NRL News

Prestigious medical journal’s outrageous pro-abortion conclusions carefully debunked

by | May 17, 2022

By Dave Andrusko

Regular readers of NRL News Today won’t be surprised when I say that the Wall Street Journal has written some absolutely brilliant editorials. 

For example, debunking the assertion that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, other rights will be endangered.

Or the foolish claim that reversing Roe is “undemocratic.” As they wrote, 

The Supreme Court’s job is to say what the law is, not to be a body of philosopher kings to impose progressive outcomes. Overturning Roe won’t usurp democracy. It will put the abortion debate back where it belongs in a democracy—for voters to decide.

The latest is headlined “An Abortion Miss for Politicized Science: The Lancet, a medical journal, decides it has expertise in American law.”

The tone is set in the first paragraph by The Lancet in its exhortations last week. Given the list of horribles that will allegedly occur, you can easily understand why they title their editorial “Why Roe v. Wade must be defended.”  

The fact is that if the US Supreme Court confirms its draft decision, women will die. The Justices who vote to strike down Roe will not succeed in ending abortion, they will only succeed in ending safe abortion. Alito and his supporters will have women’s blood on their hands.

Whoa! You’d expect that from the outer fringes of the Abortion Industry but not from one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals.

The Journal patiently unspools the tangled mess of hyperbole and end-of-the-world rhetoric.

* “The Court’s draft decision doesn’t end abortion in America. It returns the question to the states, where the public and elected representatives would debate and vote.” Some states, like New York and New Jersey and California will be a race to the bottom to see which Democrat state can sink the lowest the fastest. Many other states will protect the unborn.

* The Journal writes, “The Lancet editors lament that Justice Alito’s leaked draft opinion is based on ‘an 18th century document’—you know, the U.S. Constitution—and ask what ‘kind of society has the USA become when a small group of Justices is allowed to harm women, their families, and their communities that they have been appointed to protect?’”

The Journal states the bottom line for justices who are not doctors and haven’t played one on television: “The Justices are beholden to the law and are no more qualified to settle the political consequences than, well, medical doctors are to wade into rights guaranteed by the Constitution.” 

* “These journals are supposed to be forums for debate and academic rigor,” the editorial writes. “And there is a debate worth having in the medical profession about abortion: Less than a quarter of American ob-gyns perform abortions, according to one survey. The top reason for declining? Personal objections to the practice.” 

The WSJ editorial concludes

* “The Lancet is trying to lend the imprimatur of science to an American legal and political debate. But the journal will damage the pro-abortion cause if the public starts to dismiss medical expertise as merely another vehicle for the progressive agenda.”

Categories: pro-abortion