Denise J. Hunnell, MD

Feeling the heat, abortion industry attacks pro-life crisis pregnancy centers

Denise J. Hunnell, MD
By Denise Hunnell MD
Image

November 18, 2011 (HLIAmerica.org) - The abortion industry is clearly feeling the heat. Planned Parenthood has been defunded in several states, workers from the infamous Kermit Gosnell abortion facility have pleaded guilty to murder, and the Commonwealth of Virginia is providing a model for other states with newly enacted and strict standards for abortion clinics.

The North Carolina chapter of National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) Pro Choice has responded to this pressure with a report lambasting crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) in the Tar Heel State. In its press release, NARAL claims to have conducted an undercover investigation of 66 of the 122 CPCs in North Carolina. The actual report reveals that this “investigation” involved visiting only 27 of the centers, while the rest of the information was gleaned from 47 CPC web sites and from 40 phone calls. This small sample size would be enough to question the usefulness of any conclusions, but as it turns out, there are bigger problems in the report than its very limited scope.

Join a Facebook page to end abortion here

NARAL’s criticisms are four-fold. First, they object to the assertion made by CPCs that abortion is linked to breast cancer, claiming in response that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) states that there is no association between breast cancer and abortion based on a 2003 report.

Those who have closely followed research in the area of breast cancer must be stunned by NARAL’s blithe dismissal of a huge and growing body of evidence, based on a single, highly controversial report. Prominent biologist and endocrinologist Joel Brind analyzed numerous studies in 1996 and 2005, and reported:

The findings concluded that an abortion elevates a women’s overall risk of developing breast cancer by 30 percent. The results were ‘remarkably consistent’ across population, ethnic, dietary, socioeconomic, and lifestyle factors.

When Doctor Brind was barred from participating in the National Cancer Institute’s 2003 workshop, he charged that only scientists who denied a link between breast cancer and abortion were allowed to participate. His assertions, which were initially dismissed, gained credence in 2009 when the chairperson of the NCI workshop, Dr. Louise Brinton, published a paper in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, which concluded that the risk of a highly aggressive form of breast cancer increases by forty percent after a woman has an abortion. Even more surprising, two of the papers she used to support her findings had been rejected for consideration by the 2003 NCI workshop.

Clearly, NARAL is grasping at straws by basing its response on a report that has been so thoroughly discredited by the very person who chaired the workshop that led to the report.

Secondly, NARAL alleges that workers at crisis pregnancy centers warned women about “post-abortion stress syndrome,” a diagnosis not recognized by national psychological associations. While “post-abortion stress syndrome” may not be an officially recognized psychological diagnosis, there is ample evidence that abortion is linked to subsequent severe mental health problems. In September, 2011, Professor Priscilla Coleman published a paper in the British Journal of Psychiatry demonstrating tremendous increases in the risk of substance abuse, suicidal behaviors, and depression in women who had abortions. Is NARAL really suggesting that this scientifically-based information on the mental health risks of abortion should be hidden from women?

The third concern NARAL voices is that crisis pregnancy centers do ultrasounds, yet have no medical staff present. The report cites with alarm that “92% of the CPCs studied (61 of 66 CPCs) had no medical professionals on staff” and “35% (23 CPCs) provide ultrasounds on site.” In addition, NARAL is appalled that “Only 24% (16 CPCs) disclosed that they are not medical facilities.” As with the previous two charges, NARAL’s curious selection of facts and concerns raises more questions about their motives. The ultrasounds done by CPCs are not offered as diagnostic procedures; they merely give a mother a visual image of the child she carries in her womb. They are not used to assess the health of either the mother or the baby, and are given free of charge. Crisis pregnancy center volunteers may also help a woman accurately utilize an over-the-counter pregnancy test. Surely NARAL is not suggesting that licensed medical personnel must be present to offer a test that the FDA says any woman can do without medical supervision. This is in stark contrast to abortion clinics, where ultrasounds and other laboratory tests are sold as medical services, and therefore, should be performed by medical personnel. Further, if NARAL’s concern for the health and safety of women is so great, why does it oppose regulations that require abortion clinics to meet the same medical standards as other medical facilities?

CPCs are not intended to be medical clinics. They are centers of emotional and material support for women who are pregnant and are considering making a life-changing, and life-ending, decision. CPCs should not be required to publicly disclose they are not a medical facility any more than Planned Parenthood should be required to disclose it does not provide free diapers and maternity clothes.

The final charge by NARAL against CPCs is that they make religious arguments against abortion. In fact, the NARAL report considers it objectionable that CPCs encourage women to avoid sexual activity outside of marriage! They express outrage that “More than half of the 66 CPCs (59%) investigated are affiliated with Christian organizations and many use biblically-based arguments to encourage people to refrain from sex until marriage.” In some cases this may be true, but so what? Many crisis pregnancy centers are outreach ministries of religious groups. The First Amendment protects the speech of crisis pregnancy workers when they offer faith-based reasons to oppose abortion. It is unconscionable to suggest that such speech be silenced.

