May 20, 2022 | David F. Coppedge

Big Science Goes All in for Abortion

Big Science as a special interest group favors abortion
but biological science favors life


Perhaps no subject illustrates the Leftist bias in Big Science better than the abortion issue. If the leading journals and science reporters actually respected observational science, they would have to agree with the pro-life position: that human life begins at conception. Instead, they fall in line with the radical Left on this subject as well as all their other current hotbed issues. A lot has happened since April 29 when we reported on Big Science’s activity promoting abortion, and how a major Supreme Court document was leaked to the press. Take a look.

After this list of recent evidence, we will see an ID scientist with a good rebuttal from actual science and logic.

The Court is ignoring science (Diana Greene Foster in Science Magazine, 19 May 2022).

This essay appeared in America’s leading science journal from the AAAS, with no rebuttal. Foster’s title indicates that she sides with the leftists currently protesting the draft opinion in Dobbs that would overturn Roe v Wade – a document was leaked illegally by a still-unidentified staffer at the Supreme Court. Foster is claiming that her pro-abortion stance is scientific. Let’s see.

The research revealed that patients who were able to receive an abortion were more than six times more likely to report aspirational 1-year plans than those who were denied one. They are more likely to have a wanted child later and better able to take care of the children they already have. Because the majority of abortion patients are already parents, this means that being able to obtain an abortion has powerful, multigenerational impacts.

By contrast, if people are forced to carry a pregnancy to term, they are more likely to experience lasting financial hardships. After being denied an abortion, women had three times greater odds of being unemployed than those who obtained abortions and had four times higher odds of being below the federal poverty level.

Foster’s “science” consisted only of surveys of 1,000 women in the so-called Turnaway Study, commissioned by former justice Anthony Kennedy. It had nothing to do with biology. It only measured subjective feelings of women who had abortions and those who did not. Most importantly, it said nothing about the human life inside the womb. The tacit conclusion is this: if something is inconvenient, and is getting in your way, or is making you unhappy, kill it. Treat it like you would a nuisance dog or cat or gopher.

The US Supreme Court is wrong to disregard evidence on the harm of banning abortion (Nature Editorial, 5 May 2022).

The world’s leading science journal preceded by two weeks the AAAS in jumping on the bandwagon to fight the Supreme Court’s draft opinion, claiming the high moral ground: it is “wrong” to ban the killing of babies (imagine!). Nature makes similar quasi-scientific arguments that only concern the health and convenience of the woman.

Abortion bans will extract an unequal toll on society. Some 75% of women who choose to have abortions are in a low income bracket and nearly 60% already have children, according to one court brief submitted ahead of the December hearing and signed by more than 150 economists. Travelling across state lines to receive care will be particularly difficult for people who do not have the funds for flights or the ability to take time off work, or who struggle to find childcare.

So what’s their solution? Kill the baby who had nothing to do with the problem? These crocodile tears fail to point out that Planned Parenthood puts their abortion centers in poor neighborhoods that are mostly black and minority. Some 40% of abortions are of black children, even though they make up just 7% of the population. This harks back to the plan of racist eugenicist evolutionist Margaret Sanger (31 July 2020), who saw minorities as less fit than whites; abortion was her way of reducing the numbers of the poor and unfit (Fox News). Sanger’s arguments still gain traction; they were reiterated recently by Janet Yellen, Biden’s Treasury Secretary (Daily Wire, 10 May 2022). Nature‘s editors are just as guilty of promoting eugenics. Rather than helping poor women, they want to eliminate them.

Abortion funds are in the spotlight with the likely end of Roe v. Wade – 3 findings about what they do  (Gretchen Ely, The Conversation, 13 May 2022).

As a social work professor who studies reproductive health care, I have led research that reviewed thousands of case records of patients who requested assistance from abortion funds to help pay for a procedure that they could not afford.

Dr Ely’s article consists only of statistics about how abortion funds are allocated to women seeking abortions, and how overturning Roe might make them harder to get. Her euphemism (linking abortion with “reproductive health care”) reveals her pro-abort position. Again, nothing is said about the vulnerable living human being inside the womb. Her silence treats “it” as a non-person.

