Kristi Burton Brown

‘Therapeutic abortion,’ and other nonsensical pro-abortion phrases

Kristi Burton Brown
By Kristi Burton Brown

January 13, 2012 ( - The late Dr. Bernard Nathanson is a good source for truth when it comes to the abortion industry.  During the two years he directed an abortion clinic in New York, the clinic performed 60,000 abortions.  He admits to having done 5,000 abortions himself and supervising another 10,000.  In his own words, “I have 75,000 abortions in my life.  Those are pretty good credentials to speak on the subject.”

And what does Dr. Nathanson, a co-founder of NARAL, have to say about the slogans so frequently thrown around by the promoters of abortion?  He remembers laughing when his organization made up the slogans “freedom of choice” and “women must have control over their own bodies.”  He reports, “We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion.”  Dr. Nathanson also admits that the abortion movement was based on lies, not women’s rights.

[W]e simply fabricated the results of fictional polls.  We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60 percent of Americans were in favor of permissive abortion….We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S….Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public.  The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually.  The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000.  These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans, convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion laws….[A]bortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1,500 percent since legalization.

Times are changing, and while the slogans Dr. Nathanson referred to are still used, there are new and modern ones that have been added to the mix.  Equal to the original slogans, they are meant to capture public opinion, not to promote truth or the actual positions of the people who so frequently spout them.

For instance: “abortion care”.  Um, what does killing a human being have to do with “care”?  How can anyone even include the words murder and care in the same sentence?  This is exactly the same as saying “kidnapping care” or “murder care.”  Ok, except for the fact that abortion isn’t illegal…yet.  But other than that, there’s no difference.  I simply can’t wrap my mind around the concept that killing an innocent, voiceless human being is a way to “care.”

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

For anyone who claims that abortion cares about women (and is willing to admit it certainly doesn’t care about the baby), why not find a different way to help a mother than kill her child?  How about paying her rent?  How about paying her medical expenses during pregnancy or helping her connect with organizations that do this?  What about adopting her child?  Those are true ways to care about a mother.

To explain myself a little better, if you wanted to help a tired mother who stayed home with her four children under the age of five, you wouldn’t suggest killing the two youngest children to help her out.  You’d go babysit.  You’d pick up groceries, clean her house, make some freezer meals.  I think it’s time pro-choice people stopped taking the easy way out to “help” women and started actually doing something practical for them (like they always say we should do).  Killing is not, cannot be, and never will be the answer.

Another example:  “reproductive justice”. This one particularly irks me.  One Wikipedia definition I found for this lovely term is “a concept linking reproductive health with social justice.”  Excuse me?  Why isn’t my heart health linked with social justice?  What about my brain health?  Or just my overall health in general?  Why does only my reproductive health need special protections?  I’m kind of offended that all of me isn’t included in this idea of social justice.  Obviously, I’m joking.  But I have to make these kind of ridiculous jokes to illustrate the ridiculousness of this new term.  In fact, I’m dedicating a future article solely to this term.  Stay tuned.

One more:  “therapeutic termination”.  Here are a few definitions I found:

1. Any of various procedures resulting in the termination of a pregnancy by a qualified physician.

2. Any of various procedures resulting in the termination of a pregnancy in order to save the life or preserve the health of the mother.

3. A legally induced abortion for medical reasons (as when the mother’s life is threatened).

Ok, hold it right there.  The pro-abortion side tries to make this term apply to scenarios that it has no business applying it to.  For instance, they apply it to abortion done because the baby would have been born disabled.  That in no way, shape, or form saves the life or health of the mother.  It kills an innocent baby because he or she was different than the rest of us.

In addition, there is no way “therapeutic” termination should apply to “the termination of a pregnancy by a qualified physician.”  What?  This definition makes it sound like all abortions are therapeutic and helpful.  Please.  They are anything but.  And the fact that this definition has found its way into an actual dictionary just demonstrates how far the deception has sunk into our culture.

Finally, it’s even inaccurate to call an abortion to save the mother’s health or life a “therapeutic termination.”  Any time you intentionally kill a baby, regardless of the reasons, let’s just call it for what it is—an abortion; a killing.  You never need to dismember a living baby to save its mother.  Removing a baby in an ectopic pregnancy is not intentionally killing the baby.  It’s a sad result of what must be done, not an abortion.  Chemotherapy for mothers with cancer is not done with the intention to kill the baby.  It all comes down to intention.

In Abortion: A Doctor’s Perspective, A Woman’s Dilemma, abortionist Don Sloan (who, unlike Dr. Nathanson, has not yet converted to the pro-life side) states:

“In gynecology, there are only three procedures that we consider purely elective…Abortions are elective.  There are very few conditions–now maybe none–that require the termination of a pregnancy….The idea of abortion to save the mother’s life is something that people cling to because it sounds noble and pure–but medically speaking, it probably doesn’t exist.  It’s a real stretch of our thinking.  Abortions…can be seen as always purely elective–not necessary from a medical standpoint.”

