NRL News

Pro-abortionists and their “myths”: an exercise in futility

by | Feb 9, 2015

By Dave Andrusko

momsonogramThis past weekend a friend forwarded me a post that appeared on the pro-abortion Huffington Post. “10 Abortion Myths That Need To Be Busted” was the headline and Amanda Scherker was the author.

While we don’t have time to go through all ten, what’s interesting is that the “myths” are either, in fact, true statements that pro-abortionists pretend are otherwise, or statements pro-lifers have not disagreed with for years, or are blunt statements that require more than a sound bite to understand.

To take the middle characterization first, nobody who follows the issue thinks “Medical abortions — those performed using pills — are still fringe.” (By “medical abortions” they mean chemical abortions—RU486.)

Their numbers are growing, as NRLC’s Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon has written about repeatedly. Guttmacher reported (for 2011) that chemical abortions accounted for between a fifth and a quarter of all abortions–23%, which Dr. O’Bannon has noted often.

How could it be otherwise? The abortion industry has invested an enormous amount of time and energy and political muscle into legalizing and popularizing and encouraging the use of chemical abortions. That they are dangerous and often agonizingly painful to women is just sloughed off, just as the unborn baby’s body is sloughed off.

The ‘myths” that are in fact true statements are the usual tiresome assertions—that “Women who get abortions will regret it, and are more likely to suffer mental health issues”; “Fetuses experience pain during abortions”; and “The majority of Americans don’t think abortion should be legal.”

The truth is, as we have documented countless times, that a significant percentage of women suffer from any of a number of after-shocks (psychological and physical) from their abortions; that there is an abundance of evidence that by 20 weeks the unborn child would experience excruciating pain during the abortion; and that a majority of the public disagrees with the reasons almost all abortions are performed—and find them morally objectionable.

Are there common denominators? Put another way, why does Scherker cite these particular bogus “myths”?

Clearly because they chip away at the foundational myths of the pro-abortion movement. Those are (1) that the impact of abortions is, at worse, neutral, and, in most cases, beneficial to women; (2) that the victim is painlessly disposed of “much like a miscarriage,” to borrow a pro-abortion talking point; and (3) that the American public is with them.

They must continue to peddle the line that opposition to abortion is much ado about nothing.

In fact, to oppose abortion is to engage in a civic debate over the most fundamental of all question: who deserves the protection of the law and why?

Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, either go directly to and/or follow me on Twitter at

Categories: pro-abortion