The Lancet warns US Supreme Court over abortion (Medical Xpress, 13 May 2022).

Editors of one of the leading medical journals in the world, The Lancet in Britain, give their support to protestors who are fighting the draft Supreme Court decision. Look for any sign of balance, or any concern for the life of the unborn, or any analysis of whether the Roe decision in 1973 was a good legal decision. It’s not there. Instead, you will find slogans and hate speech that could have been shouted by Chuck Schumer, Senate Majority Leader, who literally threatened two pro-life justices (Kavanaugh and Gorsuch) from the steps of the Supreme Court during their confirmation hearings (YouTube).

“The fact is that if the US Supreme Court confirms its draft decision, women will die,” the publication said.

“The justices who vote to strike down Roe will not succeed in ending abortion, they will only succeed in ending safe abortion.”

“Alito and his supporters will have women’s blood on their hands,” it concluded, referring to justice Samuel Alito, who authored the draft majority opinion of the court that was leaked last week.

Less than 1% of abortions take place in the third trimester – here’s why people get them (Katrina Kimport, The Conversation, 17 May 2022).

Baby in the womb (Illustra media)

Kimport’s article begins with a stock photo of 9 smiling young women with the caption, “If Roe v. Wade is overturned, more people could find themselves needing a third-trimester abortion.” Is that a scientific argument for abortion? No. Like the other articles emanating from Big Science and its lapdog Big Science Media, it is another argument for the convenience of the mother. Knowing that late-term abortion is unpopular even among those who support abortion “rights,” Kimport tries to make the case that there aren’t very many of those now, but there will be more if Roe is overturned (see fear-mongering in the Baloney Detector). Her evidence is anecdotal, not scientific:

Other women described barriers that weren’t directly related to policy. One young woman, for example, was so afraid that her parents would judge her for becoming pregnant and wanting an abortion that she took no action toward getting the abortion. By the time she felt able to confide in her brother, who was able to get her an appointment for an abortion, she was in the third trimester of pregnancy.

Such an argument, though, is inconsistent, because it assumes that late-term abortion is bad. So if early-term abortion is good, where does she draw the line to where it becomes bad? Like the others, she completely overlooks the issue of whether the baby growing within the mother, with its own genome, sex and human potential, has a right to life.

Roe v. Wade FAQ: What if abortion rights law gets overturned? (Live Science, 4 May 2022).

Devoid of any pro-life arguments, this article, pretending to be objective, ends up only telling women where they can still get abortions if Roe is overturned.

How US policy on abortion affects women in Africa (Ushie and Juma, The Conversation, 6 May 2022).

This one is by two African men. They argue that Ronald Reagan’s policy of prohibiting the advocating of abortion with foreign aid funds (the Mexico City Policy, which Trump reinstated and Biden scrapped) will cause harm to African countries. They predict, unscientifically, that overturning Roe will hurt the world. Look for the Leftist buzzwords, and follow the money:

For countries that look to the US for guidance and for funding, the consequences will go beyond abortion. The striking down of Roe v Wade, coupled with the global gag rule (if and when it is reinstated by a Republican administration), empowers national and international opposition to sexual and reproductive health services such as family planning, abortion, and comprehensive sexuality education.

Note: the word “comprehensive” is a common Leftist buzzword, as in “comprehensive sex education” and “comprehensive immigration reform.” What it means in practice is “Don’t do anything.” Don’t stop the Democrat policies and initiatives from moving forward. Don’t let Republicans talk until everybody can get together and come up with a “comprehensive” plan (which Democrats never do, and which they have no intention of doing, because it never gets done).

This article contains no scientific argument for abortion. It is a leftist rant published in “The Conversation” (better labeled “The Leftist Soapbox”), a website pretending to give expert opinions by practicing scientists. (If a reader finds any pro-life article at the site, please let us know.) Notice again the fear-mongering and loaded words.

Anti-choice civil society movements, too, will draw impetus and validation from such a ruling to oppose progressive actions and policies at the national and sub-regional levels.

How repealing Roe v Wade in the US will lead to more women’s deaths (New Scientist, 4 May 2022).

