Big Science Still Pushing Abortion
With lies and propaganda, academics and journals
push abortion without a hint of trying to be objective
Let’s be clear: the Supreme Court did not outlaw abortion. In its Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022, the majority of justices returned the decision to the states. People in the states can vote for representatives to debate and decide on what abortion policies they feel are best for their citizens. That’s democracy.
That’s the way things were before the Warren court invented a right to abortion in 1973, sweeping away all restrictions to abortion that the people’s representatives in some states had voted for. Forty-nine years later, after 60 million deaths of unborn babies, the court returned status quo ante, the situation as it was before Roe—a decision that jurists on both sides of the aisle agree had been poorly decided. Since Dobbs, some states are restricting abortion, but other states are not. States that restrict abortion often include exceptions for the life of the mother, or for cases of rape or incest. Liberal states like New York and California continue to offer unrestricted abortions; in fact, they are offering free travel for women in restricted states to come and get what they call “reproductive health services.”
If citizens do not like what their elected representatives are doing, they can vote them out and elect different representatives. That, again, is democracy.
Those are the facts of Dobbs. Readers would never know them if they trusted Big Science and Big Media. We have looked in vain for any press releases or journal articles in support of the court’s decision in Dobbs. Instead, Big Science (the journal editors, lobbyists and academic deans who pretend to “speak for science”) continue pushing a leftist view, using fear tactics about what Dobbs will do and repeating Democrat talking points. Is it any wonder that distrust for science is on the rise?
Support for abortion has gone up since Roe v. Wade was overturned, report says (Northeastern University, 27 July 2022). This news item begins with a photo of pro-abortion protestors, and lies continually about the court’s decision. The following statement identifies Northeastern’s bias toward leftist positions:
Abortion is far from being the only political arena where public opinion and the law diverge. Climate change, healthcare issues and gun control are all examples of this, the team says.
What “team” says this? Why, Big Science, don’t you know? “scholars from Northeastern, Harvard University, Rutgers University and Northwestern University.” Scholars. Scholars conducting a survey with biased questions using fear tactics, like, ‘does a respondent think abortion should be legal if “Staying pregnant could cause the woman to die.”‘ The wording is biased in favor of abortion. Even so, the changes of opinion in favor of abortion they measured in a survey of 24,414 people in 50 states were minor: “between 1% and 5% of respondents increased their support for abortion, depending on the scenario” (italics added). That “research” was all the “team” needed to preach its lies:
But psychologically, the abortion issue is unique in that Americans have experienced a loss of a liberty through the Dobbs decision. “There’s something about the politics of loss, of losing something that you had,” Lazer says. “Something was taken away, and I think that may be especially activating politically.”
But Dobbs gave an increase in liberty, not a loss of liberty! The pro-life movement got an increase in liberty after 49 years of tyranny on this issue against their sincerely-held beliefs. Everyone through their elected representatives got an increase in liberty through their vote. The unborn got an increase in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
These California nurse-midwives want to provide abortions. They’re struggling to get trained (Los Angeles Times, 18 July 2022). OK, so what is stopping them? California is an abortion sanctuary state. What’s the problem? Don’t they believe in the law of supply and demand? California has a Democrat super-majority in both houses, and one of the most liberal governors in the US. The LA Times reporter, Emily Alpert Reyes, complains about the scarcity of abortion providers, and thinks that nurse-midwives need to get trained to fill in the shortage. Then she complains about the scarcity of training opportunities for nurse-midwives—the very people historically most committed to helping the birth process—to learn how to do suction abortions. The scarcity, she says without blinking, “is a reflection of how abortion is viewed in this country.” So if that is true, why is Reyes pushing a minority position? And why is Medical Xpress, a quasi-“science news” site, reproducing that article, but never any pro-life articles?
Alarm bells as US abortion ruling fuels rush on morning-after pill (Medical Xpress, 21 July 2022). Alarm bells. You get the tone of this biased article, which starts with a biased line, “US Supreme Court overturned the nationwide right to abortion.”
Supreme Court abortion ruling brings attention to Minneapolis women’s health startup (Medical Xpress, 21 July 2022). Nick Williams continues the biased language, speaking about “the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn federal abortion rights.” Reminder: the Constitution never gave such a right. The current Supreme Court simply returned the decision to the rights of voters after 49 years of tyrannical decision-making by seven unelected justices. That’s democracy.
