<*The Facts of Pro-Life* > by Lynn K. Murphy (This is a book). Copyright 1991 by Lynn K. Murphy D E D I C A T I O N A N D B E N E D I C T I O N This book is dedicated to the 30,000,000 babies that have died from legal abortion in the United States since it was legalized in 1973. It is also dedicated to the babys' mothers, and to the abortionists, and to the abortion advocates and funders. I pray that they will repent so that God will forgive them for what they have done and so that they may therefore be able to enjoy the fruits of Heaven. For many of them, those will be the only fruits they will ever be able to enjoy. This is a series of articles. To move to a new article, search for the word Article. * T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S* without page numbers Art # 1 Abortion, An Overview Abortion in the United States (A table of statistics) Protest Signs To Abort or Not To Abort (An analogy) A Cartoon 2 Abortion Semantics that are Killing Our Children 3 Fetal-Tissue Experimentation, More than on Dead Tissue 4 Abortion and Your Church, Why They Let the Killing Go On 5 Planned Parenthood: Megakilling Exposed 6 The Killing Centers, How They Mass Produce Death 7 From Abortion to Infanticide, a Step Already Taken 8 What God Says about Abortion 9 The Killing Centers, How They Don't Counsel Their Patients 10 The Psychological and Physical Complications from Abortion 11 Abortion and the Law 12 The History of Abortion 13 The Pregnant Mother in Need, What You Can Do 14 How Birth-Control Pills and IUD's Kill 15 The Victims of Abortion: The Baby and the Parents 16 What the Choice of Abortion Really Means 17 The Abortion Industry: Megabucks from Megadeaths 18 The Pro-Life Movement, Where it is and Where it's Going, Join Us 19 What You Can Do About Abortions 20 How Abortions are Done 21 Sexuality Education: How it Contributes to Abortion 22 How Abortion is the American Holocaust 23 The Pro-Life Rescue Movement 24 Reasons Women Give for Abortion 25 How the Secular Media is Extraordinarily Pro-Abortion 26 Fetal Development 27 Father, Forgive the Abortionists For They Know Not What They Do 28 How Abortion in America Is Like Slavery in America Was 29 Abortion and the Public-Opinion Polls 30 Adoption, the Forgotten Choice 31 Summary of Key Issues Article 1 *A B O R T I O N The Pro-Life Position by Lynn K. Murphy * Since 1973, when abortion was legalized in the United States, there have been approximately 32,000,000[1] (thirty-two million) abortions here. Of those who realize this, pro-choice people do not view this as bad, people neutral on the abortion issue aren't sure how bad it is, and pro-life people feel that it is 32,000,000 deaths. That is why they call themselves pro-life instead of anti- abortion or anti-choice. The dividing line between pro-life and pro-choice is the issue of whether the preborn baby is a separate life, or whether he or she is a part of the mother's own body. (I use the term "mother" instead of "woman" because a woman becomes a mother when pregnancy begins, not when birth occurs.) Those who believe that he is a separate life naturally think abortion is immoral--the abortion kills that separate human being. Those who think he is a part of the mother's body consider abortion to be merely a removal of a part of her own body and therefore unrelated to the killing of a separate person. It will be shown below that the preborn baby is a separate person. Pro-choice people are unable to provide any evidence that he is a part of the mother's body. The issue of whether the preborn baby is separate became important with the 1973 () US Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. The Constitution guarantees persons the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People favoring abortion rights attained their goal of legalizing abortion on demand (that is, on request) by convincing the Supreme Court to rule that a preborn baby is not a person. Therefore, the preborn baby was no longer entitled to life. It must be noted that the Supreme Court's decision was a legal one, not a medical, scientific, or moral one; medically and scientifically the preborn baby is still a person. As time passed and the concept of non-personhood for the preborn permeated society, many people gradually began to believe the slogans coming from the National Organization for Women and from Planned Parenthood that the preborn was merely a part of his mother's body. After all, if he isn't a person, what else could he be but a part of her body? And who could be against a woman controlling her own body? There are several difficulties with this. First, he's not a part of her body. Scientific and other evidence that I will present later proves this. Second, if we for the moment accept the pro-life position that he is a separate life, then we have a conflict of legal direction. The laws of the United States are founded on the Judeo-Christian Ethic, or more generally, on the Bible. In other words, our laws are based on morals established before the United States came into existence. The Bible says not to steal, so we have laws against theft. It says not to bear false witness, so we have laws against perjury. However today, unfortunately, many people are evaluating the law-morality relationship in reverse; they think that the law defines the morality. Thus, to them if abortion is legal, then it is moral. The fact that there are conflicts that easily arise with this line of reasoning doesn't enter their heads. For instance, adultery is legal but immoral. Putting your parents in a convalescent home and forgetting them is legal but immoral. However, pro-*lifers* would never say that just because abortion is legal, it is moral, and we would ask a pro-choicer, "If rape had become legal at the same time that abortion became legal, would rape now be moral?" Third, although it is a nice and very catchy slogan that a woman has the right to control her own body, this isn't true even separate from the abortion issue. For instance, a woman doesn't have the right to attempt suicide or to take illegal drugs without having legal repercussions. She doesn't have the right to display her nude body in a shopping mall. And she doesn't even have the right in many places to take her body across a street except between two white lines and with the permission of an electronic signal. *THE PREBORN BABY IS A SEPARATE LIFE* It is appropriate now to prove that the preborn baby is not a part of his mother's body, but rather is a separate life. Previously some people argued that the preborn wasn't life at all, but that is no longer an argument. Also, it used to be argued that he wasn't human. But no woman has ever given birth to a baby that was anything but human. Furthermore, species type is determined by the parents' genes, and the parents are humans. These are the proofs and common-sense reasons that a preborn baby is a separate life: 1. The baby can die without the mother dying. The mother can die without the baby dying. (He can be removed if old enough.) 2. Dr. Hymie Gordon, the chief geneticist of the Mayo Clinic, perhaps the most prestigious medical clinic in the world, says he is separate.[2] 3. Fertilization occurs when sperm unites with egg. Then implantation on the uterus occurs. Clearly life begins at fertilization. (If this wasn't so, then birds could not be born--birds' eggs don't implant. Implantation isn't necessary for life.) Since life begins without implantation, the life is a separate one. 4. If a live, human fertilized egg is to become a part of the mother's body, then his own separate life would cease upon implantation as he became a part of her life. We know that this doesn't happen, because nine months later, he is born with his own separate life. Therefore, he didn't become a part of his mother's body. His life was separate all the time. 5. The preborn baby has his own functioning brain. 6. The preborn baby has his own functioning heart. 7. The preborn baby has a separate blood supply. This can even be of a blood type different from his mother's, one incompatible with his mother's blood. (The blood of the baby doesn't mix with the mother's blood. Food material and waste material transfer between the two in the placenta.) 8. The preborn baby always has his father's chromosomes. How, then, could he be a part of a woman? 9. If the preborn baby a part of the mother's body, and if the preborn baby is a boy, then the mother would have two sexes. 10. Suppose we have a test tube, and in the test tube we fertilize an egg and the egg implants on the test tube wall. Is the preborn baby a part of the test tube's body? Of course not. Since the same thing happens inside a woman, then how could the preborn baby be a part of the woman's body? 11. Suppose we have a test tube, and in the test tube we fertilize a black woman's egg with a white man's sperm. Then suppose we artificially inseminate an oriental woman with this. Does the oriental woman now have three races? Does the baby now have three races? Of course not. After he is born, would the Oriental woman revert to having one race? Would the baby revert to having two? Of course not! Therefore, the baby always was a separate life. 12. Medical science has proven absolutely that a preborn baby undergoes excruciating pain during his abortion. This can be seen with a sonogram. A sonogram is like an X-ray in that it can see inside a person. In addition a sonogram permits motion pictures, not just still pictures, to be made. Two movies[3], *The_Silent_Scream* and *Eclipse__of_Reason*, were made of actual abortions. What was recorded on tape was motion pictures of what the baby was going through in the uterus. It is like a horror movie. Two ways babies are aborted are to burn them to death chemically inside and outside of their bodies, and to crush their skulls and tear off their arms and legs. However, the mothers don't feel this pain. Conclusion: The preborn baby is a separate life. (The abortionist who did the abortion for *The Silent Scream* and the *Eclipse of Reason* had previously done thousands of others. But after seeing on film what he had been doing, he gave up his extremely lucrative practice and never did another abortion.) 13. Most people know in their hearts that the preborn baby is a separate life. For years, perhaps, they've denied that feeling, but they've known. They have taken in the pro-choice slogans and accepted them intellectually, but still, they've known. *IS ABORTION A WOMEN'S ISSUE?* The pro-choice rhetoric is that abortion is a women's issue. This is natural considering that they feel that the preborn baby is a part of a woman's body. But pro-life people, since they understand from the above twelve points that the preborn baby is a separate human being, consider abortion to be far more than a woman's issue. They consider it to be mostly a babys' issue. They concede that to abort or not to abort will greatly concern and affect the mother, and they have great compassion for the mother no matter what her decision is, but they say that once she becomes pregnant, the overwhelming concern must be for the right of the baby to live. That is where the term "Right to Life" comes from in many pro-life organizations' names. Pro-life men often get comments like, "Since you're not a woman, what business is this of yours?" This question ignores several critical facts. First, as I've shown, this is not just a women's issue, it is a babys' issue or a right-to-life issue. Second, polls show that women are more likely to be pro-*life* than are men[4]. Third, approximately one half of the people in the pro-life movement are women. Fourth, approximately one third of the women who are active in the pro-life movement have had abortions.[5] Fifth, pro-life men know that many of their own sons and daughters have been killed by abortion. *ABORTION HURTS WOMEN* Pro-abortion and pro-life people both say that abortion hurts women. Let's see first what the pro-abortion people say. Planned Parenthood, the world's and nation's largest provider of abortion, said in its Department of Education <3-Year Plan and Long Range Program Goals 1990 - 1993>: "A number of . . . studies and surveys (including the Reardon/WIC Study and the Grant Survey) have shown that the incidence of post-procedural trauma for abortion clients may be as high as 91 percent of all cases." A Planned Parenthood brochure entitled says, "An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it." This is what pro-life and other experts say: The , May, 1985, said that abortion is the sixth leading cause of maternal death in this country. A Wynn and Wynn Study shows that 3 - 5 percent of aborters are left sterile.[6] Several researchers show that many aborters may never want intercourse again and many are forever frigid. Thus, they may never connect with love and marriage. Dr. Joel Brind, Endocrinologist, said in a December 3, 1992 press release, "There is a clear relationship documented in medical journals showing that women aborting their first pregnancy are at a much higher risk of developing breast cancer than women who carry their pregnancy to term." Presumedly, it took some time to determine this: Women mostly abort early in life, and get breast cancer later. Brind cited four sources in the medical literature. Following are many more complications: Infection, hemorrhage, cervical damage, damage and loss of other internal organs, perforation of the uterus, menstrual irregularity, headaches, dizziness, blood clots, AIDS from blood transfusions, AIDS from increased drug and needle use (see list below of psychological damages showing increased drug use), increased probability of future miscarriages, stillbirths, sterility, ectopic (tubal) pregnancies, menstrual disturbances, other bleeding, shock, coma, peritonitis, cold sweats, and many more. Cincinnati Suiciders Anonymous reports that 1,800 of their 4,000 suicide-prone women have had abortions.[7] The Speckhard study reported that 65% of Spekhard's patients who had abortions were suicidal and that 31% made attempts at suicide.[8] The most serious psychological damages that occur can be lumped under the condition known as Post-Abortion Syndrome (PAS), which is a part of a larger class of disorders called Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The PAS victim, through the process of denial, blocks the natural grieving process of the death of her child and often denies her own responsibility in the abortion. The denial or suppression blocks the healing process and blocks the possibility of forgiveness for herself and the others who have been involved in her decision and her abortion. The trauma often manifests itself as a breakdown of function in the psychological, physical, or spiritual areas.[9] Dr. Vincent Rue, a clinical psychologist, likened abortion victims to "walking time bombs" and said that little is heard of PAS problems because there is a massive denial among professionals. Following is a long, long list of the psychological damages. Not every mother who aborts has damage, but many have more than one of these problems because of the abortion: increased child abuse and child neglect, suicidal behavior, anger/rage, feeling of being raped, worsening self-image, sexual coldness, fear of touching babies, nervous breakdown, promiscuity, constant thoughts about the child, loneliness, fear of making decisions, hallucinations related to the abortion, nightmares, increased drug and alcohol use by 50% of aborters, feelings of craziness, flashbacks, decreased ability to experience emotions, inability to communicate, feeling victimized, fear that others will learn of the abortion, guilt (55% experience it), anxiety, depression, grief, sadness, regret, loss, repeat abortions (though illogical), unwillingness to continuing pursuing their life's goals, inability to sustain intimate relationships, hatred of people connected with abortions, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (20% have it severely and 50% moderately), and many, many more. Women have a 58% greater risk of dying during a later pregnancy.[10] These are the effects on future babies, if any: premature births, complications during labor, more child abuse and neglect, and more handicapped babies.[11] This is what some of the victims of abortion say: Teresa L. Fangman, victim, says, "When I was 16 I was shuffled through an assembly-line abortion. I was number 13 of 17 who went through the morning session at one abortion clinic. Physically, I had no problems with my abortion, but emotionally, I created a 'living Hell' that continues on a daily basis. I'm not sure the tears will ever stop. I've been waiting almost 11 years now and they never cease."[12] * ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ³ ". . . More than a ³ ³ ³ ³ baby would die in ³ ³ ³ ³ that room. Once I ³ ³ ³ ³ had a personality, a ³ ³ ³ ³ life, a soul. Now I ³ ³ ³ ³ was a body with ³ ³ ³ ³ broken pieces." ³ ³ ³ ÀÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÙ * Carol Everett, former clinic owner says, "The last 18 months I was involved in the abortion industry we maimed to the point of major surgery one woman out of every five hundred. Let me define maimed. Hysterectomy, colostomy because her uterus had been perforated (punctured), and her bowel pulled through her children. We never took them to the closest hospital. We never called an ambulance. An ambulance is a terrible advertisement in front of an abortion clinic."[13] In another case, Carol Everett says, "And the second time he went in with those big forceps he perforated her uterus and he pulled her bowel out through her vagina."[13] From Dayton Women's Health Center, Iowa: "Mary was rushed to the hospital after her abortion due to profuse bleeding. The attending physicians discovered 'the entire front of her uterus was blown away.' After the surgeon removed the damaged uterus, they explored her abdominal cavity. Behind her liver they found the decapitated head of a 24 week old pre-born child."[14] *WHAT DO THE POLLS SHOW?* Results of polls depend on several factors, such as who took the poll, where the poll was taken, when the poll was taken, who paid for the poll, what income-class was polled, which sex was polled, which races were polled, and under which conditions the respondent was asked to comment on, that is, should abortion always be illegal, illegal except for cases of rape and incest, or for birth control, etc., or should it be illegal in the second trimester of pregnancy, or in the third? Probably for you, the most important issue is what a legitimate cross section of Americans feel about whether abortion should be allowable as a woman's primary method of birth control. Almost all polls, including those sponsored and paid for by pro-choice organizations, conclude that between 67% and 89%[15] of the people feel that abortion should be illegal for this purpose. *WHAT REASONS DO WOMEN GIVE FOR THEIR CHOICES TO ABORT? * Ninety-eight percent say it was simply because they didn't want the baby, that is, they aborted for birth control. Since 67% to 89%[16] of Americans feel that abortion for this purpose should be illegal, a democratic election today to determine whether abortions for birth control purposes should continue to be allowable would result in them becoming illegal. Ninety-eight percent of the abortions would never occur. This is approximately 1,764,000[17] abortions per year. This does not mean that the population in the United States would start increasing by 1,764,000 per year. It simply means that a few million people would stop using abortion as their sole birth-control method and would begin using other methods. Part of the 98% of the women who have had an abortion just because they didn't want the baby are those who chose to abort because the current preborn baby wasn't the sex the mother preferred. One of the difficulties with this is that when the mother aborts a girl, she is taking away the rights of another "woman." (The dictionary defines as any female human.) The mother prevents the female baby from having the right to "control" her own body. There are also abortions for fetal handicaps. There is more to be said on this subject than should be covered in this paper; but note that this author knows of nine sets of parents that have severely handicapped children. *None* of these parents believe in abortion of handicapped preborn babies. I know of no situation where the parent of a handicapped child is pro-choice. Four other reasons given for having abortions are for rape, incest, fetal abnormality, and life of the mother. The total of abortions for these reasons comprises about 2% of abortions. Unfortunately many hard-line pro-choice people try to justify all abortions on the basis of this 2%.[18] Pregnancies due to rape are, for medical reasons such as menstruation and stress, extremely rare. They occur in approximately 1 case of 15,000.[19] Pro-choice people agree with this figure. *ARE PRO-LIFE PEOPLE OUT OF TOUCH WITH SOCIETY AS PRO-CHOICERS WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE?* Not by a long shot. If we're talking about non-activists, I've already pointed out that polls show that the vast majority of the people agree with pro-lifers that abortions for birth control, which are almost all abortions, should not be allowed. But let's talk about activists. Let's see some comparisons of typical pro-choice activists and typical pro-life activists: ______*The_Pro-Choice_Activist*________ Is usually paid to be an activist. One might be pro-choice without pay, of course, but it is part of their jobs to fight for abortion rights. They get paid to train people, they get paid for public relations, and they get paid to lobby and to give speeches and radio and TV talk shows. On a related subject, the well-funded pro-choice organizations often recruit picketers in newspaper advertisements. These picketers are paid. The pro-choice activist is usually either atheist, agnostic, or pagan. The pro-choice activist deliberately hurts organizations that fund them but then quit funding. When AT&T stopped giving to Planned Parenthood after giving $600,000 in 10 years[20], pro-choice called a nationwide boycott against AT&T. They also called a nationwide boycott against Dayton-Hudson when that company tried to stop their funding of Planned Parenthood. Apparently the funding of pro-choice, once initiated, is a lifetime, non-negotiable commitment. _______*The_Pro-Life_Activist*_________ Is seldom paid to be an activist. The pro-life activist almost always feels that he or she is called upon by God to be a pro-life activist. There is no money to pay her; pro- life, unlike pro-choice, is not funded by tax dollars. Often the money for activism comes from the activist herself. But this is the critical difference: Whereas the pro-choice activist often *earns* her income being an activist, the pro-life activist often *gives up* a career, often lucrative, to be a pro-life activist. If the pro-choice activist earns $75,000 per year, and the pro-life activist gives up $75,000 per year, the pro-life person loses $150,000 per year in a comparison. Multiply this times the many, many years the battle has been going on. The pro-life activist is willing to make this sacrifice because he or she feels called by God to do this. The pro-life activist is almost always Christian or Jewish. In meetings, pro-life activists pray for pro-choice activists. This is more than praying that they stop the killing, it is also praying to God that He forgive the pro-choice activist. The typical pro-choice response to this is, "STOP!" With rare exception, pro-life organizations have not sought grants. *WHAT ARE SOME IMPORTANT FACTS ABOUT ADOPTION?* Because adoption agencies are often not required to report adoptions to any government agency, accurate figures on adoption are not available.[21] Experts in the adoption area, however, have estimated the following: 1. There are about 75[22] sets of prospective parents on adoption waiting lists for newborn babies for every 1 newborn available. While the babies die, prospective adoptive parents agonize because they can't have a family to raise. 2. In California for every 1 newborn baby available for adoption, approximately 150 are aborted.[23] 3. For the most part, sex-education classes give very little emphasis to adoption as a possible choice for a pregnant teenager. *WHAT IS PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND WHO WAS MARGARET SANGER?* Planned Parenthood does several things, all of them objectionable to many pro-life people. However, the thing they do that is objectionable to all pro-life people is that they kill babies. Planned Parenthood is the number-one provider of abortions in the United States and the world. The well-meaning people who contribute to Planned Parenthood's non-abortion activities are kidding themselves that their money won't be used for abortions. If Planned Parenthood wants funds for abortions, they can transfer existing monies from contraception education (for instance) into abortion, and then ask for money for contraception education. Thus, the grant money they would receive for contraception education in reality would also pay for abortions. Similarly, funds donated to Planned Parenthood's Unrestricted Funds also pay for abortions. Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood. According to the book, *Grand Illusions, The Legacy of Planned Parenthood*, by George Grant, she often broke and circumvented the laws; wanted to eliminate the poor, the Blacks, the Hispanics, and the Jews through both euthanasia and abortion; and indulged in occult practices. In Sanger's own book, *Woman and the New Race*, page 63, Sanger said "the most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Planned Parenthood still vigorously extols the "virtues" of Margaret Sanger and even has a Margaret Sanger Clinic and a Margaret Sanger Award. *WHAT ABOUT FETAL EXPERIMENTATION?*[24] This occurs regularly across the United States, and it is much, much more than doing experiments on parts of already dead babies. The experimentation often begins on the baby long before the "abortion." Usually, these are experiments to test new drugs. Later, when the baby is supposed to have been aborted, he is instead taken alive to a secure area of the hospital where the experiments continue until either the baby dies from the experiment or is murdered. Since the baby was "aborted", the live baby "never existed". There was no birth certificate; therefore there is no death certificate. Fetal-tissue research with brain tissue, such as the research into Parkinson's Disease, is useless without good brain tissue. Unfortunately, the only good brain tissue is that which is removed from the baby while the baby is still alive![25] *WHAT ARE SOME MISCELLANEOUS FACTS ABOUT ABORTION?* 1. Abortion is legal in *all* nine months of pregnancy. It is legal in every part of the United States for any reason whatsoever.[26] 2. Polls show that one in four women who abort will later mostly regret that decision and that one in two will later have guilt because of aborting.[27] Female suicide in pregnant mothers is far more rare than in women who have had abortions.[28] Cincinnati Suiciders Anonymous reports that 1,800 of their 4,000 suicide-prone women have had abortions.[7] 3. When a baby is not wanted by the mother, he or she is often wanted by the father and is always wanted by potential adopters. And the baby always wants the mother, father, or adopters. 4. *All* preborn babies, if they knew their danger, would be pro-life. 5. The argument that abortion should be legal when the preborn baby is too young to be viable outside the womb is a non-sequitur argument: Abortion takes place inside the womb; the preborn baby is always viable if left there undisturbed. 6. The Bible provides only two excuses for killing. One is execution by the state for a valid conviction of murder. The other is self- defense. Thus, for a Christian, Jew, or Moslem, or for a country (such as the US) based on the Judeo-Christian Ethic, there is only one valid excuse for abortion: To save the life of the mother, that is, self-defense. 7. Approximately one in 3.5 pregnancies end in abortion. In some cities, the rate is one in two, or 50%.[29] 8. Abortion is the leading cause of death in the United States, causing 46% of the deaths.[30] Abortion kills as many people as the next twelve causes combined.[31] This includes heart disease (second), cancer (third), and stroke (fourth).[32] Abortion lowers the average life expectancy from 75 years to 41. *NOTES* 1. 32,000,000 abortions since 1973: Data from *New Dimensions*. Their source was Alan Guttmacher Institute 1990 report, "Abortion and Women's Health." Alan Guttmacher is *pro*-abortion. *New Dimensions* actually reports fewer than 32,000,000, but Dr. J.C. Willke, founder of National Right to Life Committee, Inc. feels that the usually quoted figures for abortion should be increased by approximately 12.5% to account for illegal abortions. These abortions, done for income-tax evasion purpose or other reasons, are not reported. 2. Hymie Gordon's quote that the preborn's life is separate can be obtained from the Mayo Clinic. 3. It is well known among the abortion industry how they kill babies. The two movies, *The Silent Scream* and *Eclipse of Reason*, were produced by Bernard N. Nathanson and are available from many pro-life organizations, some found in these notes. 4. "California ProLife News", September, 1990 reports, "Women consistently poll more pro-life than men, by an average of about 6% in 25 national polls from 1973 - 1985." Copy available by phoning (916) 442-8315. 5. From personal experience of Nola Jones, founder of Victims of Choice, P. O. Box 6268, Vacaville 95696-6268. 6. , March 3, 1973, Wynn and Wynn, "Some Consequences of Induced Abortion to Children Born Subsequently. 7. Testimony of The Cincinnati Group of Suiciders Anonymous to the Cincinnati (Ohio) City Council: "The Cincinnati Group of Suiciders Anonymous has seen 5,260 members in 35 months. Over 4,000 were women of whom 1,800 or more had had abortions." 8. *Psycho-Social Stress Following Abortion*, Ann Speckhard (Kansas City, MO., Sheed & Ward, 1987, page 57). 9. J. Denton Collins, M.A., M.F.C.C. MK19363 10. , David Reardon, 1987. 11. , May-June 1983, vol. 15, no.3., "Impact of Vacuum Aspiration Abortion on Future Childbearing: A Review", Hogue, Cates and Tietze. 12. Personal testimony to Lynn K. Murphy. 13. Transcript of Carol N. Everett by *Women's Lobby* on KFIA Radio sometime in January, 1990. 14. , a 1989 tract by Victims of Choice. 15. From this author scanning a great number of polls on this subject. A poll which shows 89% is from the L.A. Times, March 19, 1989 and Boston Globe, March 31, 1989. 16. This is a figure almost always quoted by pro-life and pro-abortion. 17. An abortion rate of 1,600,000 is used by substantially all pro-life and pro-abortion groups. This should be increased by 12.5% per note 1. 18. 2% is 100% - 98%. 98% is from Item 7. 19. This figure was reported in the newspapers when the Governor of Louisiana was choosing whether to pass or veto a pro-life bill. He vetoed it because it did not allow abortions in the case of rape. His main critic, a legislator, said that the governor wanted to let thousands die just because the 1 woman in 15,000 that got raped would get pregnant from that. (See *Contra Costa Times*, Page 1B, 7/7/90.) Also, "Minnesota Life Conclave, National Right to Life News", 12/77 says there were no pregnancies in Minnesota from 4000 rapes. Also, from William A. Lynch, MD, of National Federation of Catholic Physician's Guild in "Comments on Medication to Prevent Pregnancy after Rape": There were no pregnancies from rape in Buffalo in the 12 years from 1955 - 1967, and there were no pregnancies from rape in Pennsylvania in the 30 years from 1937 - 1967. 20. $600,000 was given in 10 years to Planned Parenthood by AT&T is information from Pro-Vita Advisors, Thomas Strohbar, P. O. Box 292813, Dayton, OH 45429. It is also a matter of public record, since income-tax returns by AT&T had to be filed on that. 21. Personal communication from James W. Brown, Chief of Adoptions Branch of State of California, Department of Social Services (916) 323-0524. 22. Per item 12, this figure is not touted to be explicitly accurate. The figure is a conservative compromise between numbers bandied about, to wit: John Willke in his book, *Abortion Questions and Answers,* quotes Senator Gordon Humphrey on page 312: "An estimated two million couples . . . plus one million single persons. This means that there are at least 60 homes (available) for every child adopted." Willke adds, "Double or triple this because these couples would take two or three babies each, if available." Another figure bandied about is 200 - 300 sets of parents on waiting lists per newborn available. Therefore, my figure of 75 is very likely quite conservative. 23. Planned Parenthood (pro-abortion) says there were 350,000 abortions in California in a recent, unspecified year. A November 8, 1990, letter from James Brown, described in item 12, says that there were approximately 2,300 adoptions in California in fiscal year 1988-1989. 350,000/2,300 = 152 Use 150. 24. All of Chapter 25 of *Abortion Questions and Answers* by John Willke. 25. "Voices for the Unborn", December, 1992, p. 11. 26. This can be proven directly from the Supreme Court Decisions themselves or from the February, 1990 issue of *The Defender*, a publication of The John Ankerberg Show, phone (615) 892-7722. 27. From "California ProLife News", September, 1990. Phone (916) 442-8315. 28. *Abortion Questions and Answers* by John Willke, page 125: "Suicide is rare among pregnant women, but much more common after induced abortion." 29. The *Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 1992* (for 1988 data), page 75, shows that the national average abortion rate was 401 abortions for every 1000 live births, and the California abortion rate is 594 abortions per 1000 live births. The 401 of 1,401 *pregnancies* is equal to 1 in 3.49. The one-in-two for cities comes from The Precious Feet People, Item #541. (Address: P. O. Box 730, Taylor, AZ 85939) This is a chart of 18 US cities where the one-in-two figure is valid. 30 - 32. Item 8 shows 1,800,000 abortions in the US every year. The following is from *Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 1992*, page 82. It is data for 1989. *Rank_Excluding_Abortion* ___________*Cause_of_Death*____________ *Numbers_of_Deaths* 1 Heart Disease 733,800 2 Cancer 496,200 3 Stroke (Cerebrovascular Disease) 145,500 4 Accidents (all types) 95,000 5 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 84,300 6 Pneumonia and influenza 76,600 7 Diabetes mellitus 46,800 8 Suicide 30,200 9 Chronic liver disease, cirrhosis 26,700 10 Homicide and legal intervention 22,900 11 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis 21,100 12 Atherosclerosis 19,400 Subtotal 1,798,500 Other causes of death 352,000 Total 2,150,500 Since the abortion deaths are approximately 1,800,000 per year, they are more than the next twelve causes of death combined. 46% is found as follows: Actual total deaths are 1,800,000 + 2,150,500 = 3,950,500. 1,800,000/3,950,500 x 100 = 45.6%. Round off to 46%. Lowering life expectancy from 75 to 41 is found as follows: In a given year, the number of years that 2,150,500 people had lived to 75 is 2,150,500 x 75 = 161,287,500. In a given year, the number of years a preborn baby had lived outside the womb is 1,800,000 x 0 = 0. The total number of these (people times years) is 161,287,500 + 0 = 161,287,500. The total number of people dying is, from previous paragraph, 3,950,500. Therefore the life expectancy is (161,287,500 people x years)/3,950,500 people = 40.8 years per person. Article 2 *Abortion Semantics that are Killing Our Children by Lynn K. Murphy * "Pregnancy prevention!" said the high school principal. "Let's start a sex- education class that teaches our kids pregnancy prevention. We don't want them to get pregnant." A noble goal, we all agree. But then suppose the school begins a program based on a Planned Parenthood or other pro-choice designed program. Pro- choice people use different semantics than we are used to hearing; they redefine the words. Whereas pregnancy prevention to us means to prevent pregnancy from ever occurring, to them it also means to prevent it from continuing. Allow me to illustrate. Teenager Janet gets pregnant. So far, there is no problem; she wants the baby. But then she changes her mind; she doesn't want him. Now she has an unwanted pregnancy, so she goes to Planned Parenthood. There, the pregnancy is prevented: She has an abortion. So what does the high school principal want to teach? The term sex education is also a difficult term. Do you think it means teaching biology and contraception? Sometimes it does, but very often it is much, much more. It is better termed sexuality education. Often it is a course on how to have sex and get sex, including positions, seductions, and removing inhibitions. It teaches our children to be loose, free, and promiscuous. It is not surprising to pro-life organizations that, contrary to public opinion, sex education does *not* result in a decrease in pregnancy, but an increase. Many courses are given not to decrease pregnancy, but to increase sexuality. With the resulting increase in pregnancy there is, of course, an increase in abortion. In today's society, it could hardly be otherwise. Those who doubt this should answer the question, "Why, when we have so much sex education, is teenage pregnancy and teenage abortion at an all-time high?" Or answer the question, "Why does the United States, even though a "Christian" nation, have the highest teenage abortion rate in the world?" There are many more semantic problems with the abortion controversy. Pro- abortion people continually use such terms as choice for killing, removal for the abortion procedure, pregnancy interruption, humaneness, products of pregnancy, mass of protoplasm, women's rights, reproductive freedom, and back-alley butchery. Choice is a big word. We all want the freedom to make choices. America was founded on freedom. However, there are some choices we should not be allowed to have. We are not allowed to rape or murder children or adults. Why should we be allowed to murder preborn babies? Pro-choice people merely answer by saying that the law says so. But does that make it right? Should the law define the morality, or should the morality define the law? If killing innocent, defenseless human beings in the womb is immoral, shouldn't we be against it regardless of the law? What about the pro-choice term, removal? That sounds pretty innocent, right? But what are we removing and with what consequences? The answer to which brings us to the terms, products of pregnancy, products of conception, mass of protoplasm, blob, obstruction to menstrual flow, and the contents of the uterus. Are these things all that human beings are? In a limited sense it is valid to use some of the above terms, but not when the purpose is to try to dehumanize babies so that they can be killed. The product of conception is a human being! Pregnancy interruption. Now there's a good one. Let's interrupt the pregnancy, as though we can continue it later anyway, or as though there are no consequences of doing this. Never mind that a human being will have his arms and legs ripped off and his skull crushed, and all this without anesthetic. God said, "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself." Is there any neighbor closer to a pregnant woman than her preborn baby? Shall we *just* interrupt the pregnancy? Humaneness is also a good one. It refers to the alleged humaneness of the mother, of course. We are supposed to be humane by allowing her to have an abortion. But what about the baby? Following is a good example of someone's use of the word humane. It is given to us via a leading American medical journal by Dr. Michael S. Burnhill. He referred to abortion as "a consistently high quality, humane service."[1] Referring to abortion as a woman's right sickens me. Almost everyone wants equality and rights for women. But women should not have the right to kill a human being. Pro-abortion people continually bandy their words around, but there is no depth to their meanings. Digging deeper into the term, women's rights, shows us that it is the right to an abortion, a right to murder a human being. It is even the right to murder a miniature woman. The term reproductive rights is also the right to have an abortion. Who wants to remove the *actual* reproductive rights of a woman? I certainly don't. The difference is that, once a woman becomes pregnant, she has already reproduced! So there really is no issue of reproductive rights within the abortion controversy. How about the term, controlling her own body? Whose body? A woman, abortion advocates proclaim, has the right to control her own body. But abortion kills another body, not to mention the fact that the woman who got pregnant without wanting to had already lost control of her body. Otherwise she wouldn't have gotten pregnant. Let us not forget back-alley abortion or back-alley butchery. These formidable words bring pictures to our minds of narrow alleyways filled with garbage cans, some of them tipped over, and a foraging black cat or two, and at least one drunk who some beautiful, underprivileged, pregnant woman must step over in order to interrupt her pregnancy or exercise her reproductive rights. "Let's not go back to the old days!" scream the pro-aborts. But 90% of all illegal abortions in the old days were performed in modern doctors' offices by licensed physicians.[2] They weren't back-alley at all. Some were, of course, but let's divorce ourselves for the moment from the pro-abortion rhetoric and call this situation what it is, whether back alley or not. Using our own words, let's describe what the pro-aborts want: They want to keep abortion legal so that a woman who wants premeditatedly to murder her preborn baby can do it without danger to herself. There is no other way to put it. Should we, as a society, protect her right to murder? Did any of you readers notice something terribly missing in the above paragraph? That you would miss this is the goal of the complainers about returning to back-alley butchery. What about the baby? Currently, we don't have much back-alley butchery. We have butchery in respectable doctors' offices and hospitals, paid for by your insurance money and your hard-earned taxes. Why do we have this distortion in semantics? There are at least two reasons. One (collectively) is money, power, and prestige. Abortion is a multi-billion dollar industry. Those who run it have power over the personnel they employ, and they don't want to lose that. And they have prestige in the community. They have seized the "moral and humane" high ground and have no intention of releasing it. Another reason is for the sake of their own consciences. Instead of thinking for themselves and admitting they're wrong and repenting, they use the phrases of their coworkers and peers. In this way they can get a good night's sleep, resting their righteous heads on a pink or blue silk pillow of humaneness as they relax from a hard day of doing good works. Now they can fall asleep with a clear conscience. Notes: 1. Michael S. Burnhill, "Humane Abortion Services: A Revolution in Human Rights and the Delivery of a Medical Service," *Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine 42 (September-October 1975)*: 438. 2. Dr. Mary Calderone (Former President of Planned Parenthood), "Illegal Abortion as a Public Health Problem," *Amer. Jour. of Health*, vol. 50, July 1960, p. 949. Article 3 *Fetal-Tissue Experimentation, More than on Dead Tissue by Lynn K. Murphy * We can often read these days about the benefits for society of fetal-tissue experimentation. Many people say that such experimentation is of tremendous benefit to mankind and will result in great strides toward curing such terrible diseases as Parkinson's Disease and Diabetes. While there may be some truth to these claims, mostly they are exaggerations, but one real problem with experimentation on fetal tissue is that it's not always on dead tissue. It's on live preborn babies, babies who are supposed to be killed by abortion. After their birth, the experiments continue with these babies until they either die from the experiments or are killed by the doctors. Either way, they must die: Since they are not supposed to exist, they therefore must never be discovered to be alive. Another big problem with fetal-tissue experimentation is that the existence of experimentation serves somewhat to inhibit the hoped-for end or reduction of abortion, that is, some people will always want abortion to continue so that the experimentation can continue. This is inappropriate for several reasons, two of them being that our doctors will still be able to get bodies from legal abortions and from overseas, and that research is also carried out overseas. This article concentrates on live experimentation, however. An excellent book on this subject is *Beyond Abortion, A Chronicle of Fetal Experimentation* by Suzanne M. Rini. I quote from that book: Researcher's various specialties and inquiries called for using fetuses at various stages of development and in basically three life situations as they related to the abortion schedule: *The live in-utero* [still in the mother] *fetus*. The testing of drugs, of prenatal diagnostic techniques, of vaccines, of hypotheses about the effects of diet, stress, and maternal factors are some of the research objectives for this "class." These types of experiments have two phases: administering the drug, prenatal test, caloric deprivation, etc. to the still-living, in-utero fetus, and then examining the dead fetus, upon abortion, to assess the effects. In some cases, the fetus is actually killed by the experiment rather than by the abortion. *The viable fetus, ex-utero* [born]*, still living after the abortion. *This fetus would be analogous to a premature infant, except that the fetus would not be permitted to survive the experiment, whereas, most premature, wanted infants are helped to independence through medical technology. The viable fetus was included in several early, documented experiments but this class of fetus was disallowed for nontherapeutic experimentation with government funds once federal regulations were devised in 1976. However, these regulations do not govern experiments done with private monies. *The "previable" fetus, ex- or in-utero.* This fetus is defined by the federal regulations as one about to be or already aborted (but aborted with some vital signs and therefore still living). To meet this criterion, the fetus must be on the abortion schedule up to and including the second trimester, and weigh no more than 400 grams (about one pound).[1] Ms. Rini also shows a category of *The Dead Fetus*. This article is not about this category. One of the funders of research done upon live, preborn babies is the March of Dimes. The March of Dimes is dedicated to ending birth defects. The March of Dimes advocates and encourages abortion as a method to end birth defects. After all, if you're not born, you're not born defective, and therefore, the end justifies the means. It is extremely ill-suited to want to kill handicapped preborns when just a few days later the same person would be born and be identified as "special" or "developmentally disabled," or "differently abled." While March of Dimes personnel might want to call these terms "excuses," it is nonetheless true that Jesus teaches us to have compassion on the needy; He doesn't teach us to kill them. One of the research projects developed mainly by the March of Dimes via live, fetal experimentation produced the medical procedure called amniocentesis. With amniocentesis a mother can tell if she is carrying a handicapped baby. However, the procedure certainly killed many children during its development, the procedure itself can kill the baby even if he is normal, the procedure can show that a handicap exists when it actually doesn't (then the mother kills the normal baby), and the procedure is dangerous to the mother. By the time the preborn baby is old enough to be tested, it is too late for his mother to have an abortion without her having more risk than if she were to carry the baby to term. Following are some other cases of fetal experimentation. All of these are from the book mentioned above. In 1973 and 1976 the "Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism" reported that fifty-four babies of ten to twenty-five weeks gestation were delivered alive by hysterotomy and that immediately after delivery each was cut open and that sex organs and adrenal glands were removed for experimentation.[2] This was illegal where it was done, but it is legal in many of the states. Dr. Jerald Gaull, at the being time Chief of Pediatrics at the New York State Institute for Basic Research in Mental Retardation at the Willowbrook home in Staten Island, was making periodic trips to Finland "to experiment on aborted but still-living fetuses." He severed the nerve connections between brain and body, then surgically removed the brain, lungs, liver and kidneys for study and dissection.[3] In another case, Experiments on the brains of unborn infants at the University of Rochester Medical Center were reported in "Science," Aug. 27, 1971. Researchers removed brain sections from babies of ten to nineteen weeks gestation, and kept the brain sections alive for five months, subjecting them to exhaustive tests.[4] I wonder how much pain and/or anxiety a brain can feel. Probably quite a lot. In the following case, reported by "The Arizona Republic" on March 2, 1981, those involved violated the law. But note that they wouldn't have violated the law had the experiments been done in other states. Here is a small sampling of what happened: Pregnant women volunteered for E.R. Squibb & Sons Laboratories' experiments involving hypertension medication . . . Drs. Robert Tamis, Robert Wechsler and Mark Gross purportedly provided free abortions to 14 women . . . in return for cooperation in the testing of a Squibb-manufactured drug called Nadolol. Women were given the drug for five days. Each day, the women were examined, blood was drawn and amniotic fluid was taken from the womb. . . . On the fifth day, the abortion procedure was begun at the center, where the women were injected with prostaglandin solution. They then were taken to Doctors Hospital, where the fetuses were delivered. . . . the report mentioned that two former nurses at the clinic said Squibb paid the center $10,000.[5] The prostaglandin solution mentioned above is one of the favorites of doctors who profit from fetal research. When "properly" administered, it enables the birth of a live baby when he is supposed to be dead. The mother may not know that the baby is alive and to be experimented upon. Indeed, Dr. Joseph Fletcher, *ethicist*, said, "*The mother is not entitled to the death of her fetus.*" Dr. Fletcher works for the federal government's National Institute of Health. In the case below, a two-pound infant was delivered alive and, says the doctor involved: Irregular gasping movements, twice a minute, occurred in the middle of the experiment, but there was no proper respiration. Once the perfusion was stopped, however, the gasping respiratory efforts increased to 8 to 10 per minute. The fetus died 21 minutes after leaving the circuit.[6] The infant survived a total of five hours. The doctor received a professional award for his work. Now I present a case of experimentation with live abortions even before abortion was legalized in the United States. Wilhamine Dick, testifying at the Shapp Abortion Law Commission Hearing of March 14, 1972, said Pittsburgh's Magee Women's Hospital "packed aborted babies in ice while still moving and shipped them to experimental labs." In a later interview, Ms. Dick added, "It was repulsive to watch live fetuses being packed in ice while still trying to breathe and move, then being rushed to some laboratory and hear a medical student later discuss the experience of examining various organs of a once-live baby."[7] So there it is: fetal-tissue experimentation. All along Americans have assumed that the experimentation was on the pieces of already dead babies. Now we know better. Now we know that babies are deliberately aborted alive so that doctors can experiment on them until they die. In many cases the experiments begin on the baby before he is born and then continue after he is born, whether this is known by the mother or not. He is supposed to be aborted, but remember the words of Dr. Joseph Fletcher, the ethicist: "The mother is not entitled to the death of her fetus." So he is born alive and secreted off to a remote corner of the hospital. There, the experiments on him continue until the experiments kill him or until they are completed. Then the baby is of no further use to anyone and becomes a burden. He is unwanted. He is therefore murdered. There is no death certificate, of course. That would be too confusing: There was no birth certificate. Fetal experimentation, along with many, many other problems associated with abortion, will *never* cease to be problems unless **you** do something about them. Please call American Life League now and ask how you can help. Their phone number is (703) 659-4171. Notes: 1. *Beyond Abortion, A Chronicle of Fetal Experimentation* by Suzanne M. Rini, Avon, NJ: Magnificat Press, 1988, pp. 1,2. 2. Ibid, p. 30. 3. Ibid, p. 32. 4. Ibid, p. 32. 5. Ibid, p. 37. 6. Ibid, p. 74. 7. Ibid, p. 81. Article 4 *Abortion and Your Church Why They Let the Killing Go On by Lynn K. Murphy * The answer to this issue lies in four levels: Satan, your denomination's governing body, your local church's governing body, and you. We all know that one of God's commandments is "Thou shalt not kill." And we know also that Mark 12:30,31 tells us, "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." And there is no neighbor closer to a woman than her preborn baby. And this is certainly enough proof for me to believe that Satan is very busy in our churches to keep abortion alive. Did you know that there are several Christian denominations whose governing bodies are officially pro-choice? Actually the term pro-choice is better called pro-death, since the pro-choice person favors the right of a mother to kill her preborn baby whenever she chooses. Some of the denominations pretend to take no stand on the abortion issue. However, no stand is actually a stand for abortion. They are choosing to let a woman choose whether she should kill her baby. Below are some of the denominations and/or religions that, in terms of favoring a woman's choice to abort for any reason she may have, are pro- death.[1] The figures in parenthesis, if any, are the numbers of adult members of that church. American Ethical Union American Humanist Association Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) (1,132,510) Episcopal Church (2,775,424) Jewish: The Rabbinical Assembly (Conservative) Jewish: Union of American Hebrew Congregations (Reform) (1,300,000) Jewish: United Synagogue of America (Conservative) (1,250,000) Lutheran Church in America (2,910,281) Presbyterian Church in the US (823,143) The Pennsylvania Council of Churches The United Church of Christ (1,696,107) The United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (3,092,151) Unitarian Universalist Association (170,510) United Methodist (9,400,000) Young Women's Christian Association of the USA (YMCA) The reason that some denominations are pro-death is that they don't want to divide the church. It matters less to them that they have divided the church from God than whether they would divide the church members from their denomination. They try to appease everyone, and in doing so, only appease Satan. To prove this, I need only to quote 2Timothy 4:1-5 where God is charging Timothy to preach. "I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, *out of season*; reprove, rebuke, exhort with *all* longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts *shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.* But watch thou in *all* things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make *full* proof of thy ministry." (The underlining is mine.) One might also consider Matthew chapters 5 and 6 where Jesus preaches against adultery, lust, fornication, anger, hatred, and hypocrisy. While these aren't directly about abortion, they demonstrate that Jesus cared less about dividing churches than about preaching against sin. Furthermore, John 8:59 describes a crowd to which Jesus was preaching that became so offended they "took up stones" to kill Him. Surely, Jesus thought He was doing the right thing. Why don't our preachers think He was? Sometimes a denomination will try to fool you. They will write their abortion-position statement so that pro-death members will understand that the denomination is on their side and pro-life members will also understand that the denomination is on their own side. As one example, I present a recent position statement of Church of the Brethren: Brethren oppose abortion because it destroys fetal life. Let it be clear that the Brethren ideal upholds the sacredness of human life and that abortion should be accepted as an option *only* where all other possible alternatives will lead to greater destruction of human life and spirit. However, we confess that we are part of a society that contributes to abortion by denying parents the support and assistance they need. We further confess our lack of compassion, our condemnation of those who differ with our view of morality, and our need to coerce and compel others to our way of thinking. Thus, our position is not a condemnation of those persons who reject this position or of women who seek and undergo abortion. Rather, it is a call for Christ-like compassion in seeking a creative alternative to abortion. (Continuing) We support persons who, after prayer and counseling, believe abortion is the least destructive option available to them, that they may make their decision openly, honestly, without the suffering imposed by an uncompromising community. They start pro-life; they end pro-death. What are they? Your local church is also at fault. Do they have a program teaching pro-life, helping pregnant women get Christian counseling, or providing funds for pregnant women so that they can afford to have their babies? Probably not! One reason may be that your whole denomination might be pro-death. Another reason may be that your local church's governing body may not want to divide the church. Or perhaps it's because *you* never asked them to get involved. An activity or a program has to start with someone. Should it be your pastor? We can reasonably answer "yes" only with qualifications. His primary job should be and is to spread the word of salvation. After taking care of that responsibility and many others, he isn't going to have a lot of time or energy left to invent something more for himself to do. That is where you must come into the picture. Before you begin, you should do several things. First, find out what your church is doing, if anything. (Don't worry too much about the official position of your denomination. That does not have to take authority over your local church.) Then, make a plan for a program to work against abortion. Continue by determining who the members of your congregation are that would support your plan and/or help implement it. Find out the positions of your pastor and the members of your church council or other governing body. Then, get on the agenda for one of their meetings. During the meeting, be prepared for resistance and try to know ahead of time what it will be and how you can counter it. Expect that people will express strong concern about dividing the church. Tell them how your program won't be divisive; tell them that pro-choice people won't *have* to be involved in the program either as participants or spectators and that (if true) the program doesn't mandate that the pastor speak on the subject. If they say to you, "If we let you speak on pro-life, we will have to let people speak on pro-choice", answer back, "Who says we have to?" The concept they may be thinking of applies to election for government offices, not to churches. At the meeting be prepared to answer peoples' objections with quotations from the Scriptures and with secular arguments. Plan with diligence. You may get the opportunity to save lives! Do you want to know the real reason your church isn't doing anything? Is it because they're pro-death? Is it because they're lazy or didn't think of it? I seriously doubt it. It's because *you* didn't ask them to. For more information on how to help your church become active in pro-life, call American Life League at (703) 659-4171. Notes: 1. *Abortion, the Bible and the Church*, T.J. Bosgra, several pages. Article 5 *Planned Parenthood: Megakilling Exposed by Lynn K. Murphy * Since abortion was legalized in the United States in 1973, Planned Parenthood has legally killed approximately 5,000,000 babies here. This is my proof: Since 1973, we have had approximately 32,000,000 abortions.[1] "As the nation's largest single provider of abortions, Planned Parenthood performs about 7.5 percent of all abortions in the United States (but provides prenatal care to just one tenth of one percent of all women having babies)."[2] 7.5 percent of 32,000,000 is 2,400,000, but I'm still counting. "In 1984, 88,824 abortions were performed in Planned Parenthood abortitoriums. Planned Parenthood also referred another 99,961 women for abortions."[3] I admit I'm not going to be exact here, but defer judgment. If they referred 99,961 and killed 88,824 themselves, then they referred 1.125 times as many as they personally killed. Since they killed 2,400,000 personally, and they referred for the deaths of 2,400,000 times 1.125 more, then they were accomplices in the deaths of 2,700,000. 2,400,000 plus 2,700,000 is more than 5,000,000. One could argue that the 7.5 percent may not apply to every year of Planned Parenthood's involvement or that the ratio of referrals to personal kills wasn't always that high. If you want to, go ahead. Perhaps you could drop the 5,000,000 to 4,500,000, but the title of this article remains valid: Megakilling is exposed. On the other hand, one could argue that the 7.5 percent and the ratio may have been higher than I've shown. Perhaps they've killed 6,000,000. Do you argue that abortion isn't killing? Many people, believe it or not, actually do. Well, I've made *my* accusation against Planned Parenthood. Let's see what *Planned Parenthood* says about abortion: "An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun."[4] What else does Planned Parenthood say about abortion? They say many things. One of them is the lie that they don't try to talk the mothers into having abortions. At the same time, they call themselves "clinics" and "health- service providers." But I continue the quote above: "It (abortion) is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it." And they also say that in 1988 they performed 111,189 abortions and provided prenatal care to only 3,415 mothers.[5] That means for every one woman receiving prenatal care from them, more than 32 others received abortions. I find it very hard to understand why they can call themselves a health- service provider when in 1988 they endangered the life and health of 111,189 women and made some of them sterile and while they deliberately killed 111,189 babies. What does it mean to kill 5,000,000 babies? Many people have a hard time visualizing the sizes of big numbers. Imagine you're on a long vacation in your car. You're in a rural section of country that still has those old, wooden telephone poles. They look like crosses, crosses perhaps representing the graves of babies. With these crosses 240 feet apart, a typical distance, how far would you have to drive to pass 5,000,000 of them? Across your state? From Mexico to Canada? From New York to Los Angeles? I wish we were so fortunate. I'm sorry to say so, but you would have to drive around the world nine times. And I don't mean you could skip over the oceans. Yet, this only scratches the surface of Planned Parenthood's killing. Although it is the world we've driven around eight times to represent their killings, we've only represented their killings in the United States. Worldwide, the figures are many times higher. Yet, even this only scratches the surface. So far I've only been talking about abortions where procedures were involved. You're not going to like this at all, but I have to tell you that all IUD's always work, and all birth- control pills sometimes work (2 - 10% of the time) by aborting human beings, not by preventing pregnancy.[6] Planned Parenthood recommends IUD's and birth- control pills the way a child recommends candy. If you have been involved with IUD's and birth-control pills, don't worry. If you believe that Jesus died for you, God will forgive you. However, you must remember that repentance (or turning away from) is required first.[7] You *must *repent. Furthermore, if you have been involved without knowing what you were doing, you should be in the clear. For Jesus, as he was hanging on the cross said, referring to His executioners, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."[8] What great news for you and me! If the Father would forgive the executioners of His Son, surely we can also be forgiven. All those abortions! Who pays for them, Planned Parenthood? Of course not. You do. The mothers pay for some, of course, but Planned Parenthood takes in well over $100,000,000 per year of your tax money and untold millions of your health-insurance money, and there is nothing you can do about it. You *must* pay to kill babies. The funding comes from state taxes, local taxes, your health-insurance company, and state-run insurance programs for the "poor." One example of the latter is the MediCal program in California. They provide $30,000,000 annually to the abortion industry. However, a person doesn't have to be poor to qualify for a MediCal abortion. Even if she is a millionaire, she only has to say that she doesn't want anyone to know she's having an abortion. California's privacy laws then enable Planned Parenthood and other killing organizations to charge the taxpayers for the kill. Proverbs 24:11 tells us "Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward the slaughter." When will the slaughter end? When *you* reach out to help. To find out how you can help, call American Life League at (703) 659-4171. Notes: 1. A figure accepted as approximately correct by both pro-life and pro- abortion if increased by 12.5% to account for illegal abortions. 2. "Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1990," US Dept. of Commerce, p. 62. 3. "Facts about Planned Parenthood," American Life League. 4. "Plan Your Children For Health and Happiness," Planned Parenthood Federation of America, 1963. 5. "Planned Parenthood 1989 Services Report, *PPFA*," pp. 9 - 11. 6. "HLI REPORTS," April 1990, p. 4. and *many* other publications. 7. Luke 13:5 and Revelation 2:22. 8. Exodus 20:13. Article 6 *The Killing Centers How They Mass Produce Death by Lynn K. Murphy * Pro-choice people call them health centers or women's clinics, but pro-life people call the abortion facilities what they really are: Killing Centers. In these Killing Centers, located across the nation, approximately 4,900[1] babies are killed every day of the year. Greatly contributing to this enormous death rate is the assembly-line processing taking place in many of these Centers, processing that almost always excludes adequate counseling, or for that matter, any counseling. The mothers going to these facilities are poorly informed going in and poorly informed when their babies are killed. Later, more than half of them admit to having guilt about aborting and more than one fourth mostly regret the abortion.[2] (An excellent reference on the subject of the inadequate counseling in Killing Centers, as well as many other topics, is *Aborted Women, Silent No More*, by David C. Reardon. Phone 1 217 546-9522.) What do I mean by assembly-line processing? It's the method perfected by Henry Ford to mass-produce his early cars. With abortion the women are processed similarly. The sequence itself isn't necessarily bad--it's not much different from what regular hospitals use to process most of their patients--but with abortion there is usually no emotional warmth given to either the mother or, of course, to the other victim. From the abortionists' viewpoint, this is fully logical: The abortionist doesn't think he is doing anything wrong; no warmth is called for. What is called for in his opinion, and in the opinion of the Killing Center's owners and managers, is speed and efficiency. A certain William Brennan (not the same William Brennan who as "Supreme" Court justice voted to legalize abortion) wrote a book entitled *The Abortion Holocaust, Today's Final Solution*. This book makes a tremendous case for abortion in America being extraordinarily like the Jew-killing in Nazi Germany was. I quote from page 38 of that book where Brennan makes comparisons of Nazi techniques and American techniques:[3] In the Nazi death camps annihilation as an assembly-line enterprise came of age. According to holocaust scholar Raul Hilberg: "A man would step off a train in the morning, and in the evening his corpse was burned and his clothes packed away for shipment to Germany."[6] Today, a woman can enter an abortion clinic on her lunch hour and, by the time she is due to return to work, all the remnants of her unborn baby's body and intrauterine life support membranes are obliterated by an assembly-line process which would make even the most avid Nazi technician gasp in awe! Auschwitz inmates injected with lethal doses of phenol died quickly: "two or three prisoners in one minute." The speediest of the phenol technicians was Josef Klehr who "injected two prisoners at a time."[4] Dr. Ming K. Hah, reputed to be the fastest abortionist in Chicago, vacuums the unborn to smithereens at breakneck pace: eight abortions per hour, forty per day. His productivity rate is so impressive that he sometimes performs two abortions simultaneously.[5] At the Auschwitz crematorium, 17,280 corpses were disposed of "per twenty-four hour shift. And the ovens, with murderous efficiency, functioned day and night."[7] Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson, former director of a large abortion clinic in New York City, described how proficiently his mill operated: From eight in the morning until midnight, seven days a week, doctors working in ten operating rooms performed vacuum aspirations on an endless parade of pregnant wombs. . . . Doctors regularly worked 12- hour shifts.[8] Mr. Brennan's book was published too soon to include one other interesting comparison. Just as at the Auschwitz crematorium where 17,280 corpses were disposed of, in 1988 in Los Angeles a dumpster was found with approximately 17,000 aborted babies in it.[9] * ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ³ ³ ³ "One of the boxes fell out of the container, ³ ³ ³ ³ spilling its contents on the ground. I stared ³ ³ ³ ³ at a large object but couldn't tell what it was.³ ³ ³ ³ I called my boss to come over to take a look. ³ ³ ³ ³ All of a sudden we realized with great horror ³ ³ ³ ³ that it was the decapitated body of a baby. ³ ³ ³ ³ Other workers started vomiting." ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ Hank Stolk, employee of Martin Container Corp. ³ ³ ³ ³ Los Angeles, CA ³ ³ ³ ÀÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÙ* Now let's hear from the former owner of a chain of Killing Centers in Texas. This is Carol Everett, who closed her lucrative business upon finding our Lord Jesus Christ. During an interview in January, 1990, she said[10]: We expected to do 40,000 abortions in 1984, and that would have meant a million dollars in my pocket, and that's all I thought about. We worked seven days a week. Sunday was our most profitable day. They just run in and run out--you can work a skeleton crew, and I answered the telephone 24 hours a day. I was very concerned that we might miss a call at 2 AM in the morning, we knew that the sooner we got that girl in the better the chances of completing the abortion were, so I wanted to be able to say, "Bring your money, I'll see you at eight." It was a perfectly miserable situation. The people inside that abortion clinic are post-aborted in their own right. The doctors, the nurses, everyone in there hurts, and there's just a lot of chaos inside the clinic. I always, and I taught my employees to think, we're helping the mother, we're helping the mother, we're helping the mother. I think the most traumatic thing I ever saw was one time when we were doing a third-trimester abortion we saw a baby's hand close. And even the nurses just fell back away from the table. It was too much for us. We knew we were destroying life. But we always told ourselves it was the woman's right to choose and we were helping her. We must get involved. We must get involved in the political process. That's very important. That's the way to save the most babies and women. Stop abortion. But, more than that we've got to get out there and minister to those women. We got to take these women into our homes. We've got to take them into our lives. We've got to pray for and heal the post-aborted woman. We've got to pray for the abortionist, because of course if he'll come out and come to know the Lord it's all over. But it's time to get involved on some level. If you want to get involved, please call American Life League at (703) 659-4171. Notes: 1. A figure accepted as approximately correct by both pro-life and pro- abortion if increased by 12.5% to account for illegal abortions. 2. "California Pro-Life News, September, 1990." 3. *The Abortion Holocaust, Today's Final Solution*, William Brennan, Landmark Press. 4. Bernd Naumann, "Auschwitz: A report on the Proceedings Against Robert Karl Ludwig Mulka and Others Before the Court at Frankfurt,"trans. Jean Steinberg (New York: Frederick A. Praeger Publishers, 1966), pp. 151, 295. 5. Pamela Zekman and Pamela Warrick, "Dr. Ming Kow Hah: Physician of Pain," *Chicago Sun-Times*, November 15, 1978, pp. 1, 4-5. 6. Raul Hilberg, *The Destruction of the European Jews* (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1967), p. 555. 7. Olga Lengyel, *Five Chimneys: The Story of Auschwitz* (Chicago and New York: Ziff-Davis, 1947), pp. 68-69. 8. Charles Remsberg and Bonnie Remsberg, "Second Thoughts on Abortion from the Doctor Who Led the Crusade for It," *Good Housekeeping*, March 1976, p. 130. 9. Los Angeles County Health Department. 10. Interview on *Women's Lobby* program of KFIA radio sometime in January, 1990. Article 7 *From Abortion to Infanticide, a Step Already Taken by Lynn K. Murphy * To the pro-life activist, there is no substantial difference between abortion and infanticide; they both kill innocent, defenseless, human life. However, I will be speaking herein about infanticide after birth. And I will be speaking of it in today's times in the United States. However, first a little history is appropriate and interesting. There is nothing new about infanticide; The practice was probably begun at nearly the same time that infants came to exist. In fact, in situations where parents didn't want their children, infanticide used to be preferred over abortion. The reason for this is very simple: Until recently, abortion was much more dangerous for the mother than at present. One way that our ancestors tried to abort their babies was by taking a poison that, they hoped, was strong enough to kill the baby but not strong enough to kill her mother. Another way was to physically abuse the baby in the mother's womb. Just as it is today, it was reasoned that all considerations be given to the mother at the expense of her unwanted children. When the killers chose not to kill by abortion, they would usually accomplish their dirty deed by leaving the born baby outdoors so that the elements would kill her. I used the pronoun, , because often families preferred to have boys. So they killed the girls. We do this today also, only now, even though we call our ancestors barbaric, we kill our babies in the womb and call ourselves humane. After advanced techniques of killing children in the womb were developed, mothers were in far less danger from abortion. Therefore, abortions began to outnumber the murders of already-born children. Today, there are 1,800,000[1] abortions annually in the United States and approximately 60,000,000[1] annually in the world. In the United States abortion is the leading cause of death, killing more people than the next twelve causes combined[2] and lowering the average life expectancy from approximately 75 to 41.[3] Infanticide in the world and in the United States is a big problem. There are several ways to consider infanticide. One is to consider it as a part of the abortion procedure, especially when something goes wrong with the abortion. For instance, in the hysterotomy procedure, which is an early Caesarean section, the abortionist cuts open the mother's abdomen and womb. Then he cuts the umbilical cord and kills the baby in the womb by strangulation or some other method. However, the actual death may take up to five minutes, and the abortionist is a busy and a very highly paid person. Why abide by technicalities? So, often he cuts the cord and takes the baby out alive. Then he will kill him by smothering him with the placenta or drowning him in a bucket of water. Another way to consider infanticide is by the reason for killing. Usually the reason is because the born baby is found, unexpectedly, to be handicapped. Logic apparently dictates to the killers that, since killing the handicapped in the womb is "justified," it is also "justified" to kill him outside of the womb. The term for this is an innocent-sounding one, one that makes it sound no worse than abortion, which many people think is a good term. The term is post-natal abortion. It's just another term for murder. Nobel Laureate James Watson, the man who cracked the genetic code, defends infanticide. He says, "Because of the present limits of such detection methods, most birth defects are not discovered until birth. If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice . . . the doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering."[4] Many of his colleagues feel that Dr. Watson is too conservative; they prefer thirty days. And then there's Barbara Smoker, President of the National Secular Society and Vice-Chairman of the British Humanist Association. She said, "The situation of a newborn baby is very different from that of the same baby, even a few weeks later. . . . At birth the baby is only a potential human being and at that point it is surely the humane and sensible thing that the life of any baby with obvious severe defects, whether of body or brain, should be quietly snuffed out by the doctor or midwife. This should not be a decision referred to the family. . . ."[5] Lastly, we hear from Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, who wrote in her own book: "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."[6] Note that the infant qualified to die doesn't even have to be handicapped. She is qualified solely because she is in a large family. Very likely, there is a branch of Planned Parenthood in your neighborhood, and very likely they designed the sex-education/abortion curriculum being taught to your children in school. And on the issue of killing *in* the womb, Planned Parenthood does more abortions than any organization in the nation and in the world. Whether abortion or infanticide is justified against the handicapped is a big topic, too big for this article. Let it suffice that the pro-life movement does not think it is justified. I personally know of nine handicapped children, none of whose parents would consider aborting a handicapped child, and I don't know of any parents of handicapped children who would abort. Furthermore, there has never been a single organization of parents of mentally retarded children that has ever endorsed abortion.[7] It is also interesting that Beethoven's mother had very, very good reasons to believe that her son, Ludwig, would be handicapped. Actually, in later years he developed deafness. However, this was not a handicap for him. There is also infanticide financed by drug companies. This is how this works. A drug company "needs" to test a new drug. It might be a drug for babies, or it might not be. Maybe they just want to determine its toxicity. Therefore, perhaps before the baby's birth or perhaps after or both, a physician drugs the baby. This baby, you must understand, doesn't exist. He is never actually legally born. He is physically born, of course, but he is supposed to be an abortion: He is supposed to be dead. His next stop is supposed to be the hospital dumpster or incinerator or garbage disposal. Instead, he is secreted off to a remote corner of the hospital. There, the experiments on him continue until the experiments kill him or until the experiments are completed. Then the baby is of no further use to anyone and becomes a burden. He is unwanted. He is therefore murdered. There is no death certificate, of course. That would be too confusing: There was no birth certificate. This, in a nutshell, is infanticide today in America. I could go on and on describing court cases and giving testimonials of handicapped people who are very glad to be alive, but space will not permit this. Let it suffice that I close by commenting that infanticide will continue to grow in America. It is unstoppable, that is unless **you** act. Please call American Life League now and ask how you can help. Their phone number is (703) 659-4171. Notes: 1. A figure accepted as approximately correct by both pro-life and pro- abortion if increased by 12.5% to account for illegal abortions. 2. From *Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 1992*, page 82, for 1989. 3. By personal calculation from statistics in Note 2 plus figure of 1,800,000 abortions per year. (See note 1.) 4. "Children from the Laboratory," J. Watson, "AMA Prism," Ch. 3, p.2, May, 1973. 5. *The Times*, January 22, 1973. 6. Margaret Sanger, *Woman and the New Race* (New York: Brentano's, 1920), p. 63. 7. Mrs. Rosalie Craig, Testimony before Ohio Legislature, 1971. Article 8 *What God Says about Abortion by Lynn K. Murphy * Even though the word doesn't appear in the Bible, God says a lot a about it. For instance, He shows that the preborn baby is a human being made by Him. One of the central issues in abortion is whether the preborn baby actually is a human being. If he isn't, then you aren't killing a person by having an abortion, and therefore abortion isn't supposed to be very bad. But God shows that he is a person: Your hands shaped me and made me. Will you now turn and destroy me? Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again? Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese, clothe me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life and showed me kindness, and in your providence watched over my spirit. Job 10:8-12 (NIV)* Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers? Job 31:15 (NIV) For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them. Psalm 139:13-16 (NKJV) Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations. Jeremiah 1:5 (NKJV) Also, when Mary was meeting John the Baptist's mother, Elisabeth, the Bible tells us: And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost. And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of the womb." Luke 1:39-42 (KJV) Besides that, do you know anyone born of a human who isn't human? Should a woman ever choose to have an abortion except perhaps for self- defense? You decide. Thou shalt not kill. Exodus 20:13 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. Mark 12:30,31 (KJV) And there is no neighbor closer to a woman than her preborn baby. Thus says the Lord: "For three transgressions of the people of Ammon, and for four, I will not turn away its punishment, Because they ripped open the women with child in Gilead. . . ." Amos 1:13 (NKJV) I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live . . . Deuteronomy 30:19 (KJV) Never despise one of these little ones; I tell you, they have their guardian angels in heaven, who look continually on the face of my heavenly Father. Matthew 18:10 (NEB) Still, you may wonder about babies conceived as a result of rape or incest. Read what God says about this: So the Lord said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the Lord?" Exodus 4:11 (NKJV) Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, "What are you making?" Does your word say, "He has no hands."? Woe to him who says to his father, "What have you begotten?" or to his mother, "What have you brought to birth?" This is what the Lord says--the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker: concerning things to come, do you question me about my children, or give me orders about the work of my hands? Isaiah 45:9-11 (NIV) And what does God say about abortionists, or even those of you who favor choice? It were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. Luke 17:2 (KJV) Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say Amen. Deuteronomy 27:25 (KJV) But your eyes and your heart are intent only upon your own dishonest gain, and on shedding innocent blood and on practicing oppression and extortion. Jeremiah 22:17 (NAS) Should you do anything to help stop the slaughter? Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. Proverbs 24:11 (NIV) And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worth of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. Luke 12:47-48 (KJV) Therefore, to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. James 4:17 (KJV) If you would like to help, call American Life League at (703) 659-4171. Since abortion was legalized in 1973, there have been 32,000,000 of God's children murdered in the United States. Will you let your neighbor murder hers? * Abbreviations: KJV King James Version NIV New International Version NKJV New King James Version NEB New English Bible NAS New American Standard Article 9 *The Killing Centers How They Don't Counsel Their Patients by Lynn K. Murphy * Pro-choice people call them health centers or women's clinics, but pro-life people call the abortion facilities what they really are: Killing Centers. In these Killing Centers, located across the nation, approximately 4,900[1] babies are killed every day of the year. Greatly contributing to this enormous death rate is the assembly-line processing taking place in many of these centers, processing that almost always excludes adequate counseling, or for that matter, any counseling. The mothers going to these facilities are poorly informed going in and poorly informed when their babies are killed. Later, more than half of them admit to having guilt about aborting and more than one fourth mostly regret the abortion.[2] The main difficulty with the counseling is that the mothers are poorly informed, or deliberately misinformed about the status of their preborn baby. Perhaps the primary reason for this is that the pro-abortion counselors don't actually know what the status really is. Their rhetoric to the general public always classifies the preborn as a blob, a mass of protoplasm, an obstruction to menstrual flow, an "it," or a problem, *never* as a human being. Yet pictures of aborted or miscarried preborn babies clearly show them to have human shapes as early as six weeks from fertilization. At that age you can even tell that they are not it's. Most abortions don't even take place until that age. Other pro-aborts do know what the baby is, and don't care. They equate legality with morality, reasoning that there is nothing immoral about killing a baby if there is nothing illegal about it. According to a survey done by David Reardon[3], information which many respondents believe would have been a crucial factor in their final decisions was denied to them. More than 90% of them stated that the biological nature of the fetus had not been discussed during their counseling sessions, and only 2% said that fetal development had been even moderately discussed. The pro- abortion response to this is that mothers coming in for counseling are already well informed, but 90% of the mothers surveyed claimed to have little or no prior knowledge of fetal development. Regarding being adequately informed about the abortion procedure, more than 80% of the mothers reported that little or no discussion of risks had taken place, and only 8% believed their counselors had adequately discussed the surgical risks of the procedure. Furthermore, 40% to 50% of the mothers surveyed were wavering in their choice and were actually hoping for another option when they first went to speak with the counselor. Since there are 1,800,000[1] abortions every year in the United States, therefore perhaps 900,000 lives could have been saved by proper counseling. Perhaps even more could have been. Surely even some of the mothers who had not been wavering would have seen the truth about what abortion does (it kills a baby) and therefore chosen not to kill. Here are some of the specific answers to specific questions in the above- mentioned survey: *When asked:* "Were you encouraged to have an abortion by [your] counselor?", 27% said, "Very much." "Would your choice have been different if any or all of the above had encouraged you differently?", 76% said, "Very much." "Above" here means counselor, parents, other family members, husband, boyfriend, social worker, doctor, or friends. "Did the clinic, doctor, or counselor help you to explore your decision?", 3% said, "Very much", and 84% said, "Not at all." "Do you feel their opinions were biased? If so, for or against abortion?", 79% said, "For." "Were you encouraged to ask questions?", 2% said, "Very much." "Were your questions thoroughly answered to your satisfaction?", only 4% said, "Very much." "Do you believe there was information you were not given or were misinformed about?", 73% said, "Very much." "Were risks and dangers discussed?", only 4% said, "Very much." Thus, it would seem that a more appropriate title for this article would be "The Killing Centers, How They Don't Counsel Their Victims." Surely the mothers as well as the babies are victims. The mothers themselves say so. However regarding the babies, one question not asked by the survey was whether the mothers were aware of the pain that the babies experience during the abortion. Scientific evidence[4] has proven that they experience excruciating pain. Although no anesthetics are ever given, the babies are usually killed by cutting or tearing off their arms and legs and crushing their skulls. In late-term abortions they are sometimes killed by chemically burning them to death inside and outside of their bodies. Wouldn't you like to help provide the mothers with better counseling? If you would, please call American Life League at (703) 659-4171. You could save lives, pain, and grief. Notes: 1. A figure accepted as approximately correct by both pro-life and pro- abortion if increased by 12.5% to account for illegal abortions. 2. "California Pro-Life News," September, 1990. 3. *Aborted Women, Silent No More*, David Reardon, pp. 16,17 & 333-336, copyright 1987. Quoted with permission from Good News Publishers/Crossways Books (Wheaton, IL) and Loyola University Press (Chicago, IL). 4. The movies "Silent Scream" and "Eclipse of Reason" by Bernard Nathanson, former abortionist. Article 10 *The Psychological and Physical Complications from Abortion* by Lynn K. Murphy Mothers suffer many psychological and physical complications from abortion. Although the general public is unaware that these complications occur, psychological damage to the mothers occurs in approximately 95% percent of the women who have abortions, and physical damage occurs in approximately 45%.[1] David Reardon, famed researcher, notes that there are over one hundred complications associated with abortion.[2] This does not include death of the baby: This is not a of abortion, it is a goal. *What the Experts Say about Damage*: Pro-abortion and pro-life people both say that abortion hurts women. Let's see first what the pro-abortion people say. Planned Parenthood, the world's and nation's largest provider of abortion, said in its Department of Education <3-Year Plan and Long Range Program Goals 1990 - 1993>: "A number of . . . studies and surveys (including the Reardon/WIC Study and the Grant Survey) have shown that the incidence of post-procedural trauma for abortion clients may be as high as 91 percent of all cases." A Planned Parenthood brochure entitled says, "An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it." This is what pro-life and other experts say: The , May, 1985, said that abortion is the sixth leading cause of maternal death in this country. A Wynn and Wynn Study shows that 3 - 5 percent of aborters are left sterile.[3] Women have a 58% greater risk of dying during a later pregnancy.[4] These are the effects on future babies, if any: premature births, complications during labor, more child abuse and neglect, and more handicapped babies.[5] From Dayton Women's Health Center, Iowa: "Mary was rushed to the hospital after her abortion due to profuse bleeding. The attending physicians discovered 'the entire front of her uterus was blown away.' After the surgeon removed the damaged uterus, they explored her abdominal cavity. Behind her liver they found the decapitated head of a 24 week old pre-born child."[6] *Psychological Damage*: The most serious psychological damages that occur can be lumped under the condition known as Post-Abortion Syndrome (PAS), which is a part of a larger class of disorders called Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The PAS victim, through the process of denial, blocks the natural grieving process of the death of her child and often denies her own responsibility in the abortion. The denial or suppression blocks the healing process and the possibility of forgiveness for herself and the others who have been involved in her decision and her abortion. The trauma often manifests itself as a breakdown of function in the psychological, physical, or spiritual areas.[7] Dr. Vincent Rue, a clinical psychologist, likened abortion victims to "walking time bombs" and said that little is heard of PAS problems because there is a massive denial among professionals. Following is a long, long list of the damages. Not every mother who aborts has damage, but many have more than one of these problems because of the abortion: child abuse, child neglect, suicidal behavior, anger/rage, feeling of being raped, worsening self-image, sexual coldness, fear of touching babies, nervous breakdown, promiscuity, constant thoughts about the child, loneliness, fear of making decisions, hallucinations related to the abortion, nightmares, increased drug and alcohol use, feelings of craziness, flashbacks, decreased ability to experience emotions, inability to communicate, feeling victimized, fear that others will learn of the abortion, guilt, anxiety, depression, grief, sadness, regret, loss, repeat abortions, unwillingness to continuing pursuing their life's goals, inability to sustain intimate relationships, hatred of people connected with abortions, and many, many more. * ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ³ ³ ³ ". . .More than a baby would die in that room. ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ Once I had a personality, a life, a soul. Now ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ I was a body with broken pieces." ³ ³ ³ ÀÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÙ * Regarding the suicidal behavior, Cincinnati Suiciders Anonymous reports that 1,800 of their 4,000 female members have had abortions.[8] Psychologist Anne Speckhard made a study (not necessarily in Cincinnati) that showed that 65% of her subjects reported thoughts of suicide, and 31% actually made suicide attempts.[9] American Rights Coalition reports that almost all of the above damages have been reported by over one-half of the women who have had abortions.[1] Can you bear to read the testimony of even one of them? This is the testimony of Teresa L. Fangman: When I was 16 I was shuffled through an assembly-line abortion. I was number 13 of 17 who went through the morning session at one abortion clinic. Physically, I had no problems with my abortion, but emotionally, I created a "living Hell" that continues on a daily basis. I'm not sure the tears will ever stop. I've been waiting almost 11 years now and they never cease. It's difficult to lay your head down at night knowing I "chose" to allow someone to invade my body and remove my child. If I had known then that it would be difficult to sleep at night and that every time I saw a child about the same age as the one I got rid of, my insides would flinch, or that I would feel I had to have another child to "justify" my actions as a teenager, I hope and pray I would have made another decision. I hope that by sharing what abortion did to me will save one woman from the low self-esteem and continual self-abuse that was a direct result of my abortion. *Physical Damage*: Physical damage to the mother is also very common. There are several reasons we don't hear much about this. First, most abortions are done in clinics whose records are insufficiently inspected. When a complication occurs, the clinics really have no incentive to turn themselves in. Second, deaths from abortion generally are not reported as deaths from abortion. Rather, the death might be from a "perforated (punctured) uterus" or "internal bleeding." Thus, abortion seems safe. Following is a long list of the physical damages that can occur as a result of abortions: death, infection, hemorrhage, cervical damage, damage and loss of other internal organs, perforation of the uterus, menstrual irregularity, headaches, dizziness, blood clots, AIDS from blood transfusions, AIDS from increased drug and needle use (see above list of psychological damages showing increased drug use), increased probability of future miscarriages, stillbirths, sterility, ectopic (tubal) pregnancies, menstrual disturbances, other bleeding, shock, coma, peritonitis, cold sweats, and much more. Dr. Joel Brind, Endocrinologist, said in a December 3, 1992 press release, "There is a clear relationship documented in medical journals showing that women aborting their first pregnancy are at a much higher risk of developing breast cancer than women who carry their pregnancy to term." Presumedly, it took some time to determine this: Women mostly abort early in life, and get breast cancer later. Brind cited four sources in the medical literature. As with the psychological damages, a woman may not have physical damage, or she may have more than one type of physical damage. She may also have both physical and psychological damage. Allow me to provide a good example of physical damage. My above testimonial was from an abortion victim. This one is from a former abortion-clinic owner. That is, she was an owner. Then she met Jesus Christ, and now she can admit the truth about what she had been doing[10]: The last 18 months I was involved in the abortion industry we maimed to the point of major surgery one woman out of every five hundred. Let me define maimed. Hysterectomy, colostomy because her uterus had tract repair because they had perforated her uterus and cut her children. We never took them to the closest hospital. We never called an ambulance. An ambulance is terrible advertisement in front of an abortion clinic. We started an IV so we'd have a vein if she would protect the clinic and the doctor. One that we knew couldn't afford any adverse advertising, so they wouldn't call the press, and wouldn't let their nurses. And then we knew the family would participate in the cover up, you see, the family finds out about call the press. And there's a built-in cover-up in the abortion industry. [On another case]: This young woman was a 21-year-old model, tall and willowy, I remember, and she danced in and said take care of my problem. We put her on the table to do a late, second trimester abortion. My job was to hold the baby in place while two of these doctors did the D and E. Dilation and Evacuation process. That's where you go inside the uterus with big forceps, crush the baby inside the uterus, pull it out in pieces, reconstruct it to be sure you have all the pieces, and the abortion is over. No live births this way. But it's necessary to push this baby down into those instruments. And that was my job. I had my hand on that woman's and I just pushed down and it stopped. The first time the doctor went in, he pulled out placenta and that's perfectly normal. And the second time he went in with those big forceps he perforated her uterus and he pulled her bowel out through her vagina. Now we've got some problems. This baby is still alive. The baby has not been touched. But the mother must be transported. She's got to be put in a hospital. We cannot take care of this problem. So we started an IV, put her in my car, took her about 25 miles across Dallas to a hospital that we'd never been to before, that we knew would protect us. The doctor called in six of his friends. Seven doctors operated on her. I awaited outside of course, imagining the attorneys coming out of the woodwork. And when the doctor came out he said "Carol we don't have a problem." I couldn't understand that. But he explained that all of his doctor friends had decided to write up the records as though it had been an abdominal pregnancy. Not an intra-uterine pregnancy. Now, of course the complication of colostomy would be justified by that because it would have happened anyway. But the reality again is that no doctor would have started that abortion had the baby not been perfectly inside that woman's uterus. And I had my hand on that uterus. I know a baby was inside that uterus. Then the doctor had an affair. A 47-Year-old doctor had an affair with this 21-year-old girl. So she wouldn't sue us. Lastly on complications, the mothers' future babies, if any, can also have problems, such as prematurity and low birth weight. Premature babies have a lower probability of survival than do full-term babies. *Conclusion*: Abortion isn't the clean, safe procedure that pro-choice makes it out to be. It is living Hell for the mothers, and of course, for the babies. And abortion is the leading cause of death in the United States, killing more people (babies) than the next twelve causes of death combined, including heart disease and cancer.[11] Think of all the mothers and babies who suffer! If you would like to help stop this, please call American Life League at (703) 659-4171. They will show you what you can do. If *you* don't help, who will? Notes: 1. American Rights Coalition Statement of Facts. 2. *Aborted Women: Silent No More*, David Reardon, p. 92., copyright 1987. Quoted with permission from Good News Publishers/Crossways Books (Wheaton, IL) and Loyola University Press (Chicago, IL). 3. , March 3, 1973, Wynn and Wynn, "Some Consequences of Induced Abortion to Children Born Subsequently. 4. *Aborted Women-Silent No More*, David Reardon, 1987. 5. , May-June 1983, vol. 15, no.3., "Impact of Vacuum Aspiration Abortion on Future Childbearing: A Review", Hogue, Cates and Tietze. 6. , a 1989 tract by Victims of Choice. 7. J. Denton Collins, M.A., M.F.C.C. MK19363. 8. Testimony of Cincinnati Suiciders Anonymous before Cincinnati, OH city council. 9. *Psycho-Social Stress Following Abortion*, Ann Speckhard (Kansas City, MO., Sheed & Ward, 1987, page 57). 10. Transcript of Carol N. Everett by *Women's Lobby* program on KFIA Radio sometime in January, 1990. 11. Non-abortion deaths from From *Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 1992*, page 82, for 1989. Abortion deaths are 1,800,000 per year, a figure accepted as approximately correct by both pro-life and pro-abortion if increased by 12.5% to account for illegal abortions. Article 11 *Abortion and the Law* by Lynn K. Murphy Do you know during what part of a pregnancy abortion is legal? Is it the first third, the first half? Can it be done for any reason, or only for rape, incest, and life of the mother? What does the law say about abortion, and how did the law turn out that way? These are the issues I shall explore in this article. I regret to inform you that abortion is legal at any time during the pregnancy right up to the second of birth, that it can be done for any reason whatsoever, and that this is true in all the states and territories of the United States. And *none* of this came about because of the approval of the voters. The legal status of abortion was determined for us by the United States "Supreme" Court, and they did their dirty deeds in 1973. In 1970, a certain woman named Norma McCorvey became pregnant. She lived in Texas, and in that state she attempted to find a way to kill her preborn baby and get away with it. She tried to do this through her state's legal system, and she failed. Therefore she appealed to the United States "Supreme" Court. As we all know, the legal system moves very slowly. It wasn't until three years later that her case was heard. Ms. McCorvey presumedly would have had her pregnancy last three years so that she could kill her daughter, but it didn't work that way. The baby was born and given up for adoption. It is ironic that even though this particular baby was given for adoption, the "Supreme" Court didn't mandate that "unwanted" children must be born and given for adoption, but only mandated that they could be killed. And it is interesting that Ms. McCorvey's daughter, who is now 22 years old or older, is staunchly pro-life![1] For the legal proceedings, Ms. McCorvey, presumedly for security, used a pseudonym, Roe, instead of her real name. Thus, the court case is known as <*Roe* v. Wade>. The decision, reached on January 22, 1973, denied the personhood of the preborn (which took away all his rights) and permitted abortion during any time of the pregnancy.[2] The mother could have the abortion provided that the physician recommended it. He could recommend it for any reason. Pregnancy was divided into three trimesters (thirds) and it was mandated that there could be no restrictions on abortion during the first trimester except that it had to be done by a licensed physician, and that abortions during the second and third trimesters had to be done by a licensed physician in a hospital. Later court decisions removed the hospital restriction. Supposedly, although Ms. McCorvey (Roe) had previously alleged that she had become pregnant because of rape, the "Supreme" Court didn't consider this. However, McCorvey later admitted she had lied.[3] The decision, unfortunately, wasn't the only mayhem levied against Americans by the "Supreme" Court on that scandalous day in 1973. On that same day, they made their equally infamous decision.[4] This decision decreed that abortion was now the mothers' decision, not the physicians'. In other words, it expanded the criteria of to include any reason the mother would care to give, instead of what the physician would care to give, regarding her health. A mother would only need to claim that to have the baby would be a difficulty. Thus her health would be affected; thus she could have an abortion. She could do this because of alleged problems with money, emotions, time, job, career, or readiness. In other words, she could now kill her baby for her own convenience. Furthermore, she could now kill him with a clear conscience: It was legal. This type of killing is called abortion on demand, and really means abortion on request. Prior to the "Supreme" Court decisions of January 22, four states had recently liberalized abortion laws. These were New York, Colorado, California, and Washington. Of these, it was only in Washington (state) that the laws were changed because of the vote of the people. In the other three, they were changed because of the legislatures. After the "Supreme" Court decisions, this didn't matter. The decisions negated all state laws that had in any way restricted abortion. As time passed, the killing rate increased markedly. In the first full year after abortion became legalized, 763,476[5] babies were legally murdered. In recent years it has been 1,800,000 per year.[6] Abortion is now commonplace, and it is widely accepted. A huge number people began to feel, without thinking for themselves, that the law defined the morality instead of the morality defining the law. Therefore, with the intense lobbying of pro- abortion organizations such as Planned Parenthood, National Organization for Women, and American Civil Liberties Union, our various state legislatures have passed laws in sympathy with the "Supreme" Court decisions. The purpose of this was to ensure that the killing will remain legal even if the "Supreme" Court reverses itself. To state this another way, if a given state could eliminate all their laws that prohibited abortion, if was reversed abortion would be still be legal in that state. Those who believe in "Thou shalt not kill" don't like this. Recently, this procedure has been reversed in a few states and Puerto Rico. Some restrictions on abortion have been passed in Utah and Pennsylvania, for example. If these restrictions would be unchallenged, they would *not* be allowable by or . What is going on here is that these state laws will be challenged by pro-aborts all the way to the "Supreme" Court. Then, we will see whether and can be overturned. The "Supreme" Court of today is different from the "Supreme" Court of 1973. Perhaps, with our considerable prayer, we can save the lives of countless, innocent human beings. Actually, in a case known as , the restrictions in Pennsylvania mentioned above were tested in the "Supreme" Court. The Court ruled that Pennsylvania and any state can make laws that require informing the mother of the risk of her abortion, of the facts on fetal development, of the alternatives to abortion, and of the medical benefits available if she gives birth. The states can also make laws specifying a compulsory