Saturday, May 28, 2005

'Mexican Nazis' in L.A.


Geo-political analyst decries anti-Semitic Hispanic radicals

The anti-American, anti-Jewish rhetoric coming from the Hispanic separatist movement in the southwest U.S. threatens to spark a second civil war, says geopolitical analysts Jack Wheeler.

In a column on his intelligence website, To the Point, Wheeler covers the implication of a recent rally in Baldwin Park, Calif., where a small group of protesters demonstrated against a taxpayer-supported monument that celebrates the time before the white man came to California. Two inscriptions include: "This land was Mexican once, was Indian always, and is and will be again" and "It was better before they came."

"The rally was met by a far larger, violent counter-demonstration led by an organization of Mexican Nazis who call themselves Reconquistas," writes Wheeler.

"These are people who want to 'reconquer' the entire American Southwest ceded to the U.S. in 1848 and have it become part of Mexico again. What makes them Nazis is their pathological anti-Semitism. Their hatred for America is equaled only by their hatred of Jews."

Continues Wheeler: "One of them yelled at a television cameraman at the Baldwin Park fracas: 'Too bad Osama Bin Laden didn't drop a hydrogen bomb on that Jewish s--thole town Manhattan.'

"One of the Reconquista chants was 'Go back to Europe, go back to England, Gringos.' Another was 'Viva (long live) Zarqawi, the Gringo killer,' in praise of arch-terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's killing American soldiers in Iraq."

Wheeler points out one of the chief organizers of the Reconquistas is the radical student group MEChA, which says it is committed to "the physical liberation of Occupied America."

Writes Wheeler: "MEChA's motto, as stated in its founding document, The Spiritual Plan of Aztlan, could not possibly be more racist: Por La Raza Todo, Fuera de La Raza Nada: for the race (their own 'bronze' race), everything; outside the race, nothing."

Recalling the Spanish Christian knights of an earlier day, Wheeler writes, "Today in America, Christian knights are called Minutemen. They are leading a real Reconquista to liberate their country from an alien conquering invasion. It is the Minutemen and other pro-American patriots that are the true Reconquistas, who understand the choice that must be made: Either the illegal invasion from Mexico is stopped and all illegals deported back to Mexico, or there will be a Second Civil War waged to break America apart."

Wheeler believes the key to whether or not Los Angeles will give in to the "Mexican Nazis" lies in the hands of the new mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa. Problem is, Villaraigosa was president of the UCLA chapter of MEChA when a student there in the '70s.

"Which will thrive under the mayoralty of Antonio Villaraigosa: peaceful and patriotic Mexican-American citizens, or Mexican Nazis and illegals?" asks Wheeler. "Both can't. The thriving of one requires the diminishing of the other. One can always hope, but as for me, I was born and grew up in L.A., got my B.A. at UCLA, doctorate at USC, and spent most of my life there. I'm glad I don't live there any longer."

Friday, May 27, 2005

Buffett Say's, "Drop Betty Crocker...Buy NERF"!!!

They restricted guns to prevent crime and criminals resorted to knives instead.

They plan to restrict knives in an effort to force criminals into using bats. Next plan of action...ban baseball/cricket?!

Maybe they they could force people to file down sharp teeth and make sure all necessary objects in general be made out of "nerf" foam!!! Ahhh...Safe and Sound in the UK!!!

WHEN WILL THEY GET A CLUE?! Stop the criminal, not the tools misused by the criminal.

WEAPONS OF CHOICE - UK docs say ban long kitchen knives

Medical journal report claims they serve no good purpose

It's time to ban long kitchen knives because they serve no good purpose except as weapons, write doctors in the British Medical Journal.

The doctors, as part of their research into ways to reduce violence, say they consulted with leading chefs who said long knives were not needed for cooking.

Dr. Emma Hern, a specialist registrar, and D. Mike Beckett, an emergency medicine consultant, contend in their paper that a short knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault, but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs. But a long blade pierces the body like "cutting into a ripe melon."

"Many assaults are impulsive, often triggered by alcohol or misuse of other drugs, and the long pointed kitchen knife is an easily available, potentially lethal weapon, particularly in the domestic setting," wrote Hern.

The doctors say long knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings in the United Kingdom.

"Government action to ban the sale of such knives would drastically reduce their availability over the course of a few years," wrote Hern.

Professor Anthony Busuttil, a Scotland pathologist, backed the medical journal report.

"All the statistics show that for the last 15 years, victims of stabbings, whether fatal or seriously injured, are caused by kitchen knives such as steak knives rather than knives bought specially for the purpose," is told the Scotsman.

But the restaurant industry reacted with horror to the report.

"Kitchen knives are designed for a purpose," said Malcolm Duck, chairman of the Edinburgh Restaurateurs Association. "It would be like asking a surgeon to perform an operation with a bread knife instead of a scalpel. Anything in the house like a cricket bat could be used as weapon in the hands of an idiot."

Chief Superintendent Tom Buchan, president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, said although a ban on sharp, pointed kitchen knives would be welcome, it could be difficult to enforce.

America Slowly Slipping Away...

First we have Supreme Court Justices claiming that our laws should not be based on the will of the American people ("we the people") but instead it should be a non-static document based on European laws and constitutions. NOW...L.A.'s new mayor claims that he will use Mexico to shape his policies. If TRUE American's don't come together may be too late.

Friday, May 27, 2005 12:25 a.m. EDT

L.A. Mayor: Mexico Will Shape My Policies

Los Angeles Mayor-elect Antonio Villaraigosa said Wednesday that Mexico will play an important role in shaping his policies, reports Mexico's El Universal Online.

"We are starting a new era. Instead of closing the borders, as stated by Schwarzenegger, we should look at our border as an opportunity," Villaraigosa said.

"This is a time of great importance, not just for us to rediscover our roots, but looking to create a mutually beneficial relationship," added the city's first Latino mayor since 1872.
The top L.A. Democrat lamented that the recent passage by Congress of The Real ID Act, if signed into law, would prevent illegal aliens from getting driver's licenses.

"Politicians in the United States need to understand that immigrants come here for the same reason that immigrants have always come: to work," Villaraigosa told El Universal. "Instead of punishing and demonizing them, we should try to integrate them."

Villaraigosa also told El Universal that he would not support policies that supposedly persecute the city's large migrant population.

"I support Special Order 40 [prohibiting police from making migration-related arrests]," he said. "We need our police officers to fight gangs and organized crime. That will keep them more than busy."

Supreme Court internationalists

As if it weren't bad enough that the U.S. Supreme Court majority pays little heed to the U.S. Constitution, now it is becoming clear five or six members of the court are being influenced by the constitutions and courts of foreign countries.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg blew the court's cover in a speech to the American Constitution Society, explaining that her colleagues are looking beyond America's borders for guidance in handling cases on issues like the death penalty and homosexual rights.

In a decision earlier this summer in a Texas case in which anti-sodomy laws were overruled, the justices first referred to the findings of foreign courts. Last year, the court said executing mentally retarded people is unconstitutionally cruel, noting the practice was opposed internationally. Ginsburg cited an international treaty in her vote in June to uphold the use of race in college admissions.

In condescending language undermining the principle of American sovereignty, she said, "our island or lone-ranger mentality is beginning to change." Justices, she said, "are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives."

Last month, Ginsburg, Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen Breyer discussed the death penalty and terrorism with French President Jacques Chirac during a European tour that included a conference on the European constitution. France outlawed the death penalty in 1981. Five members of the court attended the conference.

"While you are the American Constitution Society, your perspective on constitutional law should encompass the world," she told the group of judges, lawyers and students. "We are the losers if we do not both share our experiences with and learn from others."

Ginsburg also tipped that the Internet is making it easier for the justices to keep up with the decisions of foreign courts.

Back in July, a New York Times story explained that extensive foreign travel has made both Anthony Kennedy and O'Connor "more alert" to how their peers on other constitutional courts see similar issues.

"Justices have always traveled, teaching or taking part in seminars," the story said. "But these are trips with a difference."

The story said Ginsburg, Breyer, O'Connor and Kennedy have held extensive sessions with judges in Europe. Kennedy, it said, has met with numerous Chinese judges – both in the United States and in China. O'Connor has been involved in the American Bar Association's reform initiative in Eastern Europe.

"With emerging democracies groping toward the rule of law, with colleagues on the federal bench volunteering for constitution-writing duties in Iraq, it is not surprising that the justices have begun to see themselves as participants in a worldwide constitutional convention," the New York Times story said ominously.

"Worldwide constitutional convention?" No thanks.

Justice Antonin Scalia has it just right: In his dissent on the Texas sodomy case, he wrote that the court should not "impose foreign moods, fads or fashions on Americans."

This is an extremely dangerous trend by these activist judges. Seemingly fresh out of any pretense of constitutional justification for their illogical and misguided decisions, now they are seeking justification in foreign constitutions and from foreign judges and attorneys. Comparing notes with foreigners might be a valid technique for legislators writing laws, but what insight do these folks have into the meaning, interpretation and intent of our own Constitution? What does any of this have to do with the rule of law here in America?

Our founders fought a long and bloody war for independence from Europe and the Old World so that we could govern ourselves in a revolutionary new way. If Ginsburg, O'Connor, Kennedy, Breyer, John Paul Stevens and David Souter are so enamored of the laws in foreign countries, they always have the option of resigning their lifetime appointments and moving themselves to one of those judicial paradises.

Until they make that decision, I would advise them to spend more time talking to Americans and reading the U.S. Constitution.

Thursday, May 26, 2005

This Is What "Choice" Looks Like!!!

"What's the big deal? It's not a baby yet."

Although your unborn baby does not have any legal rights under the law, he or she is, without a doubt, a living human being. At only six weeks of age, your baby will already have a beating heart. By eight weeks, your baby will have measurable brain waves and will be capable of experiencing pain. By twelve weeks your baby will already be able to cry, though silently.

This is what "LIFE" looks like:

Andy's mom, 15 years old at the
time, listened to her heart instead
of the doctor's advice.

Chlowee's 19 year old mom thought about having an abortion, but just couldn't do it.

Caleb's mom thought she had no other choice.

Saved from abortion, Julian was adopted against all odds.

Justin's father begged his mom to have an abortion, but she refused.

Late Term / Partial Birth Abortion:

Step 1
Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grasps the baby's leg with surgical forceps.

Step 2
The abortionist inverts the baby's into breach position, and then pulls her into the birth canal.

Step 3
The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head. He takes a pair of metzenbaum scissors, and jams them into the base of the baby's skull. He opens the scissors to form a hole, inserts a suction catheter, and removes the baby's brain.

Read the heartbreaking Testimony of Brenda Shafer, a pro-choice nurse who has witnessed partial-birth abortion first hand. -

In the following article, first published in US News and World Report, Marianne Lavelle reveals that partial-birth abortion is being used as birth control. -

Writing for the American Medical Association, Dr. M. Leroy Sprang demonstrates why a ban on late-term abortion is necessary. -

Partial-Birth Abortion is Introduced -- Practicing abortionist Martin Haskell puts forth his newest invention at the 1992 National Abortion Federation Risk Management Seminar. -

A statement on partial-birth abortion from the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. -

"When you're a doctor who does these abortions and the leaders of your movement appear before Congress and go on network news and say these procedures are done in only the most tragic of circumstances, how do you think that makes you feel? You know they're primarily done on healthy women and healthy fetuses, and it makes you feel like a dirty little abortionist with a dirty little secret. I think we should tell them the truth, let them vote and move on. In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along. The abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, probably, does everyone else."
--Ron Fitzsimmons, Executive Director for the National Coalition of Abortion Providers The New York Times, February 26, 1997

Is Abortion Murder? L.A. Times abortion poll, June 18, 2000:
Yes: Women=61%, Men=52%, All=57%
No: Women=34%, Men=39%, All=36%
Don't Know: Women=5%, Men=9%, All=7%

A List of Major Psychological Sequelae of Abortion
By David Reardon, Ph.D.


In a study of post-abortion patients only 8 weeks after their abortion, researchers found that 44% complained of nervous disorders, 36% had experienced sleep disturbances, 31% had regrets about their decision, and 11% had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor. (2) A 5 year retrospective study in two Canadian provinces found significantly greater use of medical and psychiatric services among aborted women. Most significant was the finding that 25% of aborted women made visits to psychiatrists as compared to 3% of the control group. (3) Women who have had abortions are significantly more likely than others to subsequently require admission to a psychiatric hospital. At especially high risk are teenagers, separated or divorced women, and women with a history of more than one abortion. (4)

Since many post-aborted women use repression as a coping mechanism, there may be a long period of denial before a woman seeks psychiatric care. These repressed feelings may cause psychosomatic illnesses and psychiatric or behavioral in other areas of her life. As a result, some counselors report that unacknowledged post-abortion distress is the causative factor in many of their female patients, even though their patients have come to them seeking therapy for seemingly unrelated problems. (5)


A major random study found that a minimum of 19% of post- abortion women suffer from diagnosable post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Approximately half had many, but not all, symptoms of PTSD, and 20 to 40 percent showed moderate to high levels of stress and avoidance behavior relative to their abortion experiences. (6) Because this is a major disorder which may be present in many plaintiffs, and is not readily understood outside the counseling profession, the following summary is more complete than other entries in this section. PTSD is a psychological dysfunction which results from a traumatic experience which overwhelms a person's normal defense mechanisms resulting in intense fear, feelings of helplessness or being trapped, or loss of control. The risk that an experience will be traumatic is increased when the traumatizing event is perceived as including threats of physical injury, sexual violation, or the witnessing of or participation in a violent death. PTSD results when the traumatic event causes the hyperarousal of "flight or fight" defense mechanisms. This hyperarousal causes these defense mechanisms to become disorganized, disconnected from present circumstances, and take on a life of their own resulting in abnormal behavior and major personality disorders. As an example of this disconnection of mental functions, some PTSD victim may experience intense emotion but without clear memory of the event; others may remember every detail but without emotion; still others may reexperience both the event and the emotions in intrusive and overwhelming flashback experiences. (7)

Women may experience abortion as a traumatic event for several reasons. Many are forced into an unwanted abortions by husbands, boyfriends, parents, or others. If the woman has repeatedly been a victim of domineering abuse, such an unwanted abortion may be perceived as the ultimate violation in a life characterized by abuse. Other women, no matter how compelling the reasons they have for seeking an abortion, may still perceive the termination of their pregnancy as the violent killing of their own child. The fear, anxiety, pain, and guilt associated with the procedure are mixed into this perception of grotesque and violent death. Still other women, report that the pain of abortion, inflicted upon them by a masked stranger invading their body, feels identical to rape. (8) Indeed, researchers have found that women with a history of sexual assault may experience greater distress during and after an abortion exactly because of these associations between the two experiences. (9) When the stressor leading to PTSD is abortion, some clinicians refer to this as Post-Abortion Syndrome (PAS).

The major symptoms of PTSD are generally classified under three categories: hyperarousal, intrusion, and constriction.

Hyperarousal is a characteristic of inappropriately and chronically aroused "fight or flight" defense mechanisms. The person is seemingly on permanent alert for threats of danger. Symptoms of hyperarousal include: exaggerated startle responses, anxiety attacks, irritability, outbursts of anger or rage, aggressive behavior, difficulty concentrating, hypervigilence, difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep, or physiological reactions upon exposure to situations that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic experience (eg. elevated pulse or sweat during a pelvic exam, or upon hearing a vacuum pump sound.)

Intrusion is the reexperience of the traumatic event at unwanted and unexpected times. Symptoms of intrusion in PAS cases include: recurrent and intrusive thoughts about the abortion or aborted child, flashbacks in which the woman momentarily reexperiences an aspect of the abortion experience, nightmares about the abortion or child, or anniversary reactions of intense grief or depression on the due date of the aborted pregnancy or the anniversary date of the abortion.

Constriction is the numbing of emotional resources, or the development of behavioral patterns, so as to avoid stimuli associated with the trauma. It is avoidance behavior; an attempt to deny and avoid negative feelings or people, places, or things which aggravate the negative feelings associated with the trauma. In post-abortion trauma cases, constriction may include: an inability to recall the abortion experience or important parts of it; efforts to avoid activities or situations which may arouse recollections of the abortion; withdrawal from relationships, especially estrangement from those involved in the abortion decision; avoidance of children; efforts to avoid or deny thoughts or feelings about the abortion; restricted range of loving or tender feelings; a sense of a foreshortened future (e.g., does not expect a career, marriage, or children, or a long life.); diminished interest in previously enjoyed activities; drug or alcohol abuse; suicidal thoughts or acts; and other self-destructive tendencies.

As previously mentioned, Barnard's study identified a 19% rate of PTSD among women who had abortions three to five years previously. But in reality the actual rate is probably higher. Like most post-abortion studies, Barnard's study was handicapped by a fifty percent drop out rate. Clinical experience has demonstrated that the women least likely to cooperate in post-abortion research are those for whom the abortion caused the most psychological distress. Research has confirmed this insight, demonstrating that the women who refuse followup evaluation most closely match the demographic characteristics of the women who suffer the most post-abortion distress. (10) The extraordinary high rate of refusal to participate in post-abortion studies may interpreted as evidence of constriction or avoidance behavior (not wanting to think about the abortion) which is a major symptom of PTSD.

For many women, the onset or accurate identification of PTSD symptoms may be delayed for several years. (11) Until a PTSD sufferer has received counseling and achieved adequate recovery, PTSD may result in a psychological disability which would prevent an injured abortion patient from bringing action within the normal statutory period. This disability may, therefore, provide grounds for an extended statutory period.