Study: Most Ohioans received abortion care after 6 weeks (Ohio State, July 14, 2022). OK, so what? So what, Misti Crane, “Ohio State News Contributor”? People in Ohio now have the Constitutional right to vote for representatives that can set or eliminate restrictions on abortion at any stage. So if is true that many women don’t even know they are pregnant for six weeks, and if their situation is “they don’t have enough money or want to pursue higher education before raising children,” they can vote. California will pay their complete expenses. Ask your chosen expert at Ohio State, Abigail Norris Turner, “a professor in the colleges of medicine and public health at Ohio State,” what’s the problem? If a woman is intent on killing her baby in order to advance her selfish career goals, Ohio is not stopping her. So why are you using fear tactics? Why are you implying that people with strong pro-life views should be forced to endure government tyranny? Why should they pay for what they consider a great evil with their tax dollars?
Late-termination of pregnancy for medical reasons: when abortion isn’t really by choice (EMBO Reports, 13 June 2022). The journal prints views of a pro-abort but not a pro-life spokesperson. Shina Caroline Lynn Kamerlin says she is not writing about the moral issues involved in late-term abortion, but the medical reasons. She uses scare tactics to suggest that unless late-term abortion is a “right,” some babies with terminal conditions will die after birth instead of before birth, and some mothers will be threatened. She does, however, acknowledge that “most EU countries tend to restrict abortion on request or on broad social grounds to 18–24 weeks although with exceptions in specific circumstances when, for example, the mother’s life is at risk.” But that exception usually exists in state laws, so what is the problem?
I wouldn’t be a scientist without my abortion (Nature, 13 July 2022). Jacqueline Gill expects readers to be proud of her for killing her child 21 years ago so that she could work as a paleoecologist and climate activist at the University of Maine. Isn’t it odd that Nature celebrates her, but not Amy Coney Barrett who has seven children, including two who were adopted from Haiti and one with Down Syndrome. Her “choice” for life has not stopped her from becoming a celebrated jurist who now serves at the top court of the USA.
Turnaway study shows impact of abortion access on well-being (Medical Xpress, 8 July 2022). This “study” (prepare to be hoodwinked) supposedly shows that most women who aborted their children felt justified in doing so. Does that make it right? The Family Research Council says that the 2018 “Turnaway Study” was politically motivated research that underestimated the risk of suicide by mothers who had an abortion.
Save the Supreme Court and democracy (Editorial by Maya Sen, Science Magazine, 11 Aug 2022). The AAAS gives space to a leftist liberal anti-Republican Democrat to make an absurd claim: that the Supreme Court’s decision overturning “a nearly 50-year-old precedent protecting abortion rights” is an example of a threat to democracy. How can that be, when Roe violated democracy by taking away the will of the voters? All SCOTUS did in Dobbs was reverse a bad ruling in 1973, giving power back to the people. Not surprisingly, Sen has nothing to say about the Constitution. She’s more concerned about imitating “peer nations” that put term limits on judges. What she doesn’t mention is that many of these peer nations have more restrictive laws on abortion than the US did before Dobbs (see FRC.org). Before Dobbs, America’s permissive abortion laws were more like those of China and North Korea than those of Europe.
The US Supreme Court abortion verdict is a tragedy. This is how research organizations can help (Nature, 28 June 2022). The two Big Science leaders, Nature and Science, have weighed in. The Dobbs decision was a “tragedy” that threatens “democracy.” The editors of Nature list four ways that “researchers” (a muddled, imprecise term if there ever was one) “must do”—who do these Editors think they are to tell scientists what to do? Must do what? to “try to temper the disastrous impact this will have on health and research.” What disastrous impact? Do they mean that Dobbs might reduce the market for baby body parts? What, like no longer taking away a child’s freedom to know what health feels like? Well, “researchers” need not fear. On August 10, Nature provided an infographic showing “The effects of overturning Roe v. Wade in seven simple charts” with an escalated perhapsimaybecouldness index. It concludes that “abortions will continue” even if they might be “harder to access safely.”
What really drives anti-abortion beliefs? Research suggests it’s a matter of sexual strategies (The Conversation, 14 July 2022). Two psychology professors, Jaimie Arona Krems (Oklahoma State) and Martie Haselton (UCLA), link the pro-abortion view to Darwinism. “There’s an interesting evolutionary benefit for some women if the consequences of casual sex are high,” they say in a caption to a pro-abortion protest photo. “Here, we suggest a different explanation for anti-abortion attitudes – one you probably haven’t considered before – from our field of evolutionary social science.”
The evolutionary coin of the realm is fitness – getting more copies of your genes into the next generation. What faraway strangers do presumably has limited impact on your own fitness. So from this perspective, it is a mystery why people in Pensacola care so strongly about what goes on in the bedrooms of Philadelphia or the Planned Parenthoods of Los Angeles.
The solution to this puzzle – and one answer to what is driving anti-abortion attitudes – lies in a conflict of sexual strategies: People vary in how opposed they are to casual sex. More “sexually restricted” people tend to shun casual sex and instead invest heavily in long-term relationships and parenting children. In contrast, more “sexually unrestricted” people tend to pursue a series of different sexual partners and are often slower to settle down.
These sexual strategies conflict in ways that affect evolutionary fitness.
The crux of this argument is that, for sexually restricted people, other people’s sexual freedoms represent threats.
These two psycho profs frankly admit what this means. Views about abortion, they explain, are not really about choice at all. “Rather, people’s strategic interests shape their attitudes in nonconscious but self-benefiting ways – a common finding in political science and evolutionary social science alike.” So much for political debates and conventions. All the hubbub and balloons are not about real issues; they are nonconscious evolutionary games being played out mindlessly. What they are not frank about are the implications for their own views. By promoting evolutionary social science, they are not scientists at all. They, too, are nonconscious pawns of evolutionary forces. Aha!
Miscellaneous Scare Tactics
Big Media, backed by Big Science, warns that if society is not allowed to kill off the next generation of human beings, terrible things could happen! Examples below. In each one, ask if the fear justifies abortion. Is killing an innocent unborn human being a solution to any of their fears?
Abortion Bans Could Put Lives of Cancer Patients in Jeopardy (US News, 14 July 2022). It’s not clear this worry is justified. Most laws restricting abortions allow for exceptions to protect the life of the mother. So is the solution to kill off babies before they are born, if some of them might become cancer patients?
Abortion ban may increase risk of death for pregnant women with cancer (Medical Xpress, 15 Aug 2022). Most states that restrict abortion provide exceptions if the life of the mother is at stake, because clearly nobody wants two deaths to occur. This “what if” scare tactic assumes that the Supreme Court should have provided guidance about situations involving cancer. That was not their job; their job was to rule on the Constitutionality of Roe, and to give the states and the people the right of determination on abortion laws. That’s democracy.
Scientists Predict “Brain Drain” From States That Ban Abortion (The Scientist, 30 June 2022). If they are for killing children, good riddance. A state shouldn’t want brains that think like that.
US abortion ruling threatens access to arthritis drug (Medical Xpress, 8 July 2022). Can’t Big Media think of better reasons to kill the unborn? Don’t states have Amazon?
Shifting abortion laws cause confusion for patients, clinics (Medical Xpress, 2 July 2022). “We are really nervous about what is going to happen.” Take a pill for relief of anxiety caused by the prospect of children having a chance at life.
US women prepare for what comes after abortion ruling (Medical Xpress, 7 July 2022). US Women? Does that include pro-life women who worked 49 years to save babies from being sucked out of the womb or cut to pieces?
What do bans on abortion mean for people using IVF? (Medical Xpress, 13 July 2022). Answer: nothing. But Dennis Thompson stirs up fear of what might happen: “the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade opens up a host of knotty moral and ethical questions regarding the storage and disposal of unused embryos, leaving fertility doctors and childless couples fearful of the future.”
Lone abortion clinic closes in US state at heart of key court case (Medical Xpress, 7 July 2022). In Mississippi, the Jackson Women’s Health Organization (“the Pink House”) which lost in the Dobbs case, closed its doors. Why can’t readers hear any of the cheers from pro-lifers who worked so hard on this case to protect a child’s right to life? Why is Big Media only focused on one side of this important issue?
Talking to Kids About Abortion Bans Can Be Tough. Experts Offer Guidance (US News, 28 June 2022). Children might become anxious if they think they lost the right to abortion, writes Denise Mann for HealthDay. Let’s just hope they don’t reason about the fact that their parents might have aborted them. The “experts” can help avoid that logical trap with some carefully crafted talking points.
Social media fuels abortion fears among young Australians (Flinders University, 14 Aug 2022). Simple solution: stop scaring them with lies, Big Science and Big Media. Tell the truth.