So, instead of making it sound good, let’s call it for what it is.  Straight from the horse’s mouth, they’re elective abortions not therapeutic terminations.

Reprinted with permission from

Share this article

Featured Image
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

, ,

Clinton: US needs to help refugee rape victims… by funding their abortions

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

CLINTON, Iowa, November 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Leading Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Sunday that U.S. taxpayers should be on the hook for abortions for refugees impregnated through rape.

"I do think we have to take a look at this for conflict zones," Clinton said at an Iowa town hall, according to CNN. "And if the United States government, because of very strong feelings against it, maintains our prohibition, then we are going to have to work through non-profit groups and work with other counties to ... provide the support and medical care that a lot of these women need."

Clinton also said that "systematic use of rape as a tool of war and subjection is one that has been around from the beginning of history" but that it has become "even more used by a lot of the most vicious militias and insurgent groups and terrorist groups."

The prohibition referenced by Clinton – and named by the woman who asked Clinton about pregnant refugees – is known as the Helms Amendment. Made into law in 1973, it prevents U.S. foreign aid funds from being used for abortion.

Abortion supporters have urged the Obama administration to unilaterally change its interpretation of the amendment to allow exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape and incest, and if the mother's life is in danger. They argue that because the law specifically states that "[n]o foreign assistance funds may be used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning," women who are raped should be excepted.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

In August, 81 Democrats signed a letter to President Obama that urged this course of action. CNN reported that while Clinton didn't call for the Helms Amendment to be changed or re-interpreted, she did support other actions to increase women's access to abortion facilities.

If the United States "can't help them [to get an abortion], then we have to help them in every other way and to get other people to at least provide the options" to women raped in conflict, she said.

"They will be total outcasts if they have the child of a terrorist or the child of a militia member," according to Clinton. "Their families won't take them, their communities won't take them."

A study of women who bore their rape-conceived children during the Rwanda genocide found that "motherhood played a positive role for many women, often providing a reason to live again after the genocide."

Featured Image
Cardinal George Pell Patrick Craine / LifeSiteNews
Andrew Guernsey

, ,

Cardinal Pell bets against the odds: insists Pope Francis will strongly reaffirm Catholic tradition

Andrew Guernsey
By Andrew Guernsey


ROME, November 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Contradicting the statements of some of the pope’s closest advisors, the Vatican’s financial chief Cardinal George Pell has declared that Pope Francis will re-assert and “clarify” longstanding Church teaching and discipline that prohibits Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried in public adultery without sacramental confession and amendment of life.

In a homily on Monday, Pell stressed the importance of fidelity to the pope, especially today as “we continue to look also to the successor of St. Peter as that guarantee of unity in doctrine and practice.”

Pell was offering Mass at the Basilica of San Clemente in Rome on the feast of Pope St. Clement I, notable in history for being one of the first popes to exert Roman papal primacy to correct the errors in the doctrine and abuses in discipline which other bishops were allowing.

Turning to address the issues at the Synod on the Family, Pell rebuked those who “wanted to say of the recent Synod, that the Church is confused and confusing in her teaching on the question of marriage,” and he insisted that the Church will always remain faithful to “Jesus’ own teaching about adultery and divorce” and “St. Paul’s teaching on the proper dispositions to receive communion.” Pell argues that the possibility of Communion for those in adultery is “not even mentioned in the Synod document.”

Pell asserted that Pope Francis is preparing “to clarify for the faithful what it means to follow the Lord…in His Church in our World.” He said, “We now await the Holy Father’s apostolic exhortation, which will express again the Church’s essential tradition and emphasize that the appeal to discernment and the internal forum can only be used to understand better God’s will as taught in the scriptures and by the magisterium and can never be used to disregard, distort or refute established Church teaching.”

STORY: Vatican Chief of Sacraments: No pope can change divine law on Communion

The final document of the synod talks about the “internal forum” in paragraphs 84-86, refers to private discussions between a parish priest and a member of the faithful, to educate and form their consciences and to determine the “possibility of fuller participation in the life of the Church,” based on their individual circumstances and Church teaching. The selective quoting of John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio that omitted his statement ruling out the possibility of Communion for those in public adultery has given liberals hope that this “fuller participation” could include reception of Communion.

Pell’s prediction that the pope will side with the orthodox side of this controversy lends two explanations. On one reading, Pell is uncertain what the pope will do in his post-synodal exhortation, but he is using such firm language as a way of warning the pope that he must clearly uphold Church teaching and practice, or else he would risk falling into heresy at worst or grave negligence at best in upholding the unity of the Church.

On another reading, Pell may have inside information, even perhaps from the pope himself, that he will uphold Church teaching and practice on Communion for those in public adultery, that the pope’s regular confidants apparently do not have.

