Big Science Pushes Abortion

Someone please show us a scientific paper or academic
press release that urges valuing the life of the unborn

What does abortion have to do with science?

Anyone who is not brain dead is aware that abortion is opposed primarily by conservatives and favored primarily by liberals. There are deviations from this rule among some groups and individuals, but the rule is clear as seen in the policy platforms of the Republican and Democrat parties. Moreover, those on the left often favor abortion on demand for any reason up to birth—and sometimes after birth—a crime long labeled infanticide. For instance, California, with its Democrat super-majority, is considering a bill (AB 2223) that would decriminalize murder of a child after birth in certain cases. Such practices were long considered barbaric in civilized societies.

So, again, what does abortion have to do with science? It’s a moral issue with deep roots in one’s worldview and set of values. Science is not supposed to deal in values, but in facts testable by empirical verification. Beyond morality, abortion is also a practice with serious consequences for culture, family, and human flourishing. It also affects population dynamics. For instance, the infamous “one-child” policy in China led to forced abortions—many of them sex-selected against girls—to the point where thousands of young men were later unable to find marriage partners. Since marriage tends to civilize men, a society with a significant fraction of frustrated male loners is asking for trouble. In the west there have been so many abortions that not enough married couples with children remain to support promises of welfare for senior citizens, or even to sustain the population.

Needless to say, most conservatives consider abortion murder and a great evil in our society. They are hoping and praying that the Supreme Court will finally rule in June in the Dobbs v Jackson case to over turn or severely limit the Roe v Wade decision of 1973 that legalized abortion across the United States.

Big Science ought to back off from this highly charged debate and stay neutral. But in our experience, Big Science and Big Media always take pro-abortion positions. Examples follow; that’s why we ask our readers to show us any scientific paper or academic press release that urges valuing the life of the unborn. Where is it? Without that evidence, these recent press releases support our 12-year-running contention that Big Science is a leftist cabal (see 14 Oct 2010, and search on “leftist” or “abortion” in the search bar). If that is the case, then Big Science has abandoned one of its primary pillars—objectivity—and must be exposed as a biased political lobby. The same goes for Big Media. They almost never criticize this flagrant bias but rather promote it. Let some facts be shown from recent news.

Abortion training under threat for med students, residents (Medical Xpress, 18 April 2022).

Lindsey Tanner expresses alarm that medical schools are not teaching doctors and nurses how to murder babies in the womb. Such a tragedy! Abortion training is “glaringly absent” in medical school curricula. Something must be done! How else will pregnant women “get the care that patients deserve and need,” one quote says. Why, women might end up at Crisis Pregnancy Centers that try to change their minds. THAT would be a tragedy. Divya Jain, who got her abortion training at a Planned Parenthood facility, described abortion with dismissive unconcern, oblivious to the 62 MILLION babies since Roe who were denied their chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. “It’s just a normal in-house procedure,” she said. “It’s just patients seeking medical treatment.”

Studies detail current, future obstacles to abortion care (Ohio State News, 20 April 2022, reposted by Medical Xpress).

Notice the loaded words: “obstacles” connotes impediments to a goal. “Care” connotes love and sympathy (but not for the baby, whose body is treated like a piece of garbage after an abortion). Ohio State news contributor Misti Crane worries about what a Dobbs decision against Roe could mean for women wishing to terminate the life inside them. It could “inevitably increase health inequities,” one spokesperson says. Nowhere does Crane provide any hint of a thought that the baby has a right to life or dignity as a unique individual human being. Nowhere does she recall that abortion practices have created huge “inequities” against blacks (see 31 July 2020 about Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, a horrible racist and eugenicist who thought abortion clinics should be placed in black neighborhoods).

Research shows why a no protest zone is needed at the Robert’s abortion clinic (Aston University, 26 April 2022).

This “research” press release begins with a photo of a pro-life table encouraging women to keep their babies, as if that is an awful thing. The bias in the “research” (intended to sway government officials and influence public policy) is clear in the opening bullet points—a case study in propaganda:

• Birmingham City Council is currently consulting on a Public Space Protection Order to prevent anti-abortion activists from standing outside the abortion clinic in Kings Norton
• Aston University experts say anti-abortion activists cause distress outside abortion clinics, regardless of what activities they do
• Dr Pam Lowe and Dr Sarah-Jane Page say it also causes upset to local residents whose lives are disrupted by their presence.

Note the bias in the term “anti-abortion” instead of “pro-life.” Did the research find any “distress” to the baby being killed in the womb? No; those vulnerable victims scream in silence. The article ends with this quote from a resident. Is this research-based, evidence-based, or scientific in any sense of the word?

“The overall sentiment is relief ‘someone is doing something’ as everyone is so disgusted by the protest – we need to stop the harassment that is happening at the heart of our neighbourhood and let the clinic go back to the discreet provision it has always been.”

There have been other articles like this in recent months, none taking a pro-life position. These give the flavor of the pro-abortion bias seen regularly in science journals and science news sites. For other examples of bias about abortion in Big Science and Big Media, see our 4 Sept 2021 article, our 13 March 2016 article, or search for entries with the keywords “abortion” or “leftist” and related terms. Search also on “fetal tissue” for articles about the perverse incentives that abortion creates for scientists wanting to experiment on baby body parts: e.g., “How to Scientifically Justify Horror” on 17 Dec 2018. and “Secular Science’s Meat Market: Abortion and Embryos” 13 March 2016. For scientific evidence that human life begins at conception, read our 22 Dec 2021 piece.

Update 5/02/2022: This evening Politico released a leaked document from inside the Supreme Court indicating a possible decision in the Dobbs case that would overturn Roe and return abortion laws to the states. It is not known who leaked it, or why, or even if it is authentic. If so, it is merely a draft opinion from February without any force of law. Justices on the court write frequent drafts as they deliberate. Only the final opinion signed off by the entire Court has legal force. If the opinion stands, it would not outlaw abortion. It would only remand the decisions about abortion laws to the several states.

Immediately, though, liberals began to attack the draft decision through Twitter. California Governor Gavin Newsom vowed to “Fight like hell” (Breitbart) as if women are being silenced. Amy Klobuchar said that the Court is “literally stripping women of their rights.” Conservatives, who are cautiously optimistic, have argued for decades that there is no “right to abortion” in the Constitution, claiming that the 1973 court invented rights that are not there and would have been repudiated by the Founding Fathers. Even some liberal jurists have agreed that Roe was bad law and badly decided. If so, some 62 million unborn babies have paid the ultimate price for a bad law in the 49 years since then.

If you find any pro-life articles in secular science journals or science websites, please send a link to it in the comments or write editor [at] crev.info. It will be a first. We would even appreciate seeing anything indicating that human life is exceptional in the womb, or that a “fetus” has human rights.

We trust our readers know that these same “scientists” who justify the horrors of abortion also preach evolution and wish to censor all Darwin skeptics, even those with multiple PhDs in science.