter of federal law, as quoted above.
    Although supporters and opponents of the new law differ dramatically in their perceptions of what methods the law covers (as discussed below), neither side believes that the legal definition of “partial-birth abortion” is synonymous with the shifting and conflicting descriptions attached in various literature to such pseudo-medical jargon terms as “dilation and extraction,” “intact dilation and evacuation,” or “intact dilation and extraction.”
    In short, it is simply inaccurate for journalists to equate the legal term “partial-birth abortion” with these nebulous jargon terms.
    Sometimes reporters say that “doctors call the procedure . . .,” followed by one of the three conflicting jargon terms listed above. But many doctors — probably, most doctors — actually call it “partial-birth abortion.” The term “partial-birth abortion” has been recognized and used by many eminent medical authorities for years, including former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, and hundreds of prominent obstetricians and gynecologists who have expressed support for the bill.
    The Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, utilized by major medical websites such as those sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, the National Library of Medicine, and Harvard Medical School, lists a definition for “partial-birth abortion,” but not the pseudo-medical jargon terms coined by abortion providers and used by many opponents of the bill. Check it out:
    In short, besides being a legal term of art, “partial-birth abortion” is as much a “medical term” as “heart attack” (which both journalists and others usually use in preference to “myocardial infarction”).
    Another thing that both sides agree on is that it is inaccurate to report, as CBS Evening News has done repeatedly, that the bill is a “late-term abortion ban.” It is a ban not of “late-term abortion” but of a defined method — and the legal definition of that method has never referred to a point in “term,” but rather, to the location of the living baby when he or she is killed. (See “Is It Misleading to Call it Partial ‘Birth’?,” below.)
    In reality, partial-birth abortion cannot be performed in the first three months, and most are performed in the fifth and sixth months. So, then, are partial-birth abortions “late-term” abortions? The question is impossible to answer, because the label “late-term” has no standard legal or medical meaning, and is used in wildly different ways. Pro-abortion groups exploit this ambiguity — they use the label “late-term” as code for “third-trimester,” meaning the seventh month and later — a period that begins roughly three weeks AFTER babies typically attain the lung development sufficient to survive indefinitely outside the womb (so-called “viability”).
    When journalists describe the bill as a “ban on late-term abortions” or “certain late-term abortions,” they introduce an element of ambiguity or outright distortion into everything else they say about the matter, because many readers may understand the label as referring to third-trimester abortions, while many others will regard abortions in the fifth and sixth months as “late-term abortions” too.
    Consider the medical illustrations used this year during the House and Senate floor debates, which accurately depict a typical partial-birth abortion of a baby at 24 weeks (five and one-half months). Here is a proposed experiment for journalists: Show one of these illustrations to the first 10 people you meet on the street, explain that it shows “an abortion,” and ask if they think it looks like a “late-term” abortion. We predict that most will reply in the affirmative. Yet, what the illustration shows is not, in the usage of NARAL and Planned Parenthood, a “late-term” (third-trimester) abortion. The term “third trimester” is used to refer to points as early as the start of the 25th week and as late as the start of the 27th week.
    Since 1995, NRLC has stressed that most partial-birth abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth months (although some have been performed later, and not always in cases of serious physical disorder of mother or baby). See NRLC’s first media factsheet on the issue, dated June 21, 1995:
    Some critics of the bill argue that the term “partial-birth” is misleading because, they insist, it connotes that the typical partial-birth abortion is performed near or at full term (40 weeks, or nine months). For example, Will Saletan asserts in an essay in Slate (“The ‘Partial-Birth’ Myth,” Oct. 22, 2003) that the name is misleading because “this procedure doesn’t take place anywhere near the appointed hour of birth.”
    “The appointed hour of birth” is neither a “medical term” NOR a legal term of art. The objection is based on the premise that “birth” occurs only at or near full term — or, in some variants, that “birth” occurs only after “viability.” (Viability begins soon after the start of the sixth month.) But this premise is profoundly erroneous, in either form.
    In federal (and most state) law, a “live BIRTH” occurs when the baby is (1) all the way outside the mother, even if the cord is still attached, and (2) displays any respiration, heartbeat, or movement of voluntary muscles. See the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection law enacted in 2002:
    Most partial-birth abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy. Even early in the fifth month, babies who are expelled by premature labor will often be born alive. At that stage the baby’s lungs are too undeveloped to permit sustained survival, but if the baby draws breath it is a LIVE BIRTH.
    Medically and certainly legally, “live BIRTH” is an entirely different concept from “viability” (which relates mainly to lung development and the capacity for sustained respiration). The “live birth period” begins long before “viability.” Even under the doctrine of Roe v. Wade, once outside the mother, a human who shows any signs of life is a “person” protected by law and the Constitution, whether he or she lives for five minutes or 100 years.
    By 20 weeks (halfway through the fifth month), the LIVE BORN baby may breathe for an hour or so before dying. By 23 weeks (just into the sixth month), ONE-THIRD survive long term — but you will never find out whether a given baby would have been part of the one-third, after her skull is punctured and brain removed in a partial-birth abortion.
    By 24 weeks (about halfway through the sixth month), more than HALF are long-term survivors.
    Thus, at the stages that most partial-birth abortions are performed, the great majority of babies would be “live births” if they were expelled by spontaneous premature labor, and many would be long-term survivors.
    In other words, in a partial-birth abortion, a premature human is deliberately pulled to within just a few inches of being, medically and legally, a LIVE BIRTH — so this method is indeed a PARTIAL LIVE BIRTH — or ‘partial-birth,’ for short.
    President Bush spoke the painful, literal, legal truth on November 5, 2003, when he said, “For years, a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth…”
    [NOTE: Legally, there is NO SUCH THING as a “fetus” who is all the way outside the mother and alive. Under federal law (and most state law), even if pre-viable, this is a pre-mature “infant,” and also a “person,” a “human being,” and a “child.”
    Figures from abortion-industry groups have ranged from 2,200 for the year 2000 (from The Alan Guttmacher Institute [AGI], which is affiliated with the Planned Parenthood Federation of America [PPFA], a major abortion provider) to 3,000-5,000 (in 1997, by Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, although each of these figures was based on definitions somewhat different from that contained in the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
    The AGI figure is clearly a bare minimum. Responses to AGI’s periodic surveys are purely voluntary. It is hard to understand why any abortionist would report that he was performing such abortions if he was not, but easy to imagine that many would throw the survey in the wastebasket. (An earlier AGI survey, using the same methodology, claimed that only 650 such abortions were performed in 1996 — an absurd claim, but nevertheless was accepted as authoritative by The New York Times and other news media for years. It appears that AGI is now trying to “forget” that it ever made this claim — see the exchange of letters in the Washington Times here:
    In the case of Stenberg v. Carhart in 2000, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska law banning partial-birth abortions, holding that Roe v. Wade guarantees the right of an abortionist to use the method whenever he thinks it is preferable to other methods. The five-justice majority opinion, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, took pains to clarify that it did NOT intend to limit this doctrine to cases in which there was a pre-existing maternal or fetal health problem, but to ANY case in which a woman sought an abortion from Dr. Carhart in the second trimester.
    Congress has now invited the five-justice majority to re-examine that extreme and inhumane decision. The new bill contains extensive congressional findings, based on years of congressional staff investigations and hearings, that partial-birth abortion is unnecessary to preserve “health,” and indeed poses intrinsic risks even over and above other abortion methods. In addition, the definition of “partial-birth abortion” is more detailed and explicit than the definition found in the Nebraska law that the five justices struck down in 2000.
    As noted, the “health” issue is addressed in the bill itself, in lengthy congressional findings. Beyond that, many of the claims of medical “necessity” for partial-birth abortion, on closer examination, turn out to involve not any bona fide risk to a mother’s physical health, but rather, a diagnosis that the baby has Down syndrome or some other disorder that cannot be cured. The word “health,” in most of these cases, is really a euphemism for pre-natal euthanasia. For further discussion, see
    Some of the women who have figured most prominently in attacks on the bill, such as Viki Wilson of California, clearly did not have abortions that would be covered by the bill — even under the interpretation, which is erroneous, that the bill covers dismemberment procedures (D&E).
    The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was introduced by Congressman Charles Canady (R-Fl.) on June 14, 1995. The bill was developed in collaboration with NRLC. The current chief sponsors are Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Congressman Steve Chabot (R-Ohio).