Thirty to fifty percent of aborted women report experiencing sexual dysfunctions, of both short and long duration, beginning immediately after their abortions. These problems may include one or more of the following: loss of pleasure from intercourse, increased pain, an aversion to sex and/or males in general, or the development of a promiscuous life-style. (12)


Approximately 60 percent of women who experience post-abortion sequelae report suicidal ideation, with 28 percent actually attempting suicide, of which half attempted suicide two or more times. Researchers in Finland have identified a strong statistical association between abortion and suicide in a records based study. The identified 73 suicides associated within one year to a pregnancy ending either naturally or by induced abortion. The mean annual suicide rate for all women was 11.3 per 100,000. Suicide rate associated with birth was significantly lower (5.9). Rates for pregnancy loss were significantly higher. For miscarriage the rate was 18.1 per 100,000 and for abortion 34.7 per 100,000. The suicide rate within one year after an abortion was three times higher than for all women, seven times higher than for women carrying to term, and nearly twice as high as for women who suffered a miscarriage. Suicide attempts appear to be especially prevalent among post-abortion teenagers.(13)


Post-abortion stress is linked with increased cigarette smoking. Women who abort are twice as likely to become heavy smokers and suffer the corresponding health risks. (14)

Post-abortion women are also more likely to continue smoking during subsequent wanted pregnancies with increased risk of neonatal death or congenital anomalies. (15)


Abortion is significantly linked with a two fold increased risk of alcohol abuse among women. (16) Abortion followed by alcohol abuse is linked to violent behavior, divorce or separation, auto accidents, and job loss. (17) (see also New Study Confirms Link Between Abortion and Substance Abuse)


Abortion is significantly linked to subsequent drug abuse. In addition to the psycho-social costs of such abuse, drug abuse is linked with increased exposure to HIV/AIDS infections, congenital malformations, and assaultive behavior. (18)


For at least some women, post-abortion stress is associated with eating disorders such as binge eating, bulimia, and anorexia nervosa. (19)


Abortion is linked with increased depression, violent behavior, alcohol and drug abuse, replacement pregnancies, and reduced maternal bonding with children born subsequently. These factors are closely associated with child abuse and would appear to confirm individual clinical assessments linking post-abortion trauma with subsequent child abuse. (20)


For most couples, an abortion causes unforeseen problems in their relationship. Post-abortion couples are more likely to divorce or separate. Many post-abortion women develop a greater difficulty forming lasting bonds with a male partner. This may be due to abortion related reactions such as lowered self-esteem, greater distrust of males, sexual dysfunction, substance abuse, and increased levels of depression, anxiety, and volatile anger. Women who have more than one abortion (representing about 45% of all abortions) are more likely to require public assistance, in part because they are also more likely to become single parents. (21)


Women who have one abortion are at increased risk of having additional abortions in the future. Women with a prior abortion experience are four times more likely to abort a current pregnancy than those with no prior abortion history. (22)

This increased risk is associated with the prior abortion due to lowered self esteem, a conscious or unconscious desire for a replacement pregnancy, and increased sexual activity post-abortion. Subsequent abortions may occur because of conflicted desires to become pregnant and have a child and continued pressures to abort, such as abandonment by the new male partner. Aspects of self-punishment through repeated abortions are also reported. (23)

Approximately 45% of all abortions are now repeat abortions. The risk of falling into a repeat abortion pattern should be discussed with a patient considering her first abortion. Furthermore, since women who have more than one abortion are at a significantly increased risk of suffering physical and psychological sequelae, these heightened risks should be thoroughly discussed with women seeking abortions.

A List Of Major Physical Sequelae Related To Abortion 1


The leading causes of abortion related deaths are hemorrhage, infection, embolism, anesthesia, and undiagnosed ectopic pregnancies. Legal abortion is reported as the fifth leading cause of maternal death in the United States, though in fact it is recognized that most abortion related deaths are not officially reported as such.2


For women aborting a first pregnancy, the risk of breast cancer almost doubles after a first-trimester abortion and is multiplied with two or more abortions. This risk is especially great for women who do not have children. Some recent studies have refuted this finding, but the majority of studies support a connection.3 More on abortion and breast cancer.


Women with one abortion face a 2.3 relative risk of cervical cancer, compared to non-aborted women, and women with two or more abortions face a 4.92 relative risk. Similar elevated risks of ovarian and liver cancer have also been linked to single and multiple abortions. These increased cancer rates for post-aborted women are apparently linked to the unnatural disruption of the hormonal changes which accompany pregnancy and untreated cervical damage.4 More on cervical cancer.


Between 2 and 3% of all abortion patients may suffer perforation of their uterus, yet most of these injuries will remain undiagnosed and untreated unless laparoscopic visualization is performed.5 The risk of uterine perforation is increased for women who have previously given birth and for those who receive general anesthesia at the time of the abortion.6 Uterine damage may result in complications in later pregnancies and may eventually evolve into problems which require a hysterectomy, which itself may result in a number of additional complications and injuries including osteoporosis.


Significant cervical lacerations requiring sutures occur in at least one percent of first trimester abortions. Lesser lacerations, or micro fractures, which would normally not be treated may also result in long term reproductive damage. Latent post-abortion cervical damage may result in subsequent cervical incompetence, premature delivery and complications during labor. The risk of cervical damage is greater for teenagers, for second trimester abortions, and when practitioners fail to use laminaria for dilation of the cervix.7


Abortion increases the risk of placenta previa in later pregnancies (a life threatening condition for both the mother and her wanted pregnancy) by seven to fifteen fold. Abnormal development of the placenta due to uterine damage increases the risk of fetal malformation, perinatal death, and excessive bleeding during labor.8


Abortion is associated with cervical and uterine damage which may increase the risk of premature delivery, complications of labor and abnormal development of the placenta in later pregnancies. These type of reproductive complications are the leading causes of handicaps among newborns.9


Abortion is related to an increased risk of subsequent ectopic pregnancies. Ectopic pregnancies are life threatening and may result in reduced fertility.10


PID is a potentially life threatening disease which can lead to an increased risk of ectopic pregnancy and reduced fertility. Of patients who have a chlamydia infection it the time of the abortion, 23% will develop PID within 4 weeks. Studies have found that 20 to 27% of patients seeking abortion have a chlamydia infection. Approximately 5% of patients who are not infected by chlamydia develop PID within 4 weeks after a first trimester abortion. It is therefore reasonable to expect that abortion providers should screen for and treat such infections prior to an abortion. 11


Endometritis is a post-abortion risk for all women, but especially for teenagers, who are 2.5 times more likely than women 20-29 to acquire endometritis following abortion.12


Approximately 10% of women undergoing elective abortion will suffer immediate complications, of which approximately one-fifth (2%) are considered life threatening. The nine most common major complications which can occur at the time of an abortion are: infection, excessive bleeding, embolism, ripping or perforation of the uterus, anesthesia complications, convulsions, hemorrhage, cervical injury, and endotoxic shock. The most common "minor" complications include: infection, bleeding, fever, second degree burns, chronic abdominal pain, vomiting, gastrointestinal disturbances, and Rh sensitization. 13


In general, most of the studies cited above reflect risk factors for women who undergo a single abortion. These same studies show that women who have multiple abortions face a much greater risk of experiencing these complications. This point is especially noteworthy since approximately 45% of all abortions are repeats.


Teenagers, who account for about 30 percent of all abortions, are also at much high risk of suffering many abortion related complications. This is true of both immediate complications, and of long-term reproductive damage.14


Abortion is significantly linked to behavioral changes such as promiscuity, smoking, drug abuse, and eating disorders which all contribute to increased risks of health problems.15 For example, promiscuity and abortion are each linked to increased rates of PID and ectopic pregnancies. Which contributes most is unclear, but apportionment may be irrelevant if the promiscuity is itself a reaction to post-abortion trauma or loss of self esteem.

As is clear from the document above, surgical abortion carries many physical risks, which are compounded for repeat and late term abortions. Many women may have damage to their reproductive systems without realizing it, only to find years later that they are infertile or worse. Surgical abortion can make subsequent pregnancies more dangerous, thus contributing to overall maternal mortality for wanted pregnancies. The increased risk of breast cancer, though well documented, is not usually disclosed to women seeking abortions. Any woman considering abortion should take into account the possibilty of becoming injured in any of the ways documented above.

Additional Documented Effects

More than 58 percent of all women experienced 'quite a bit' or 'severe' pain during induced abortion. Among women with no full term births prior to the abortion, this figure is 61.4%. "We were surprised to note that the majority of women reported moderate or more discomfort during the procedure [induced abortion]; we had not expected as many women to report severe pain." [Source: The Journal of Reproductive Medicine, Pain During Early Abortion, Dr. Lynn Borgatta and David Nickinovich (PhD), 1997, vol. 42, pp. 287-293. Co-author Dr. Lynn Borgatta is in the Medical Division of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (New York City).]

Women who have induced abortions have an increased risk of HIV infection of 172%, and researchers are at least 99% confident of this result. "Significantly higher prevalences of infection [HIV-1] were associated with induced abortion (0.49%) than with delivery (0.18%) (OR: 2.72; 95% CI: 2.29-3.22)" [European Journal of Epidemiology, Deliveries, abortion and HIV-1 infection in Rome, 1989-1994, 1997, 13:373-378.]