The word hypocrisy barely begins to describe NARAL Pro-Choice of North Carolina’s grossly misleading report, as it tries to paint crisis pregnancy centers as purveyors of inaccurate information. It is NARAL who offers half-truths and questionable-at-best information in its attack on the not-for-profit challengers of the abortion industry. In going after CPCs, NARAL seeks to take away alternatives to abortion. The attack fails ultimately because it cannot rely on truth to make its case, Unlike NARAL, crisis pregnancy centers care about the physical, emotional, and spiritual health of women. They want women to have the whole truth about abortion and to see the wisdom and beauty of choosing life.

Denise Hunnell, MD, is a Fellow of HLI America, an educational initiative of Human Life International. She writes for HLI America’s Truth and Charity Forum.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Although it is widely believed that people with Down syndrome are doomed to a life of suffering, in one large survey 99% of respondents with Down syndrome described themselves as "happy." Shutterstock
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

‘Sick and twisted’: Down’s advocates, pro-life leaders slam Richard Dawkins’ abortion remarks

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

Advocates on behalf of individuals with Down syndrome, as well as pro-life leaders, are slamming famed atheist Richard Dawkin’s statements made on Twitter earlier today that parents have a moral responsibility to abort babies diagnosed in utero with Down’s.

During a shocking Twitter rant, Dawkins responded to questioners saying that it was "civilised" to abort Down Syndrome babies, and that it would be "immoral" to choose not to abort babies diagnosed with the condition.

He said that his goal is to "reduce suffering wherever you can," indicating that unborn children cannot suffer, and that unborn children don't "have human feelings."

In addition to being scientifically challenged - unborn children can feel both pain and emotions - Dawkins' comments drew criticism for his callousness towards children with disabilities.  

"A true civilization – a civilization of love – does not engage in such cold and ultimately suicidal calculus"

“It's sick and twisted for anyone to advocate for the killing of children with disabilities,” Live Action President Lila Rose told LifeSiteNews. “Dawkins's ignorant comments serve only to further stigmatize people with Down syndrome.

“While many people with Down syndrome, their families, and advocacy groups are fighting discrimination on a daily basis, Dawkins calls for their murder before they are even born,” she said. “Those with Down syndrome are human beings, with innate human dignity, and they, along with the whole human family, deserve our respect and protection.”

Carol Boys, chief executive of the Down's Syndrome Association, told MailOnline that, contrary to Dawkins’ assertion, “People with Down’s syndrome can and do live full and rewarding lives, they also make a valuable contribution to our society.”

A spokesperson for the UK disabilities charity Scope lamented that during the “difficult and confusing time” when parents find out they are expecting a child with disabilities, they often experience “negative attitudes.”

“What parents really need at this time is sensitive and thorough advice and information,” the spokesperson said.

Charlotte Lozier Institute president Chuck Donovan agreed with Rose’s assessment. "Advocates of abortion for those 'weaker' than others, or of less physical or intellectual dexterity, should remember that each of us is 'lesser' in some or most respects," he said.

According to Donovan, "we deliver a death sentence on all of humanity by such cruel logic."

"A true civilization – a civilization of love – does not engage in such cold and ultimately suicidal calculus" he said.

One family who has a child with Down syndrome said Dawkins was far from the mark when he suggested that aborting babies with Down syndrome is a good way to eliminate suffering.

Jan Lucas, whose son Kevin has Down syndrome, said that far from suffering, Kevin has brought enormous joy to the family, and "is so loving. He just has a million hugs."

She described how Kevin was asked to be an honorary deacon at the hurch they attend in New Jersey, “because he is so encouraging to everyone. At church, he asks people how their families are, says he'll pray for them, and follows up to let them know that he has been praying for them."

It's not just strangers for whom Kevin prays. "My husband and I were separated for a time, and Kevin kept asking people to pray for his dad," said Jan. "They didn't believe that Kevin's prayers would be answered. Kevin didn't lose hope, and asking people, and our marriage now is better than ever before. We attribute it to Kevin's prayers, and how he drew on the prayers of everyone."

"I don't know what we'd do without him," said Jan.

Speaking with LifeSiteNews, Kevin said that his favorite things to do are "spending time with my family, and keeping God in prayer." He said that he "always knows God," which helps him to "always keep praying for my friends."

"I love my church," said Kevin.

Although it is widely believed that people with Down syndrome are doomed to a life of suffering, in one large survey 99% of respondents with Down syndrome described themselves as "happy." At the same time, 99% percent of parents said they loved their child with Down syndrome, and 97 percent said they were proud of them.

Only 4 percent of parents who responded said they regretted having their child.

Despite this, it is estimated that in many Western countries the abortion rate of children diagnosed in utero with Down syndrome is 90%, or even higher. The development of new and more accurate tests for the condition has raised concerns among Down syndrome advocates that that number could rise even higher. 


Advertisement
Featured Image
Asked about Iraq on his return flight from South Korea, Francis replied that 'it is legitimate to halt the unjust aggressor.' Shutterstock
Steve Weatherbe

,

Pope Francis: steps must be taken to halt ‘unjust aggressor’ in Iraq

Steve Weatherbe
By

Pope Francis and his emissary to Iraq’s persecuted non-Muslim minorities, Cardinal Fernando Filoni, have both called on the United Nations to act in concert to protect Iraqis Christian and Yazidi minorities from the radical Islamic forces of ISIS.

