July 1, 2022 | David F. Coppedge

Big Science Still Defending Abortion

The Supreme Court has spoken, sending the issue back to the states.
Big Science is still shouting with the radical pro-abortion activists.


The Supreme Court decision in Dobbs is one of the most monumental in decades. As such, it deserves more attention than usual on our creation-evolution site, because it touches on a central worldview issue: who are we? What is man? Are we created in the image of God, or products of chance evolution descended from screeching apes? Nowhere is worldview more urgent than in questions of life and death. If creation doesn’t matter when it comes to life, where exactly does it matter?

Even before the final Supreme Court decision was announced, radical pro-abortion activists were rioting, chanting, shouting, harassing justices and even threatening one of the justices with murder. They were attacking crisis pregnancy centers with graffiti, vandalism and threats. One such center was firebombed and burned to the ground. These crisis pregnancy centers, however, had nothing to do with the decision or with the so-called “right” to abortion—the only thing they do is offer non-abortion options to women struggling with unwanted pregnancy. They offer counseling and free services. They give mothers free baby clothes and toys, or find loving adoptive parents. What’s not to like about that? Why are they being targeted? No woman is forced to go to them.

You would never know any of this from Big Science and Big Science Media. Even a week after the decision, they were still supporting Democrat talking points about abortion, as we reported prior to Dobbs and after it was announced. This political stance on a highly-charged issue is wholly uncalled for and unscientific, demonstrating once again that Big Science has been taken over by the radical left.

Radical News

Abortion ban: one more obstacle faced by US servicewomen (Medical Xpress, 27 June 2022). But reporter, it’s not an abortion ban. It’s democracy: states can choose laws about abortion through elected representatives. “Abortion bans enacted across America will be especially painful for women in the US military, one more hurdle they have to face in a man’s world where sexual assault and unwanted pregnancies occur more often than in the rest of society.” The solution is always the same: kill the baby. But wait: what do you mean, a man’s world? You’re offending trans men. What do you mean, “painful for women”? You should be talking about “birthing persons” you bigots.

How the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling impacts public health (George Washington University via Medical Xpress, 27 June 2022). This article is an interview with a pro-abortion “expert” Amita Vyas, associate professor in the George Washington University, who opines, “Women and girls will die.” Her main fear: “I worry about the women and adolescent girls all over the country who are in need of an abortion today and in the coming days and weeks. Who can they turn to for help and support? Many organizations are quickly mobilizing to support these women and girls, and we must do our part to support these organizations.” Oh great—you’re going to tell them about crisis pregnancy centers, right? Ha! What were you thinking?

Roe decision sets off massive but uneven effects, experts say (University of Oregon, 27 June 2022). Ah, yes. Experts. You can be sure that the leftists in academia will never quote any of the conservative or pro-life experts, of which there are many. No; it’s all fearmongering, hate speech against Justice Alito, and unscientific claims about what the court might do next. Can’t writers in the press office learn to be a little more subtle and erudite in their presentation of their bias?

Overturning Roe v. Wade will put even more of an economic burden on women, Northeastern economist says (Northeastern University, 27 June 2022). Use this article as a case study in the use of language to twist and pervert ideas. “The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade last week could have devastating economic effects for women–especially low-income women of color–that will have both short- and long-term impacts, Alicia Modestino, associate professor of public policy and urban affairs and economics, said.” What? You mean they might have the joy of holding a child in their arms, which Tucker Carlson describes as the most beautiful experience in all of life? Oh, but this expert economist is concerned about families. She says,

“Women are huge financial contributors to their family, so it’s not just women that we’re talking about,” Modestino said. “We’re talking about the entire family unit, and because 60% of them are moms, that means we’re affecting other children. We’re putting other children in poverty and other children in jeopardy.”

And so teach your young girls that the way out of poverty is to kill their siblings. What a lovely idea.

What overturning Roe v Wade means for life-saving abortion exemptions (New Scientist, 28 June 2022). Tiffany O’Callaghan creates fearmongering about women who wait too long to decide to kill their children, and what emotional hardship that might create. Astute readers might pause to wonder over that phrase, “life-saving abortion exemptions.”

