November 15, 2021 | David F. Coppedge

Big Science Lobbies for Abortion

When judging whether Big Science and Big Media
are trustworthy, look at their treatment of abortion


In this entry, we look at two blatant supports for abortion coming from academic science institutions: one in Nature and one from the University of Georgia. It’s a small sample, but can be considered representative due to the utter lack of any pro-life position taken by secular “science” sites over the years we have been reporting; indeed, we have seen many pro-abortion articles in that time (e.g., 4 Sept 2021, 4 Feb 2018).

Alert readers should ask what science has to do with abortion in the first place. It’s one of the most heated political issues in the country for decades since Roe v Wade. Why is Big Science taking sides? Where is the objectivity, the rational consideration of all arguments for and against? Look for reasons in these two articles.

Crisis pregnancy centers may be hurting public health efforts (University of Georgia). This justification for abortion uses the approach that the alternatives “might” hurt women in some way. It alleges that health standards in some crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) are not up to “quality of care standards”. Note the biased wording in this attack on crisis pregnancy centers, who seek to help women to consider not killing their babies.

“They advertise in ways to make themselves appear to be medical facilities, though most people who work at CPCs aren’t medically trained, and they do not offer comprehensive medical services or follow evidence-based medical practices [abortion is evidence-based medical practice?]. For example, they have policies against promoting condoms [not going to help a pregnant woman!], said study author Andrea Swartzendruber, an associate professor at UGA’s College of Public Health who studies CPCs’ impact on public health [killing a baby is public health?].

“From a public health perspective, those are major concerns that could cause real harm,” she said. [The baby is murdered; is that not real harm?]

CPCs are non-profit, mainly religiously-affiliated organizations [attempt to discredit; Newton was religious] whose main purpose is deterring abortions [is that bad?]. In previous studies, Swartzendruber has shown that these centers frequently share misinformation about abortions [and what would that be? perhaps that there are other options than killing the baby?] as well as prevention methods such as condom use [red herring; condoms can leak and many sexually active adults do not like to use them].

For an industry that tolerated the gross filth in Kermit Gosnell’s house of child murder, that is a bit hypocritical (see the Gosnell movie here). It would be like German inspectors complaining about the lack of proper hygiene facilities in Corrie ten Boom’s hiding place for Jews during the Holocaust, or Confederate doctors complaining about lack of sanitation on the Underground Railroad. Why is the University of Georgia promoting abortion in this backhanded way? The argument boils down to, “CPCs are not up to hospital standards; therefore, women should be encouraged to kill their babies.” Talk about a non-sequitur. Where is the science in this? Why not encourage CPCs and help them upgrade their standards, rather than slandering them? They are trying to protect the most vulnerable human lives of all.

The Mask Is Off

Why hundreds of scientists are weighing in on a high-stakes US abortion case (Nature News). A highly-watched case in the Supreme Court, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, has the potential to overturn Roe next summer (which might only mean returning policies on abortion to the states). The editors of Nature could have done a scientific study of scientists’ views on abortion and reported the results in an unbiased manner. Undoubtedly there would be a non-trivial percentage who are pro-life or at least critical of the Roe decision, the way the court pulled a new “right” out of thin air.

Instead, the editors focused on “hundreds” of scientists (out of many thousands) who are worried that Dobbs might partly curtail the half-century abortion holocaust. On what grounds? It’s all about “women’s health,” of course, which ignores the uncomfortable truth that over half of abortions are girls. The article frets mostly about scenarios where a woman wants to kill her baby but may not have access to an abortion provider.

The following quote is telling. It reveals a long tradition of Big Science pushing abortion:

In more than 40 reports published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, researchers analysed what happened to the women, adjusting for potential confounding factors such as age. The overall finding was that, on average, receiving an abortion didn’t harm women’s mental or physical health, but being denied an abortion resulted in some negative financial and health outcomes.

“The science clearly shows that abortion is incredibly common, and it is important to women living full lives,” [by denying the right to life to another] says Diana Greene Foster, leader of the Turnaway Study and a reproductive-health researcher at the University of California, San Francisco. Recent years have seen the Turnaway and other studies referenced in abortion court cases. For example, judges have cited a 2018 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report finding that abortion is safe [so is capital punishment]. This and other reports find that mortality rates are nearly 4 times as high for colonoscopies — and 14 times as high for childbirth — as for legal abortion procedures.

Try writing that as a 1940-era German doctor arguing that no harm is done through the safe and legal killing of defectives or undesirables. Would the arguments differ? One thing is obvious: a baby denied the right to life will never enjoy “mental or physical health.” If concerns over health and safety are the priorities, the rights of the unborn (and the fathers) should be considered, too.

Here’s another excerpt that completely ignores the dark history of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, who pushed abortion as a way to eliminate blacks. Even today, PP places abortion centers in black neighborhoods. Watch Nature‘s editors twist this known history, and this ongoing form of eugenics, into concern for blacks:

About one-quarter of people in poverty in the United States are Black. Joia Crear-Perry, president of the National Birth Equity Collaborative in Washington DC, warns that banning abortion would disproportionately harm the physical, mental and economic well-being of Black people with the capacity for pregnancy. In particular, Crear-Perry is concerned that abortion bans will raise the already dire rates of maternal mortality for Black women in the United States — which currently stand at 44 deaths per 100,000 births, four times the global average for high-income countries. The amicus brief that she co-signed with other health-equity researchers and advocates states: “Black women, in particular, who continue to experience the effects of racially-motivated policies and practices that impact their maternal health, must have the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy to term.

This is like saying that the way to reduce poverty among blacks is to kill them. Eliminate them early on, so there will be less of them to take limited resources. Wasn’t that the founding goal of Planned Parenthood? One could imagine Margaret Sanger using such rhetoric, with reptilian hiss under her breath, to convince black women they would be better off coming to her Planned Parenthood facility.

Big Science’s position on abortion takes the mask off. It is not a politically neutral body promoting some nebulous “scientific method” to arrive at truth about nature. It is, quite frankly, a powerful political lobby of the Left. Big Science, and its co-conspirators in Big Media, have abandoned all pretense of objectivity. They support a culture of Death, hiding behind euphemisms about “women’s health” and “abortion rights” – rights never spelled out in the Constitution or Bill of Rights or Declaration of Independence, which spoke directly of the right to life from our Creator.

These spokespersons for “science” are the same ones pushing Darwinism. When you hear their arguments in support of mindless evolution, remember what you read here. Doesn’t this fit like hand in glove with Darwinism? In their Darwinist materialist worldview, what is an unborn baby? It’s just a fetus, a clump of tissue, a disposable item that selfish beings can make life-and-death decisions about. Life emerged by chance out of a warm little pond, for no purpose, and so did its descendants: the zygotes in a womb.

Scientists who are appalled by your institutions, come out. Speak out. Turn the tide.

Recommended Resource: Read Jerry Bergman’s novel, How Great Evil Birthed Great Good, based on a true story of two families dealing with the issue of abortion.




(Visited 238 times, 1 visits today)


  • R2-U2 says:

    Sister Joan Chittister: “For instance, let’s look at the abortion question. I’m opposed to abortion. But I do not believe that just because you’re opposed to abortion that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking. If all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed and why would I think that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.” (PBS-TV, NOW with Bill Moyers, November 12, 2004)

    • So if we can’t house and feed a child, kill it? That logic is frightening. The money used to support abortions could be used to house and feed poor children, and many Christian ministries (including CPCs) do that. Instead, this federal government is seeking to use taxpayer funds for abortions, which violate the moral consciences of many (perhaps most) Americans.

  • R2-U2 says:

    According to a 2019 Pew Research Center survey, roughly one-third of Americans who identify as Republican or as Republican-leaning independents don’t agree with their party on abortion (35%). Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, 30% do not agree with their party on abortion.

    For the sake of argument, let’s say Roe vs Wade is overturned, and sometime after that all abortions in the US are deemed illegal, even in cases of rape or incest. I wonder what pro-choice Republican & Democratic women would do if they found themselves pregnant, but still wanted an abortion? I’m guessing most of them would travel to Canada, Mexico or Europe to have the abortion.

    What do you think would happen?

  • R2-U2 says:

    Er, where exactly did I say I defend “the dismemberment and suction of living babies in the womb and putting them in garbage cans”?

    Does God give people the choice/freedom to accept His Son as their personal Savior or not? Or does He force people to, against their will?

    Last time I checked, America is not a theocracy. So should American women, some in their early teens, be forced by the government to endure a pregnancy of many months and give birth against their will, especially in cases of incest or rape?
    Read the dystopian novel “The Handmaid’s Tale”, published in 1985.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.