Asked about Iraq on his return flight from South Korea, Francis replied that “it is legitimate to halt the unjust aggressor.”

He added, however, that “halt” does not mean to “bomb” and lamented “how many times with the excuse of halting the unjust aggressor…have powerful nations taken possession of peoples and waged a war of conquest!”

He also cautioned that no single nation could determine the right measures. Any intervention must be multilateral and preferably by the United Nations, he said.

Meanwhile, Cardinal Foloni, who is visiting Iraq on behalf of Pope Francis, issued a joint statement this week with Chaldean Catholic Patriarch Louis Raphael I Sako and the Iraqi bishops that urged the international community to “liberate the villages and other places that have been occupied as soon as possible and with a permanent result.”

The statement also urged efforts to “assure that there is international protection for these villages and so to encourage these families to go back to their homes and to continue to live a normal life in security and peace.”

Archbishop Giorgio Lingua, the Vatican nuncio to Iraq, was also asked by Vatican Radio earlier this month about the U.S. airstrikes in Iraq.

“This is something that had to be done, otherwise [the Islamic State] could not be stopped,” the archbishop said. 

Although Pope Francis’ own remarks about an intervention in the war-torn country were carefully guarded, Catholic commentator Robert Spencer, author of such bestselling exposes of Islam as “The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion,” told LifeSiteNews he believes the pope was clearly calling for an “armed intervention, though a very limited one.”  

“Only a fool would think there is another way to stop an ‘unjust aggressor,’” he said.

Spencer expressed concerns that both Francis and Pope John Paul II before him have both referred to Islam a “religion of peace,” which Spencer says is “completely false.” However, he suggested that Francis’ remarks calling for action in Iraq are a sign of a more realistic attitude towards Islam.   

On this, Spencer would likely have the support of Amel Nona, the Chaldean Catholic archbishop of Mosul, who issued a letter last week warning the West in stark terms about the encroaching threat of Islam.

“Our sufferings today are the prelude of those you, Europeans and Western Christians, will also suffer,” Nona warned. “Your liberal and democratic principles are worth nothing here.

“You must consider again our reality in the Middle East, because you are welcoming in your countries an ever growing number of Muslims. Also you are in danger. You must take strong and courageous decisions, even at the cost of contradicting your principles,” he said

“You think all men are equal, but that is not true: Islam does not say that all men are equal. Your values are not their values. If you do not understand this soon enough, you will become the victims of the enemy you have welcomed in your home.”


Advertisement
Featured Image
'Apparently I'm a horrid monster for recommending WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS to the great majority of Down Syndrome fetuses,' said Dawkins. 'They are aborted.' Shutterstock
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

Richard Dawkins: it’s ‘immoral’ NOT to abort babies with Down syndrome

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

In a bizarre rant on Twitter earlier today, atheist Richard Dawkins wrote that choosing not to abort a child with Down Syndrome would be "immoral."

The conversation started when Dawkins tweeted that "Ireland is a civilised country except in this 1 area." The area was abortion, which until last year was illegal in all cases.

A Twitter user then asked Dawkins if "994 human beings with Down's Syndrome [having been] deliberately killed before birth in England and Wales in 2012" was "civilised."

Dawkins replied "yes, it is very civilised. These are fetuses, diagnosed before they have human feelings."

Later, Dawkins said that "the question is not ‘is it 'human'?’ but ‘can it SUFFER?’"

In perhaps the most shocking moment, one Twitter user wrote that he or she "honestly [doesn't] know what I would do if I were pregnant with a kid with Down Syndrome. Real ethical dilemma."

Dawkins advised the writer to "abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."

According to Dawkins, the issue of who should be born comes down to a calculation based upon possible suffering. "Yes. Suffering should be avoided. [The abortion] cause[s] no suffering. Reduce suffering wherever you can."

Later, however, he said that people on the autism spectrum "have a great deal to contribute, Maybe even an enhanced ability in some respects. [Down Syndrome] not enhanced."

When Dawkins received some blowback from Twitter followers, he replied: "Apparently I'm a horrid monster for recommending WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS to the great majority of Down Syndrome fetuses. They are aborted."

It is estimated that in many Western countries the abortion rate of children diagnosed in utero with Down syndrome is 90%, or even higher. The development of new and more accurate tests for the condition has raised concerns among Down syndrome advocates that that number could rise even higher. 

Although it is widely believed that people with Down syndrome are doomed to a life of suffering, in one large survey 99% of respondents with Down syndrome said they were "happy." At the same time, 99% percent of parents said they loved their child with Down syndrome, and 97 percent said they were proud of them.

Only 4 percent of parents who responded said they regretted having their child. 

A number of Dawkins' statements in the Twitter thread about fetal development are at odds with scientific realities. For example, it is well-established that 20 weeks into a pregnancy, unborn children can feel pain. Likewise, unborn children have emotional reactions to external stimuli -- such as a mother's stress levels -- months before being born. 

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook