Posted on 01/02/2003 9:56:00 PM PST by Coleus
WHISTLEBLOWER MAGAZINE Ex-abortionists expose America's greatest scandal Doctors, staffers tell electrifying story of corruption, greed, betrayal, death
Posted: January 2, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
"Safe and legal abortion is every woman's right." That's what Americans have been told since the Supreme Court's momentous Roe v. Wade decision – 30 years ago this month – that opened up the floodgates of abortion in the U.S.A.
But behind the slick marketing campaign, beyond the slogans and public posturing of abortion-rights activists, is what can only be described as the wretched reality of the abortion industry.
Human babies, at or near full-term, are regularly butchered as they are being born, their intact body parts sold for profit.
The link between abortion and breast cancer is now undeniable, proven by the vast majority of medical studies. Yet, while physicians recognize the risk factor and admit it to each other, most are fearful of telling their patients because the issue is "too political."
Millions of women suffer other profound physical and psychological effects of abortion, but despite at least five peer-reviewed studies published just within the last year – all showing clearly the negative aftershocks for women who abort – the mainstream press has ignored the subject.
While the media occasionally report high-profile horror stories of abortion doctors raping and abusing multiple women, the true picture is obscured: Young women are being raped and sexually assaulted with alarming frequency in America's abortion clinics.
The abortion industry itself is in severe distress and contraction because, after 43 million abortions since 1973, the doctors and clinic staffers are self-destructing from the long-term effects of their grisly business – or else they are getting out and telling their story.
In the shocking January issue of WND's monthly print magazine, Whistleblower – titled "ABORTION: The 30-Year War" – they tell their story.
Leading off is Norma McCorvey, the real-life "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade – the unmarried, pregnant young woman who 30 years ago was the abortion-seeking plaintiff and focal point of the fight for legalized abortion in America.
Today, having experienced a profound change of heart, McCorvey tells: how the Roe v. Wade case was fraudulent because she fabricated her story of being raped and thus impregnated, how she was callously used by heartless pro-abortion attorneys, and how she never actually had the abortion. She also relates the incredible story of how she turned around and came to be a Christian and a pro-life activist, working tirelessly to undo the results of Roe v. Wade.
Next up to bat in January's issue is Bernard Nathanson, M.D., co-founder of the fiercely pro-abortion NARAL (The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) and one of the pioneers and creators of the abortion movement in America. It was Nathanson who made up the early slogans – "Freedom of choice" and "Women must have control over their own bodies."
"I remember laughing when we made those slogans up," recalls Nathanson, reminiscing about the early days of the abortion-rights movement in the late '60s and early '70s. "We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion. They were very cynical slogans then, just as all of these slogans today are very, very cynical."
One of the principal architects and strategists of the abortion movement in the United States, Nathanson tells an astonishing story.
"We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal, enlightened, sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls," he confesses. "We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60 percent of Americans were in favor of permissive abortion. … 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."
Noting that "repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public," Nathanson adds: "The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we 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."
He and a handful of other early abortion proponents succeeded in "cracking" the nation's abortion laws – beyond their wildest dreams, says Nathanson.
Ultimately, however, although he performed some 5,000 abortions with his own hands and supervised another 10,000 in his clinic, Nathanson also changed. Something profound happened to him – and today, like McCorvey, he is a tireless pro-life advocate and speaker, laboring to stuff the abortion genie back into the bottle.
But there is a great deal more in the January Whistleblower. Indeed, this is an issue full of whistleblowers. For following in McCorvey's ("Jane Roe") and Nathanson's footsteps are many other physicians and clinic personnel who tell all – no punches are pulled, no holds barred – in describing what the abortion industry is really all about.
"ABORTION: The 30-year war" blows the lid off of the extraordinarily deceitful, destructive but lucrative abortion business, long protected by the establishment media's reluctance to investigate it.
"This issue of Whistleblower is shattering," said Editor and CEO Joseph Farah. "I don't think the reality of abortion and the surrounding issues have ever been communicated in a more compelling way. The story laid out here is comprehensive, documented, gut-wrenching and totally, undeniably, scandalously true. You simply won't be the same after you read it." (Editor's note: This issue contains graphic photographs of abortions, and may not be suitable for children.)