After reading some of the bias from Big Science and Big Media, let’s hear just a few words from the Pro-Life side.
Hating on the Supreme Court is dangerous (World Magazine, 8 July 2022). Craig Carter begins his essay with a photo you’re not likely to see in the Big Science media: a picture of pro-abortion protestors on the steps of the Supreme Court holding up a sign of devils with a message for the justices: “Burn in Hell.”
Democrats Call for Shutdown of ‘Deceptive’ Crisis Pregnancy Centers Amid Wave of Pro-Abortion Violence (Epoch Times, 20 July 2022). Big Science and Big Media fail to tell about the hate speech and violence of pro-aborts. Pregnancy centers offer alternatives to abortion for free. They help women work through their options and consequences of choosing life, giving them counsel, free ultrasound, free baby toys and clothes, and more. Pregnancy centers had nothing to do with the Supreme Court case. And yet their clinics have been tagged with graffiti, vandalized and in some cases firebombed by pro-abortion activists.
West Coast States Double Down on Abortion (California Family Council, 5 July 2022). The CFC has an impossible job: supporting conservatism and family values in a state with super-majorities in the assembly and Senate and one of the most liberal governors in the country: Gavin Newsom. And yet they maintain hope:
Life is winning, but unfortunately elected officials are standing in the way with ungodly proposals and lies. Pro-lifers must stand firm in the truth, be equipped with the facts, reject the left’s lies, and urge pro-life representatives to take action.
Consumer Advisory: Here Are Alternatives to Pro-Abortion Companies (The FRC Washington Stand, 7 July 2022). For those who want to put their money where their faith is, this article shows alternatives to pro-abortion businesses that pro-lifers can patronize.
The two psycho profs did CEH a big favor in their article (see “What really drives anti-abortion beliefs?” above, next to the book image). They just argued, from “evolutionary social science” principles, that “pro-choice” is a myth! Why? Because people are pawns of their selfish genes. Fitness is the “evolutionary coin of the realm,” they say. And what is fitness? Silly; it is “getting more copies of your genes into the next generation.” So who are the fittest? The ones who reproduce most. And how do you know they are the fittest? By the number of their genes they reproduced. This is a tautology (see “Fitness for Dummies,” 19 June 2014).
Now the fit will be survivors and survivors will be fit,
And survivors will survive to prove the fitness of the fit;
O this natural selection, it’s so simple isn’t it?
‘Tis ruthless marching on.
Their argument is so transparently self-refuting, I continue to wonder why no evolutionists see through it. For one thing, abortion is not helping a woman to get her genes copied into the next generation, is it? (Well, duh.) But worse, they say that the evolutionary force is an unconscious thing that drives some people to be pro-abortion and some people to be pro-life. In other words, evolution drives people to thoughtlessly do and believe things in mystical evolutionary games. The games are strategies for genes to reproduce themselves, either by gaining advantages for one group or taking away advantages from the opposition. Logic and facts have nothing to do with it; human beings are mere pawns in this mystical game.
Why can’t Krems and Haselton and their ilk see how this undermines everything they said? We can respond that their argument is not credible, because it’s just an evolutionary strategy. Their selfish genes drove them to write their article as a gimmick to reproduce themselves. Their selfish genes used them as marionettes or entities in a matrix, programming them like robots in a naturalistic play. They may mouth scripted lines pretending to care about abortion. But we know better. We saw the selfish genes trying to trick us. So we will ignore everything they said. Take that.*
Evolutionary beliefs spell the death of science, logic, credibility, and truth. Darwin did this to science. Once people wake up to this whole ruse, they can laugh out loud and marvel that so many intelligent people fell for it. In a real sense, Michael Ruse fell for his own ruse.
The abortion issue is no joke. Lives of millions of babies have been snuffed out because of a bad law argued poorly by liberals back in 1973. Now, their monstrous mistake has been partially rectified, but there is much work to do. The Darwin Effect continues its trail of death through culture, family and society. Get informed. Get involved.
*Of course, we don’t play their game; we just say this to hold up a mirror to them, hoping they will see the silliness of the Darwin clown costume they’re wearing. We believe that people are made in the image of God. We all have a conscience that informs us of right and wrong. Evolutionists have a gift of rationality from creation, but it has been perverted by sin. They suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Professing to be wise, they have become fools (Romans 1:18-22). We would love to rescue these people, but tough love requires making them aware of their predicament first.