Eight ridiculous beliefs of the abortion industry
Last week, the Texas Right to Life legislative team attended the trial over a provision in the recently passed Pro-Life Senate Bill 8 requiring the humane disposition of the bodies of abortion victims (euphemistically deemed “embryonic and fetal remains”). The law requires abortion clinics and hospitals cremate or inter preborn children’s bodies after elective abortions or miscarriages, with some exceptions. After the passage of the law, the abortion industry amended an already pending lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking Judge David Ezra to rule the new law unconstitutional. Throughout the five-day trial, the Texas Right to Life legislative team was shocked, dismayed, and intrigued by our insight into the Texas abortion industry and their delusional self-image. Here are eight of our observations about the abortion industry:
1. Skin cells are “potential” human beings, just like fetuses.
According to Dr. Thomas Cunningham, a bioethicist called to the stand by plaintiffs (the abortion business Whole Woman’s Health), embryos and fetuses are not biologically human organisms and can only be considered, like skin cells, “potential human beings.” This analysis is not only wrong, but ridiculous, for two reasons. Firstly, Dr. Cunningham conflated active potency, or potentiality, and passive potency. Embryos and fetuses are actively potent because given the natural environment, they will inevitably develop into adult human beings. Skin cells are passively potent because given their natural environment, they will remain skin cells. Secondly, Dr. Cunningham mischaracterized the process of cloning to which he was assuredly referring. In somatic cell nuclear transfer, a method of cloning animals, scientists can potentially use a nucleus of a skin cell to manufacture a new human organism, but the skin cell alone cannot become a new human organism. Apparently, when vetting potential experts for their own lawsuit, the abortion industry did not list a basic knowledge of human biology as a requirement.
2. A functioning conscience is actually just the byproduct of “stigma.”
Throughout the trial, the witnesses for the abortion industry emphasized “stigma,” which they defined as the negative emotions someone experiences surrounding elective abortion. They claimed the law stigmatizes abortion by the implication that embryos and fetuses have inherent dignity, just as born human beings do. Asked to define “stigma”, one of the experts stated that stigma is when women may reconsider whether her decision to seek an abortion was ethical or not. Society normally uses a more common word for situations like this: conscience.
3. Euphemisms are necessary for culture to accept abortion.
An abortion is one way to “manage the pregnancy.” An abortionist is actually a typical OB/GYN. A preborn child is not a human being, or even an embryo or fetus, but merely part of the “products of conception” (or “POC” as plaintiffs repeatedly abbreviated). What are “products of conception?” Why, the “contents of the uterus,” of course. What are the “contents of the uterus?” The placenta, umbilical cord, and “other things.” The “other things” refer to the distinct body parts of the preborn child, a reality the abortion industry seeks to avoid.
4. Planned Parenthood is a non-partisan healthcare organization.
After giving blatantly biased testimony, Dr. Jane Maienschein, a philosopher of science, claimed her donations to Planned Parenthood were of no concern, because Planned Parenthood in Arizona is an “impartial, non-partisan” organization. Contrary to her opinion, Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in Texas and the country and only endorses candidates who are openly pro-abortion, almost all of whom are Democrats. Rather than equivocate, Dr. Maienschein decided to give a laughable excuse for her illuminating donation history.
5. Dumping preborn children’s bodies in a sewer or landfill is “respectful.”
The plaintiffs called three different abortionists to testify against the Pro-Life policy and asked each one if he believed that the current method of disposing the remains of aborted children in sewers and landfills was “respectful.” Of course, each answered in the affirmative. Pro-Life Texans might question whether abortionists such as Dr. Alan Braid, who according to his own testimony has performed upwards of 90,000 abortions throughout his 46-year career, are qualified to judge what is “respectful” treatment of the remains of the human beings they violently destroy on a daily basis.
6. Federal courts must allow abortionists to get back to snuffing out preborn lives as soon as possible.
With all due respect to Judge Ezra, he made a comment close to the end of the second day of the trial that had Pro-Life advocates shaking their heads. When questioned whether the abortionist Dr. Lendol Davis, a witness called by the plaintiffs, would be called to the stand again the next day to continue testifying, the judge answered definitively that he would “not have him disappointing patients tomorrow” and would not adjourn for the day until both sides had finished their questioning.
Dr. Davis testified that his facility performed 1,600 abortions total in 2017. For Dr. Davis to “disappoint” his patients for even a single day would mean that preborn lives would be temporarily saved from destruction. The same goes for all abortionists called to the stand last week; Dr. Braid, for example, testified that he has been performing abortions since 1972 and that his facility performs an average of 4,000 to 5,000 abortions per year. Given that he has a partner at the facility, we can estimate that he himself performs about half of those abortions (a minimum of 2,000), and a minimum of 260 working days in a year brings the minimum average total of abortions he personally performs to about eight per day.
The context of these shocking numbers cast Judge Ezra’s comment in a particularly distasteful light and caused everyone in the room who valued human Life to question his impartiality.
7. A man, assuming he is pro-abortion, can speak for Texas women.
The five-day trial featured a long list of pro-abortion men testifying for the abortion industry, claiming to know that Pro-Life policies hurt women and Texas women do not want SB 8. These men imposed their personal beliefs onto every Texas woman, forgetting that many Texas women do not share their unethical and unscientific views of elective abortion. A man speaking on behalf of women would normally be a problem. However, because these men are pro-abortion, the Left gives them a free pass.
8. One undergraduate “Psych 101” course qualifies one as an “expert in psychology.”
In a highly amusing exchange between the abortionist Dr. Davis and an attorney for the state defending the Pro-Life law, the abortionist refused to concede that he was not an expert in psychology. During his cross-examination, the abortionist defensively claimed that he refills pre-existing prescriptions for antidepressants and that he had taken an Introduction to psychology course during his undergraduate studies. According to this standard, every undergrad college student in Texas could serve as the abortion industry’s “experts” in court.
The five-day trial over these provisions in Senate Bill 8 concluded, however US District Judge David Ezra is not expected to rule until late August of 2018. Visit TexasRightToLife.com to read an update on the three other pending lawsuits the abortion industry filed against Pro-Life efforts.