This hypothesis, however, is problematic in that just last week, Pope Francis suggested that Lutherans may “go forward” to receive Holy Communion, contrary to canon law, if they come to a decision on their own, which suggests agreement with the reformers’ line of argument about “conscience.” And earlier last month, the pope granted an interview to his friend Eugenio Scalfari, who quoted the pope as promising to allow those in adultery back to Communion without amendment of life, even though the Vatican refused to confirm the authenticity of the quote since Scalfari does not use notes.

If Pell actually knew for certain what the pope would do, it would also seem to put Pell’s knowledge above that of Cardinal Robert Sarah, who in what could be a warning to Pope Francis, declared last week in no uncertain terms that “Not even a pope can dispense from such a divine law” as the prohibition of public adulterers from Holy Communion.

STORY: Papal confidant signals Pope Francis will allow Communion for the ‘remarried’

Several members of the pope’s inner circle have said publicly that the controversial paragraphs 84-86 of the Synod final document have opened the door for the Holy Father to allow Communion in these cases if he so decides. Fr. Antonio Spadaro, SJ, a close friend of Pope Francis and the editor of La Civita Catholica, a prominent Jesuit journal in Rome reviewed by the Vatican Secretariat of State, wrote this week that the internal forum solution for the divorced in adultery is a viable one:

The Ordinary Synod has thus laid the bases for access to the sacraments [for the divorced and civilly remarried], opening a door that had remained closed in the preceding Synod. It was not even possible, one year ago, to find a clear majority with reference to the debate on this topic, but that is what happened in 2015. We are therefore entitled to speak of a new step.

Spadaro’s predictions and interpretation of the Synod are consistent with the public statements of liberal prelates, some of whom are close confidantes to Pope Francis, including Cardinal Schönborn, Cardinal Wuerl, Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Nichols, and the head of the Jesuit order, Fr. Nicolás. Fr. Nicolás, in particular, first confirmed that there would be an apostolic exhortation of the pope, and said of Communion for those in public adultery:

The Pope’s recommendation is not to make theories, such as not lumping the divorced and remarried together, because priests have to make a judgment on a case by case and see the situation, the circumstances, what happens, and depending on this decision one thing or the other. There are no general theories which translate into an iron discipline required at all. The fruit of discernment means that you study each case and try to find merciful ways out.

Although in the best analysis, Pell’s prediction about what Pope Francis may do in his post-synodal apostolic exhortation remains just that-- a prediction—he is drawing a line in the sand that if the pope chooses to cross, would bring the barque of Peter into uncharted waters, where the danger of shipwreck is a very real threat.


Featured Image
Lianne Laurence


Jennifer Lawrence just smeared traditional Christians in the worst way

Lianne Laurence
By Lianne Laurence

November 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – It’s no surprise that yet another Hollywood star is mouthing the usual liberal platitudes, but the fact that this time around it’s Jennifer Lawrence, a mega-star and lead in blockbuster series Hunger Games, brings a particular sting of disappointment.

That’s because the 25-year-old, effervescent and immensely talented star often comes across not only as very likable, but also as someone capable of independent thought.

But apparently not.

Or at least not when it comes to Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk famously thrown in jail for refusing to obey a judge’s order that she sign marriage licenses for homosexual couples.

Davis, Lawrence tells Vogue in its November issue, is that “lady who makes me embarrassed to be from Kentucky.”

“Don’t even say her name in this house,” the actress told Vogue writer Jonathan van Meter in an interview that happened to take place the day after Davis was released from her five-day stint in jail.

Lawrence then went on a “rant” about “all those people holding their crucifixes, which may as well be pitchforks, thinking they’re fighting the good fight.”

RELATED STORY: Wrong, Jennifer Lawrence! Real men don’t need porn, and women don’t need to give it to them

She was brought up Republican, she told van Meter, “but I just can’t imagine supporting a party that doesn’t support women’s basic rights. It’s 2015 and gay people can get married and we think that we’ve come so far, so, yay! But have we? I don’t want to stay quiet about that stuff.”

After conjuring up images of Christians as bug-eyed hillbillies on a witchhunt with her reference to “crucifixes as pitchforks,” Lawrence added darkly: “I grew up in Kentucky. I know how they are.”

Perhaps one should infer that it’s lucky for Lawrence she escaped to Los Angeles and its enlightened culture. That hallowed place where, according to van Meter, Kris Jenner (former spouse of Bruce Jenner, who infamously declared himself a woman) brought Lawrence a cake for her birthday that was shaped like excrement and inscribed: “Happy birthday, you piece of sh*t!”

Lawrence is reportedly now Hollywood’s most highly paid actress. Not only is she the star of the hugely popular and lucrative Hunger Games franchise -- the last installment of which, Mockingjay, Part 2 opened November 20 -- but she won an Oscar for Silver Linings Playbook and starred in several others since her breakout role in the 2010 moving and moody indie film, Winter’s Bone.

Lawrence has every right to express her opinion, although no doubt it will be given more weight than it deserves. It is unfortunate, however, that she’s chosen to wield her fame, shall we say, as a pitchfork against Christian moral truths.



Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook