The Governor of Virginia: Killing Babies is OK by Me

Is there a reason why Darwin and his cronies are almost never accused of white privilege? I have read several biographies about Darwin. There is no doubt that he was white, Anglo-Saxon and privileged-- very privileged. But for some reason he virtually gets a free pass in these discussions. Yet a closer scrutiny of his writings and thinking are a cause for concern.

Darwin clearly believed that natural selection working on different populations produced “higher” and “lower” races with different mental capacities. Hence, according to Darwinian theory, one should expect to find races with unequal capacities. This expectation of Darwinian theory helped fuel scientific racism for decades and provided a research agenda for a number of leading evolutionary biologists, most notably National Academy of Sciences’ member Charles Davenport, one of the founding fathers of modern genetics. The Darwinian connection to the eugenics movement was even more direct. Darwin thought that human beings and their capacities only arose through a merciless process of natural selection that ruthlessly exterminated the weak and the inferior. But according to Darwin, civilized societies did their best to counteract natural selection and preserve those nature would have killed off. Darwin thought that this counteracting of natural selection had serious negative consequences for the future of the human race. As he put it, “excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” Given this predicament, one had two choices as a Darwinist: advocate a return to the law of the jungle in human society, or try to institute a “kinder, gentler” form of selection through science. The latter option was the one championed by eugenists because they thought it was more humane than the first option, but both options grew out of a thoroughly Darwinian rationale. [emphasis added]

https://evolutionnews.org/2010/11/darwin_racism_and_eugenics_in_/ In other words, according to a strict reading of Darwin the reason that blacks do not excel at mathematics is that they are from an inferior race not because of any so-called oppression. In the early 20th century Darwin’s theory became the basis of enlightened scientific public policy in the United States, Great Britain and Germany. In the U.S. the eugenics movement led to laws which led to forced sterilizations of so called undesirables, people with low IQ’s or other disabilities. In the 1930’s and 40’s German society took the idea of eugenics much further with tragic results. Eugenics was one of the primary moral causes of progressive “scientifically” enlightened elites in the early twentieth century. This should give us some pause. How can we be sure that so called progressive elitism isn’t making the same kind of mistake in the 21st Century? The dirty little secret that never gets discussed is that Eugenics never really went away. It just went into hiding only to be re-labelled and re-emerge in the pro-abortion movement.

According to [a recent] CDC report, the rate of abortion among African-American women is far higher than among white American women. While black women make up only six percent of the U.S. population, they account for 35 percent of abortions reported… Pro-life advocates have long argued that the abortion industry specifically targets minorities, highlighting the movement's racist roots. Planned Parenthood founder and eugenics advocate Margaret Sanger started “The Negro Project” in 1939 to thwart the population growth of the poor and minorities, or, as Sanger put it, to discourage “the defective and diseased elements of humanity” from their “reckless and irresponsible swarming and spawning.” Sanger, a Darwinist, enlisted black ministers to convince minorities to use contraceptives, explaining, "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Ironically, Sanger is someone who is still celebrated by the secular progressive left. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/campaigns/ppfa-margaret-sanger-award-winners Notice, who won the prestigious Margaret Sanger Award in 2009 and who else won it in 2014. These are the same people, when it is politically expedient, who lecture us about racism which, when they can score some political points, they suddenly see everywhere and in everything-- even in a traditionally apolitical subject like math. Only a fool would take their nonsense seriously but they apparently really do. john_a_designer

Video, for reference, on pregnancy week by week: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/laws/reference-pregnancy-week-by-week/ kairosfocus

F/N: Fetal development, week by week: https://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-week-by-week KF kairosfocus

Vivid, at this stage, it seems one needs to monitor the dominant news-views trends to minimise the harm from their media amplification of agit prop, rather than look to them for responsible, honest, credible reporting. The direct implication is radical undermining of the foundations of a sustainable democratic government system. Which has ruinous consequences. Where also, we see the implications of the abortion agenda and other linked things becoming ever more plain. But, are there enough people awake to the perils to make a difference? When the ship of state has fallen to the factions of folly, it is very hard to return to sound navigation. See Ac 27 for a study in miniature. KF PS: Where can we find honest, reasonably comprehensive news now? kairosfocus