Hate sites are using the wider abortion argument to spread racism and extremism (Taylor & Francis via Phys.org, 28 June 2022). The tone is set from the opening line: “White supremacists are using the debate around women’s reproductive rights to promote racist and extremist agendas….” White supremacists. Be assured that most pro-lifers are anything but that; many are black, many are women. Many love the Lord, who taught that loving our neighbor is the second greatest commandment. “Women’s reproductive rights.” Is that the right to kill a child? Women and men have the right to engage in sex, just like they have a right to eat and drink or get drunk. They just cannot choose the consequences. “Extremist agendas.” Tell us something, Taylor & Francis, about Jane’s Revenge (see Live Action article). That group wrote this after tagging a pregnancy center with the message, “If abortions aren’t safe, you aren’t either.”

To all the conservatives, Fox News anchors, judges, cops, Christian extremists, or federal agents reading this:

This attack is nothing in comparison to what is in store for you. Some spray paint will be the least of your worries. For decades you have bombed abortion clinics and murdered doctors. We fight not just for abortion rights, but for trans liberation, ecological harmony, decolonization, the destruction of white supremacy and capitalism, and the uprooting of the entire global civilization.

We will hunt you down and make your lives a living hell. You started this war but we will win it. So far its just been pregnancy crisis centers, but tomorrow it might be your cars, your homes, or even your lives. We support a diversity of tactics and we will not step down in this fight.

Dear Taylor & Francis and Phys.org, your enablers, in your talk about “hate sites,” why did you omit these details?

Demand for abortion medications shatters records following Supreme Court draft ruling (“Elevated Science Communications” via Medical Xpress, 29 June 2022). What is “elevated science communications”? The name connotes the arrogance and pride of Leftists. They look down their snooty noses at anyone not as “expert” as they think they are. And their pro-abortion article almost always shows only pro-abortion protest slogans and placards, and uses pro-abortion terms, like “women’s rights” (never, ever, the child’s right to life). One would think they could at least try to look balanced.

Genetic screening results just got harder to handle under new abortion rules (Medical Xpress, 29 June 2022). One common tactic of pro-abortion activists is to take the most tear-jerking extreme cases and create fear about how that might affect everybody. It is a great matter of concern when amniocentesis shows that a baby might have a severe genetic disorder. The anecdote presented in this article tells about a mother learning about a serious genetic disorder in her unborn son, and then says, “Situations like Ann’s will soon happen across the country” because of Dobbs. At least reporter Sara Reardon quoted one pro-life expert in this article—very rare—but she gives the impression that genetic screening is the deal-maker about whether to abort or not, when other options exist. Worse, it conveys that babies should be aborted if they are not perfect.

From a Conservative Site:

Biden administration considering abortion mills on federal properties (by Bob Unruh, WND, 28 June 2022). So determined are pro-abortionists to punish states that enact abortion restrictions, some of them actually are advocating for the feds to set up abortion centers on federal land. Welcome to Yellowstone National Park and Abortion Center. Lovely.

Wouldn’t it be nice to see one article from Big Science that celebrates babies? Wouldn’t it be refreshing to see one reporter from a “science news site” that speaks of how many millions of babies will now have a right to live and see the sun, feel the mother’s loving touch, and grow up to embrace its freedom? Wouldn’t it be great to see Big Science and Big Media celebrate the court’s firm stand on the Constitution after a disastrous, unconstitutional decision 49 years ago? How about one exposing the truth about Planned Parenthood and its eugenics history, or big corporations’ anti-family policies that would rather pay for abortions than add new dependents to their health insurance or pay for family leave time to help couples experience the fulfillment of parenthood? Wouldn’t that be sweet? We have yet to see it.

Our reporting is clear, with links you can check yourself. Big Science is a radical left political action group. Whenever they touch on questions of origins, values and worldview, they must be treated like what they are. To conservative scientists out there, maybe you need to come out from those corrupt institutions and work for a Christian university, and consider publishing in pro-creation journals that support procreation. Let the dead bury their dead.






(Visited 359 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Reply