Archive for incrementalism

Pro-life e-book analyzes recent debate with AHA

Posted in AHA, Incrementalist with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 2, 2015 by saynsumthn

It began with a debate between the strategy of immediatism vs. incrementalism in ending abortion.

AHA Debate prolife Gregg Cunningham 953565359761892780_n1

It was held this past April in Tulsa between pro-lifer Gregg Cunningham of the Center for Bioethical Reform and T. Russell Hunter a founder of the abolitionist group Abolish Human Abortion (AHA).

After a series of articles about the debate a group of pro-life leaders have decided to publish an e-book detailing their thoughts addressing issues brought up during the debate.

Abolition of reason prolife AHA 2015-06-01_1719-e1433197400874

Abolition of Reason: Pro-life apologists deconstruct ‘Immediatist’ ideology” was written by pro-life blogger Jill Stanek, Steve Hays of Triablogue, Scott Klusendorf of Life Training Institute, Dr. Michael New of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, Jonathon Van Maren of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, and Clinton Wilcox also of LTI.

Pro-lifers are in their rights to analyze the debate and they are not alone.

Russell Hunter has vowed that Abolitionists will produce their own response, calling the various posts “misinformation and distractions“:

AHA when Jill finishes digging

Jill Stanek opens the e-book by writing the prologue, where she analyzes Hunter’s readiness for the debate, “Hunter came ill-prepared to support his actual premise, that pro-life incrementalism hasn’t and doesn’t work, and Cunningham quickly disproved Hunter’s claim that immediatism is buttressed by historical figures like William Wilberforce, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, Jr. None of the aforementioned were immediatists in practice. They were incrementalists.

Klusendorf addresses the tone of the aftermath and the way that AHA supporters launched personal attacks following the debate, writing:

    an AHA supporter named Toby immediately attributed to her [Jill Stanek] the worst possible motives and all-but damned her to Hell. “Instead of dealing with incrementalism or immediatism on Biblical terms, she chooses to make an idol out of the abortion fight. Her career is more important to her than her soul…

Toby Idol

Adding, “That’s not the language of someone eager to engage his critics with thoughtful responses.
It’s the rhetoric of a spiritual weirdo with a severe prophet complex. What he can’t secure with a syllogism, he’ll pick up with a spiritual power play. Indeed, one high-up AHA rep requested that I publicly repent for not posting his link announcing the pending debate. That my Facebook page is mine to post or not post as I please apparently never crossed his mind. The arrogance of such a request is mind-blowing.”

Van Maren summarized Hunter’s actions after the debate this way, “Hunter took to Facebook immediately to first half-apologize for his performance, but then quickly become snarky and sarcastic again as his supporters assured him that he was, of course, the visionary they all knew him to be.”

ICAS then apology 32402386_491352267_n

Adding, “The most mind-boggling post surely goes to the “International Coalition of Abolitionist Societies,” who actually posted a fake apology for Gregg Cunningham being “a jerk” and for his so-called “ad hominem attacks.” I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a stunning display of immaturity and sour grapes, with the exception of the out-and-out character assassination that the “abolitionists” across social media, in a series of adolescent temper tantrums, have launched against Cunningham, all the while accusing any and all respondents of “slander.”

(Note, as pictured above, the ICAS was eventually edited and an apology was issued after pro-lifers criticized the poor sportsmanship of the post.)

But, I also noticed the poor way that AHA responded – addressing it privately with many of their members. After all, it was AHA who repeatedly requested the debate to begin with.


Jill Stanek T RUssell AHA wants debate

After repeated criticism of the pro-life movement, I noticed how quickly Russell retreated to a martyr complex when the criticism was directed at him:



T RUssell debate good

Back to the e-book.

Hayes addresses the difference between what he describes as the “right message” vs. the “cost of innocent lives.”

With respect to AHA,” Hayes states.

“nothing is easier than to take an “uncompromising” stand when it has no chance of happening. In that respect, AHA is like Republicans who are rhetorically pro-life, rhetorically uncompromising. There’s no price to pay. No real-world consequences. It’s just self-congratulatory talk.”

Adding this observation, “On the one hand they set the bar very high. On the other hand, they slide under the bar. The measure of progress isn’t consciousness-raising, but the abolition of abortion. By their own oft-repeated sloganeering, that’s the only “fruit” that counts. The total abolition of abortion. AHA confuses leaves with fruit. Thus far, AHA is a leafy, but fruitless tree. Lots of leaves, no fruit.”

T Russell Hunter Univ Memphis AHA 2014

Stanek fires back at Hunter for his relentless accusations that that all pro-lifers wish to do is to “regulate” not end abortion, writing, “It is slander of the worst kind for Hunter to claim the end game for pro-lifers is that abortion be “safe, early, and painless.” He knows perfectly well why we pursue incremental efforts.”

Wilcox agrees, “Pro-life people want the immediate end to abortion. Incremental legislation is our strategic method for getting there. Planned Parenthood knows this. Pro-choice writers like Katha Pollitt know this (it plays a major theme in her recent book Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights ). The only people who don’t seem to get that are the self-proclaimed “abolitionists.”

Klusendorf piles on, “Hunter never once said how his policy of immediatism plays out in the real world. How, exactly, does it work to insist on the immediate abolition of abortion? Got the votes for that? Here is where Hunter’s argument is truly self-sealing. He states that if only all incrementalists would become immediatists, we could take the ax to the root and win.

“So there you have it. When you can’t explain how your strategy actually works in the real world, you just fault your opponents for your failure to execute. This reminds me of faith healers who blame the victim for “not having enough faith” when he doesn’t immediately recover from a systemic illness….”

Stanek fires back again, “Hunter knew when he launched AHA in 2011 immediatism would take “a long time,” and there would be “a long period in which it was impracticable.” But he had no safety net prepared for the children from whom he would go on to rashly attempt to remove protections. He had no immediate and workable plan in place to save the children he was pulling the rug out from under.

“To this day, four years later, AHA has no cohesive, wide-ranging plan to save these kids.”

Aha uses Life Issues Image

Wilcox points out the hypocrisy of AHA’s criticism of the pro-life movement writing, “Hunter, while decrying the fact that pro-life organizations fundraise, hypocritically uses the fruits of those organizations’ labor.

Case in point….Wilcox states that, “AHA uses images of abortion victims that Cunningham’s group has spent millions of dollars to acquire over the years. CBR was the first pro-life organization to compile an archive of broadcast quality video and still photographs.”

TR July 5 2014 Plan B PLM

And then Wilcox addresses accusations by AHA that somehow the pro-life movement fundraising is bad by pointing out that AHA leader, “Don Cooper who holds himself out as AHA’s Executive Director, also fundraises. Cooper’s organization, named Abolitionists Northwest, made $101,159 in 2013 – $96,645 of which came from “[c]ontributions, gifts, grants, and similar.” A point I detail here.

Van Maren questions Hunter’s recollection of history, “Although I was well aware of Abolish Human Abortion’s selective historical cherry picking and theologically immature underpinnings, I thought Hunter would put up a better fight,” he states.

“An honest analysis of history shows us that there are no social reform movements that have ever managed to do away with an injustice in one fell swoop. Hunter’s so-called “strategy,” to play it fast and loose with the word, has no basis in historical fact and is, for the most part, based on his misunderstanding and in many places misrepresentation of the historical record.

Perhaps the most compelling point in the e-book is the chapter written by Dr. Michael New who details how incrementalism does, in fact, save lives, documentation Hunter was completely ignorant of during the debate.

New’s summary reads, “one of the most important reasons why pro-lifers should continue to support incremental pro-life laws is that these laws are effective. Academic research has been published in an impressive range of political science journals, economics journals, and public health journals. These studies have analyzed different types of incremental pro-life laws. They have analyzed data from different states and different time periods. There is a very strong consensus among scholars that incremental pro-life laws have stopped abortions and saved literally thousands of innocent human lives.”

You can read and download the e-book here.

Responding to AHA’s claim pro-lifers focus on “abortion hurts women”

Posted in AHA, Pro-life History with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 30, 2015 by saynsumthn

This past weekend a debate between pro-life advocate Gregg Cunningham vs. Abolish Human Abortion advocate T. Russell Hunter took place in Tulsa, Oklahoma.



The purpose was for each one to defend their view on abortion strategy: Incrementalism vs. Immediatism.

I am not going to address the entire debate in this blog post.

For those interested, pro-life blogger, Jill Stanek has analyzed the debate in a series of blog posts here which I recommend.

The purpose of this blog post is to address two statements made by Hunter.

Gregg Russell prolife vs AHA abortion Debate

During the debate, Hunter makes claims that pro-life strategy of working towards complete abolition of abortion and accepting gradual or incremental methods to save every baby possible along the way is sin.

Then Hunter implies that pro-life people do not call the sinner to repent for abortion. This is one of the statement’s I wish to address here.

Hunter says, “You notice the difference between an immediatist and an incrementalist, in that an immediatists says abortion is sin turn to God and goes out daily and to that work.” (Note: The last three words of Hunter’s statement are hard to make out from the audio, but I think I caught them correctly, please notify me if I am incorrect.)

TR Debate AHA

Hunter ran through his points so quickly that I believe that they are worth reviewing. Let’s pause there for a moment and analyze what Hunter is implying.

The comments begin at 58:29 of the debate video – here if you want to hear them.

First the statement, “an immediatists says abortion is sin turn to God” is intentionally designed to imply that anyone who claims the name “pro-life” and supports “incremental” strategies does not believe that abortion is sin or proclaim that society needs to turn to God.

This is an utterly ignorant and rather insulting statement.

The pro-life movement is made up of a large number of Bible believing Christian people. I would be in that group.

I understand the ignorance of a person who only recently joined the fight to end abortion while claiming to be a Christian for many years. But, just because Hunter and many of his followers have decided to responded to the Biblical mandate to “rescue those being led to the slaughter” does not mean history on this movement began with them.

As much as Hunter would like to re-write the history of the pro-life movement he did not live it as many many pro-lifers did and can now testify as first hand witnesses.

But to the point at hand, there is ample evidence past and present that the call to repentance was and is given within the pro-life community.

This 2001 letter to the editor is just one example:

US Repent 2001 abortion


The 1980’s rescues were also public calls for not only the church to repent from abortion apathy, but also for society to do the same. No AHA meme, statement, or fancy design can erase that history.



Moving on…

The second part of Hunter’s statement which I’d like to address is as follows:

    Incrementalists say things like abortion hurts women. It does. But the focus is on, it hurts women not abortion kills babies, even though they recognize that abortion kills babies.”

Again- that is a preposterous statement.

Abortion Hurts Women Debate

The very images collected by the pro-life community, which Hunter now uses in all his effective social media memes, is proof that the focus is on the fact that abortion kills babies.

In addition, I have also documented that pure legislation to defend the preborn and outlaw all abortions was put forth via Human Life Amendments during the early days. That documentation can be found here.

Having said that, there is nothing wrong with saying that abortion hurts women. Hunter, for all his protesting, admits it in fact does. Is not truth- truth?

I will give Hunter the benefit of the doubt on this topic because again, the AHA leader chose to get into this fierce fight after abortion had been legal for a number of years, so he is rather ignorant of historical battles, ideas, and lies that the pro-life community has had to dismantle for the past 42 years.

Those who are new to the abortion battle may not realize that the abortion lobby made major inroads by painting illegal abortion as “unsafe” causing women to die.

It is simple logic to counter the lie that helped legalize abortion with the truth, which is that women still die from abortion and legalization does not necessarily make abortions safe.

Keep abortion safe and legal

The lies:


    Millions of women died from illegal abortions.

    If you make abortions illegal, women will die.

Case in point, during the debate to liberalize abortion in New York, the issue of unsafe abortions swayed one representative to change his vote on the floor, opening the door to abortion on demand in that state.

NY Constance Cook

Assemblywoman Constance E. Cook stood to the floor during that 1970 debate to push the lie of unsafe abortion, stating, “I submit that we have abortion on demand in the state of New York right now. Any woman that wants an abortion can get one–if she has $25, she has it done here, under the most abominable circumstances,” and that prohibition only drives abortion underground.”

This clip from the film “Choice at Risk” gives a historical glimpse :

Repealing Abortion Laws (4:18) from Dorothy Fadiman on Vimeo.

The deciding vote was cast by Democrat Assemblyman, George Michaels, who told the LA Times that for years he had been told by local party leaders not to vote for the repeal of the abortion ban, and he pledged not to. For two years he had followed the party line.

ASSY George Michaels cast vote to legalize abortion

    I would vote no, hoping the bill would pass,” he said. “I was not doing the right thing.”

    In April, 1970, the night before he left for Albany, Michaels spent an evening with his daughter-in-law, Sarah.

    Sarah asked him what would happen when the abortion bill came up for a vote again. There was a chance it would pass, he told her.

    What if it doesn’t?” she asked.

    Maybe next year,” he said.

    Michaels says he has never been able to forget what his son’s young wife told him next:

    In the meantime, thousands of women will be mutilated and die because of that stupid Legislature.

    Boy, that rocked me,” Michaels says. “That rocked me.”

The National Abortion Rights Action League, NARAL, also lied about women dying from illegal abortions. One of their early founders, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who later repented of his pro-abortion actions and views, described what they did early on:

Bernard Nathanson

    “We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal, enlightened, sophisticated one,” recalls the movement’s co-founder. “Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we 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. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000, but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000.”

McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Robert P. George breaks it down further when he writes this about the NARAL founder:

    Nathanson and his friends lied—relentlessly and spectacularly—about the number of women who died each year from illegal abortions. Their pitch to voters, lawmakers, and judges was that women are going to seek abortion in roughly equal numbers whether it is lawful or not. The only effect of outlawing it, they claimed, is to limit pregnant women to unqualified and often uncaring practitioners, “back alley butchers.” So, Nathanson and others insisted, laws against abortion are worse than futile: they do not save fetal lives; they only cost women’s lives.


For clarification, stats show that, in the year prior to Roe, the CDC disputed the lie that thousands of women died from illegal abortion as shown in this table from their surveillance report on abortion.


So, to summarize, just because Hunter says that the pro-life movement does not focus on “abortion kills babies” does not make it so.

When the pro-life community documents that abortion is not safe for women it does not automatically mean they do not focus on the fact that abortion kills babies. For many of us, we are able to articulate multiple facts.

In addition, because AHA leaders claim that pro-lifers do not call abortion sin, does not make the claim true either as I stated above.

However, in my personal study of scripture, I do not see every effort to dialogue or convey truth being preceded by the command “repent.”

King Solomon, himself was conflicted when he was forced to determine who the mother of a baby brought before him was. He did not tell the two women squabbling to repent of their actions. Instead the wise King appealed to the heart of the true mother:

The NIV version of the events in I Kings is detailed below:

    The king said, “This one says, ‘My son is alive and your son is dead,’ while that one says, ‘No! Your son is dead and mine is alive.’”

    Then the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So they brought a sword for the king. 25 He then gave an order: “Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other.”

    The woman whose son was alive was deeply moved out of love for her son and said to the king, “Please, my lord, give her the living baby! Don’t kill him!”

    But the other said, “Neither I nor you shall have him. Cut him in two!”

    Then the king gave his ruling: “Give the living baby to the first woman. Do not kill him; she is his mother.”

In the story above, the true mother, the one who cared for and loved the baby, was willing to compromise to save her child’s life.

Think about that for a while, as you ponder the debate !

Immediate vs strategic abolition of abortion debate within a debate

Posted in AHA, Pro-Life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 26, 2015 by saynsumthn

Yesterday Greg Cunningham from the Center for Bioethical Reform debated T. Russell Hunter from Abolish Human Abortion (AHA) on the difference between incremental strategies used by the pro-life movement which also seeks to ban all abortions or simply calling for an immediate end to abortion used by those who take the philosophy of AHA.



I monitored the chat during the debate which was interesting in and of itself. It was run by AHA and they banned two people – one a pro-life person and the other a member of AHA.

The screen grabs below are not necessarily in order and as much as I tried to grab all of it – it was impossible to do. It appeared to me that out of the 150 or so people who tuned in – most were already involved with Abolish Human Abortion, at least by the comments on the chat.

Below are some interesting grabs I took:

COmments 9

COmments 4

COmments 12COmments 16

COmments 18

COmments 19

COmments 20

COmments 21

COmments 23

Comments 37 JPG

Comments 50

Comments 52

Comment - Greg didnlt talk about sin

Comment 44

COmment Ax to root


Greg TR

My Argument

My COmments told to repent

My COmments 2

My COmments told to repent 2

question 4

Question 20

Question 25

Question 26


John Kirkland a pro-lifer was banned for his “lies” according to the AHA moderator on the chat while in my opinion, Chris Nunez, was allowed to lie about the pro-life movement without any rebuke:

COmments 27

question  5

question 1  6

question 1  7

question 1 2

question 1 3

question 1 4

question 1 5

question 1 7

question 1 8

Cooments 4

Comments 49

question 7

question 9

John Banned 2


Abolish Human Abortion supporter Stephen Wetzel was also banned :

Commengts 40

comments 42

AHA Banned

John Banned who decided 2

John Banned so were AHA Ppl

Responses when Gregg brought up the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

AHA When Gregg brought up Pain Capable and blacks feeling pain 2

AHA When Gregg brought up Pain Capable and blacks feeling pain

Should pro-life Christians be incrementalists on abortion?

Posted in Incrementalist with tags , , , , , , on March 18, 2015 by saynsumthn

Have another view? Leave a comment and tell me why !

Reducing abortions is there an abortion change?

Posted in Abortion decreasing, Abortion Numbers, Abortion pill, Abortion reporting, Abortion stats, AHA, CDC, Guttmacher, Medication Abortion, Morning After Pill, Non-Surgical abortion, Plan B, RU-486 with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 11, 2015 by saynsumthn

Anti-abortion activists who “claim” that abortions are not decreasing have neither the documentation nor the knowledge to prove their claims.

One such pro-life “claim” was refuted recently by Jill Stanek on her blog which you can read here.

The argument is that medical abortion as opposed to surgical abortion are somehow not counted in the overall abortion stats which then contradicts statements by pro-life leaders who say that abortions are decreasing in United States.

Mifeprex -ABORTION-PILL-082713

Of all the people I have heard use this bogus claim, no one offers a single study to back it up.

In addition, they fail to mention that medical abortions are counted in the overall abortion stats where abortion reporting is required.

It is important to note that medical abortions never went OTC because of popularity – this happened because of politics plain and simple.

The early medical abortion, RU486 or mifepristone was not approved for use in the US until Sept 2000.

So how do they account or the drop in abortions prior to those dates?

The chemical abortion, Plan B, regarded by the FDA as a “emergency contraction”, was first approved in July 2009 for use without a prescription for women age 17 and older and as a prescription-only option for women younger than age 17. In April 2013, the product was approved for nonprescription use for women as young as 15. In June of 2013, Plan B became available to women and girls of all ages.

Although, it might be true that some chemicals labeled “contraception” which are abortive, may not be included in the abortion numbers – it is also true that this has always been the case.

For example, if emergency contraception is counted as “birth control” and not “abortion” that does not negate the fact that abortions are on the decrease.

Because emergency contraception (also called “morning after pills” or “day after pills”) is only effective up to 5 days after having sex and Plan B must be taken within 72 hours of sexual intercourse to be effective, it may be true that some women who take EC or Plan B are pregnant – but- it may also be true that some are not pregnant – a fact we will never know.

Just as it is true that the birth control pill and other forms of “contraception” may also be abortive, their numbers have never been included in the overall abortion stats.

What we are looking at is “trends.”

Prior to Roe, women were not seeking abortions by the millions like they do today.

After abortion was legalized it is true that abortion numbers rose.

However, according to stats, abortions peaked in 1990 (around then) and after groups like Operation Rescue and others took to the streets – they went on a downward trend which continues to this day.

According to the CDC:

    following nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years), and ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching the highest levels in the 1980s before decreasing at a slow yet steady pace . However, the incidence of abortion has varied considerably across demographic subpopulations (5–9). Moreover, during 2006–2008, an interruption occurred in the previously sustained pattern of decrease, but was then followed in subsequent years by even greater decreases.

We used to have almost 2200 abortion clinics in America and according to a 2014 analysis by Operation Rescue which tracks abortion clinics closures, the total number of all remaining abortion clinics in the US is currently 739. Surgical abortion facilities account for 551 of that total while the number of medication-only abortion facilities stands at 188.

How can the majority of abortions be medical when the majority of clinics are surgical?

Abortion restrictions limit abortion access and reduce abortion numbers.

Guttmacher ab restrictions

We know that legalization makes abortion “appear” acceptable – which in turn increases them. We know from studying trends that when abortion became legalized, for example the numbers of African American women who had abortions went way up. We also know from studies that if an abortion clinic is within certain miles of a woman seeking abortion that her decision to have the abortion increases. All those factors change when the abortion clinic is closed.

Trends for example in the African American community show that not only did legalization increase abortion so did access.

Studies from the CDC show that, prior to legalization, approximately 80% of all illegal abortions were done on white women. One study in New York even found that white women had five-times as many abortions as black women.

But, at the moment abortion became legal, that began to reverse.

In 1973, researchers within the abortion movements were documenting that easy access to abortion clinics produces higher abortion rates in the surrounding area. And at least one expert discovered that having a nearby clinic is a bigger factor in the black abortion rate than it is in the while abortion rate.

In a 1999 paper published by the American Journal of Public Health Phillip B. Levine, Douglas Staigei; along with Thomas J. Kane and David J. Zimnmerman, entitled, Roe v Wade and American Fertility, the group points out that when abortions are made legal, fertility rates drop with a reduction in births of teens and non-White women to be the largest.

Phillip B Levine Roe v Wade and American Fertility

Estimates show that births to non-White women in repeal states (vs states with no law change) fell by 12% just following repeal, more than 3 times the effect on White women’s fertility,” that paper states.

Effect of abortion on Black births

The group also concluded that there was an important connection between the fall of birth rates in states where abortion was accessible vs. states where it was not, “The results indicate that travel between states to obtain abortions was important. Births in repeal states fell by almost 11% relative to births in nonrepeal states more than 750 miles away but only by 4.5% relative to births in states less than 250 miles away and those in states between 250 and 750 miles away,” the authors write.

What this shows is the reverse is also true. Closing abortion clinics will reduce abortions overall.

Abortion advocates know that when abortion access i.e. the closing of local abortion clinics takes place- fewer women have abortions.

Many reasons for women NOT to get a medical abortion.

According to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology women prefer surgical abortions, “Generally, women are satisfied with the method they choose but, when randomized, prefer surgical abortion to medical abortion, ACOG says.

    When women choose medical abortion they choose them because of a desire to avoid surgery, a perception that medical abortion is safer than surgical abortion, and a belief that medical abortion is more natural and private than a surgical procedure.

    However, compared with surgical abortion, medical abortion takes longer to complete, requires more active patient participation, and is associated with higher reported rates of bleeding and cramping.

ACOG medical versus chemical abortion

    With medical abortion, expulsion of the products of conception [i.e. the unborn baby], most likely will occur at home, but a few women will still require surgical evacuation to complete the abortion. An early surgical abortion takes place most commonly in one visit and involves less waiting and less doubt about when the abortion occurs compared with medical abortion. In addition, women who undergo surgical abortion will not see any products of conception [or fetal body parts] or blood clots during the procedure.

Given this data, it is a marketing ploy by the for-profit abortion lobby to give an impression that many abortions are “non-cutting” or non-surgical. That is because “Surgery” scares clients.

However- the use of the term non-surgical abortion does not imply that they are medical as Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D at National Right to Life explains:

    Clinics are obviously trying to address and assuage these fears. On the one hand they explicitly try to argue in their descriptions of the procedures that “no cutting is involved” (Aaron’s Women’s Clinic, Houston TX). Or they can say that in a vacuum aspiration “There is NO cutting or scraping of the uterus” (Northside Women’s Clinic, Atlanta, GA).

    The South Jersey Women’s Center still calls these surgical abortions (which they are), but tries to distinguish these from ordinary surgical procedures. “No cutting or incision is necessary and the procedure takes only 5 to 7 minutes.”

    Planned Parenthood avoids the term “surgical” and tries to call these “In-Clinic Abortion Procedures.”

    New York OB/GYN AssociatesTM classifies these as “Non-Surgical Abortions” because they “do not involve any scraping or scarring of the uterus.” They say that “There is no cutting during an Aspiration Abortion.” They maintain that “There is no scraping, no scaring and no damage to the uterine wall.”
    Both the chemical and aspiration methods they advertise “are designed to naturally release a woman’s pregnancy in a gentle and safe way, which does not cause damage.”

    However there is more to this than just calming fears and apprehensions. The abortion industry has found it increasingly difficult to find doctors willing to perform abortions or to add abortion to their practices. By re-defining the abortion procedure as “non-surgical,” this opens up the performance of abortion to a whole new set of medical practitioners.

    Promoters of the idea that these are “non-surgical” try to employ the rationale that because they do not cut tissue to enter the woman’s body but enter through the birth canal, these are somehow, strictly speaking, not surgery.

What the increase of medical abortions show is that abortions are occurring earlier, not that more are happening.

As of 2008 medical abortions comprised around 15-16% of abortions.

In 2011, the CDC reported that at ≤8 weeks’ gestation, early medical abortion accounted for 28.5% of abortions, but at all subsequent points in gestation the use of medications to induce abortions through nonsurgical methods accounted for only 0.6%–5.3% of reported abortions.

CDC 2011 Surgical and Medical abortion state

A July 2014 report by Guttmacher said that in 2011, medication abortion accounted for 23% of all nonhospital abortions and 36% of abortions before nine weeks’ gestation a similar figure to the CDC.

Guttmacher Medical Abortions 2011

Early medication abortions have increased from 6% of all abortions in 2001 to 23% in 2011, even while the overall number of abortions continued to decline, Guttmacher reports.

(NOTE: Medication and nonsurgical abortions numbers are reflected in Guttmachers overall abortion totals.)


Having said all of that, I do agree that not all abortions are reported – but – as I document above- they never have been.

What we are using to determine that abortions are declining is stats that have been in place since the 1970’s.

An analogy by Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, reveals the nonsense of critics of the pro-life movement by comparing stats on abortion numbers to other statistics we commonly reference, “How do they know robbery and murder rates are down? Those are just stats also,” he told Saynsumthn.

Newman points out that there are many ways to steal online and those thefts may not get counted.

In addition, Newman says that people can be murdered in ways that don’t look like murder, “Does that mean that the “anti-murder” crowd and the “anti-robbery crowd” need to do a better job and stop quoting published crime stats?” he asked.

Take polls for example, they do not sample all people but are a proven indication of trends. If you do not use any source for your abortion stats how can you then make the claim from that – nothing has changed?

So, even though an argument can be made that every abortion is not reported, that does not prove that abortions are not decreasing in numbers.

Know this, that had it not been for pro-life legislation, pro-life counselors outside abortion clinics, undercover efforts to expose doctors and clinics the numbers would be much higher no matter how you look at it. This is not a complete victory – but it is a reason to push all the harder to banish abortion from our land.

No one has ever claimed that ALL abortions are reported however the baseline is consistent.

Whatever the real number – pro-lifers have the testimony of many women who have chosen life as a source as well.

I have been in this fight for 32 years and no person who is recently interested in the unborn will EVER convince me that we have not saved lives and made a difference.

You can try to re-write history if you want to, but some of us lived this history and until we are dead we will testify to the changes we have witnessed.

Operation Rescue leader: make the abortionists go to jail

Posted in Operation Rescue with tags , , , , , , , , on February 5, 2015 by saynsumthn

In a WND TV interview, Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue, and co-author of the book, Abortion Free, talks about how any ordinary person with a phone and a computer can close down the abortion clinic in their community using the step by step guide provided in the new manual, Abortion Free.

Houston abortion clinic shut down due to pro-life legislation

Posted in Abortion Clinic Closed, Abortion clinic closed by state, Texas Abortion with tags , , , , , , on February 17, 2014 by saynsumthn

Texas officials have shut down a Houston abortion clinic and suspended the license of its doctor under a new state law requiring physicians who perform the procedure to hold admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

The Department of State Health Services has revoked the abortion license of A Affordable Women’s Medical Center and the Texas Medical Board has temporarily suspended the medical license of Dr. Theodore M. Herring Jr., the facility’s medical director and sole provider of abortions, the agencies announced Friday.

Theodore Herring TX

Herring unlawfully performed 268 abortions between Nov. 6 and Feb. 7, according to the two agencies.

The disciplinary actions against the north Houston clinic and doctor were the first taken by state authorities since the law went into effect Nov. 1. The law requires abortion clinic doctors to have privileges at a hospital that provides obstetrical or gynecological services and is within 30 miles of the facility where they provide the procedure.

The state health department Friday indefinitely revoked the facility’s license. A medical board disciplinary panel Thursday temporarily suspended Herring’s license. Both actions took effect immediately.

According to TMB documents, Herring failed to even apply for hospital privileges after the passage of highly publicized abortion clinic safety law that was passed last year. The violation was discovered during an inspection at Herring’s A Affordable Women’s Medical Center abortion clinic on December 11, 2013.

“The clinic regulations in Texas are successfully working to shut down seedy abortion operations that are operating illegally and posing a danger to the public. When abortion clinics close, lives are saved. It couldn’t be clearer how much this law is necessary in order to protect women and babies from predatory and dangerous abortionists,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue. “We continue to urge the passage of similar laws in every state.”

Herring submitted an application to obtain hospital privileges on January 15, 2014 and submitted a plan of correction to the Department of State Health Services, which notified him that a correction plan was insufficient and that he remained in violation of state law.

Yet, Herring continued to supply abortions and was inspected again on February 7, 2014, where he once again admitted that he was in non-compliance.

Herring’s license was temporarily suspended on February 13 after the TMB found that he “has engaged in ongoing violations of the law that make his continued practice of medicine a continuing threat to the public health and safety,” according to the suspension order.

“The closure of this illicit abortion operation and the suspension of Herring’s medical license further exposes the systemic ‘above the law’ attitude so common among abortionists who routinely defy safety regulations at the expense of the health and safety of their patients,” said Newman.

The new law, known as HB 1, was passed last year during a second special legislative session was called by Gov. Rick Perry after a filibuster by pro-abortion Democrat Wendy Davis caused a near riot in the statehouse that delayed a vote on the measure until after a previous special session had expired. The law went into effect on November 1, 2013. HB 1 was challenged in court and initially enjoined by a lower court, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the law could indeed go into effect while the case is litigated. That led to the closure of nearly a dozen abortion clinics, seven of which were permanent.

Hearings on the suspension and clinic closure are expected later this month.