Our media is so dishonest. Anderson Cooper is trying to deceive his viewers that that the Virgina Governor is a Republican by putting an R after his name in com-box. So dishonest Vivid vividbleau

Breaking news (2/1/19): Several top democrats are calling for Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam to resign but not for his statements about late term abortion or infanticide. Rather it’s for a racist photo which he appeared in from his 1984 medical school yearbook page. As far as his favoring infanticide the Democratic Party and the mainstream media continue to give him a complete pass on that. As a matter of fact CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS (according to Fox) have given zero minutes of coverage about the controversy concerning his position on late term abortion and infanticide. john_a_designer

Ed George, the honest OB/GYNs agree 100% with you. OldArmy94

The idea of aborting a viable fetus is appalling. Even the argument that the mother's life is at serious risk doesn't cut it because I can't se that killing and removing the baby is any less risky than removing the baby and caring for it. Ed George

StephenB and Heartlander, your comments don’t really answer my question. Which is understandable because I didn’t really pose it as a question. In a country where there are no legal restrictions on late term abortion, why are they almost never performed?

I answered your question very clearly, though you did a poor job of expressing it. Here is your challenge: [a] Since it is just as morally offensive to kill a tiny baby as a well-developed baby, [b] why do people protest more vehemently when a well-developed baby is aborted? I provided the answer. Apparently, you didn't like the answer because you were hoping that there was no answer. Or perhaps you don't know how to express yourself. StephenB

Jonah Goldberg over at NR On-line makes an excellent point concerning the most recent flare up in the on-going (and never ending) abortion debate.

“If you don’t think late-term, post-viability abortions are morally troubling, you might want to ask yourself why we are one of only seven countries in the world that allow elective abortions after 20 weeks. It’s unclear how many countries allow abortion at 40 weeks, mid-delivery, but it’s possible that the U.S. and North Korea would be the only members of that club. I’m all in favor of debating such details, but what bothers me about these abortion controversies is the way utilitarian arguments are given the presumption of moral superiority. In almost every other sphere of debate where progressives claim the moral high ground, they are categorical. “If it saves just one life, it’s worth it,” they say about gun control, health-care reform, police abuse, etc. Imagine if I were to argue that since lynchings are so rare, we don’t really need strict laws against lynching. Infanticide, like racism, murder, and rape, is a moral category. It’s not less evil if it’s rare. It is rare — thank God — because we’ve agreed to treat it as evil.”[emphasis added]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/virginia-abortion-bill-controversy-moral-low-ground/ john_a_designer

Brother Brian:

In a country where there are no legal restrictions on late term abortion, why are they almost never performed?

Perhaps by then women realize it is child and not a choice. ET

Brother Brian:

If the right to life is absolute, regardless of stage of development, why all the effort to use these examples?

Well, Brian, if you hadn't quote-mined my response earlier the answer was there: Abortionists, those anti-lifers, say the fetus isn’t a human cuz of the lack of brain activity an a bunch of other arbitrary nonsense. Late term abortions fly in the face of their original redefinition. They keep moving the goalposts to suit their needs. ET

StephenB and Heartlander, your comments don't really answer my question. Which is understandable because I didn't really pose it as a question. In a country where there are no legal restrictions on late term abortion, why are they almost never performed? Brother Brian

Brother Brian

Much hyperbole, but nobody has explained why they are using baby examples of aborting a baby at birth....

The reason should be evident. Many people are stupid enough to believe that a six-week-old fetus is not a human being, so they may not understand that aborting a baby at that stage of development is murder. On the other hand, very few people are stupid enough to believe that a nine-month-old fetus is not a human being, so almost everyone understands that abortion at that stage of development is murder. Thus, most who support late-term abortions do so out of a callous disregard for human life, not ignorance. StephenB

OK, if you don’t agree with the law - again your statement coming into this discussion - ”Then it is a good thing that we have decided to establish laws to place limits on what is permitted.“ - is purely uniformed from the beginning. Heartlander

No. But Canada has no prohibition on abortion up until the moment of birth. Yet late term abortions are almost non-existent. Brother Brian

BB - OK, maybe we can start here - since this post is dealing with the new law allowing late term abortion up until birth - do you agree with this new limit? Heartlander

Much hyperbole, but nobody has explained why they are using examples of aborting a baby at birth, or sometime before it is 18. If the right to life is absolute, regardless of stage of development, why all the effort to use these examples? Is it possible that this is being done because, fundamentally, most people don’t see an early fetus as having the same rights? Brother Brian

Brother Brian apparently believes that he is making some type of moral argument that is logically consistent when he states that "the right to life depends on the state of development of the fetus". Yet, Brother Brian fails to realize that, as a Darwinist, he has given up any right to make any type of moral argument whatsoever. The amorality inherent within the atheistic materialism that undergirds Brother Brian's Darwinian worldview allows for no good nor evil, just blind pitiless indifference.