    The House first passed the bill on November 1, 1995, 288-139. The Senate first passed the bill on December 7, 1995, 54-44. In the 104th and 105th congresses, Congress approved the ban but President Clinton vetoed the bills; in both of those congresses, the House overrode but the Senate sustained. In the 106th Congress, both the House and Senate passed similar bills, but no final bill was approved. In the 107th Congress (2002), the House passed the ban, but the Senate Democratic leadership blocked it from coming to the Senate floor. This year, the bill won final approval in the House approval in the House on October 2, 281-142, and in the Senate on October 21, 64-34.
    The debate over partial-birth abortion began in 1992 with the circulation of an instruction paper written by Ohio abortionist Martin Haskell, explaining how to perform the procedure. The paper is posted here.
    In the ensuing years, there have been several key turning points in the debate, which are documented in the NRLC chronological archive on partial-birth abortion, here:
    The turning points include:
    — the eyewitness account of Brenda Pratt Shafer, a nurse who was “very strongly pro-choice” until she witnessed a partial-birth abortion close up.
    — emphatic repudiation by the two major societies of anesthesiologists of the claim — disseminated by major pro-abortion groups and accepted as fact by major journalists — that anesthesia given to the mother causes painless death of the unborn child before a partial-birth abortion is performed. In congressional testimony, medical experts testified that by the late second trimester, the unborn child is very responsive to painful stimuli, and that this is not much affected by anesthesia given only to the mother.
    — the unraveling of the manufactured claim that partial-birth abortions are performed only hundreds of times a year and only, or nearly only, in medically acute circumstances. This claim had been energetically promulgated by NARAL, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the National Abortion Federation, and other major pro-abortion groups — often in the same press releases and factsheets that complained that the bill applied to abortions performed before “viability.” But the disinformation campaign collapsed between September 1996 and February 1997, due to investigations by various journalists — including writers for American Medical News, the Washington Post, Bergen Record, and PBS.
    — the decision, in February 1997, by Ron Fitzsimmons — then and now the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers — to repudiate what he called “the party line.” Fitzsimmons estimated that the method was used 3,000-5,000 times annually, and “in the vast majority of cases” on “a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along” (New York Times, Feb. 26, 1997). Subsequently, other spokespersons for major abortion providers publicly defended Fitzsimmons and affirmed the accuracy of his statements.
    — The June 2000 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart (discussed above).
    In the wake of the revelations described above, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee held an unusual joint hearing on March 11, 1997, at which NRLC presented testimony that documented in detail the disinformation campaign that had been waged against the bill.
    What new evidence has come to light since 1997 only reinforces the conclusion that some practitioners use the method routinely during the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy, and even later, and that the vast majority of partial-birth abortions do not involve any acute medical circumstances. For example, Kansas became the only state to enact a law that requires reporting of partial-birth abortions separately from other abortion methods. The first full year the law was in effect (1999), Kansas abortionists reported that they performed 182 partial-birth abortions on babies who were defined by the abortionists themselves as “viable,” and they also reported that all 182 of these were performed for “mental” (as opposed to “physical”) health reasons. See the compilation here.
    Nevertheless, in recent months, NRLC has witnessed attempts to revive erroneous claims about partial-birth abortion that were thoroughly discredited in 1996 and 1997. Articles and broadcasts in major media outlets, including the Boston Globe and the Wall Street Journal, have adopted the premise the partial-birth abortions are nearly always performed to deal with serious physical disorders of mother and/or baby.
    In January 1997, the PBS documentary program MEDIA MATTERS devoted a major segment to an examination of how much of the news media had uncritically adopted as fact assertions that were highly disputed from the beginning, and that were disproved when belatedly subjected to journalistic scrutiny. The transcript is here:
    One of the journalists interviewed in the MEDIA MATTERS program was Washington Post medical writer David Brown, M.D. After interviewing numerous abortionists, Dr. Brown wrote, “[I]n most cases where the procedure is used, the physical health of the woman whose pregnancy is being terminated is not in jeopardy.” He also said, “Most people who got this procedure were really not very different from most people who got abortions.”
    After all that, can the pro-abortion advocacy groups revive the myth? It looks like they’re trying. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), in a September 17, 2003 press release, asserted that the bill would “outlaw a medical procedure used primarily in emergency abortions.”
    If they fool you twice, shame on you.
    It has been erroneously reported in recent months by Gannett News Service that the current Supreme Court is divided 5-to-4 on legal abortion. In reality, six current Supreme Court justices have clearly expressed support for legal abortion for any reason to “viability,” and for “health” even after that. For an explanation of what the term “health” means in the context of abortion law, by Washington Post medical writer Dr. David Brown, here:
    However, the 2000 ruling that struck down Nebraska’s ban on the partial-birth abortion method was a 5-4 ruling, since Justice Kennedy — a supporter of Roe — voted to uphold the Nebraska ban on the partial-birth abortion method.
    Another misconception: Gannett New Service and some others also continue to misreport that the Supreme Court allows greater restrictions on abortion after the first three months. The Supreme Court majority explicitly repudiated any such “trimester” distinction in the 1992 Casey ruling. For further discussion of these two misconceptions about the Supreme Court, see:
    In legal documents filed in federal court in Nebraska on October 31, several abortionist argue (through the attorneys of the Center for Reproductive Rights) that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act does not distinguish between dismemberment procedures (“dilation and evacuation”) that involve dismemberment of the baby inside the woman’s body, and the “extraction” (partial-birth) procedures in which the baby is killed after being partly delivered outside the woman’s body. They insist that the definition in the bill could apply to the dismemberment procedures, because they say are not sure what the words “living fetus” mean, and because fetuses take some time to die in the womb even after their arms or legs have been torn off.
    The lawmakers who crafted the bill dispute that it covers such inside-the-body killing procedures. In order for readers or viewers to evaluate these conflicting claims, it certainly is important for them to be provided with the actual DEFINITION of “partial-birth abortion” from the bill. But since radically different interpretations are being placed on that definition, in order to really understand what the argument is about, readers or viewers need to SEE illustrations — certified by medical authorities as entirely accurate — of the two different abortion methods that are under discussion.
    With respect to partial-birth abortion, the color illustrations displayed repeatedly on the floor of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House are posted and downloaded here:
    We have the rights to use these illustrations and we have placed them in the public domain for non-commercial use. No further permissions are required to legitimate news media to reproduce any or all of them for non-commercial purposes, as long as none of the images are altered (other than enlargement or reduction in overall size).
    At the bottom of the same website page, you will find letters from medical authorities (including the eminent Professor Watson Bowes, co-editor of the Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey, a leading journal), certifying that these drawings accurately depict a partial-birth abortion (as defined in the bill) at 24 weeks, which is about 5-1/2 months. Most partial-birth abortions are performed in the 18 to 26 week range, so this depicts such an abortion in the typical time period when they are performed.
    With respect to the second method, the “dilation and evacuation” or “D&E” method, which some pro-abortion groups insist is also covered by the bill, the medical illustration firm Nucleus Medical Art offers a standard textbook illustration, which we have purchased a license to display on our website. It depicts an unborn child being dismembered at 23 weeks.
    In a very unbalanced article in that appeared in the Boston Globe on October 28, reporter Carol Cruzan Morton noted that the bill contains congressional findings that the banned method is “risky and medically unjustified,” but she immediately asserted, in the Globe’s own voice, that these are “claims that most doctors dispute.” No poll of doctors or other authority was cited to support this assertion, nor has any been provided by the Globe in response to subsequent requests.
    The only poll of physicians on the subject we have seen was conducted by Medical Economics and published in October, 2002, asking the question, “Should the procedure that’s often called ‘partial-birth abortion’ remain legal?” Among all physicians, only 27% were for keeping the method legal, while 44% said it should not be legal (a plurality), and 28% weren’t sure. Among the obstretrician-gynecologists, however, there was a clear majority of 57% for the ban, and only 33% for keeping the method legal. Medical Economics Senior Editor Dorothy L. Pennachio wrote that among various medical specialties, “Ob/gyns are least likely to be on the fence — only 10 percent say they’re not sure; they’re also most likely (57 percent) to believe the procedure should be outlawed.” See:

    A 1999 random sample of 2,000 hospital-based registered nurses by RN magazine found that 63% favored a ban on partial-birth abortion.


    Some opponents of the bill have recently objected to some terms used by supporters, including “premature infant,” “child,” “kill,” and “abortionist.” However, each of these terms has been acknowledged and used as well by practitioners of partial-birth abortion and their defenders.

    “Premature infant” is accurate. As explained above, the method is usually used in the fifth and sixth months (sometimes later). Even at the start of the fifth month, if a woman goes into spontaneous labor, her baby often will be a live birth. Babies born starting just after the start of the sixth month now very often survive indefinitely. The usage occasionally seen in the news media, “a fetus who survived an abortion,” is a medical and legal oxymoron. A member of the species Homo sapiens who has been entirely expelled from the mother and who is alive is a premature “infant” — and, under federal law, an “child” and a “person.”
    As to “child,” even the inventor of the partial-birth abortion method, the late physician James McMahon, told American Medical News, “After 20 weeks [4-½ months] where it frankly is a child to me, I really agonize over it. … On the other hand, I have another position, which I think is superior in the hierarchy of questions, and that is: ‘Who owns the child?’ It’s got to be the mother.” The article is here:
    There are numerous examples of pro-abortion advocates acknowledging what should be obvious: Abortion “kills” a developing human. For example, Faye Wattleton, former president of Planned Parenthood, said in 1997, “I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don’t know that abortion is killing.” Regarding partial-birth abortion specifically, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, Ron Fitzsimmons, told The New York Times, “It is a form of killing. You’re ending a life.”
    As to the term “abortionist”: At the very first congressional hearing on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act on June 15, 1995, Dr. J. Courtland Robinson, professor of ob-gyn at Johns Hopkins, testifying on behalf of the National Abortion Federation against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, repeatedly identified himself as an “abortionist,” and even as a “Christian abortionist.” [Hearing Record, 104th Congress, First Session, June 15, 1995, Serial No. 31, at pages 86-87.] If the term was good enough for the lead witness for the National Abortion Federation, it is good enough for us.
    At an October 28 press conference, President Bush was asked, “Do you believe that the climate has changed since the last campaign and all abortions should be banned?” The President’s accurate answer, and NRLC’s comment on his answer, are here:
    The U.S. House of Representatives passed, in the last Congress, four major pro-life bills other than the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, all of which died without action in the U.S. Senate, which was then under Democratic control. NRLC hopes that the U.S. Senate will take up each of these measures during the current Congress. They are:
    — The next major pro-life bill likely to come up in the Senate is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (S. 1019, H.R. 1997), also known as “Laci and Conner’s Law.” This is a bill to recognize an unborn child as a victim when he or she is injured or killed during the commission of a federal crime of violence. NRLC believes that such crimes have two victims.
    — The Child Custody Protection Act (S. 851, H.R. 1755) would make it a federal offense to take a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion, if this abridges the right of a parent, under the home-state law, to be involved in her abortion decision.
    — The Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (S. 1397) would prohibit state or local government officials from using government power to compel health care providers to participate in abortion.
    — The Human Cloning Prohibition Act (S. 245, H.R. 534) would prohibit the creation of cloned human embryos. The House passed this legislation in the current Congress on February 27, 241-155.
    NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson debated Center for Reproductive Rights President Nancy Northup regarding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act on National Public Radio’s “Diane Rehm Show,” October 29, 2003 (requires RealPlayer):
    Johnson debated Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) President Gloria Feldt on June 10, 2003, on the Public Radio International program “To The Point,”
    (requires RealPlayer)
    For further information on partial-birth abortion, or to arrange interviews or broadcast debates, call (202) 626-8820 or send e-mail to
    Click HERE to return to the main Partial-Birth Abortion page.
    Click on the animated image above to see the individual illustrations enlarged.
    National Right to Life applauds U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act — April 18, 2007
    L.A. Times: “The ruling culminates a 12-year campaign by the National Right to Life Committee to outlaw the procedure that its leaders dubbed ‘partial birth abortion.'” — April 18, 2007
    U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart, upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act — April 18, 2007 (PDF file)
    Statement by President Bush on the Supreme Court upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act — April 18, 2007
    NRLC’s Douglas Johnson on National Review Online: “Is it really a partial birth?” — November 8, 2006
    Partial-Birth Abortion Returns to the U.S. Supreme Court — November 7, 2006
    Los Angeles Times story highlights NRLC leadership in bringing partial-birth abortion to public attention in 1995 — November 7, 2006
    Partial-Birth Abortion Misconceptions and Realities:
    a memo by Douglas Johnson, with links to key documents on the history of the controversy over partial-birth abortion.

    The Pain of Partial-Birth Abortion
    During the first year after the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was introduced in mid-1995, many opponents of the bill, such as NARAL’s Kate Michelman and syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman, insisted that anesthesia given to the mother painlessly kills the babies before they are pulled feet-first from the womb and stabbed through the back of the skull. But in congressional testimony in 1996 — virtually ignored by the news media — this myth was emphatically refuted by the heads of the two major professional societies of anesthesiologists. Other experts testified that the babies are alive and fully capable of experiencing great pain during a partial-birth abortion. To learn more about the pain that partial-birth abortion inflicts on pre-mature human babies, and about the “anesthesia myth,” click here.

    Key Document: Is Partial-birth abortion a ‘health’ issue?
    Click HERE for a collection of links to key documents on medical issues relating to partial-birth abortion. NOTE: Many of these documents, but not all, require the Adobe Acrobat Reader.

    “Life, Death, and Partial-Birth Abortion: One Woman’s Story,” by Carolyn A. Johnson — December 5, 2003

    U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Review Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act — February 21, 2006
    Bush Administration files new legal brief urging U.S. Supreme Court to review lower-court ruling blocking enforcement of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act — February, 2006
    Ruling by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act conflicts with 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision — January 31, 2006
    “Partial-Birth Abortion on Trial,” by Cathy Cleaver Ruse, Esq. (Human Life Review, Spring 2005) Read the shocking sworn testimony, in federal court, by those who perform partial-birth abortions. (PDF file)
    Eighth Circuit ruling underscores that Supreme Court will decide if partial-birth abortion remains legal — July 8, 2005
    Blood Brothers: Why the leading practitioners of late abortion wrote checks to John Kerry, by NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson — October 2, 2004

    “Surgical Editing: A Case Study in Pro-Abortion Media Bias,” by NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson — December 23, 2003
    Why partial-birth abortions are performed: Letter from NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson published in Wall Street Journal — November 10, 2003

    GLEN MCCOY ©2003 Belleville News-Democrat. Reprinted with permission of UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE. All rights reserved

    National Right to Life Comments on Court Orders and Statement by President Bush — November 6, 2003
    President Bush Signs Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act into Law — November 5, 2003
    NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson challenges Alan Guttmacher Institute’s attempt to “forget” its own claims on partial-birth abortion — November 4, 2003
    “Partial-Birth Abortion — You Can Look it Up in the Medical Dictionary!” — October 29, 2003
    On October 29, 2003, NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson debated Center for Reproductive Rights President Nancy Northup on NPR’s nationally broadcast “Diane Rehm Show” on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. If you have the common RealPlayer software on your computer, you can listen to the program by clicking here.
    Statement by President Bush at press conference and NRLC comment — October 28, 2003
    UPDATE: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act: NRLC’s rebuttal to opponents’ claims — Oct. 23, 2003
    Op-ed by NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson published in USA Today — October 23, 2003
    Final language of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (S. 3), as approved by both houses of Congress (October 21, 2003)
    To view or download PDF version, click HERE (requires free Adobe Acrobat Reader)
    U.S. House gives final approval to Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, but some Democratic senators delay final Senate vote — Oct. 4, 2003

    “Gannett News Service again disseminates discredited myths,” by NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson — Oct. 3, 2003

    “Partial Truths: The Media Mistell Partial-Birth Abortion Stories,” by National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez — Oct. 2, 2003
    “Discredited Myths About Partial-Birth Abortion — and Some Journalists Who Won’t Let Go of Them,” by NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson — Sept. 6, 2003
    Dueling letters from Colorado abortionist Dr. Warren Hern and NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson — Boulder Camera, June, 2003
    “To the Point”
    On June 10, 2003, NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson was a guest on “To the Point,” a radio program produced by Public Radio International and KCRW-FM in Los Angeles, which is broadcast on a number of radio stations around the nation, concerning the implications of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The other guests — all supporters of Roe v. Wade — were Planned Parenthood of America President Gloria Feldt, Prof. Jeffrey Rosen, Prof. David Garrow, and Prof. George Lakoff. Hear the 40-minute audio recording by clicking here. (requires RealPlayer)

    Key Document
    Revived media myths about Roe v. Wade: An important and timely memo for journalists and policymakers (Feb. 14, 2003)
    To view or download PDF version, click HERE (requires free Adobe Acrobat Reader)
    To view or download WordPerfect version, click HERE

    Official White House policy statement on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 760) — June 4, 2003
    For PDF version click here (requires free Adobe Acrobat Reader)

    NRLC letter to the U.S. House of Representatives against Hoyer-Greenwood phony ban and in support of H.R. 760 — June 2, 2003
    (PDF version. Requires Adobe Acrobat)
    (Word Perfect Version)

    Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Passes U.S. Senate; Pro-Life Forces in House Work to Defeat “Phony Ban” — April 5, 2003
    Key Document

