The pro-abortion machine has worked overtime producing lies about unborn babies and the laws designed to protect them. Last Wednesday, after a bipartisan majority in the U.S. Senate rejected the most sweeping abortion bill in the history of the legislature, abortion advocates on Capitol Hill and in the corporate media said the “Republicans” (effectively a bipartisan majority that included Democratic Senator Joe Manchin) had used the “filibuster” (rather than a simple 51-49 vote) to defeat the bill.
The lie started over 50 years ago with Norma McCorvey from 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision. McCorvey later admitted “she made up her story of being raped by three men and a woman in 1969 because she had hoped to circumvent a century-old Texas law that banned abortions except when the woman’s life was in danger,” as The New York Times reported.
Here are five of many deer lies to know, as well as ways to counter them.
1. Reverse deer will put women in prison for abortion
Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut claimed last Sunday that the leaked Supreme Court ruling means “women and doctors are going to be sent to jail immediately when this opinion becomes reality.”
But Murphy, a lawyer, did not explain that before deer, when abortion was illegal in almost all states, women were not arrested in prison for having abortions. Who would even push for such laws? Abortors could be sentenced to prison, as “legal” abortionist Kermit Gosnell did in Pennsylvania, but women were not prosecuted or sent to prison even for self-abortion.
As Joseph Dellapenna, a professor of law at Villanova University, noted, in the 19th and 20th centuries, “Courts rationalized their view of women as victims of abortion…by declaring that a woman ‘n’ was not deemed capable of consenting to an unlawful act against herself.’ This attitude was reinforced by the fact that in general no condemnation of the abortionist could be obtained without the testimony of the woman who underwent the abortion.
Dellapenna also pointed out that states like New York “have enacted immunity laws … to protect women from prosecution if they testify against their abortionists.”
2. Women will be prosecuted for self-abortion if deer Is reversed
Attorney Paul Linton has done extensive background work on the current practice of prosecuting abortionists in the United States. He couldn’t find even “a reported case of any State, before deerin which a woman was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced for causing her own abortion or for consenting to an abortion performed on her by a third party.
There were only two reported abortion cases, he found, “in which a woman was even accused of having an abortion.” In Pennsylvania, a woman took a drug to induce an abortion, but the trial judge refused to enter the jury’s guilty verdict because “the law was not supposed to apply to the woman”.
The order was upheld on appeal. A 1922 Texas case notes that a woman was charged, but there was no record that the woman was ever tried or found guilty and sentenced.
3. Women will be prosecuted for miscarriage
Abortion advocates also say women who miscarry could face criminal charges. Pregnancy loss before 20 weeks gestation can result from uncontrolled diabetes, infections, hormonal disorders, uterine or neck problems, or thyroid disease. These have nothing to do with intentional and induced abortion. Miscarriage occurs in 26% of all pregnancies “and up to 10% of clinically recognized pregnancies”.
Paul Wohlers noted in The Washington Post in 1981 that the term “miscarriage” in some older state laws referred to induced abortion. But after extensive research into state abortion prosecutions since the mid-1800s, he concluded that “in no case has a spontaneous miscarriage been investigated or criminally prosecuted.”
Moreover, a prosecutor would have a very hard time convincing a judge or jury that a particular early miscarriage (before 20 weeks) resulted from an intentional action by the woman. It would be almost impossible for a prosecutor to obtain the body (corpus delicti) of an aborted child to bring a criminal trial, to prove that a defendant intentionally caused a miscarriage.
A pro-abortion group has claimed that “there is no medical way to tell the difference between a miscarriage and a medical abortion”, in an attempt to argue that miscarriage victims could be prosecuted. But this very fact means that no prosecutor could thus prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the death of the child was due to an abortion.
4. Reverse deer Criminalize the use of the pill and the IUD
Forbes Magazine last week suggested that the reversal deer would lead to the banning of birth control pills because “defining the life of an ‘unborn child’ as beginning at fertilization or conception…would affect current methods of birth control”. But users of IUDs or pills have never been prosecuted under the criminal abortion laws that were in place before. deerso why would they be prosecuted if deer is reversed? Most abortion laws before deer define the life of the unborn child as beginning at fertilization or conception.
Harriet Pilpel, the lawyer for Planned Parenthood, filed an amicus brief in 1971, noting that the state’s criminal abortion laws had “made no effort to prohibit the use of the intrauterine device which may actually work to prevent implantation after fertilization”.
Pilpel’s testimony before Congress in 1976 explained a practical reason why women had not been prosecuted for using drugs or devices that prevented pregnancy after fertilization: early pregnancies to know when and if it was raped.
Moreover, as Charles Rice, a prominent pro-life advocate and late Notre Dame law professor, wrote, “Early abortions are beyond the effective reach of the law. It will usually be impossible to prove that life ended in an early abortion; prosecution for abortion would therefore be virtually impossible.
“Since ‘contraceptive’ drugs are licensed for legitimate uses, it is virtually impossible to prevent their use for abortion,” he continued. “The legal erasure of the distinction between contraception and abortion has placed chemical abortion beyond the practical reach of the law.”
5. “Unborn children were never recognized by law as persons”
This lie comes from Judge Henry Blackmun in the deer decision itself. But in footnote 34 of deer, Judge Harry Blackmun cited Eugene Quay’s article, “Justifiable Abortion – Medical and Legal Foundations”, which extracts laws from 19 states and Washington, D.C., all of which classify abortion as manslaughter or second degree murder, or provide for similar penalties. Quay also included excerpts from 24 state laws prohibiting abortion, all of which used the words “child” or “children,” which can only refer to a living human being, a person.
Justice Alito cited the same article by Eugene Quay on page 23 of his working brief.
Back then deer was decided in 1973, all states had restricted or banned abortion. Forty-three states and the District of Columbia banned abortion because the child was fully human. Even radically pro-abortion President Joe Biden couldn’t help but admit that the subject of an abortion is indeed a “child.”
More than 63 million children have had their lives legally taken away by abortion since 1973 under deer. Isn’t it high time the Supreme Court, which has reversed itself at least 232 times since 1808, according to the Library of Congress, at least let citizens have a say in whether this appalling practice deserves to be addressed? be maintained?
Robert Marshall was a member of the Virginia General Assembly from 1992 to 2018 and is the author of “Reclaiming the Republic: How Christians and other Conservatives Can Win Back America.” Email him at firstname.lastname@example.org.