“The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” - Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

The only ‘morality’ that matters within Darwinian reasoning is ‘survival of the fittest’. As I said the other day, for crying out loud, if eating aborted babies gave us a survival advantage then on Darwinian reasoning would that would be a ‘good’ thing. Any ‘antiquated’ moral objection to such an abhorrent notion as eating aborted babies is held to be subjective and ‘illusory’ on a Darwinian view. There is literally nothing within Darwinian reasoning to say that it is morally bad to do such a morally abhorrent thing! In short, Brother Brian has disingenuously stolen from Christian morality in order to try to provide faux moral support for the larger objective of aborting unborn babies without restriction. Brother Brian, even though his Darwinian worldview does not allow for altruistic morality of any sort, feels free to debate the finer moral details of exactly when the fetus is legally entitled to the right to life. This is where it becomes humorously, and irresolvably, problematic for the Darwinist. Legally in the United States, the right to life is granted to anyone who is granted the legal status of being a 'person'.

Unborn children as constitutional persons. - 2010 Excerpt: In Roe v. Wade, the state of Texas argued that "the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." To which Justice Harry Blackmun responded, "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment." However, Justice Blackmun then came to the conclusion "that the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." In this article, it is argued that unborn children are indeed "persons" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20443281

And yet the atheist's Darwinian worldview is unable to ground the concept of 'personhood':

“There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again.” – A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10 “that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.” Francis Crick – “The Astonishing Hypothesis” 1994 The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness By STEVEN PINKER - Monday, Jan. 29, 2007 Part II THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there's an executive "I" that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion. http://www.academia.edu/2794859/The_Brain_The_Mystery_of_Consciousness “(Daniel) Dennett concludes, ‘nobody is conscious … we are all zombies’.” J.W. SCHOOLER & C.A. SCHREIBER – Experience, Meta-consciousness, and the Paradox of Introspection – 2004

Thus in a technical legal sense, it is perfectly legal to kill Darwinists since their worldview denies that they really exist as real persons, thus forsaking any legal 'right to life' that they are granted as persons. :) Darwinists may not think this turn of events very funny, but I find it very funny indeed. All kidding aside, since only Theism can ground morality and personhood, then it is obvious that we must turn to Theology to see when the status of personhood is granted by God. And though many liberal Theologians have tried to argue otherwise, the Bible is pretty clear that personhood is granted even prior to the Babies development in the womb:

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;,,"

And indeed, we now even have empirical evidence of immaterial information coming into the developing embryo 'from outside space-time' to support this Theistic claim that God formed each of us in our mother's womb:

Darwinism vs Biological Form https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology - video https://youtu.be/LHdD2Am1g5Y

Verses:

Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul? Psalm 139:13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.

bornagain77

Well, BB, here's the problem: Just who decides what is batsh@$ crazy? Why should we honor their decision? anthropic

Brother Brian- My reasoning is up to the age of 18 you are supposedly still under the dominion of your parents. The parents being responsible from conception until 18. And what do you care about arguments, anyway? ET

ET

Because why stop there? Why not make it legal until the kid is 18?

Or 65. If you are going to make an argument, might I suggest that you make one that isn’t batsh@$ crazy? Brother Brian

BB - You misunderstand - I said nothing about my views ‘only’ being against late term abortion. That is not the case. Now if you (BB) are against abortion and see the new laws allowing for killing at any time up until birth - why would you state -”Then it is a good thing that we have decided to establish laws to place limits on what is permitted.“ ? Heartlander

Brother Brian:

Why the repeated reference to abortions at the time of crowning?

Because why stop there? Why not make it legal until the kid is 18? But I digress. Abortionists, those anti-lifers, say the fetus isn't a human cuz of the lack of brain activity an a bunch of other arbitrary nonsense. Late term abortions fly in the face of their redefinition. ET

Heartlander, I fail to see your point. According to your view, and that of many here, the life of a one day old fetus is just as valuable as that of a baby being born. Why the repeated reference to abortions at the time of crowning? Is this a subconscious admission that maybe the right to life depends on the state of development of the fetus? Brother Brian

BB - In response to a post discussing laws allowing for the life of a human fetus to be killed up until birth (and even after), you reply - ”Then it is a good thing that we have decided to establish laws to place limits on what is permitted.“ The Dostoevsky quote applies... Heartlander

They did that for "the Purge". Laws are only as good as the people who make them, the people who enforce them and the people who will care they exist. ET

Then it is a good thing that we have decided to establish laws to place limits on what is permitted. Brother Brian

"If God does not exist, everything is permitted." Dostoevsky anthropic

It is COMMON in abortion clinics for the abortionist to ACCIDENTALLY produce a live baby during a late term abortion. They take breathes. They cry. They struggle to find warmth. They RESIST being executed. But the baby is ALWAYS killed. "The lady is paying for a dead baby. I'm gonna give her a dead baby." Read any of the details about Gosnell in Philadelphia. I think I read he was "murdered" (executed?) in prison after having been convicted of Murder after one of the MOTHERS died. Abortion is a VERY dangerous procedure. Oh, and on the whole Constant Morality thing. Look up "Hippocratic Oath" on Wikipedia. From its BEGINNING in Ancient Greece 2,000 years ago, the new doctor was to swear "Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion." And so American doctors continued to swear up until the late 20th century. But as abortion became MORALLY acceptable, and profitable to doctors, the "not give to a woman" sentence was DROPPED from the Oath as sworn in the US. Now if THAT ain't a change to Morality, I don't know what is. vmahuna

In case anyone missed these quotes on Barry's last thread on abortion:

Hillary Clinton is Wrong: OBGYN Says Abortion is Never Necessary to Save the Life of the Mother – MICAIAH BILGER OCT 24, 2016 Dr. Lawrence Koning, an OB-GYN in Corona, California, said Clinton also is wrong about late-term abortions being necessary to save a woman’s life or health, according to Christian News Network. “As an OB/GYN physician for 31 years, there is no medical situation that requires aborting/killing the baby in the third trimester to ‘save the mother’s life,’” Koning wrote on social media after the debate. “Just deliver the baby by C-section and the baby has 95+% survival with readily available NICU care even at 28 weeks. C-section is quicker and safer than partial birth abortion for the mother.” https://catholiccitizens.org/views/68533/hillary-clinton-wrong-obgyn-says-abortion-never-necessary-save-life-mother/ Board Certified OB/GYN Drops Truth Bomb on New York Abortion Law – COURTNEY KIRCHOFF THURSDAY JANUARY 24 2019 I want to clear something up so that there is absolutely no doubt. I’m a Board Certified OB/GYN who has delivered over 2,500 babies. There’s not a single fetal or maternal condition that requires third trimester abortion. Not one. Delivery, yes. Abortion, no. – Omar L. Hamada, MD, MBA https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/board-certified-ob-gyn-drops-truth-bomb-on-new-york-abortion-law/ Dr. David McKnight, who is a board certified OB/GYN released this statement; (Jan 24, 2019) “It appears that the State of New York has legislated that an unborn baby can now be killed at term. They did this joyfully and celebrated by illuminating the Freedom Tower in pink light. As a board-certified OB/GYN physician for over 30 years, I need to say publicly and unequivocally, that there is NEVER a medical reason to kill a baby at term. When complications of pregnancy endanger a mother’s life, we sometimes must deliver the baby early, but it ALWAYS with the intent of doing whatever we can to do it safely for the baby too. The decision to kill an unborn baby at term is purely for convenience. It is murder. And now it won’t be long before a struggling mother with a 1-month old baby will argue for the right to kill her baby too, because taking care of him or her is just too difficult and inconvenient. When you are willing to rationalize murder, why be subject to a timeline? God help us.” https://www.empirestateconservativenetwork.com/blog/2019/1/24/why-the-reproductive-health-act-is-abhorrent-trash Pro-life obstetrician blasts New York’s ‘horrible’ new abortion law – video https://www.facebook.com/LifeSiteNews/videos/573198246478195/

bornagain77

See Also: Michael Egnor - The Junk Science of the Abortion Lobby (Fetuses not only experience pain but experience it more intensely than do adults) Vice President Mike Pence - Life Is Under Attack (There’s another word for this: infanticide. And it is morally reprehensible and evil.) Allie Stuckie - The Agenda Is Infanticide ( Thank you, New York and Virginia, for proving us right yet again: we’re not the extremists. You are.) VIDEO: Frank Stephens’ Powerful Speech On Down Syndrome Heartlander

as to, "if a doctor says it would help the woman’s MENTAL health."

