Big Science Tried to Stop Overturning Roe
When a leaked document indicated the Supreme Court might
overturn Roe v Wade, Big Science and Big Media went to work.
Pro-life groups around America are celebrating the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision to overturn Roe v Wade yesterday (June 24th, 2022). It was a long time coming for those who had worked sacrificially for decades trying to save the pre-born from the 1973 decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. Nearly 60 million unborn children had been sucked out of the womb, burned or torn limb from limb by abortion in that time. America’s abortion laws are among the most permissive in the world, according to a statement by Alliance Defending Freedom after the decision came down:
The United States has been an extreme outlier in abortion law and policy, allowing late-term abortions and failing to protect the lives and health of unborn children and their mothers. Specifically, the U.S. has been one of only six nations—including China and North Korea—that allows abortion-on-demand throughout all nine months of pregnancy, and one of only eight countries in the world that allows elective abortion past 20 weeks. The U.S. has ranked in the bottom 4% of the most appalling abortion policies in the world. Mississippi’s decision to protect life after 15 weeks is consistent with what most countries worldwide do. In fact, 75% of nations protect life after 12 weeks’ gestation.
The decision in Dobbs does not make abortion illegal. It merely returns abortion policy decisions to the states where it had been in 1973. Many jurists had opined that Roe invented a right to abortion out of thin air in an egregious example of legislating from the bench. Now, decisions on this issue can be made by the people through their elected representatives—a return to democracy. The Supreme Court can return to its role in separation of powers, deciding whether laws conform to the Constitution.
There is nothing scientific about abortion. If left to nature, the unborn would be born. A few are stillborn through natural occurrences not involving intervention by the mother or doctor, such as by genetic defects, but the system of conception, development and birth is the norm in all sexually-reproducing organisms. Abortion by willful intervention in this natural process is entirely a moral issue grounded in human exceptionalism: the belief that human beings are not merely animals, but free moral agents with minds and souls responsible to God.
Big Science (the leaders of academic science departments, lobbyists and journal editors), should keep out of abortion debates except to offer facts about embryonic development. But consisting primarily of atheists and evolutionists, Big Science and its cohorts in the media have intervened in the abortion issue. They dish out all the Democrat talking points with a false veneer of science, as if to say “all scientists agree” with their position. Bias like this is not new. Historically, Big Science strongly supported eugenics, which had strong ties to Planned Parenthood.
CEH exposes the leftist bias in Big Science and its cooperative reporters in academic press rooms to reveal the difference between true evidence-based science and political bias in scientific institutions. It in no way wishes to disparage the honorable work that individual scientists perform with integrity.
After the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs was made public yesterday, Nature immediately published a fearmongering news article, “After Roe v. Wade: US researchers warn of what’s to come – Years of studies on abortion access foreshadow the negative economic and health effects ahead.” What about negative health effects for the baby?
The New England Journal of Medicine also condemned the decision, giving its headline a quasi-scientific appearance: “Lawmakers v. The Scientific Realities of Human Reproduction.” But the Supreme Court is not the lawmaking body; legislatures elected by the people are. Do the editors of NEJM speak for all doctors and health care workers when they call this “a stunning reversal of precedent that inserts government into the personal lives and health care of Americans”? That’s exactly what Dobbs did not do. Roe v Wade had done that; the current court removed bad law made by justices in 1973 and returned the decision to the people.
Comment: Like Nature, the Big Science boom boxes at this journal can only think of what might happen—how women might be harmed if there is less free access to abortion up to birth for any reason. Why don’t they attack the European countries who have more restrictive laws than the US? Do they want the US to be like China and North Korea?
Live Science presented a somewhat factual account of the decision, what led up to it and what may follow from it, but there are no pro-life arguments to be found anywhere, and the language used by reporter Nicoletta Lanese reveals her bias. She speaks of “the constitutional right to abortion that was established” by Roe, but there is no such right in the constitution. She writes about “the right to abortion” and “the federal right to abortion” three times. She quotes leftist reporters at CNN and links to the NEJM editorial above, but never links to any of the pro-life sites or their arguments.
Medical Xpress groaned that “Global access to abortion [is] still highly unequal.” Imagine. Why, everyone should have the ability to kill their child, up to and maybe even after birth. Is that what this article is saying? Notice the bias: “the US Supreme Court on Friday made the country the first to withdraw abortion rights.” But that “right” was made up; it’s not in the Constitution, which is the only concern of the Supreme Court. Global access to food is unequal, too. Global access to guns is unequal. What kind of argument is this?
Before Dobbs, After the Leak
When the draft opinion was leaked in May by someone with inside access to the court (who was never caught or held accountable), Big Science immediately churned out piece after piece with pro-abortion talking points. We could not find a single article on major journal or science news sites favoring a pro-life position. Please inform us if you find one; closest example we saw was from an ethicist writing from The Conversation who appealed for a “principled compromise.” Here are some typical samples in May and June:
Denying abortion access has a negative impact on children and families (The Conversation, 17 May 2022). Under a big photo with protestors spelling out CHOICE, three leftist liberal academics from Canada argue for ripping children out of the womb by intentional force. That is, after all, what abortion is. Some conservatives have noted the irony that these same leftist academics fought individuals who tried the “my body, my choice” argument to resist Covid-19 vaccine mandates by Trudeau, Biden and liberal state governors.
Abortion and inherited disease: Genetic disorders complicate the view that abortion is a choice (The Conversation, 19 May 2022). Neil Sondheimer tries to argue that women actually have no choice but abortion when facing the prospect of a child with a genetic disorder. But every human has genetic disorders; it’s a matter of degree. He says, “With the rising spectre of the loss of women’s reproductive autonomy in the United States, it’s timely to consider why abortion is an important and necessary part of pregnancy and fetal care.” Well, it isn’t fetal care for the aborted baby! And half the aborted children are female. Don’t they have “women’s reproductive autonomy”? Did Neil interview abortion survivor Gianna Jessen for his article?
Overturning Roe v. Wade could impact how other countries view abortion rights (Northeastern University, 23 May 2022). What a horrible thought! Other countries might value human life more if the USA overturns Roe. This is the kind of thinking coming from academia. Is their source scientific research? No; it’s left-leaning USA Today.
What is an abortion? (Live Science, 24 May 2022). Reporter Kimberly Hickok gives a sanitized view of “the science behind the early termination of a pregnancy.” Her uncritical use of the phrase “abortion rights” is a giveaway that readers will get a biased story. Why doesn’t she show the Abortion Procedures videos, which are dispassionate descriptions with diagrams of what actually happens to kill an unborn baby in the womb? Hickok lets a little factoid slip by: “the majority of abortions performed in the U.S. are due to unwanted pregnancies….” Those are not medical emergencies.
Abortions don’t have to be traumatic. But overturning Roe v. Wade could make it that way (Medical Xpress, 2 June 2022). Why is Medical Xpress, a “medical science” news site, reprinting a piece by a liberal on USA Today? If they can do that, why can’t they reprint a pro-life piece by Alliance Defending Freedom or Family Research Council?
Changing US abortion laws could dangerously restrict miscarriage care (New Scientist, 3 June 2022). New Scientist gets into the fearmongering circus by claiming that “Medical treatment for miscarriage is often identical to abortion care.” But those are different; this is a non-sequitur. Besides, states will be able to right any abuses through legislation rather than having a high court dictate policy from the bench. Doesn’t New Scientist like democracy?
UCLA-led research shows majorities of both political parties support legal abortion (UCLA, 8 June 2022). Statistics can mislead, and polls are often inaccurate—consider how far off election polls were in 2016 and 2020. But accepting this article’s numbers for the moment, so what? Governments exist to protect the rights of minorities and the most vulnerable. Polls can also mislead by presenting only part of the findings, or by having inadequate sampling. Consider what often happens when people say they are pro-choice, but then are shown videos about actual abortion procedures. Polls before and after could be very different. Having accurate information on issues matters.
Online data, medical records could be used to put women in jail under new abortion laws (Medical Xpress, 13 June 2022). This is more fearmongering about what might happen, not based in science. No women are going to jail. Some states might put abortionists in jail if they violate the law, just like any other lawbreaker. Reporter Tami Abdollah conveniently omits other scary scenarios like online data using phone tracking to see if you attended a January 6, 2021 protest, but that’s another story.
Take a Breath
For just a moment to inhale some thinking from the pro-life side, read AMAC’s brief article, “Busting the Left’s Vapid Abortion Talking Points” (Association of Mature American Citizens, 25 May 2022). It’s not a complete answer, but it’s a reminder that there is another side to this issue—a side routinely censored by Big Science and Big Media. And if you dare, watch the Abortion Procedures videos to understand what this issue is really about. And follow the money by watching the undercover videos from the Center for American Progress. Some background about Justice Clarence Thomas would be useful, too, and what he revealed about Planned Parenthood founder, the radical eugenicist and sexual pervert Margaret Sanger (19 June 2019).
Please understand: when exploring the creation vs evolution issue, one must realize that the pro-Darwin side is extremely biased to the political Left (25 Jan 2022). Big Science with its Darwin-only, Darwin-only (DODO) policy presents a leftist, anti-Christian (and therefore religious) view of the world. That’s evident by looking at these “scientific” articles concerning abortion. It’s also true of any other policy issue that divides Americans: Big Science always takes the far left position on everything. They’re limping along with Biden, overlooking his many political catastrophes, but they viscerally hated President Trump despite his many accomplishments.
Now, you may think, well, aren’t we biased, too? But consider: we always give links to their articles. They never give links to any creation sites. At CEH you can read both sides freely, and make up your own mind who has the most scientifically-supported, reasonable position. If you trust Big Science and Big Media, you will only get their talking points. And so, yes, in a sense, we like to give out evidence for creation that the media is censoring. So who is “pro-choice” when it comes to information? Go ahead; read the best titans of academic jargon. Feel free. We’re not afraid of it. Why are they so afraid to even mention the best arguments for creation or even for intelligent design? Why can’t they honestly answer the arguments of pro-lifers? What does that tell you about the strength of their positions?
Abortion is just one of the fruits of the worldview of scientific materialism that celebrates Darwinian evolution. It teaches that no creation or plan brought about human existence. It teaches that we are no different from the lower animals. It teaches that a baby in the womb is just a clump of cells that can be removed if it gets in the way of convenience. Some evolutionists have taught (unscientifically) that a fetus is a lower life form, reliving its march of progress from worm to fish to mammal to human. Evolutionism leads inevitably to the view that existence is all about power, not truth: power to the woman over her baby, power to Big Science over its critics, and power to the media to support the Leftist regime.
We believe that truth is its own defense, and sunshine is the best disinfectant.