No industry is more dependent on lies than abortion. What other industry today could even compete? Car sales? Politics? Illegal drug cartels or trafficking? Whichever it is, abortion is in that conversation.
Following is a multitude of lies advanced by the abortion industry. And the list isn't exhaustive. These are not
obscure lies told by individuals with a negligible audience. These are lies
pertaining to the fundamental premises of abortion. They are foundational. They
are lies told by the abortion industry. They are lies told by politicians
funded by the abortion industry. The are lies told by abortion influencers or
media.
Lie #1: “My body, my choice”
The phrase “my body, my choice” is a common one among
abortion proponents. The implication is that an abortion is merely a decision
the woman makes about “her body.” But this is a lie. The baby’s body is not
only philosophically but genetically distinct from the mother’s. A
multitude of scientific papers acknowledge the individuality of new life at
fertilization. For example: “Fertilization is the
process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to
produce a genetically distinct individual.” (Signorelli J, Diaz ES, Morales
P)
Lie #2: Fake embryo pictures
In October 2022, The Guardian posted outright fake pictures of a human embryo.
It described the pictures as “tissue” or what a “pregnancy” looks like at
various early weeks of pregnancy. However, the images only showed bits of
gestational sac. The embryo was missing from the photos. The article quotes Dr.
Joan Fleischman with MYA Network, the abortion business credited with the
photos. Fleischman specifically said the internet and placards show human
embryos with “human-like qualities.” However, she asserted, the fake pictures
in the Guardian article—which showed only gestational sac bits—are “what it
actually looks like.” A stir on social media followed, both from medical
professionals, and from women
who have experienced miscarriages and know first-hand that the images from The
Guardian and MYA Network were fake.
The Guardian later attempted to explain the absence of the embryo with another
false statement which was added to the article as a disclaimer: “This article
was amended on 19 October 2022 to include the detail that at nine weeks the
nascent embryo is not easily discernible to the naked eye.” However, The
Guardian only added another false statement to their false article. At 9
weeks, the human embryo not only has human features, but is close to ¾ of
an inch in size, or larger than many adult fingernails.
Rather than vanishing in shame, this lie is perpetuated, as recently as
April 2023. Ted Lieu, congressman from California,
was angered by the recent judicial decision that ruled the abortion drug
mifepristone had not
undergone proper FDA protocols when it was approved in 2000. Lieu tweeted
one of the fake MYA Network pictures and included the claim: “Mifepristone is
for abortions of less than 10 weeks. Below are pictures of pregnancies at 6, 7,
8, and 9 weeks.” When called out for sharing fake images, Lieu later doubled
down by sharing another fake article from Insider, which claimed, among other
lies, “There is no ‘heart’ at six weeks of pregnancy.” But the heart is known to develop as early as 3 weeks and can be
observed beating by week
6. (See more on the heartbeat lie at Lie #8 below.)
The above photo is of an actual human embryo (7-8 weeks). The gestational sac, which can be
observed surrounding the embryo, is only what The Guardian article showed.
Lie #3: "Abortion Saves Lives"
This phrase is commonly seen at protests, asserted by pro-abortion organizations,
or even stated by abortion "doctors." This lie is obvious.
Abortion ends a human life. "Abortion Causes Death" would be an accurate
sign. Some claimants confuse treatment of ectopic
pregnancy or other life-threatening diagnoses with abortion. See Lie #13. Others use incomplete data.
Illinois’ anti-pregnancy help Senate Bill 1909 (SB 1909) claims the “risk
of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than the
risk of death associated with an abortion.” Again, the assertion dishonestly
does not account for the baby variable, which results in 100% death for every
completed abortion.
The statistic is still specious even if only the life of
the mother is considered. For example, a subsequent study Short and long term
mortality rates associated with first pregnancy outcome looked at 463,473
women. The study states:
Previous population studies, however, have
failed to control for complete reproductive histories. In this study we seek to
eliminate the potential confounding effect of unknown prior pregnancy history
by examining mortality rates associated specifically with first pregnancy
outcome alone. We also examine differences in mortality rates associated with
early abortion and late abortions (after 12 weeks).
They concluded: “Compared to women who delivered, women who had an
early or late abortion had significantly higher mortality rates within 1
through 10 years.”
A 2020 study, Induced
Abortion and the Increased Risk of Maternal Mortality, found similar
results when more health information about the patients was factored. They
summarize:
In Finland, where epidemiologic record linkage
has been validated, the risk of death from legal induced abortion is
reported to be almost four times greater than the risk of death from childbirth.
Lie #4: Late-term abortions aren’t real
Dr. Barbara Levy, vice president of health policy for the American College
of Gynecologists (ACOG), stated:
The phrase “late-term abortion” is medically
inaccurate and has no clinical meaning. In science and medicine, it’s essential
to use language precisely. In pregnancy, to be “late term” means to be past 41
weeks gestation, or past a patient’s due date. Abortions do not occur in this
time period, so the phrase is contradictory.
ACOG’s website also claims “late-term abortion” is “a biased, nonmedical
phrase intended to appropriate clinical language in order to misconstrue the
reality of patient care.”
First, ACOG is attempting to restrict a scientific use onto a term that is also
native to legal language. This is a form of the fallacy of equivocation and is
a basic error in contextual interpretation. It is disingenuous for ACOG to suggest there is legislation against a non-existent abortion type. When the term “late-term abortion”
is used in legal documents, a gestational age typically accompanies it. For
instance:
Second, Levy’s definition does not stand on universally held medical ground.
For example, the McGraw-Hill
Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine defines “late-term abortion” as “Any
abortion performed after the fetus would be viable…” (With current
medicine, babies have survived at about 21 weeks.)
A cursory search of medical and scientific studies reveal that use of "late-term" abortions is not restricted to ACOG's 41-week definition. For
example:
Lie #5: Pregnancy Resource Centers are not "medical"
In 2022, Elizabeth Warren and several other senators sent a specious letter (PDF) to pregnancy help network Heartbeat International,
Inc., and included the claim: "your organization and its affiliate CPCs
are not legitimate medical providers." However, the facts refute this lie.
The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates reports 1,400
out of their 1,600 affiliates are licensed medical centers. The Charlotte
Lozier Institute report on pregnancy center statistics reveals 79%
of pregnancy centers nationwide are "medical." Pregnancy Centers
employ or have volunteers who are licensed medical staff, including nurses and
sonographers. The report also states:
Medical pregnancy centers or clinics perform limited
ultrasounds in accordance with specific standards and guidelines set forth by
medical professional bodies, including the American Institute of Ultrasound in
Medicine (AIUM); Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses
(AWHONN); the American College of Radiology (ACR); and the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). `Under these guidelines a
limited ultrasound may be performed to “confirm the presence of an intrauterine
pregnancy,” which addresses the primary reason a woman visits a pregnancy
center.
Lie #6: Only 3-4% of Planned Parenthood's “medical services” are
abortions
Abortion behemoth Planned Parenthood's annual reports regularly claim 3 or 4% of total
"medical services" their affiliates provide are abortion. As we've
established, abortion is not medicine. So that's a lie. And the 3-4% figure is
also dishonest. This false statistic has been debunked since at least as early
as 2012, yet they continued to mislead year after year in
annual reports. The number is fudged by counting peripheral services received in
each visit as equal to abortion, when abortion was the entire intent of the
client's visit. So if a woman gets a pregnancy test before the abortion, they
will count them each as 50% of the client's services received, even though the
former may cost $10 and take a moment and the abortion—which is why she’s
there—will take upwards of hours including recovery and could cost over $1,000.
As a perspective to how deceptive this is, journalist Nick Lowry wrote, "Major League Baseball teams
could say that they sell about 20 million hot dogs and play 2,430 games in a
season, so baseball is only .012 percent of what they do."
Lie #7: Pregnancy is an illness
The abortion pill mifepristone was fast-tracked by the
FDA in the year 2000. The
Code of Federal Regulations Title 21 only permits
“accelerated approval” of a drug if it is for “treating serious or
life-threatening illnesses…” The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine pointed this lie out. In their November 2022 case
filing against the FDA, they stated, “But chemical abortion
drugs do not treat serious or life-threatening illnesses. Indeed, pregnancy is
a normal physiological state that many females experience one or more times
during their childbearing years.”
Lie #8: No heartbeat at 6 weeks
In October 2022, South Carolina Chief Justice Donald
W. Beatty incorrectly asserted that a 6-week embryo’s heartbeat is “really not
a heartbeat. It’s an electrical signal.” Associate Justice Kaye G. Hearn
incorrectly described the heartbeat as “actually embryonic cardiac activity…a
true heartbeat does not occur until all four chambers in the heart have
developed.” The judges’ assertions amount to word games, a mere avoidance of
using the term “heart.” Furthermore, scientific literature points to the onset
of the heartbeat at the early end of the 4th week of pregnancy, or
around day 22.
Jörg Männer’s 2022 paper in the Journal
of Cardiovascular Development and Disease states: “the
human embryonic heart starts beating at 21 to 23 days after fertilization.” And
Männer specifically accounts for electric activity preceding the heartbeat:
The term “heartbeat” is
used to describe “the regular movement that the heart makes as it sends blood
around your body”. The above-mentioned observations suggest that, with regard
to the embryonic heart, we should not speak of a beating heart before
coordinated regular movements of its walls generate a unidirectional fluid flow
within the vascular network of the embryonic cardiovascular system. In human
embryos this functional state seems to be reached during CS-10. Based on data
from macaque embryos, the post-fertilization age of human CS-10 embryos was
estimated as 21 to 23 days…
Some challenges to this figure only add 4-5 days,
which means even conservative estimates acknowledge a heartbeat in the 4th
week.
Other studies affirm this. Tan and Lewandowski’s paper
published in Fetal
Diagnosis and Therapy states: “The initiation of the first
heart beat via the primitive heart tube begins at gestational day 22,
followed by active fetal blood circulation by the end of week 4.” Oregon
State University Anatomy & Physiology curriculum
teaches the same: “The human heart is the first functional organ to develop. It
begins beating and pumping blood around day 21 or 22…”
Directly addressing the misinformation put out by the
South Carolina judges, Dr.
Tara Sander Lee, PhD, director of Life Sciences for the
Charlotte Lozier Institute, said, “A heartbeat at six weeks is scientific
consensus based on published validated, objective, biological investigation,
not a public relations campaign.”
Lie #9: Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) isn’t
real
Abortion proponents have deceived the public about the
possibility of abortion pill reversal. For example, a 2022 anti-pregnancy
center article published
in a science journal contains multiple inaccuracies, including the following: “Research
has established that CPCs engage in abortion misinformation, including leading
people to believe that medication abortions are reversible…”
The American
College of Gynecologists claims abortion pill reversal is “not supported by science.” However, ACOG's assertion is predicated on faulty math. Their abortion pill reversal page claims that up to "half of women who take only mifepristone continue their pregnancies," and therefore the continued pregnancies can't be attributed to an abortion pill reversal protocol. However, the footnote for ACOG's claim references a study that actually says pregnancies continued after mifepristone alone in a varied range of 8-46%. Studies on abortion pill reversal show a success rate of up to 68%. So, not only is ACOG inflating the numbers from their own source, but the source's numbers are well below the success rate of APR, which shows that APR is supported by science. The reality is the exact opposite of what ACOG claims.
Appealing to these kinds of lies, the state
of Colorado is currently seeking to ban abortion pill
reversal.
The fact is, so-called “medication abortions” are
indeed reversible. This is indisputable. Over
4,500 lives have been saved for mothers who changed
their minds after taking the first abortion pill by following the abortion pill
reversal protocol. Abortion pill reversal replenishes the progesterone that the
abortion pill depleted, thus giving the pregnancy a chance to continue. Dr.
George Delgado, pioneer of the abortion pill reversal protocol, explains the
process in a recent Edify
video. Testimonials and photos of actual babies born after
successful abortion pill reversals can be seen at Heartbeat International’s Abortion
Pill Rescue Network.
Lie #10: The abortion pill is safe/“safer
than Tylenol”
Dr. Serina Floyd, vice president of medical affairs
and medical director of Planned Parenthood, claimed
in a February 23, 2023 television interview that the abortion pill “is not
dangerous at all.”
A Bloomberg “healthcare” journalist made popular the
bad faith argument that the abortion pill mifepristone is
safer than Tylenol because it “sends fewer people to the ER.” The most obvious
problem with these claims is that they ignore the 230,000+ innocent lives ended
by the abortion pill annually. Read
here for a thoroughly sourced refutation of the Tylenol claim at LiveAction.
Additionally, the Bloomberg article must nonsensically
lump ER visits from Tylenol due to overdose with mifepristone ER visits
due to use as indicated.
In 2016, the abortion industry convinced the FDA to help keep
mifepristone’s adverse effects secret by
changing the requirement
for prescribers to agree to report to Mifeprex’s sponsor any serious adverse
event associated with Mifeprex, including hospitalizations and blood
transfusions…
Adverse effects have not been required reporting for
some seven years. Doctors at the Charlotte
Lozier Institute conducted a thoroughly sourced review
of mifepristone’s dangers and adverse effects reporting.
The Bloomberg article also fails to account for how the
abortion pill enables sex trafficking or relationship abuse. Students for Life has organized dozens of stories of the abortion pill drug slipped into women's drinks or other devious tricks. Tylenol
does not have this unsafe problem. Unfettered distribution of the drug will only exacerbate this problem.
Finally, data often cited by abortion proponents on
the safety of mifepristone is founded on circular illogic. Since reporting of adverse
events from the drug are no longer required, abortion proponents cite data that
does not account for the very adverse events they lobbied to have unreported.
In a recent judicial
case in Texas, the judge pointed this out:
Defendants maintain that
“Plaintiffs offer no explanation for why it was impermissible to rely on the
reported data.” ECF No. 28 at 33. The explanation should be obvious — it is
circular and self-serving to practically eliminate an “adverse event” reporting
requirement and then point to a low number of “adverse events” as a
justification for removing even more restrictions than were already omitted
in 2000 and 2016. In other words, it is a predetermined conclusion in search of
non-data — a database designed to produce a null set.
Lie #11: Abortion is “healthcare/medical”
Politicians and abortion proponents loyally use euphemisms
like “abortion care” and refer to the abortion pill as “medical abortion.”
“Abortion is healthcare…A medical decision…” declared JB Pritzker, governor of
Illinois in a January press release. Of course, this language is dishonest.
Abortion is the opposite of medicine.
Currently, Google flags videos on abortion with the
following false “Context” statement:
An abortion is a
procedure to end a pregnancy. It uses medicine or surgery to remove the
embryo or fetus and placenta from the uterus. The procedure is done by a
licensed healthcare professional.
First, that the topic of abortion gets this special
treatment by Google’s staff only adds to suspicion that corporations are
compromised by the abortion industry. Secondly, Google’s statement is false because
abortion never uses “medicine.” As we established, by definition, it’s false to
call something medicine unless it’s end goal is to help correct something wrong
with the body and pregnancy is not a disorder nor disease. Additionally,
Google’s statement is false to claim abortion is done by a licensed healthcare
professional, because abortion-backed politicians have changed laws in several
states so a woman can obtain the abortion pill without
ever seeing a doctor, leaving the woman to self-administer the abortion and
deal with the aftermath at home.
Abortion is more akin to poison, which is medically
defined as causing “structural
or functional disturbance.” (See related article Birth
Control is not medicine). In an abortion, the baby is terminated
and the typical mother’s body, which was functioning correctly to sustain
pregnancy, is artificially obstructed from that correct function.
Lie #12: Plan B is only contraceptive, not
abortifacient
In December of 2022, the makers of Plan B One-Step lobbied
the FDA to change its product label. The drug is colloquially
known as the “morning after pill,” often taken by women seeking to prevent
pregnancy after they have had intercourse.
Prior labeling admitted the pill could possibly work
by preventing implantation after conception. This of course amounts to
an abortion. The manufacturer lobbied the FDA in part because the change would
make the drug easier to market:
[T]he applicant states…
some consumers are hesitant to use a product that might affect
postovulatory events, in particular implantation of the blastocyst.
… The applicant asserts that updates to the labeling are needed to make the
labeling more accurate, to reduce consumer confusion, and potentially to
reduce barriers to use of the legally marketed approved product.
As you can see, the impetus for the label change was
in part based on marketability. ABC
News
helped market that motive in a headline: “Plan B gets new label by FDA to
clarify it doesn't cause abortion.”
The FDA ultimately made the following label edit
(underline was added and strikethrough was removed):
Plan B One-Step® works
before release of an egg from the ovary. As a result, Plan B One-Step® usually
stops or delays release of the egg from the ovary. Plan B One-Step® is one
tablet with levonorgestrel, a hormone that has been used in many birth
control pills for several decades. Plan B One Step® that contains a
higher dose of levonorgestrel than birth control pills but and
works in a similar way to prevent pregnancy. It works mainly by stopping the
release of an egg from the ovary. It is possible that Plan B One Step may
also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the
egg) or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb).
Notice, however, the added text says the drug
“usually” or “mainly” stops egg release. If that’s the case, the labeling still
accounts for prevented implantation without explicitly saying so, and abortion
proponents in the media are deceiving the public.
Regarding levonorgestrel’s effect on the uterine
lining, the FDA’s memorandum says a “totality of the evidence” suggests there
is no affect on the uterine lining.
However, a 2016
study by Peck, et al, specifically reviewed the
mechanism of action for levonorgestrel’s post-fertilization effect. It reviewed
at least five other studies that claim levonorgestrel has no effect on the
uterine lining. Essentially, these studies were not conclusive because they did
not account for the entire range of time the drug was typically taken. Peck
concluded:
What these studies can
say is that LNG, when taken 5–6 days following fertilization at the moment of
implantation, does not affect its evolution. But this is not the typical
time when EC is usually administered.
Furthermore, a group in one study did show uterine
alteration.
[T]he “histologically
normal” endometria from Durand's 2001 Group D in fact showed
decreased glycodelin-A, a necessary endometrial implantation molecule.
Additionally, whether the lining of the uterine wall
is affected by levonorgestrel may be irrelevant. The Peck study describes
another mechanism the drug may cause to prevent implantation after
conception. It states:
The tubal transport
mechanism is essential for carrying the embryo to the uterus, so that arrival
occurs within the narrow implantation window (days 20 to 24).”
In other words, altering the uterine lining isn’t the
only way to prevent implantation. If the embryo doesn’t get there in time, it
won’t matter how compatible the uterine lining is during the implantation
window. The study cites two other studies that suggest levonorgestrel slows the
speed at which the embryo moves through the fallopian tube:
The tubal transport of
embryos is slowed down by either mechanism, and this would have critical
consequences on their nesting, as the narrow window might have been passed. This
effect, coupled with the shortened luteal phase, as discussed in the next
section, could preclude successful implantation.
In reviewing the data, Anthony
Campagna, PharmD, a clinical pharmacist stated:
The takeaway is that
LNG-EC can, despite what the updated labeling claims, impair the
implantation of a human embryo in a number of ways.
Thus, although the FDA and manufacturer of Plan B One
Step ignore data, the drug does have the potential to act as an abortifacient
just as the original labelling specified.
Lie #13: Treatment for ectopic pregnancy
is the same thing as an abortion
A corporate media columnist wrote of the Supreme Court
Dobbs decision:
“Do I abort this ectopic
pregnancy to literally save my life or do I go to jail?” Question women in
America now have to ask.
There are a couple lies packed in this histrionic
statement. The first lie is the insinuation that Dobbs banned abortion
and will send a woman to jail for procuring one. Dobbs did no such
thing, but rather referred the matter back to the states.
The second lie in the statement is suggesting
treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is the same thing as an abortion. Dr.
Christina Francis offered the following clarification:
The treatments for
ectopic pregnancy are not the same procedures used by induced abortions,
which even Planned Parenthood admits. As a pro-life OB/GYN who’s practiced
my entire career in hospitals that do not allow abortions, I have never been
prevented from safely treating an ectopic pregnancy. In the rare but tragic
situations where a pregnancy puts the mother’s life at risk, there are medical
procedures for compassionately separating the mother and her baby and working
to save both lives. The only intent of
an abortion is to produce a dead baby.
Women deserve to be empowered by medically-accurate information.
Dr.
Monique Chireau Wubbenhorst, an OB/GYN, confirmed the nature of
a life-saving procedure like ectopic pregnancy:
A procedure to save the
life of the mother is not an abortion. Even though
sometimes the child dies as a result of that procedure, the death of the child
was not the intent.
A month after Dobbs, Planned
Parenthood fostered the misinformation by removing the
following sentence from it’s website: “Treating an ectopic pregnancy isn’t
the same thing as getting an abortion.”
Lie# 14: Abortion doesn’t cause
depression/mental health problems
“It’s important for folks to know that
abortion does not cause mental health problems,” said
Debra Mollen, PhD, a professor of counseling psychology at Texas Woman’s University.
This assertion is false. A 2010 study, Late-Term Elective
Abortion and Susceptibility to Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms, states:
In fact 12–20% of
women with an abortion history meet the full diagnostic criteria for PTSD
with considerably higher percentages of women experiencing some trauma
symptoms, while not meeting the full criteria. Even when the full criteria are
not met, the more PTSD symptoms present, the greater the risk of psychological
impairment and suicidal ideation.
A 2018 study, The abortion and
mental health controversy, accounts for abortion proponents who wish to
dismiss mental health issues associated with abortion as pre-existing
conditions:
When interpreting the
data, abortion and mental health proponents are inclined to emphasize risks
associated with abortion, whereas abortion and mental health minimalists
emphasize pre-existing risk factors as the primary explanation for the
correlations with more negative outcomes. Still, both sides agree that (a)
abortion is consistently associated with elevated rates of mental illness
compared to women without a history of abortion; (b) the abortion experience
directly contributes to mental health problems for at least some women…
Lie# 15: Abortion doesn’t increase risk of
breast cancer
The American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists (ACOG) claim:
“studies demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a
subsequent increase in breast cancer risk.”
However, their assertion does not account for dozens
of studies that say otherwise. An amicus
brief was submitted for Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) by the
American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG). They note:
Since 1957, at least
41 studies have shown a positive, statistically significant association between
induced abortion and breast cancer. The reason for the association is
straightforward given how the physiology of the breast changes during
pregnancy. Breast tissue mature enough
to produce milk permanently resists cancer.
Abortion arrests growing breast tissue before it matures, trapping it
in a cancer vulnerable state.
The American
College of Pediatricians, among other sources, describe the
biology of why this happens. Essentially, lobules in the breast mature from
type 1 and 2—which have more receptors that make them more prone to
cancer, to type 3 and 4 after prolonged pregnancy—which have less receptors and
are more immune to cancer:
The more receptors a cell
has, the more responsive it will be to hormonal levels –
and the more affected it is by carcinogens. …
After a full term
pregnancy, Type 4 lobules predominate, with more
fully differentiated (mature) cells and less stem cells, a decreased number of
hormonal receptors, a slower DNA copying time, and a longer resting phase – all
of which decrease the likelihood that breast cancer will develop in
these lobules.
It is known that after
a woman gives birth, with or without lactation (including when the baby is
given up for adoption), the Type 4 lobules regress to Type 3, but
importantly, via epigenetics, these cells maintain the genetic changes that
protect them from susceptibility to cancer.
Lie #16: Partial birth abortions “don’t
exist”
In January, the state of Minnesota, by a vote of 69-65,
passed an unbridled abortion bill. Among amendments to the bill that were
rejected was a ban on partial-birth abortions. Yet, Senator Alice Mann, who
supported the abortion bill, claimed
the idea of partial birth abortion was “literally making stuff up.” She
continued: “A child doesn’t come out partway alive and doctors kill it. It’s
not a thing. It’s not a thing today. It’s not a thing tomorrow. It’s not a
thing ten years ago.” She added that politicians should not “legislate things
that don't exist in real life.”
You might ask yourself why she would be so adamantly opposed to
inclusion of an amendment that she claimed would have no effect on the bill.
But,
of course, her false claim is exposed by the existence of survivors of abortion. In the
early 1980s, the CDC estimated up to 500 failed abortions per year resulted in
live births. Cases have
persisted into recent years. The “DC Five” babies discovered in 2022 are suspected
of surviving botched abortions because of their late gestational size and
autopsy roadblocks (see pictures and story at LiveAction). Abortionist
Kermit Gosnell was found guilty to
have murdered
babies born alive, “breathing and moving” “by severing their spinal cords with
scissors.” Abortionists admit how they kill a baby if born alive.
The
Abortion Survivor Network estimates over
80,000 persons to have survived failed abortions since Roe vs. Wade. The
network’s founder and director Melissa Ohden
explained
how most survived abortions occur:
[T]hey
survive chemical abortions in the first trimester. They survive surgical
abortions in the second trimester that may leave them with significant wounds
found upon delivery, as was the case for survivor Hope Hoffman. They survive
induction of labor in the third trimester with the intent that they won’t
survive the preterm induction, or with the plan to leave the child to die if
they do survive the delivery, as was the case with Sarah Zagorski and, sadly,
as happened in the practice of the imprisoned Dr. Kermit Gosnell, where some
babies were brutally killed by having their spinal cord “snipped.”
(updated Feb. 18, 2025)