Abortion increases risk of mental illness - September 2011 - Excerpt: A new study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry by leading American researcher Dr. Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green State University finds women who have an abortion face almost double the risk of mental health problems as women who have their baby. Coleman’s study is based on an analysis of 22 separate studies which, in total, examine the pregnancy experiences of 877,000 women, with 163,831 women having an abortion. The study also indicated abortion accounts for one in ten of every adverse mental health issue women face as a whole. “Results indicate quite consistently that abortion is associated with moderate to highly increased risks of psychological problems subsequent to the procedure,” the study says. http://networkedblogs.com/mAW07 Study in Prestigious Journal Shows Abortion harms women’s mental health Excerpt: The largest, most definitive analysis of the mental health risks associated with abortion was published Sept. 1 in the prestigious British Journal of Psychiatry. Conducted by Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green State University, the analysis examines 22 studies published between 1995 and 2009 involving 877,181 women, of whom 163,831 had abortions. The findings: — “Women who have had an abortion have an 81 percent higher risk of subsequent mental health problems compared to women who have not had an abortion. — “Women who aborted have a 138 percent higher risk of mental health problems compared to women who have given birth. — “Women who aborted have a 55 percent higher risk of mental health problems compared to women with an ‘unplanned’ pregnancy who gave birth. — “Women with a history of abortion have higher rates of anxiety, depression, alcohol use/misuse, marijuana use, and suicidal behavior, compared to those who have not had an abortion. Coleman notes that a 2010 study by Canadian researchers published after she completed her analysis of the 22 studies, arrived at “strikingly similar” conclusions regarding the increased risk of mental health problems associated with abortion. http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2011/09/study-in-prestigious-journal-shows-abortion-harms-women%E2%80%99s-mental-health/ Rape, Incest and Abortion: Searching Beyond the Myths - David C. Reardon, Ph.D. Says one woman reflecting back 25 years after she was coerced into aborting after becoming pregnant by her stepfather as a preteen: “Throughout the years I have been depressed, suicidal, furious, outraged, lonely, and have felt a sense of loss . . . The abortion which was to “be in my best interest” just has not been. As far as I can tell, it only ‘saved their reputations,’ ‘solved their problems,’ and ‘allowed their lives to go merrily on.’ . . . My daughter, how I miss her so. I miss her regardless of the reason for her conception.” http://afterabortion.org/2004/rape-incest-and-abortion-searching-beyond-the-myths-3/ Study: Women More Likely to Die After Abortion, Not Childbirth - September 2012 Excerpt: A new study of the medical records for nearly half a million women in Denmark reveals significantly higher maternal death rates following abortion compared to delivery. This finding has confirmed similar large-scale population studies conducted in Finland and the United States, but contradicts the widely held belief that abortion is safer than childbirth. http://www.lifenews.com/2012/09/05/study-shows-women-more-likely-to-die-after-abortion-n ot-childbirth/ - New Analysis of 20 Studies Finds 151% Increased Breast Cancer Risk After Abortion - JAN 7, 2019 https://www.lifenews.com/2019/01/07/new-analysis-of-study-studies-finds-151-increased-breast-cancer-risk-after-abortion/

The following article is eye opening in regards to what Doctors are telling women, or NOT telling women.

Stonewalled on Abortion - 2018 Excerpt: Abortion & Breast Cancer Gill interviewed several medical doctors. Is there evidence of a link between abortion and breast cancer? she asked. Yes, said Dr. Ian Gentles, coauthor of Complications: Abortion's Impact on Women (2013); there have been "many dozens of studies [that] show a real, statistically significant link." Yes, said Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, a breast cancer surgeon who has seen it in a textbook and in her practice. No, said Dr. David Grimes, an ob-gyn and abortionist for more than four decades, "there are no long-term consequences from abortion." This issue is settled, he said. Doing continued studies would not only be inappropriate, but unethical. Thus, right off the bat, Gill and Martin encountered the deep divide between medical professionals. But Grimes had underscored his point by adding that his opinion was the same as that of all the major medical organizations. This did seem to add credibility to the "no consequences" side, so that's where they went next. One after another, Gill contacted them: The American Cancer Society. The Canadian Cancer Society. The National Cancer Institute. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in London. The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. And finally, the World Health Organization. But to her surprise, not only would none of them consent to an interview, they would not even speak to her. Not one. The case was closed, they all said. Anything she needed to know could be found on their website. It was as if they were all working off the same script. With no other option, and now starting to feel suspicious of those denying any link, Gill went to their websites. Each one referred to a 2003 conference held by the NIH cancer division, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), where it had been concluded once and for all that there was no link between abortion and breast cancer. Upon this discovery, she tried again to speak with someone at the NCI, going so far as to visit in person. But when she arrived, she was swiftly escorted off the grounds by security. What was going on here? A thoroughgoing journalist, Gill was not one to be intimidated into silence. She continued to dig and question until, eventually, she located a recording of the 2003 conference online and got to the bottom of the "no abortion-breast cancer link" conclusion. She explains her findings in some detail in the film, but suffice it here to say that a careful look raises serious questions about who or what dictated the outcome of this seminal conference. Was it honest medical science? Or was it abortion politics? Abortion & Pre-term Birth Pre-term birth rates have doubled in the U.S. since Roe. Every year, more than 11,000 newborns die on the day of their birth in America due to prematurity, and those that survive exact untold emotional and financial costs on health care resources and families before ever leaving the hospital. After discharge, they face heightened risks of such lifelong disabilities as cerebral palsy, autism, chronic lung disease, and other vital organ maladies. "It seems there's a real clear unwillingness to deal with the science on this," said Dr. Martin McCaffrey, a neonatologist who has frontline experience in caring for preemies and their families. He was invited in 2008 to serve as an expert panel member at the Surgeon General's Conference on Preventing Preterm Birth, held by the NIH. He brought up the abortion-prematurity link and presented 122 articles as supportive evidence, but the co-chairs would not allow discussion, even though the link has been demonstrated in more than 80 studies. McCaffrey estimates that abortion accounts for 18 percent of very preterm births (earlier than 32 weeks' gestation), yet in all the material published to raise awareness of prematurity, there is no mention of prior abortion as a possible risk factor. None. The question is, why not? Abortion & Adverse Psychological Effects This has been covered in Salvo before. Gill cites the alarmingly high rates of such maladies as PTSD, eating disorders, depression, substance abuse, and suicide in post-abortive women, but the most moving evidence of post-abortion trauma come from the post-abortive women she interviews, many of whom suffer heart-wrenching grief and regret decades later. Shouldn't women considering abortion be provided with this information? Gill asks. No, insists Dr. Grimes, the abortionist. That would be "a very overt attempt to dissuade or discourage women from exercising their right to have an abortion." Apparently this is what passes in his world for medical ethics. The Moral Imperative of Informed Consent For people of conscience, though, informed consent matters, and women considering abortion deserve factual information. Since neither the abortion industry nor the bureaus of medical apparatchiks will so much as countenance the data, Gill and Martin have brought it to the public themselves. Meanwhile, they continue to press the NIH and NCI to address the questions Hush raises, but so far they have received no response beyond the same scripted suggestions to visit the NCI website, which in turn still cites the 2003 conference. Hush is top-notch work. In many ways, you, the viewer, feel like you're along on their quest. And where appropriate, well-crafted graphics depict the medical explanations, making the breast cancer and pre-term birth connections understandable. "Over time," said Dr. Patrick Fagan, who coauthored a 2014 paper on the abortion-breast cancer link, "the 2003 NCI conference is going to become an embarrassment in the history of the NCI itself." Indeed, it may. It took Dr. Omalu four years to awaken the conscience of the NFL. The consciences of the NIH and NCI have already been slumbering for over thirteen years. One can hope that Hush will, paradoxically, finally wake them up. • https://salvomag.com/article/salvo39/stonewalled-on-abortion

i.e. Abortion industry is a wholesale deception and death industry.

John 8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

bornagain77