To prohibit abortions does not stop them. When women feel it is absolutely necessary, they will choose to have abortions, even in secret, without medical care, in dangerous circumstances. In the two decades before abortion was legal in the U.S., it's been estimated that nearly a million women per year sought out illegal abortions. Thousands died. Tens of thousands were mutilated. All were forced to behave as if they were criminals.

This is perhaps Planned Parenthood’s most emotionally powerful reason, yet it is flawed in two ways. First, it is illogical to say that just because people will continue to break a certain law that it is a reason to do away with that law. After all, to prohibit murder and rape does not stop them. However, they are still illegal because murder and rape, like abortion, have victims and justice demands that those victims be protected and the perpetrators be punished.

Second, it is completely false that thousands of women died of illegal abortions before it became legal in 1973. I am disappointed that the author of the article did not cite a source for this inflammatory statistic. I’m sure they didn’t because none exist. This fact is confirmed by Bernard Nathanson, an ex-abortionist and the founder of the National Association For the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL). Nathanson used to operate the largest abortion mill in the United States until he realized the error of his ways and converted to Catholicism and became an ardent pro-lifer. In his Confessions of an Ex-Abortionist, Nathanson writes:

"We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200 - 250 annually. The figure constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law."

In addition, data from the history of abortion in Poland contradicts Planned Parenthood’s claim that if abortion were illegal then many women would still seek them.

"It seems logical enough on the surface. However, there are no documented studies to prove this claim. That doesn't seem to matter to pro-abortion spokespeople nor to a biased media. What is needed is the actual experience in the field. What has happened in a major nation when abortion has been forbidden? Have illegal abortions increased? Have more women died or more women been injured? Well, guess what. We have had a proving ground in a major nation, which is there for all to see. The nation is Poland.

Poland, along with the rest of the Iron Curtain, Eastern Europe countries, was occupied for 44 years by Russia. Russia legalized state-paid abortion in the first three months of pregnancy. What are the official figures of the numbers of abortions performed annually during those years in Poland? In 1960, it was 150,400 – in 1965, 168,600 – in 1970, 148,200 – in 1975, 138,600 – in 1980, 138,000 – in 1985, 135,500. By 1990, with the advent of the Solidarity independence movement and the influence of Pope John Paul II, the number of abortions had declined to 59,417. This was a spontaneous movement." (Willke 1).

Legal abortion not only protects women's lives, it also protects their health. For tens of thousands of women with heart disease, kidney disease, severe hypertension, sickle-cell anemia and severe diabetes, and other illnesses that can be life-threatening, the availability of legal abortion has helped avert serious medical complications that could have resulted from childbirth. Before legal abortion, such women's choices were limited to dangerous illegal abortion or dangerous childbirth.

According to Dr. Landrum Shettles, less than one percent of all abortions are performed to save a woman’s life (129). The real issue concerning abortion are the millions of abortions performed for social and economic reasons. Even with the few thousand remaining abortions needed to save a woman’s life, a few facts should dispel the panic caused by the pro-abortion lobby. To start, it is a very rare and almost non-existent case that abortion is needed to save a woman’s life. Former U.S. Surgeon General Everet Koop stated from his 38 years in medicine that, "he was never aware of a situation in which a pre-born child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother (Alcorn 221)." The first director of Planned Parenthood’s research division, Alan Guttmacher, said in 1967 (when pregnancy was much more dangerous due to lack of technology), "Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from some fatal illness like cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save life." Moreover, if a mother’s life were in danger from her pregnancy then she could find adequate medical help, even if that help led to the death of her unborn child. Abortion to save a woman’s life was legal before abortion was legalized and would remain legal if abortion were made illegal again. Even USA Today, a notoriously pro-abortion publication, admits, "The National Right to Life Committee has consistently maintained that while abortion should be banned, there should be exceptions if abortion is needed to save a woman’s life." (Hall 2A)

Finally, countless women are harmed by legal abortions. In his groundbreaking book Lime 5, Michael Denton chronicles decades of abuse and butchery women have received in America’s abortion mills. Denton exposes doctors who sexually assault patients, women who contract diseases like hepatitis from botched operations, women who have been rendered infertile by pelvic inflammatory disease, and the clinics that cover up these disasters. Studies have shown that women who have had an abortion are twice as likely to have a lethal ectopic pregnancy later in life (Levin 253). Several studies have shown that abortion doubles a woman’s risk of contracting breast cancer (Pike 72-6). Finally, thousands of women report suffering from post-abortion syndrome (PAS), a psychological disorder that causes depression, alcohol and drug abuse, sexual dysfunction, personality fragmentation, and even suicide (Reardon 129) . Instead of protecting women’s health, elective abortions seem to only endanger it both emotionally and physically.

Some people argue these days that a fetus is a "person" that is "indistinguishable from the rest of us" and that it deserves rights equal to women's. On this question there is a tremendous spectrum of religious, philosophical, scientific, and medical opinion. It's been argued for centuries. Fortunately, our society has recognized that each woman must be able to make this decision, based on her own conscience. To impose a law defining a fetus as a "person," granting it rights equal to or superior to a woman's — a thinking, feeling, conscious human being — is arrogant and absurd. It only serves to diminish women.

This is the only reason of the nine that addresses the crux of the issue, "Is the unborn child a person?" If it is, then he or she deserves the same rights to life that you or I have. Planned parenthood, knowing that they can’t possibly prove that the unborn are NOT persons, takes an agnostic view and suspends judgment on the issue. They then take an Alice-in-Wonderland approach to the morality of the issue. They say, "Just let every woman decide if killing an unborn child is immoral, what’s right for one person can be wrong for another and vice-versa. Abortion isn’t right or wrong, it depends on what you believe." This moral relativism makes absolutely no sense. According to the law of non-contradiction, "No statement can be true and false at the same time." So two women cannot make the decision that abortion is moral and immoral and both be right. Someone is wrong, no matter what they sincerely believe. If there truly was disagreement over whether the unborn child is a "person" then we should refrain from killing it! After all, if you are unsure whether the living thing you are about to kill is a person, then the benefit of the doubt should be given to life. It would be like firing a gun through a person’s front door because you were not sure if they were standing behind it.

Moreover, the evidence clearly sides with the unborn child being a person. It is a living human being on a path of self-directed development. This definition of personhood applies to all people including the unborn, the comatose, the elderly, and the disabled. To counter, Planned Parenthood seeks to discredit the idea of the unborn child being a person because in some cases the unborn cannot think or feel. However newborns cannot "think" like we can and people in comas cannot "feel", but they still have a right to life that cannot be infringed upon.

Many hard battles have been fought to win political and economic equality for women. These gains will not be worth much if reproductive choice is denied. To be able to choose a safe, legal abortion makes many other options possible. Otherwise an accident or a rape can end a woman's economic and personal freedom.

Abortion has become the battle cry of modern feminism. They claim that women can only be truly equal to men as long as they have the option to terminate their motherhood. This position espoused by feminism is actually extremely degrading to women. The founders of modern feminism would be appalled at where the movement has gone because they were against abortion. Susan B. Anthony, who was a major figure in women receiving the right to vote, saw abortion as being morally repulsive:

"I deplore the horrible crime of child murder. . . No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!" (4)

They also saw that if men could force women to terminate their children, they would not have to help raise them. Thus, they could use women for sex without consequences. In addition, the argument subtly alludes to the "equality" women desire with men. They say, "Men have the freedom to walk away from a relationship where they have conceived a child and go on to have careers and other personal freedoms. Women due to their anatomy cannot so easily walk away from those children. Therefore, women should be allowed to remove and kill those children so that they can be just as selfish as men." Is this the equality women should be fighting for?

Anti-abortion laws discriminate against low-income women, who are driven to dangerous self-induced or back-alley abortions. That is all they can afford. But the rich can travel wherever necessary to obtain a safe abortion.

It is not discriminatory to keep a particular group of people from committing a crime. The rich will always be able to break the law easier than the poor, but that is no reason to do away with the law to make the poor equal to the rich. In addition, most illegal abortions are no more dangerous than legal ones. According to Mary Calderone the past president of Planned Parenthood, 90 percent of abortions done before 1973 were performed by physicians who continued to perform them after Roe v Wade (Calderonne 949).

If there is any matter that is personal and private, then pregnancy is it. There can be no more extreme invasion of privacy than requiring a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. If government is permitted to compel a woman to bear a child, where will government stop? The concept is morally repugnant. It violates traditional American ideas of individual rights and freedoms.

Sorry, but the traditional American idea of rights and freedoms is summed up in the Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." American common law held that the unborn possessed these rights and that it was the government’s job to protect them.

In order to protect its citizens, all free societies place restrictions on people to ensure the safety and welfare of others. One may not lie in an advertisement even though that would be considered an infringement on the right to free speech. One may not drive drunk even though that is a restriction of liberty. In a debate about slavery with Steven A. Douglas, Abraham Lincoln gave this famous retort: "No one has the right to do wrong."

Forty percent of 14-year-old girls will become pregnant before they turn 20. This could happen to your daughter or someone else close to you. Here are the critical questions: Should the penalty for lack of knowledge or even for a moment's carelessness be enforced pregnancy and childrearing? Or dangerous illegal abortion? Should we consign a teenager to a life sentence of joblessness, hopelessness, and dependency?

Planned Parenthood’s aggressive push for birth control and abortion for teens has actually worsened the teen pregnancy problem. This is confirmed by their militant stance against abstinence based sexual education programs. Past director Faye Wattletone said, "We are not going to be an organization promoting celibacy or chastity." Their eagerness to promote contraception and abortion for teenagers is motivated by one thing: money. Every Planned Parenthood pregnancy test given to teenagers paid for by tax dollars brings in $57.51 as opposed to the $16.36 it would cost if teens paid for it themselves (Ruff 17). When parental notification laws regarding teen abortions are put in place, Planned Parenthood’s teen workload drops by 24-85% (Guttmacher 3). Without teen pregnancy, many Planned Parenthood clinics would be in a financial crisis. As long as abortion is seen as an easy "out" for teens if they conceive through intercourse, then teenagers will continue to engage in dangerous sexual activities, ignorant of the consequences to their physical and emotional health, and Planned Parenthood will be there to reap the profits.

If women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, the result is unwanted children. Everyone knows they are among society's most tragic cases, often uncared-for, unloved, brutalized, and abandoned. When they grow up, these children are often seriously disadvantaged, and sometimes inclined toward brutal behavior to others. This is not good for children, for families, or for the country. Children need love and families who want and will care for them.

This old canard has long been disproved by real world data. In the 70’s, pro-abortion groups said that legalizing abortion would lower incidents of child abuse. They made abortion a magic pill that could cure all of societies’ ills. Of course, they were just selling snake oil because child abuse rates have skyrocketed since Roe v Wade. In the first ten years after the decision, incidents of child abuse increased by 500%! (Dept. Health & Human Services). Moreover, several studies have concluded that wanted children, those from planned pregnancies, are abused more than unwanted ones. In a study by University of South Carolina professor Edward Lenowski, he found in a group of 674 abused children that 91% of them were wanted by their parents before birth (Lenowski 140-1). This sound testimony from research and experts should easily trump Planned Parenthood’s "credible" source of "everyone." "the result is unwanted children. Everyone knows they are among society's most tragic cases, often uncared-for, unloved, brutalized, and abandoned." Everyone! No one sent me that memo. The only abuse Planned Parenthood seems to fully grasp is an abuse of the facts.