Here is another case of worrying about what might happen if Roe is overturned: “Women will die!” The fear-mongering is getting repetitive. We’re just showing how all the major science news sites are parroting the pro-abortion talking points. Yes, women will die, as so many already have; half of the millions of aborted babies were female, denied their chance to grow up and exercise choice.

What is ‘personhood’? The ethics question that needs a closer look in abortion debates  (Nancy Jecker, The Conversation, 13 May 2022).

Readers will know where this one is headed by the large photo of pro-abortion protestors at the Supreme Court, holding up signs, “Abortion Is a Human Right.” (If it were a human right, the baby human would have the right to terminate its mother.) Bioethics professor Nancy Jecker at least gives some thought to historical philosophies of personhood and various definitions if personhood today. She gives some pro-life positions alongside pro-abortion positions. In the end, though, the mother’s convenience gets the ace.

When weighing rights, it is important to consider the toll exacted when people wishing to terminate a pregnancy are prevented from doing so. A decade-long study showed people in this situation suffered adverse health effects; were less likely to have money for basic living expenses like food, housing and transportation; and were more likely to remain with violent partners. Since the risk of dying from childbirth is much greater than the risk of dying from legal abortion, a ban on abortion is projected to increase maternal mortality.

A biological family is the basis of society. Both sexes are interdependent, but distinct. Children need both.

Card Stacking

At CEH, we give links to the papers we disagree with so that our readers can be informed about both sides in their own words. Not so with Big Science and Media: they never ever include links to pro-life sites (or to creation sites when discussing evolution). Instead, they feed you their own biased analyses of pro-life positions, and only selected points at that. Readers are supposed to take their word for it and think they understand the pro-life case. Even in the less-dogmatic article above, Jecker links only to references from academia, Big Science, Big Media and government. At least in our experience, no secular article on the subject has ever linked to any of the leading pro-life sites like Family Research Council, Life Site News, Live Action and others.

This is known as Card Stacking: cherry-picking one’s favorite talking points, but skipping the problematic ones (and ignoring the opponents’ best arguments). It’s the strategy of weak debaters who cannot face the Goliaths of the opposite side. Science is supposed to involve rigorous debate, and follow the evidence where it leads. Scientists should not even get entangled in political issues beyond offering empirical facts, like the genetics of a zygote and the process of maturation of an embryo.

Since the above secular articles concentrate on the argument about convenience to the woman, here are a few of the comeback arguments they are ignoring:

  • Crisis pregnancy centers that offer free help to mothers who choose life
  • Adoption as an option; many infertile couples will gladly take the baby
  • States and cities that offer no-questions-asked drop-off places for newborns
  • Cases of women who aborted and lived a lifetime of regret
  • Cases of women who took unplanned pregnancies to term and are glad they did (see example below)
  • Varying views among pro-life conservatives about exceptions for extreme cases

Big Science and Big Media usually also ignore the highly dubious legal standing of Roe and how it was decided. The judges pulled a “human right” out of thin air without Constitutional basis. BS and BM also ignore the fact that overturning Roe would not ban abortion, but return the decision to the states. This would be democratic, as opposed to tyrannical rule by 9 un-elected men (8 of them white) deciding the issue by themselves in 1973.

Worst of all, BS and BM never show what actually goes on in abortion rooms. So awful was the sight when Abby Johnson saw it for the first time, it made her retch and weep. Prior to that her job had been convincing pregnant girls to abort their babies. She had all the talking points down pat. It didn’t hit her what she was doing until she saw a little unborn infant fighting the suction tube, and within a blink of an eye, it was gone. Didn’t that life have hopes and dreams?, she thought, pondering the instant it lost all hope. Most other abortion procedures are hideous, as these videos show on Live Action’s site Pro-choice citizens presented with these straightforward (and non-bloody) depictions by a former abortion doctor often change their mind right afterward.

Facing the Obvious

Brain surgeon Dr Michael Egnor has a simple question to ask abortion supporters: “How many fingers does a pregnant woman have?” Think about it. Then, in his Evolution News article 18 May 2022, Dr Egnor considers the options for interpreting the significance of those fingers and other body parts. Whose parts are they?

The fact that a zygote is a human being is easy to see. For example, if human life begins at some time after conception — at viability, for instance — then a natural question arises: from a scientific viewpoint, what is the tissue in the mother’s womb before it becomes a human being? It isn’t a non-human species, because if it were, then speciation by evolution would occur with each pregnancy, which is nonsense. It isn’t an unclassified lump of biomolecules, because if it is, then each pregnancy becomes a new origin of life event. And it isn’t a part of the mother’s body, because if it is, then all pregnant women are genetic mosaics and half of all pregnant women are hermaphrodites!

There’s more to his analysis. He ends by charging Big Science with misinformation: “There are undoubtedly many laypeople who honestly don’t understand the biological issues, but the same can’t be said of biologists and other knowledgeable scientists who persist in spreading misinformation that is lethal to millions of innocent human beings.” In fact, he continues, denying the humanity of babies in the womb is “the most lethal form of science denial in our culture today.

Meanwhile, some pro-abortionists are promising a summer of Roe rage (FRC), and Big Science will be marching with them in spirit, science denial and all.

This is why one must never conflate Big Science with true science. Big Science is a Leftist cabal (14 Oct 2010).

One of the most touching pro-life stories I’ve heard in recent days is that of Lawrence Jones, who has risen from reporter on the street to having his own show on Fox News. Last week (May 15), he invited his mother to come on the show. His mother was a star basketball player in her high school, but at age 16, she took chances with a one-night stand and got pregnant. She was faced with a choice. Having a baby would disappoint her teammates and end her chances of being a basketball star. But she had been trained to take responsibility. She and the man got married, and she carried the baby to term.

Lawrence and his mom agreed that there were many difficult days after she gave birth: “The struggle was real,” she admits: days of wondering how they would get by. Looking back on it, though, viewers could see she was full of satisfaction and love for having done the right thing. When Lawrence asked her if she ever had thought about changing her mind during the pregnancy, she said no, never. She knew it was her responsibility; “I knew I had to step up to the plate; I let sports go, and I became a mommy.” Lawrence, in a touching moment, said he was glad she made that decision, and they both expressed their love to one another. Watch this episode on YouTube.


Psalm 139

1 O Lord, you have searched me and known me!
2 You know when I sit down and when I rise up;
you discern my thoughts from afar.
3 You search out my path and my lying down
and are acquainted with all my ways.
4 Even before a word is on my tongue,
behold, O Lord, you know it altogether.
5 You hem me in, behind and before,
and lay your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
it is high; I cannot attain it.

7 Where shall I go from your Spirit?
Or where shall I flee from your presence?
8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there!
If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!
9 If I take the wings of the morning
and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
10 even there your hand shall lead me,
and your right hand shall hold me.
11 If I say, “Surely the darkness shall cover me,
and the light about me be night,”
12 even the darkness is not dark to you;
the night is bright as the day,
for darkness is as light with you.

13 For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.

17 How precious to me are your thoughts, O God!
How vast is the sum of them!
18 If I would count them, they are more than the sand.
I awake, and I am still with you.

19 Oh that you would slay the wicked, O God!
O men of blood, depart from me!
20 They speak against you with malicious intent;
your enemies take your name in vain.
21 Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord?
And do I not loathe those who rise up against you?
22 I hate them with complete hatred;
I count them my enemies.

23 Search me, O God, and know my heart!
Try me and know my thoughts!
24 And see if there be any grievous way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting!









(Visited 327 times, 1 visits today)


  • tjguy says:

    Lawrence’s mother stepped up to the plate and took responsibility and because of that, Lawrence is here today. Personal responsibility in the abortion debate is important. We want the freedom to avoid responsibility for our poor sexual choices – basically freedom to sin to our hearts content – and then go and erase the damage if a pregnancy happens. Abortion will not erase the problem – only make it much much worse. Granted – not all abortions are the result of sexual sin, but I would venture to say that probably the majority are. In those cases, one sin compounded by another worse sin does not nullify the first sin, it only increases the problem and creates more.

    There is a reason that God created sex for marriage!

Leave a Reply