Subscribe to Whistleblower now and receive 12 powerful monthly issues, beginning with January's 'ABORTION: The 30-Year War."
While this sounds nice, it is completely false to state this.
Fact - a link has been shown in a study of mice. Problem - mice are not that closely related to humans for this to be definitive.
Fact - a link has been shown in a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (the Melbye study) that shows a risk of 1.9 (eg. almost double the risk) for women who have abortions after 18 weeks (late term abortions). However, for women who abort in the 1st trimester, the relative risk is 1.0 (eg., identical to women who have not had abortions.) This study is considered definitive because it covered 1.5 million women in Denmark born between 1935 and 1978 (definitive because it has such a large population sample size, and there is no "response bias" because Denmark, unlike the US, records all abortions.)
What is "response bias"? In the US, it has been found that in some areas of the country (more conservative and religious) that women who have actually had an abortion may not admit it to a stranger who come knocking at the door to do a survey. Thus, since the women who say they have not had an abortion are the "control group", but if in fact within that group there are women who lied and really did have an abortion, then the group is contaminated and the study is deemed flawed.
Note that there are those who consider the Melbye study flawed, in that there were "age adjustments" done, where Melbye compared "women of like ages with women of like ages". Other epidemiologists state that this is the correct procedure and is normally done in other cancer studies.
Understand that I am not posting this as a "pro-choice" (pro-abortion) position defense. I am pointing out that the majority of epidemiologists do not concur that "The link between abortion and breast cancer is now undeniable, proven by the vast majority of medical studies."
After so many years of killing babies, they have depleted their available supply of pregnant women. One out of three pregancies have been ending in abortion. That means that one out of every six women that should be alive today are not alive because of abortion.
They have been cutting into their own supply. That's 21.5 million women they can not entice to abort.
ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
Regards,
Boot Hill
Mice lack breasts though they have milk producing glands. The cancer found in mice would have relevance regarding the hormonal changes that support tissue changes associated with pregnancy and birth. In that regard, the studies on mice are revealing because of the similarity in tissue changes with other pregnant mammals. As you noted, mice and humans are not too close in species similarities and thus transferences made from that species to humans must be scrutinized carefully for relevance.
The Danish study you cited showed an elevated risk for women aborting their child after the first trimester. But in the Discover article the bias of the author shines glaringly in the following quoted sentence:
(Melbye did find a risk of almost 1.9 --statistically significant risk-- for women who had abortions in the 18th week or later, but such procedures are rare and done only in emergency)p.58, Discover, Feb. 2003. That underlined assertion, freeper readers, is a bold faced lie.
Abortions after the 18th week are neither rare nor mostly for emergency purposes ... more than 15,000 partial birth infanticides (as only one type of post 16th week killing method) per year are performed in this nation; while statistically a small percentage of 1.4 million annual abortions, that is 15,000 sensing individual human beings slaughtered willfully and never in an emergency to save a woman's life. And that is just with that particular procedure! There are other methods used that add to the totals of 16th week or beyond aborticides.
If fifteen thousand women were dying from electric shock with hair dryers, or murdered by serial killers each year, you can bet the farm outrage would be soaring and demands for something to protect women would have national attention 24/7.
The lies repeated by this author (perhaps inadvertently) are forwarded by the NARAL, NOW, DNC cabal wishing to desensitize the American public to the horrific truth of abortion holocaust in America. No doubt the author makes the statement quoted above due to the bias the author brought to the writing ... and this author tries very hard to denegrate Joel Brind's finding, re abortion and cancer risk, as 'the bias of a pro-lifer'. [The last paragraph, p. 59, makes a blatant statement designed to denegrate anti-abortion activity as 'religious', and not fit for science. That is blatant propaganda, also.]
The bias of a pro-choicer (supports abortion killing as an enlightened choice) is fundamental to the weighted article in Discover Magazine. Even the Malbye statistical compilation shows a real connection to abortion after the 18th week and cancer later in a woman's life. And that abortion phenomenon in our population is something the DNC has been defending for lo these many years ... and it is causing an increased risk of cancer for those women who have 'chosen' that method to kill an individual human to whom they were giving life support.
To say the connection is false is itself a false assertion since even the Malbye compilation of stats shows a significant connection for certain classes of abortions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.