Even when precautions are taken, accidents can and do happen. For some families, this is not a problem. But for others, such an event can be catastrophic. An unintended pregnancy can increase tensions, disrupt stability, and push people below the line of economic survival. Family planning is the answer. All options must be open.

Choice is good for families, but abortion is not. According to the Journal published by the Feminism and Non-Violence Studies Association, "In a study of 344 post-abortive women at the Akron Pregnancy Services Center in Akron, Ohio, during 1988-93, 49% reported that their relationship with the father of the unborn child ended soon after their abortion. Approximately six years after their abortion, only 22% were married, and 67% remained single. Another study of women in a post-abortion support group at the Medical College of Ohio found that only 7 of the 66 women who had abortions while single eventually married the father . . . [and research] found that only 19.3% of women who had undergone an abortion were living with the father in the years following the abortion." The authors of the study have noted that other studies have shown similar effects in marriages that have had abortions (Strahan).

In closing, all of the reasons put forth by Planned Parenthood to keep abortion legal are merely vague generalizations and emotional rhetoric. They are easily countered by facts established by experts and academic studies. Planned Parenthood ends the article with this statement that confusingly dodges the issue:

"At the most basic level, the abortion issue is not really about abortion. It is about the value of women in society. Should women make their own decisions about family, career, and how to live their lives? Or should government do that for them? Do women have the option of deciding when or whether to have children? Or is that a government decision?"

Abortion is not about abortion! What does that even mean?! It means that the testimony of anyone familiar with biology, embryology, and child development will unanimously agree that the unborn are human beings. It is a biological fact. That being said, the article shifts the focus to women contemplating abortion. They frame it as women being forced to be baby-making machines under the tyrannical regime of a monolithic government. Really, abortion is about civil rights and a respect for women as life-giving heroes. Unborn children have a right to live and expectant mothers should be praised for their heroism in choosing to bring their babies to term. Organizations like Planned Parenthood or the National Abortion Federation seek to prey on women’s fears and societies’ gullibility so they can keep abortion legal and their businesses will flourish. It’s time to show people the truth and to reveal Planned Parenthood’s distortion and deceit.

Sources

Main Source

Alcorn, Randy. ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments. Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers Inc., 2000.

Primary Sources

Alan Guttmacher Institute, Issues in Brief 4 (March 1984): 3

Anthony, Susan B. Revolution, 8 July 1869, 4.

Calderonne, Mary, "Illegal Abortion as a Public Health Problem," American Journal of Health 50 (July 1960): 949.

Guttmacher, Alan. "Abortion-Yesterday, Today, and Tommorow," in The Case for Legalized Abortion Now (Berekely, CA.: Diablo Press, 1967)

Landum, Shettles and David Rorvik, Rites of Life (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), 129.

Lenowski, Edward. Heartbeat 3 (December 1980), cited by John Willke, Abortion Question and Answers (Cincinnati, Ohio: Hayes Publishing Co., 1988), 140-1.

Levin, Ann Aschengrau. "Ectopic Pregnancy and Prior Induced Abortion," American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (March 1982): 253.

Los Angeles Times, 17 October 1986.

Hall, Mimi. "Even When a Life Saved, Abortion a Divisive Issue," USA Today, 26 July 1991, 2A.

Pike, M.C. "Oral Contraceptive Use and Early Abortion as Risk Factors for Breast Cancer in Young Women," British Journal: Cancer 1981, 72-6.

Reardon, Aborted Women.

Ruff, Robert. "An Ingenious System for Milking Tax-Payers," New Dimensions, October 1991, 17

Strahan, Thomas W. Studies Suggesting That Induced Abortion May Increase the Feminization of Poverty.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Report; National Study on Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting, The American Humane Association, 1981 and 1991; 1977 Analysis of Child Abuse and Neglect Research, U.S. Dept. of H.E.W., 1978.

Willke, J.C. "Clear Evidence: If Forbidden, Abortion Will Not Return to the Back Alley," Life Issues Connector, Life Issues Institute, April 2000, 1, 3.