  • mellankelly1

    Wow Skye, so you believe everything written on non-medical websites?  The majority of what you used as "proof" was obtained from biased websites with an anit-abortion agenda.  Without partial-truth, misinformation, pseudoscience and outright lies, these sites would have nothing to say.  Lets break it down regarding breast cancer, shall we?  I couldn't find your source for information regarding a link to breast cancer and spontaneous abortion, stillbirth and/or induced abortion (SHOCKING!).  Why don't you try The American Cancer Society since they probably know a little more about cancer then say…, no?  The following information was obtained from:

    1. National Cancer Institute. Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop. Available at: Accessed May 8, 2007.

    These are the Findings:  

    • In February 2003, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) held a workshop of more than 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The experts reviewed existing human and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. Among their conclusions were:
    1. Breast cancer risk is temporarily increased after a term pregnancy (that is, a pregnancy that results in the birth of a living child). 
    2. Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk. 
    3. Recognized spontaneous abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.

    The level of scientific evidence for these conclusions was considered to be "well established" (the highest level).

    • The largest, and probably the most reliable, single study of this topic was conducted during the 1990s in Denmark, a country with very detailed medical records on all its citizens. In that study, all Danish women born between 1935 and 1978 (1.5 million women) were linked with the National Registry of Induced Abortions and with the Danish Cancer Registry. So all information about their abortions and their breast cancer came from registries, was very complete, and was not influenced by recall bias.

    After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found that induced abortion(s) had no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer. The size of this study and the manner in which it was done provides substantial evidence that induced abortion does not affect a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.

    • Another large, prospective study was reported on by Harvard researchers in 2007. This study included more than 100,000 women who were between the ages of 29 and 46 at the start of the study in 1993. These women were followed until 2003. Again, because they were asked about their reproductive history at the start of the study, recall bias was unlikely to be a problem. After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found no link between either spontaneous or induced abortions and breast cancer.
    • The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Committee on Gynecologic Practice reviewed the available evidence as well and published its findings in August 2003. The committee concluded that "early studies of the relationship between prior induced abortion and breast cancer risk have been inconsistent and are difficult to interpret because of methodologic considerations. More rigorous recent studies argue against a causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk."
    • The Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, based out of Oxford University in England, recently put together the results from 53 separate studies conducted in 16 different countries. These studies included about 83,000 women with breast cancer. After combining and reviewing the results from these studies, the researchers concluded that "the totality of worldwide epidemiological evidence indicates that pregnancies ending as either spontaneous or induced abortions do not have adverse effects on women's subsequent risk of developing breast cancer."

    ****And Skye, if you are really concerned about what the risk factors are for developing breast cancer you should start here:

  • mellankelly1

    Day 1 -Fertilization! All human
    chromosomes are present and a
    unique human life begins.

    Riddle me this Skye… what does that statement say about twins since twinning can occur up to 14 days after implantation (which can occur up to 5 days after fertilization)?  Are twins not "unique human life"?  Are twins each 1/2 of a "person"?

  • mellankelly1

    Day 1 -Fertilization! All human
    chromosomes are present and a
    unique human life begins.

    Riddle me this Skye… what does that statement say about twins since twinning can occur up to 14 days after implantation (which can occur up to 5 days after fertilization)?  Are twins not "unique human life"?  Are twins each 1/2 of a "person"?

  • invalid-0

    That isn’t proof. It isn’t even medically accurate.

    Please refrain from posting BOOKS in the comments. Totally unnecessary. Just link. So annoying.

  • mellankelly1

    While Planned Parenthood may aid in the choice of abortion, if your choice is parenting the child, then you are told to find help elsewhere (as several friends and family members have experienced firsthand).

    It is easy enough to search planned parenthood websites (or just google "Planned Parenthood and prenatal assistance or parenting classes") and find that you are misinformed.  If you do a general search of Planned Parenthood and how they assist new mothers you will find something like this…

    which explains how "A NEW prenatal clinic to serve pregnant teen-agers in the county has just been opened by Planned Parenthood of Westchester/Rockand. The program, at the Planned Parenthood Center in White Plains, accepts patients from 16 through 21 years old."

    Not all Planned Parenthood offices offer prenatal or new parent aid &/or classes, if they do not they will most certainly refer you to someone who can help you.

  • invalid-0

    wow! nice article. thanks for sharing