A typical 15 year old American girl has a 10% lifetime risk of breast cancer. If she gets pregnant in her teens and has the baby she reduces her risk to 7.5%. However, if she has an abortion, her risk of breast cancer rises to 15% (assuming she has at least one child in her 20's). If the abortion causes permanent infertility her and/or for other reasons, she never has another pregnancy, her risk rises to 30%. [Source: Brinton LA, Hoover R, Fraumeni IF, Ir. (1983) Brit. J. Cancer. 47:757-62.]

Stories - From Women Who Have Been There:

Personal Stories From the Perspective Of Abortion Doctors:

The Abortion Industry Speaks

There is a perspective on abortion not often heard--the perspective of the abortionists and the clinic workers who perform the procedure. They know that abortion is the destruction of a human life because their job is to supervise and perform the destruction. They see the baby when it is vibrant on the ultrasound, and they see it when it is extracted dead.

Below we present disturbing personal testimonies and first-hand descriptions of abortion written by those who work in the abortion industry.

What is it Like Performing Abortions?

"Following [the doctor's] directions, I took the collection bottle and poured its contents into a shallow pan. Then I used water to rinse off the blood and smaller particles which clouded the bottom of the pan. 'Now look closely,' the doctor said. 'It is important that we have got all the stuff out.' I looked in the pan to find that the stuff consisted of the remains of what had been, a few minutes before, a thirteen week old fetus. I could make out the remains of arms and legs and a trunk and a skull. I tried to piece them back together in my mind, to see if there were any missing parts. Most of the pieces were so battered and bloody they were not recognizably human. Then my eyes locked upon a perfect little hand, less than half a centimeter long. I stared at four tiny fingers and a tiny opposed thumb, complete with tiny translucent fingers. And I knew what I had done." --former abortionist "Chi An" quoted in Stephen Mosher's "A Mother's Ordeal: One Woman's Fight Against China's One Child Policy" pgs 60-61

"I got to where I couldn't stand to look at the little bodies anymore" --Dr. Beverly McMillan, when asked why she stopped performing abortions.

"We all wish it were formless, but its not...and its painful. There is a lot of emotional pain." --abortion clinic worker quoted in "The Ex Abortionists: They Have Confronted Reality" Washington Post April 1, 1988 pg 21

"I look inside the bucket in front of me. There is a small naked person in there, floating in a bloody liquid-plainly the tragic victim of a drowning accident. But then perhaps this was no accident, because the body is purple with bruises and the face has the agonized tauntness of one forced to die too soon. I have seen this face before, on a Russian soldier lying on a frozen snow-covered hill, stiff with death, and cold." --Pro-choice doctor and author Magda Denes, "Performing Abortions" by Magda Denes, M.D. "Commentary" Oct. 26 1976 p 35-37

"The first time, I felt like a murderer, but I did it again and again and again, and now, 20 years later, I am facing what happened to me as a doctor and as a human being. Sure, I got hard. Sure, the money was important. And oh, it was an easy thing, once I had taken the step, to see the women as animals and the babies as just tissue." --abortionist quoted from a radio talk show by John Rice in "Abortion" Litt D. Murfreesboro, TN.

"Clinic workers may say they support a woman's right to choose, but they will also say that they do not want to see tiny hands and tiny feet....there is a great difference between the intellectual support of a woman's right to choose and the actual participation in the carnage of abortion. Because seeing body parts bothers the workers." --Judith Fetrow, former clinic worker from San Francisco quoted in "Meet the Abortion Providers III" from a taped conference in Chicago 4/3/93

"You would just look in the buckets and see arms and legs. I have horrible dreams about that now. It was something you would see in a scary movie." --Former clinic worker Kirsten Breedlove

"I went up to the lab one day and on the pathologist's table I saw what I thought was little rubber doll until I realized it was a fetus. . .I got really shook up and upset and I couldn't believe it. It had all its fingers and toes, you know, hands and feet. . . I never thought it would look so real. I didn't like it." --Planned Parenthood employee quoted in Magda Denes book "In Necessity and Sorrow" New York: Basic Books 1979

"I hated putting babies in strainers and rinsing them off and putting them in zip-lock bags." --former abortion clinic owner Eric Harrah

"My 23rd abortion changed my mind about doing abortions forever. This patient was a little overweight and ultimately proved to be a little farther along than anticipated. This was not an uncommon mistake before ultrasound was readily available to confirm the gestational age. Initially, the abortion proceeded normally. The water broke, but then nothing more would come out. When I withdrew the curette, I saw that it was plugged up with the leg of the baby which had been torn off. I then changed techniques and used ring forceps to dismember the 13 or 14week size baby. Inside the remains of the rib cage I found a tiny, beating heart. I was finally able to remove the head and looked squarely into the face of a human being -- a human being that I had just killed." --Dr. Paul Jarrett

Are Women Being Given a Choice?

"In my facilities, I always gave option counseling. Of course you make the abortion the most appealing. I told them about adoption and about foster care and about [when there was welfare] assistance. The typical way it would go is, "Well, you know you can place your baby out for adoption." But then, in the second breath you would say, "That's an option available to you, but you also have to realize that there's going to be a baby of yours out here somewhere in the world you will never see again. At least with abortion you know what's happening. You can go on with your life...The longer I was in it, the less I cared, so I really didn't really care what my conscience said. My conscience was totally numb anyway. But what it did do was public relations-wise. You were able, when a reporter or TV crew came, to pull out a packet of information for the patients to read and they received it. So what can anybody say? Publicly it looked good -- in reality it was another tool that was used to force a woman into abortion. It's typical -- I would give them an option and then shoot it down. The only option you didn't shoot down, obviously, was abortion."
--Former clinic owner Eric Harrah quoted by Dr. Jack Willke and Brad Mattes

"I was trained by a professional marketing director in how to sell abortions over the telephone. He took every one of our receptionists, nurses, and anyone else who would deal with people over the phone through an extensive training period. The object was, when the girl called, to hook the sale so that she wouldn't get an abortion somewhere else, or adopt out her baby, or change her mind. We were doing it for the money." --Nina Whitten, chief secretary at a Dallas abortion clinic under Dr. Curtis Boyd

"Every woman has these same two questions: First, "Is it a baby?" "No" the counselor assures her. "It is a product of conception (or a blood clot, or a piece of tissue). . .How many women would have an abortion, if they told them the truth?" --Carol Everett, former owner of two clinics and director of four "A Walk Through an Abortion Clinic" by Carol Everett ALL About Issues magazine Aug-Sept 1991, p 117

"If a woman we were counseling expressed doubts about having an abortion, we would say whatever was necessary to persuade her to abort immediately." --Judy W., former office manager of the second largest abortion clinic in El Paso, Texas

"Sometimes we lied. A girl might ask what her baby was like at a certain point in the pregnancy: Was it a baby yet? Even as early as 12 weeks a baby is totally formed, he has fingerprints, turns his head, fans his toes, feels pain. But we would say 'It's not a baby yet. It's just tissue, like a clot.'" --Kathy Sparks told in "The Conversion of Kathy Sparks" by Gloria Williamson, Christian Herald Jan 1986 p 28

"I have seen hundreds of patients in my office who have had abortions and were just lied to by the abortion counselor. Namely 'This is less painful than having a tooth removed. It is not a baby.' Afterwards, the woman sees Life magazine and breaks down and goes into a major depression." --Psychologist Vincent Rue quoted in "Abortion Inc" David Kupelian and Jo Ann Gasper, New Dimensions, October 1991 p 16



The notion that the Constitution of the United States, designed, among other things, “to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, . . . and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” prohibits the States from simply banning this visibly brutal means of eliminating our half-born posterity is quite simply absurd. -- Justice Antonin Scalia

The Facts of Prenatal Development

Is it a human being?

"From the moment a baby is conceived, it bears the indelible stamp of a separate distinct personality, an individual different from all other individuals." Ultrasound pioneer, Sir William Liley, M.D. 1967.

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into existence. This is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." Dr. Jerome Lejeune, genetics professor at the University of Descartes, Paris. He discovered the Down syndrome chromosome.

"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception." Professor M. Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School.

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic.

When does the heart begin to beat?

At 18 days [when the mother is only four days late for her first menstrual period], and by 21 days it is pumping, through a closed circulatory system, blood whose type is different from that of the mother. J.M. Tanner, G. R. Taylor, and the Editors of Time-Life Books, Growth, New York: Life Science Library, 1965, p.

When is the brain functioning?

Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram (EEG). H. Hamlin, "Life or Death by EEG," JAMA, Oct. 12, 1964, p. 120

Brain function, as measured on the Electroencephalogram, "appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation," or six weeks after conception. J. Goldenring, "Development of the Fetal Brain," New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564

How early do some organs form?

The eye, ear and respiratory systems begin to form four weeks after fertilization. K. Moore, Before We Were Born, 3rd ed., 1989, p. 278

And function?

Very early, e.g., glucagon, a blood sugar hormone, has been demonstrated in the fetal pancreas 6 weeks after fertilization, and insulin by 7 to 8. F. Cunningham, "Pancreas," William’s Obstet., 19th ed., 1993, p. 183-4

Thumbsucking has been photographed at 7 weeks after fertilization. W. Liley, The Fetus As Personality, Fetal Therapy, 1986, p. 8-17

When does the developing baby first move?

"In the sixth to seventh weeks. . . . If the area of the lips is gently stroked, the child responds by bending the upper body to one side and making a quick backward motion with his arms. This is called a ‘total pattern response’ because it involves most of the body, rather than a local part." L. B. Arey, Developmental Anatomy (6th ed.), Philadelphia: W. B. Sanders Co., 1954

At eight weeks, "if we tickle the baby’s nose, he will flex his head backwards away from the stimulus." A. Hellgers, M.D., "Fetal Development, 31," Theological Studies, vol. 3, no. 7, 1970, p. 26

Another example is from a surgical technician whose letter said, "When we opened her abdomen (for a tubal pregnancy), the tube had expelled an inch-long fetus, about 4-6 weeks old. It was still alive in the sack. "That tiny baby was waving its little arms and kicking its little legs and even turned its whole body over." J. Dobson, Focus on the Family Mag., Aug. ’91, pg. 16

When are all her body systems present?

By eight weeks (two months). Hooker & Davenport, The Prenatal Origin of Behavior, University of Kansas Press, 1952

When do teeth form?

All 20 milk-teeth buds are present at six and a half weeks."Life Before Birth," Life Magazine, Apr. 30, 1965, p. 10

And include dental lamina at 8 weeks. Med. Embryology, Longman, 3rd Ed., 1975, p. 406

How about nine weeks?

At nine to ten weeks, he squints, swallows, moves his tongue, and if you stroke his palm, will make a tight fist.

By nine weeks he will "bend his fingers round an object in the palm of his hand." Valman & Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels," British Med. Jour., Jan. 26, 1980

When does he start to breathe?

"By 11 to 12 weeks (3 months), he is breathing fluid steadily and continues so until birth. At birth, he will breathe air. He does not drown by breathing fluid with-in his mother, because he obtains his oxygen from his umbilical cord. This breathing develops the organs of respiration." "Life Before Birth," Life Magazine, Apr. 30, 1965, p. 13

"Maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy decreases the frequency of fetal breathing by 20%. The ‘well documented’ higher incidence of prematurity, stillbirth, and slower development of reading skill may be related to this decrease." 80 F. Manning, "Meeting of Royal College of Physicians & Surgeons," Family Practice News, March 15, 1976

"In the 11th week of gestation fetal breathing is irregular and episodic. As gestation continues, the breathing movements become more vigorous and rapid." C. Dawes, "Fetal Breathing: Indication of Well Being," Family Practice News, Mar. 16, 1976, p. 6

Episodic spontaneous breathing movement have been observed in the healthy human fetus as early as ten weeks gestational age. Conners et al., "Control of Fetal Breathing in the Human Fetus," Am J. OB-GYN, April ‘89, p. 932

When can she swallow?

At 11 weeks. Valman & Pearson, British Med. Jour., "What the Fetus Feels," 26 Jan. 1980, p. 233

What of detailed development, like fingernails and eyelashes?

Fingernails are present by 11 to 12 weeks; eyelashes by 16 weeks. Fingerprints are completely established during the fourth month of gestation. Hamilton et al., Human Embryology, Fourth Ed., 1972, p. 567

At what point are all her body systems working?

By 11 weeks. "Life Before Birth," Life Magazine, Apr. 30, 1965, p. 13

How does the size of the baby increase in weight?

At 12 weeks (three months) she weighs about 30 gm (1.0 ounce); at 16 weeks about 170 gm (6 ounces); and at 20 weeks (four months), approximately 454 gm (one pound).

When is taste present?

"Taste buds are working between 13 and 15 weeks gestation" (11 to 13 weeks after conception). Mistretta & Bradley, Taste in Utero, 1977, p. 62 Bradley et al., "Dev. Taste Buds . . . ," J. Anat. 101 (4) 1967, p. 743-752

How about hearing?

"Auditory sense is present in the infant 24 weeks before birth [14 weeks after conception]. This involves brain functioning and memory patterns." M. Clemens, "5th International Congress Psychosomatic," OB & GYN, Rome: Medical Tribune, Mar. 22, 1978, p. 7

Fetal Pain:

By 8 weeks?

By this age the neuroanatomic structures are present. What is needed is (1) a sensory nerve to feel the pain and send a message to (2) the thalamus, a part of the base of the brain, and (3) motor nerves that send a message to that area. These are present at 8 weeks.

The pain impulse goes to the thalamus. It sends a signal down the motor nerves to pull away from the hurt.

Give an example.

Try sticking an infant with a pin and you know what happens. She opens her mouth to cry and also pulls away.

Try sticking an 8 week old human fetus in the palm of his hand. He opens his mouth and pulls his hand away.

A more technical description would add that changes in heart rate and fetal movement also suggest that intrauterine manipulations are painful to the fetus.

Volman & Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels,"
British Med. Journal, Jan. 26, 1980, pp. 233-234.

O.K., that is activity that can be observed, but is there other evidence of pain? After all, the fetal baby can’t tell us he hurts.

Pain can be detected when nociceptors (pain receptors) discharge electrical impulses to the spinal cord and brain. These fire impulses outward, telling the muscles and body to react. These can be measured.

Mountcastle, Medical Physiology, St. Louis: C.V. Mosby, pp. 391-427

"Lip tactile response may be evoked by the end of the 7th week. At 11 weeks, the face and all parts of the upper and lower extremities are sensitive to touch. By 13 1/2 to 14 weeks, the entire body surface, except for the back and the top of the head, are sensitive to pain."

S. Reinis & J. Goldman, The Development
of the Brain C. Thomas Pub., 1980

Give me more proof.

In 1964 President Reagan said: "When the lives of the unborn are snuffed out, they often feel pain, pain that is long and agonizing."

President Ronald Reagan to National Religious Broadcasters,
New York Times, Jan. 31, 1984

This provoked a public reaction from pro-abortion circles and a response from an auspicious group of professors, including pain specialists and two past presidents of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

They strongly backed Mr. Reagan and produced substantial documentation. Excerpts of their letter (2/13/84) to him included:

"Real time ultrasonography, fetoscopy, study of the fetal EKG (electrocardiogram) and fetal EEG (electroencephalogram) have demonstrated the remarkable responsiveness of the human fetus to pain, touch, and sound. That the fetus responds to changes in light intensity within the womb, to heat, to cold, and to taste (by altering the chemical nature of the fluid swallowed by the fetus) has been exquisitely documented in the pioneering work of the late Sir William Lily — the father of fetology."

We state categorically that no finding of modern fetology invalidates the remarkable conclusion drawn after a lifetime of research by the late Professor Arnold Gesell of Yale University. In The Embryology of Behavior: The Beginnings of the Human Mind (1945, Harper Bros.), Dr. Gesell wrote, "and so by the close of the first trimester the fetus is a sentient, moving being. We need not speculate as to the nature of his psychic attributes, but we may assert that the organization of his psychosomatic self is well under way."

Mr. President, in drawing attention to the capability of the human fetus to feel pain, you stand on firmly established ground.

Willke, J & B, Abortion: Questions & Answers,
Hayes, 1991, Chpt. 10

What of The Silent Scream?

A Realtime ultrasound video tape and movie of a 12-week suction abortion is commercially available as, The Silent Scream, narrated by Dr. B. Nathanson, a former abortionist. It dramatically, but factually, shows the pre-born baby dodging the suction instrument time after time, while its heartbeat doubles in rate. When finally caught, its body being dismembered, the baby’s mouth clearly opens wide — hence, the title (available from American Portrait Films, P.O. Box 19266, Cleveland, OH 44119, 216-531-8600). Proabortionists have attempted to discredit this film. A well documented paper refuting their charges is available from National Right to Life, 419 7th St. NW, Washington, DC 20004, $2.00 p.p.

A short, 10-minute video showing the testimony of the doctor who did the abortion in Silent Scream definitely debunks any criticism of Silent Scream’s accuracy. The Answer, Bernadel, Inc., P.O. Box 1897, Old Chelsea Station, New York, NY, 10011.

Pain? What of just comfort?

"One of the most uncomfortable ledges that the unborn can encounter is his mother’s backbone. If he happens to be lying so that his own backbone is across hers [when the mother lies on her back], the unborn will wiggle around until he can get away from this highly disagreeable position."

M. Liley & B. Day, Modern Motherhood,
Random House, 1969, p. 42

But isn’t pain mostly psychological?

There is also organic, or physiological pain which elicits a neurological response to pain.

P. Lubeskind, "Psychology & Physiology of Pain,"
Amer. Review Psychology, vol. 28, 1977, p. 42

But early on there is no cerebral cortex for thinking, therefore no pain?

The cortex isn’t needed to feel pain. The thalamus is needed and (see above) is functioning at 8 weeks. Even complete removal of the cortex does not eliminate the sensation of pain. "Indeed there seems to be little evidence that pain information reaches the sensory cortex."

Patton et al., Intro. to Basic Neurology,
W. B. Saunders Co. 1976, p. 178

How about during an abortion?

This really hit the fan during the 1996 debate in the U.S. Congress over a law to ban partial birth abortions. Pro-abortionists had claimed that the anaesthetic had already killed the fetal baby. Top officials of the U.S. Society for Obstetric Anaesthesia & Perinatology vigorously denied this explaining that usual anaesthesia did not harm the baby.

D. Gianelli, Anaesthesiologists Question Claims in
Abortion Debate, Am. Med. News, Jan. 1, ’96

This brought the issue of fetal pain into the news, and testimony was given to the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the U.S. House of Representatives.

"The fetus within this time frame of gestation, 20 weeks and beyond, is fully capable of experiencing pain. Without doubt a partial birth abortion is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant.

R. White, Dir. Neurosurgery & Brain Research, Case Western Univ.

Also, "Far from being less able to feel pain, such premature newborns may be more sensitive to pain" ...that babies under 30 weeks have a "newly established pain system that is raw and unmodified at this tender age."

P. Ranalli, Neuro. Dept., Univ. of Toronto

Give me more research data.

Data in the British Medical Journal, Lancet, gave solid confirmation of such pain. It is known that the fetal umbilical cord has no pain receptors such as the rest of the fetal body. Accordingly, they tested fetal hormone stress response comparing puncturing of the abdomen and of the cord.

They observed "the fetus reacts to intrahepatic (liver) needling with vigorous body and breathing movements, but not to cord needling. The levels of these hormones did not vary with fetal age."

M. Fisk, et al., Fetal Plasma Cortisol and Bendorphin Response
to Intrauterine Needling, Lancet, Vol. 344, July 9, 1994, Pg. 77

Another excellent British study commented on this: "It cannot be comfortable for the fetus to have a scalp electrode implanted on his skin, to have blood taken from the scalp or to suffer the skull compression that may occur even with spontaneous delivery. It is hardly surprising that infants delivered by difficult forceps extraction act as if they have a severe headache."

Valman & Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels,"
British Med. Jour., Jan. 26, 1980

Born Alive:

Abortion survivors are seldom discussed in the abortion debate, but there have been many. The babies who have survived abortion put a human face on the issue. Their very existence screams the truth: Abortion ends--or seeks to end--the life of a human being.

What can those who advocate abortion say to a child born alive from an abortion?

"Oh, you poor thing. We’re sorry that you’re missing a limb as a result of that failed abortion, but that abortion attempt was in your mother’s best interest as well as yours and society’s and the world's."?


"We feel remorse for you, we really do. You could have been healthy and adopted, we know. Your injuries are awful; that abortion doctor shouldn't have put you through this. We promise that next time we will make sure that our physicians are trained and competent in performing 'safe, legal abortions' so that they will terminate babies like you correctly. That way, you won't have to suffer the prolonged misery of your life as a rejected child, and we won't have to suffer from seeing you suffer..."


Click on the link for more. We present the stories of those who have survived abortion.

Post Abortion Depression:

What about the return of back-alley "illegal" abortions?

True Feminism IS Pro-Life!!

Abortion Statistics:

On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States legalized abortion for the full-term of pregnancy. Since then, more than 40 million abortions have taken place.

Except when noted, the following statistics are based on research published by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, special research affiliate of Planned Parenthood Federation of America--the nation's largest provider and promoter of abortion. Estimates for 1997 and 1998 are based on trends from previous years.

In the past, AGI has estimated a possible 3-6% rate of underreporting. The following uses the lower figure.

Year Number of Abortions
1973 744,600
1974 898,600
1975 1,034,200
1976 1,179,300
1977 1,316,700
1978 1,409,600
1979 1,497,700
1980 1,553,900
1981 1,577,300
1982 1,573,900
1983 1,575,000
1984 1,577,200
1985 1,588,600
1986 1,574,000
1987 1,559,100

1988 1,590,800
1989 1,566,900
1990 1,608,600
1991 1,556,500
1992 1,528,900
1993 1,500,000
1994 1,431,000
1995 1,363,690
1996 1,365,730

Induced Abortion

49% of pregnancies among American women are unintended; 1/2 of these are terminated by abortion.

In 1997, 1.33 million abortions took place, down from an estimated 1.61 million in 1990. From 1973 through 1997, more than 35 million legal abortions occurred.

Each year, 2 out of every 100 women aged 15-44 have an abortion; 47% of them have had at least one previous abortion and 55% have had a previous birth.

An estimated 43% of women will have at least 1 abortion by the time they are 45 years old.


52% of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 32% of all abortions, and teenagers obtain 20%.

While white women obtain 58% of all abortions, their abortion rate is well below that of minority women. Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely.

Catholic women are 29% more likely than Protestants to have an abortion, but are about as likely as all women nationally to do so.

2/3 of all abortions are among never-married women.

On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.

About 13,000 women have abortions each year following rape or incest (00.9% of the annual total).

Sources of Data

The data in this fact sheet are are taken from research conducted by The Alan Guttmacher Institute and published in its peer-reviewed journal, Family Planning Perspectives.

Videos can be viewed at the following link:

Contact Embryoscopy -- Photos taken by inserting a tiny camera directly into the womb.

Embryonic Morphology Slide -- Watch as the tiny human being develops from the early embryonic stage (3 weeks of age) to the fetal stage (8 weeks of age).

3d Ultrasound Photography -- Photos taken using the latest 3d imaging technolgy.

The Silent Scream - Dr. Bernard Nathanson presents a real ultrasound video of an abortion performed on an 11 week old unborn baby.

The Dancing Fetus - Watch as these first-trimester babies bounce around in the womb. Keep in mind that it is currently legal to have an abortion practically for any reason, throughout all 9 months of a pregnancy.

The Harder Truth - A video of a 2nd trimester abortion

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Illegal Health Care Costs Millions

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 9:26 a.m. EDT

Health Care for Illegals Costing U.S. Millions

Undocumented immigrants and residents of northern Mexico who seek medical care in the U.S. are costing Americans hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

All along the U.S.-Mexico border, American hospitals are the place Mexicans go when they need care.

In an emergency, friends or relatives will drive a stricken resident of a border town in Mexico to a U.S. checkpoint - and U.S. ambulances will take the sick individual to a U.S. hospital, where the person is treated and is sometimes sent to more sophisticated facilities for further work, a report in USA Today reveals.

In some cases pregnant women cross the border after going into labor, seeking good medical care and citizenship for their newborn children.

Arizona has been especially hard hit since the mid-1990s, when U.S. border crackdowns in Texas and California resulted in more illegal immigrants seeking entry along the state’s 350-mile border with Mexico.

The Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association took a survey and discovered that in 2002, Arizona medical centers reported losses of over $150 million due to treatment of foreign convalescents.

In Tucson, 75 miles north of the border, the University Medical Center will lose $12 million treating Mexicans because they will never be able to pay back the costs of their care.

Hospitals do use international collection companies to pursue payments, but most costs go uncollected, reports USA Today.

University Medical president Greg Pivirotto said, "It's a drain that hurts your ability to render care."

That's an understatement.

Jim Dickson, chief executive officer at Copper Queen hospital in tiny Bisbee, Ariz., has had to lay off about 25 percent of his hospital staff and close the long-term care center and the maternity ward altogether, because of the losses incurred by treating foreign nationals.

Since hospitals are required by law to treat all emergency patients, regardless of nationality or legal status, the medical centers have no choice but to bear the costs - and cut U.S. jobs because of it.

The federal government, after years of pressure from the health-care industry, finally announced last week a plan to reimburse U.S. hospitals for up to 30 percent of the unpaid bills they run up treating foreign nationals.

That still leaves losses of over $100M for the 38 hospitals along the Arizona border.

Because of the lack of facilities in Mexico, U.S. doctors and administrators try to help, sometimes in unusual ways.

"I smuggled a defibrillator across the border in an ambulance because they had no way of measuring your heart," Dickinson says. "We gave them an ambulance because they were transporting patients in the backs of cars."

The New Civil War...

Recently 7 Centrist-Republican Senators betrayed their conservative backers by compromising on the issue of filibuster on judicial nominees. I believe the betrayal may just be a disguised attempt by Republican Senators to set the stage for the "Big Dogs".

It is true that the cards were in the hands of the GOP and they had the opportunity to kick the Democrats when they were down…but they didn't. Does anyone actually buy the theory that the Republicans "handed over" what would have been almost certain victory to the Democrats as a sign of good faith and mutual compromise??? Don't be so gullible my friends. By dropping the nuclear option and bringing through only three of President Bush's judicial nominees…the GOP has put themselves in a spot to win the "war" by surrenduring a "battle".

Don't kid yourselves…this was only a truce, NOT a treaty. It is a cleverly disguised truce on the part of the Republicans. While the Democrats are off touting victory…they fail to realize that they are only delaying the inevitable. With the looming retirement of Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, President Bush will have the opportunity to appoint a nominee for the "ultimate" position…the grand daddy of them all…THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. This appointment could come as soon as the next couple of months, with the possiblility of two or three other openings during Bush's second term in office.

Like the calm before the storm, this truce is just a rallying point for conservatives…THIS BATTLE IS JUST HEATING UP!!! The Democrats are now in a position where they will have to publicly renege on their compromise or watch the whole "war" slip away from them. And that's what this is folks…A War…A CIVIL WAR…A WAR FOR CIVIL RIGHTS!!! This is the opportunity conservatives have been waiting for. They have never been so close to restoring order to the judicial branch of government and overturning activist decisions like "Roe vs. Wade" or the gay marriage debate looming in nearly every state.

With the recent "betrayal" by 7 Republican Senators…the conservatives are rallying like never before! Meanwhile…the Democrats have let their guard down…claiming victory in the face of defeat. Can the stage be set any clearer?

These were my initial reactions to the report of a truce between Centrist Senators on the Filibuster debate. The more I read on the subject…it seems my theory is right on. Need proof…read on...

Conservatives, angered by compromise, vow retribution at the polls

By Mike Glover
11:56 p.m. May 24, 2005

DES MOINES, Iowa – Conservatives who had warned Republicans about compromising on President Bush's judicial nominees delivered another message the day after the deal: Those who betrayed us will pay a political price.

Furious with the outcome, conservative leaders promised to energize their rank-and-file for the next elections while warning some of the centrist Republicans who harbor presidential aspirations to forget about 2008.

"A complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans," said James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, a Colorado-based conservative Christian group, who promised that voters will remember "both Democrats and Republicans who betrayed their trust."

The talk of retribution was particularly keen in Iowa, where the state's precinct caucuses launch the presidential nomination process and can make or break White House hopefuls.

"They won't get any help from us – none," Norman Pawlewski of the Iowa Christian Coalition said of the seven Republicans who helped negotiate the compromise. "We busted our hump to get a president who would appoint judges who would be more just. Republican senators betrayed us."

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said, "There will be repercussions."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a possible presidential candidate in 2008, was under intense pressure to ensure that each of Bush's nominees received an up-or-down vote. Conservatives made it clear that anything less was unacceptable.

While Dobson credited Frist for "courageously fighting to defend the vital principle of basic fairness," other conservatives weren't as forgiving.

"He let them do this," Pawlewski said. "He's the leader of the Senate. If he is so weak ... he can't control his own troops, then he's not much of a leader."

In Iowa, conservatives had issued a "Dear Potential Presidential Candidates" letter in advance, warning that "our organizations will continue to keep our statewide memberships fully informed and educated on how each of the presidential candidates in the Senate stood on this important issue."

Chuck Hurley of the Iowa Family Policy Center said: "This is the number one issue. Short of a nuclear war, it's the major issue. It's not an issue, it's the issue."

Social and religious conservatives play a critical role in the Iowa caucuses, in part because of the relatively low turnout. Typically, slightly more than 100,000 activists show up for Democratic and Republican precinct caucuses.

"When turnout is so low it amplifies their voice," said Drake University political science professor Dennis Goldford. "The activists certainly have a long memory."

Among the seven Republicans was Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a presidential candidate in 2000 who is often mentioned as a potential aspirant in 2008.

"I think McCain is going to suffer," Hurley said. "He's a great war hero and I think he meant well, but it will be proven to be a mistake."

McCain skipped Iowa in 2000 and has not built a base in the state. If he seeks the nomination again, many in Iowa assume that he would skip the state.

Conservatives play a critical role in GOP politics, in part because of their willingness to knock on doors, stuff envelopes and do all the grass-roots work needed in a state like Iowa.

"For candidates, they need a lot of feet on the street and that's what the Christian conservatives will do," Pawlewski said.

White House Looks Ahead To Supreme Court Battle

Bush Expected to Push for a Conservative

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 25, 2005; A12

With the Senate filibuster dispute behind it, the White House is bracing for a high-stakes battle to fill a seat on the Supreme Court that many expect to come open next month and that could help shape the remainder of President Bush's second term.

For all the appeals for bipartisan harmony, Bush is unlikely to nominate a consensus justice, and Democrats are unlikely to find his choice acceptable, current and former White House officials said. If Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who is ailing, retires at the end of the term as much of Washington expects, the officials said Bush is prepared to name a committed conservative regardless of Democratic opposition.

The names that Bush aides are considering for the first open Supreme Court seat in 11 years have already drawn sharp criticism from liberals, and the interest-group machinery on both sides has been mobilizing for war. By any measure, both sides forecast a titanic struggle akin to a national election campaign, a battle waged with the weapons of 21st-century politics against the backdrop of red-state-blue-state ideological division.

"We have not had a confirmation process in the modern era . . . and I think the people inside government are not fully appreciative of how different this is going to be," said Bradford A. Berenson, who served as associate White House counsel during Bush's first term. "In all imaginable scenarios, this will be a battle royale."

Advisers said neither the deal brokered by Senate centrists nor Democratic opposition would change the president's calculus in picking the next justice. "He's not going to shy away," said a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because no vacancy has been announced. "The Democrats can throw high and tight fastballs if they want, but it's not going to work."

Bush understands that he has the opportunity to redefine the court, particularly if two or three members of the aging bench depart in the next three years. "It's going to be one of the key legacies of this administration," the official said.

And so the White House has prepared an aggressive campaign to sell its nominee, having learned the lessons of the failed nomination of Robert H. Bork in 1987 -- when liberals shaped the battle from the beginning. "That's not going to happen again," the official said. "This White House is not going to get caught flat-footed. It's going to lay out the case from the very start."

But Bush is operating from a position of some weakness. With his approval ratings hovering in the mid-40s, the lowest of his presidency, he has struggled to find traction in the Republican Congress on his top domestic priority, restructuring Social Security. The House defied Bush's veto threat yesterday by voting to ease restrictions on stem cell research, and Congress is poised to send him a pricey highway bill over his objections. Looking ahead to a trying summer, the president cannot count on many easy wins. Even if the Senate confirms John R. Bolton as U.N. ambassador, it will have come after an ugly fight, analysts noted.

Given that, some Democrats argue that Bush would be better off compromising on a Supreme Court nominee. "I hope the president will really rise up above this debate that's been going on the last couple of months and send up to the Senate someone who won't just get five or six or seven Democratic votes but will get 35 Democratic votes," said Jack Quinn, who was White House counsel under President Bill Clinton.

Yet few Bush opponents expect him to do that. "Time and again, he's just stuck his finger in the eye of the Democrats," said Ralph G. Neas, president of the liberal People for the American Way.
The White House has been preparing for this moment almost since the instant Bush took office. Anticipating a possible high court vacancy in June 2001, a high-level working group convened to cull potential candidates and map out strategy that spring. The White House repeated the process in 2002 and 2003, but no justice stepped down.

Still, it left the president's team with a thick file on likely choices. Among those most often mentioned by insiders are Judges J. Michael Luttig and J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit; John G. Roberts of the D.C. Circuit; Michael W. McConnell of the 10th Circuit; Emilio M. Garza of the 5th Circuit; former solicitor general Theodore B. Olsen; and former deputy attorney general Larry D. Thompson. Although Bush has praised Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, White House advisers doubt he would elevate either to chief justice.

Age and diversity will play roles as Bush considers the list. Olsen, for instance, may be too old at 64 because the president will want someone who could be on the bench for 25 years or more, some insiders say. On the other hand, Bush would like to make history by naming a Hispanic justice, but having just installed his close adviser, Alberto R. Gonzales, as attorney general, many analysts believe this might not be the moment.

"We know that the president very deeply and very sincerely would like to appoint the court's first Hispanic," Berenson said. "That's sort of an open secret. Whether he'll do that with his first appointment, especially if it's chief justice, is hard to say."

One thing that is clear, he and others said, is that Bush will pick someone with a strong conservative judicial philosophy. And the Bush team is banking on the idea that Democrats cannot filibuster a nominee who is no more conservative than the three appellate nominees they just agreed to let come to a floor vote. "Outside of the president nominating Jack the Ripper, I don't think there's the stomach to filibuster," said Sean Rushton, executive director of the Committee for Justice, formed to support Bush judicial nominees.

Besides Bush, the key players in any choice will include Gonzales; Vice President Cheney; White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr.; his deputy, Karl Rove; and White House counsel Harriet Miers, many of them veterans of tough fights. But no Supreme Court nomination has been fought in an era dominated by the Internet, e-mail, blogs, talk radio and multiple 24-hour cable news networks. And the fight will be new to most of the Senate as well; 56 senators have never voted on a Supreme Court nomination.

"It's going to be very, very different," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, a group founded by Pat Robertson to support conservative legal causes. "Both sides are better organized than ever before."

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

I'm Not Saying It Is...But I'm Not Saying It's Not...

Gee...Coincidence that the "Libby" Capital of America can't get families with children to reside there?!

Child Population Dwindles in San Francisco

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - Anne Bakstad and Ed Cohen are starting to feel as if their family of four is an endangered species in San Francisco.

Since the couple bought a house five years ago, more than a dozen families in their social circle have left the city for cheaper housing, better schools or both. (How can the schools be so bad? I thought the government would do a wonderful job with all of that local tax money they collect!)

The goodbyes are so frequent that Carina, age 4 1/2, wants to know when she is going to move, too. Eric, 2 1/2, misses Gus, his playmate from across the street.

"When we get to know people through our kids, we think to ourselves, `Are they renters or owners? Where do they work?' You have to figure out how much time to invest in people," Bakstad said. "It makes you feel like, `Where is everyone going? Stay with us!'"

A similar lament is being heard in San Francisco's half-empty classrooms, in parks where parents are losing ground to dog owners, and in the corridors of City Hall.

San Francisco has the smallest share of small-fry of any major U.S. city. Just 14.5 percent of the city's population is 18 and under.

It is no mystery why U.S. cities are losing children. The promise of safer streets, better schools and more space has drawn young families away from cities for as long as America has had suburbs.

But kids are even more scarce in San Francisco than in expensive New York (24 percent) or in retirement havens such as Palm Beach, Fla., (19 percent), according to Census estimates.

San Francisco's large gay population — estimated at 20 percent by the city Public Health Department — is thought to be one factor, though gays and lesbians in the city are increasingly raising families.

Another reason San Francisco's children are disappearing: Family housing in the city is especially scarce and expensive. A two-bedroom, 1,000-square-foot starter home is considered a bargain at $760,000. (Hmmmm...San Diego County has even higher home prices yet their population of 18 and under is 26% ).

A recent survey by the city controller found 40 percent of parents said they were considering pulling up stakes within the next year.

Determined to change things, Mayor Gavin Newsom has put the kid crisis near the top of his agenda, appointing a 27-member policy council to develop plans for keeping families in the city. (I can save you some money Gavin...I think it's pretty obvious what "families" think of socialism...take a hint. I can't believe you're surprised that charging people a tax on grocery bags isn't working at keeping families in your city.)

"It goes to the heart and soul of what I think a city is about — it's about generations, it's about renewal and it's about aspirations," said Newsom, 37. "To me, that's what children represent and that's what families represent and we just can't sit back idly and let it go away." (You killed "aspirations" with your socialist philosphy!)

Newsom has expanded health insurance for the poor to cover more people under 25, and created a tax credit for working families. And voters have approved measures to patch up San Francisco's public schools, which have seen enrollment drop from about 62,000 to 59,000 since 2000. (You just don't learn...high taxes for ineffective social programs are what got you in to this mess!!!)

One voter initiative approved up to $60 million annually to restore public school arts, physical education and other extras that state spending no longer covers. Another expanded the city's Children's Fund, guaranteeing about $30 million a year for after-school activities, child care subsidies and other programs.

"We are at a crossroads here," said N'Tanya Lee, executive director of the nonprofit Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth. "We are moving toward a place where we could have an infrastructure of children's services and no children." (The liberal philosphy of abortion leaves you with a whole lot less children!! Ever wonder why caucasions have the lowest birth rate but the highest abortion rate?! Hint: It's not because caucasions don't have as much money as minorities either.)

Other cities are trying similar strategies. Seattle has created a children's fund, like the one in San Francisco. Leaders in Portland, Ore., are pushing developers to build affordable housing for families, a move Newsom has also tried. (Looks like the few remaining bastions of liberalism are soon to follow in its leaders footsteps!!)

For families choosing to stay in San Francisco, life remains a series of trade-offs. They can enjoy world-class museums, natural beauty and an energy they say they cannot find in the suburbs.

But most families need two or more incomes to keep their homes, and their children spend most of their days being cared for by others. (I thought liberals were trying to avoid just this situation that they ended up creating. Strange since the "red-states" still enjoy a high standard of living including quality education and homes with one working parent so children can be raised by parents instead of strangers!)

"We have so many friends who are moving out and say how much easier life has been for them," Bakstad said. "If we can make it work in the city, we would love to stay. In a way, the jury is out." (The jury is out...but you just don't seem to get the verdict!!! You should have learned from socialism the first time...Russia (failed), Canada (failed), Italy (failed)...starting to ring a bell?!)

Environmentalists...Crying Wolf!

Environmental Progress, Despite the Greens

By Steven F. Hayward
AEI May 24, 2005

Recent opinion surveys have found sharp changes in attitudes about environmental issues. A recent Harris Poll reported that 56 percent of Americans are now optimistic about our environmental future, and other polls show the public is tuning out environmentalists. Public perception is finally starting to catch up to reality, as the data show that most -- most, though not all -- environmental problems in the United States have been getting better for a long while now. The gloom-and-doom messages of environmental activist groups and the bad-news inclinations of the news media have obscured these trends, but eventually the public has started to notice the massive improvements in air quality and the rebirth of America's forestlands.
In some areas, such as air pollution, the improvements over the last 30 years are larger in magnitude than the improvements we have experienced in reducing the crime rate and welfare dependency, both of which are widely celebrated as immense public policy success stories.

The year 2004, for example, recorded the lowest level of air pollution since we started measuring the problem seriously in the 1950s. The number of EPA monitors showing elevated levels of fine particle pollution--the kind that lodge deep in the lungs and contribute to respiratory diseases--has fallen by two-thirds just in the last four years. Ozone levels also came in a record low level. More reductions are on the way: The EPA's own computer models predict a more than 80 percent decline in pollution from cars and trucks over the next 20 years as new technologies come on line.

America's forestlands have expanded by nearly 10 million acres over the last decade and have, in fact, been expanding since the 1920s. No less an environmental authority than Bill McKibben noted that this trend was "the great environmental story of the United States, and in some ways of the whole world." Closely related to this is the reversal of wetlands loss; as recently as the 1970s we were losing 100,000 acres of wetlands a year. The most recent government data say we are gaining wetlands at the rate of about 26,000 acres a year.

Other measures of invisible environmental threats such as toxic chemicals show similar huge improving trends. Dioxin levels are down more than 90 percent since 1980; levels of PCBs and other chemicals in wildlife in the Great Lakes are down by 90 percent or more since 1970.

While too many species are still endangered, the one that launched our initial concern, the bald eagle, is about to come off the endangered species list because its numbers have rebounded from less than 500 nesting pairs in 1965 to more than 7,500 today. Last year in Alaska's Prince William Sound, the site of the Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989, blue whales were spotted for the first time in decades.

Not everything is going as well as our fight against smog and our efforts to recover bald eagles. Alaskan sea lion populations continue to show a worrisome decline, and there are numerous water quality problems that we are having trouble mastering.

Another difficult area is the rising number of fish advisories on the nation's streams, rivers and lakes. These have been soaring in recent years, but this is misleading, as the number of advisories reflects stepped-up bureaucratic effort more than genuine knowledge of fish conditions. The "advisories" are exactly that: Sport fishermen are merely advised that fish may contain elevated levels of mercury or other chemicals. But we really don't know. The bureaucratic imperative is: If in doubt, declare an advisory.

The overall record is clear: We've gotten pretty good at dealing with environmental problems. We often do it in the most expensive way--the EPA specializes in billion-dollar solutions to million-dollar problems--and environmental regulation too often neglects or tramples on property rights and open markets.

But the broader point is more important to grasp. The doom-and-gloom outlook of conventional environmentalists is, as the kids like to say, so yesterday. As New York Times columnist (and professed environmentalist sympathizer) Nicholas Kristof put it in a recent column, "Environmental alarms have been screeching for so long that, like car alarms, they are now just an irritating background noise."

Environmentalists have only themselves to blame for the loss of public sympathy. The relentless hyping of exaggerated or nonexistent crises has finally caught up with them, at a time when global environmental problems (such as China's soaring air pollution, already detectable in overseas winds reaching the West coast of the U.S.) need serious attention. Instead, U.S. environmental groups can't stop kvetching about President Bush supposedly "gutting" the Clean Air Act, even as we notch record lows in air pollution. This shows a lack of fundamental seriousness and self-discipline. As Mr. Kristof wrote, "It's critical to have a credible, nuanced, highly respected environmental movement. And right now, I'm afraid we don't have one."

I'd add one more thought. The pessimism that often accompanies environmentalism is ill-suited for both the naturally optimistic American character and the realities of the modern world, where economic growth and progress are the hope, and not the threat, of the future.

The lesson of the past century has been that environmental progress depends on economic and technological progress, which are best produced by dynamic markets. Environmental progress in the 21st century will build upon this foundation.

Steven F. Hayward is resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and the author of The Real Jimmy Carter: How Our Worst Ex-President Undermines Democracy, Coddles Dictators, and Created the Party of Clinton and Kerry.