NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

Pro-abortionists say the darndest things and the media gives them a pass

by | Jan 27, 2021

By Dave Andrusko

Elsewhere today we reposted a fine story by Cassy Fiano-Chesser which, point by point, debunked an alleged debunking of the science behind abortion pill reversal. As you will recall, chemical abortions (“medication abortions”) involve two steps and two drugs. If a woman changes her mind before taking the second drug, there is a good chance the abortion can be reversed and she can save her baby. Over 2,000 babies already have been saved!

Let me just briefly highlight three of the many excellent points Fiano-Chesser makes to puncture  a silly one-sided, blatantly partisan study the findings which were published in The Daily Californian, UC Berkeley’s student-run newspaper.

#1. Every individual who took part in the study which “examined the five most presented websites on Google for searches on the abortion pill”  supports abortion! This is not uncommon but the reader needs to know that these kinds of “studies” have a goal in mind and fit the “evidence” to buttress the predetermined goal.

#2. Planned Parenthood is, we’re told by Betsy Pleasants, the lead researcher and a first-year doctoral student, was far and away the best. Fiano-Chesser writes, 

According to Pleasants, Planned Parenthood’s abortion pill information was over 80% accurate, with “factual information related to medication abortion side effects, how one can access these medications and presented that information and more, in a ‘usable format.’” Pro-life sites, however, were accused of spreading misinformation.

In fact, what Planned Parenthood offers is vague, lacks sources for its conclusions, and treats the unborn child as little more than a “dot.”

#3. The agenda is transparently political. Pleasants whines about pro-life successes—“We have seen an onslaught of abortion restrictions in this country in the last decade, and the anti-choice movement is gaining momentum”— and complains “Organizations like Planned Parenthood … have been so discredited that it’s about time to bring back credibility and trust.” 

This is the cart leading the horse. Pro-lifers are succeeding, Planned Parenthood isn’t, ergo PPFA must be superior in “explaining” how chemical abortions work than pro-life sites, including Live Action’s Abortion Procedures website. 

You might expect a college newspaper to uncritically regurgitate the “findings” of “experts” ensconced in leading pro-abortion organizations. Alas, however, The Daily Californian is no different than the New York Times.

What pro-abortionists say, by definition, must be accepted as gospel. What pro-lifers say (no matter how well researched) must be “junk science.”

Categories: pro-abortion
Tags: