• Home
  • Health Care and Health Freedom

7 Reasons It Is Deeply Misleading To Claim Americans Support Roe v. Wade


 
Can answers to a poll question like ‘Do you support Roe v. Wade?’ demonstrate that the public supports the abortion policy Roe requires? Not at all.
 
By Charles C. Camosy

We’ve heard it a million times since Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement. We’ll hear it a hundred million more between now and the end of confirmation hearings for whomever is designated to fill the vacant spot on the Supreme Court: “Americans support Roe v. Wade.”

The poll numbers seem to bear this out, at least if one refuses to do any critical analysis of what the poll question and its answer actually reveals. The reason such a poll question is being cited, of course, is to put the new SCOTUS nominee—someone many believe may put Roe in serious danger of being overturned—in the context of a hostile public who wouldn’t approve of such a development.

But can answers to a poll question like “Do you support Roe v. Wade?” demonstrate that the public supports the abortion policy Roe requires? Not at all. Here are seven reasons it is deeply misleading to claim Americans support Roe v. Wade.

1. Many Americans Know Little About Roe

A high percentage of Americans don’t know much about what Roe says or does. In a Pew Forum study done on the fortieth anniversary of Roe, we learned that 38 percent of Americans think Roe is a decision about something other than abortion. For those younger than 30 years old, this number rises to a shocking 56 percent.

Furthermore, of those who know that Roe was about abortion, many don’t know even the most basic details of the case. Many wrongly believe, for instance, that overturning Roe would make abortion flatly illegal instead of merely returning the issue to a legislative process for states to decide.

2. Many Abortion Activists Don’t Like Roe

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, speaking at the University of Chicago, said Roe was a disappointment because it focused on privacy rather than on advancing women’s rights. Linda Greenhouse, an abortion-rights activist journalist who covered the Supreme Court for The New York Times, claims of Roe that “the seven middle-aged to elderly men in the majority certainly didn’t think they were making a statement about women’s rights.” Rather, she said, authentically female concerns were “nearly absent from the opinion.”

Justice Harry Blackmun, writing for the majority in the Roe decision, was a former lawyer for the Mayo Clinic. Greenhouse says he wrote his decision with a focus on the concerns of male physicians.

Peter Singer, perhaps the world’s most influential living philosopher, is well-known for being a pro-choice activist—not only for abortion, but also infanticide. But Singer has argued that abortion advancement would be better served in the United States if Roe were overturned and a legislative process unfolded along the lines of what has happened in most other developed countries.

3. Roe Is No Longer Roe. It Is Planned Parenthood v. Casey

From a certain point of view, Roe has already been overturned. Even pro-choice legal scholars find it difficult to defend Roe as legal reasoning. Led by Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor (both Republican appointees), a pro-choice SCOTUS majority tried to save itself from Roe in 1992 by offering a substantially different defense of abortion rights.

Caitlin W. Bormann argued in the William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law that Casey “established a new, less protective, constitutional standard for abortion restrictions.” It focused, not on defending privacy as Roe did, but on insisting abortion restrictions didn’t impose an “undue burden” on women.

This standard, Bormann says, “immediately enabled states to invade women’s privacy in new ways.” So a poll asking about Roe is actually asking the wrong question. A new SCOTUS justice might overturn the Kennedy-O’Connor compromise in Casey, but he or she wouldn’t be overturning Roe.

4. Americans Support Abortion Restrictions Roe Banned

Most Americans support gestational abortion restrictions that Roe and Casey have made unconstitutional. In striking down an Indiana abortion law, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals articulated the legal standard after Roe/Casey. Indiana’s law, they said, violated “well-established Supreme Court precedent holding that a woman may terminate her pregnancy prior to viability [24 weeks], and that the State may not prohibit a woman from exercising that right for any reason.”

But most Americans want abortion restricted well before viability. More than six in ten Americans, for instance, want abortion banned after 20 weeks. Last month Gallup asked Americans about their abortion views based on trimester, and found that only 28 percent wanted abortion to be legal during the second three months of pregnancy. Interestingly, this mirrors the policies of most European countries, which ban abortion after the early part of the second trimester.

The views of the American people on when in pregnancy abortion should be illegal are dramatically out of step with what Roe and Casey require.

5. Coat-Hanger Abortion Stories Are Mostly Fables

Horrific stories about blood in the streets from coat-hanger abortions are not borne out by the evidence. Sure as death and taxes, as soon as public discussion moves toward overturning Roe, a story about women dying from illegal abortions is not far behind. Many who claim to support Roe have this as a central and genuine concern, but, happily, the actual facts should make them feel more comfortable.

By the late 1950s, social scientists and public health officials had determined that illegal abortions in the United States were not more dangerous than legal abortions. Improvements in medical technology, plus the fact that most illegal abortions were done by licensed physicians in a clinic (not in a back alley), were found to be the main reasons.

Comparisons of a possible post-Roe/Casey United States to the results of banning abortion in a developing country with poor medical technology are either ignorant or disingenuous. Indeed, developed countries like Ireland and Chile, which have banned almost all abortions, have better health outcomes for women than do similar but abortion-permissive countries. Chile actually saw health outcomes for women improve when they dramatically restricted abortion.

When women in the United States are denied abortions because of gestational age limits, the overwhelming majority don’t get illegal abortions or go elsewhere for abortions. Indeed, a recent study found that about 80 percent of them bring their pregnancies to term and only 5 percent end up regretting not having the abortion.

In his book “Aborting America,” former NARAL founder Bernard Nathanson admitted that the early abortion rights movement simply fabricated the numbers of women dying from illegal abortion to further their political goals. Little has changed with the contemporary abortion rights movement.

6. Many Pro-Lifers Support Exceptions for Hard Cases

Pro-lifers want abortion to be legal to save the mother’s life and in cases when the pregnancy is the result of sexual violence. We often hear of women being left to die from problematic pregnancies and victims of sexual violence being forced to carry their rapist’s child. Would this be the result of abortion policy going back to the states? It’s highly unlikely.

Even if pro-lifers would be crafting public policy all by themselves (also highly unlikely), Gallup found than seven in ten want abortion legal to save the mother’s life and six in ten want abortion to be legal when the pregnancy is a result of rape. Even in states where abortion is likely to be “illegal” after an overturn of Roe/Casey, they will almost certainly have these important exceptions.

People who know these exceptions are likely to be in place are far more likely to be more comfortable with much higher abortion restrictions. Interestingly, the same Gallup poll found that 52 percent of people who identify as pro-abortion want abortion to be illegal by the second trimester.

7. Americans Don’t Like Abortion of Disabled Children

Americans are deeply uncomfortable with the kinds of abortions, currently protected by Roe and Casey, that target the disabled. About seven in ten prenatal children thought to have Down syndrome are killed via abortion, even though people with Down’s are happier than folks without it.

Given these facts, it is no surprise that Americans hate abortion that targets people with Down syndrome. Indeed, while 84 percent of pro-lifers think aborting a child with Down’s is morally wrong, nearly half of people who identity as pro-choice feel the same way. Why wouldn’t they? In any other context, violently singling out disabled people would be a federal hate crime.

Yet an Indiana law specifically designed to protect this vulnerable population from discrimination was struck down, as we saw above, precisely because Roe/Casey requires abortion to be unrestricted before viability. Once again, this puts Roe/Casey far afield from the views of the American people.

If we want an honest accounting of what the American people think about U.S. abortion policy in the debate over the new SCOTUS nominee, the coming weeks and months should see media and others in public discourse doing much better than lazily citing a poll showing support for Roe v. Wade. They must instead dive into the facts about what Americans believe about abortion, and how they compare with what Roe/Casey has done to U.S. abortion policy.

An honest accounting will find that the Supreme Court has given the United states one of the most extreme abortion policies in the world, and that the American people are ready to have policies that actually reflect what they believe about abortion.

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Mind Control and the “Flu Virus”


By Jon Rappoport

Yesterday, I exposed the fact that most “flu” is not the flu.

For example, here is a quite suggestive quote from Peter Doshi’s report, “Are US flu death figures more PR than science?” (BMJ 2005; 331:1412):

“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.”

OOPS.

Today, I want to look at the mind control aspect of this insanity.

If someone says, “You have the flu,” he means you have one thing and other people who have the flu have the same thing.

It is caused by a virus, and everyone who has the flu has that virus.

If you say, “No, the so-called flu could be caused by many different things,” people might appear to agree with you, but they’re still thinking, “The flu is one thing.”

They won’t let go. That’s called mind control.

Person A has a cough, fatigue, headache, and fever. Why? A combination of stress, exposure to cold weather, and contaminated indoor air.

Person B also has cough, fatigue, headache and fever. Why? A combination of junk food, nutritional deficits, and a toxic pain reliever.

Do persons A and B have the same thing?

No, they don’t. If they did, the causes would be the same. And they aren’t.

Now take 10,000 people who have the above list of symptoms. But none of them has the flu virus. Do any of them have the flu? No. Do they all have the same thing? No, because the combination of causes and the precise nature of each cause are not the same from person to person.

If 10,000 people have the flu virus, do they all have the flu? No. People with strong immune systems don’t get sick. People with weak immune systems do get sick. The determining factor is the condition of the immune system, not the presence of the virus. Therefore, the tight equation, “flu virus equals flu,” is false.

Understanding all these factors rearranges the thought process vis-à-vis “the flu.”

“Flu outbreak across America” is a generality. It doesn’t hold together. Once you take it apart, you see something different.

You’re no longer in a state of hypnosis about “the virus.”

“Yes, but all these people getting sick…showing up at hospitals…they must all have the same thing…”

No. They might have similar symptoms, but that doesn’t mean “they have the same thing.”

If you want one factor, which combined with other immune-suppressing factors, might be at work, why not start with the freezing weather across America? That could be a clue. But it’s far from the whole story.

Person C has cough, fatigue, headache, and fever. In his case, it’s caused by a combination of freezing weather, five toxic medicines on his night table at the nursing home, and a forced change of diet that increases the load of empty calories.

Person D has cough, fatigue, headache, and fever. In her case, it’s caused by grief over the loss of a loved one, a bad reaction to the flu vaccine, and a power outage that cut off heat in her home for two days.

And so forth, on and on.

Casually blaming “the virus” is a response dictated by the stimulus of news and government propaganda about “the flu.”

And the propaganda ignores the most important factor: the condition of a person’s own immune system. THAT is a non-medical situation; and increasing the power of one’s own immune response requires something the medical system refuses to recognize—all the actions a person could take under the general banner of “natural health.”

From which the medical system makes zero money.

This is called a clue.

“Let’s see. We can tell people that when they get sick with ‘flu symptoms,’ they have the flu, and it’s all about the virus. Then we can sell flu vaccines and drugs like crazy. OR we can tell them these so-called flu symptoms come from different combinations of causes, which in many cases are environmental and should be identified—and most importantly, we can tell them they need to strengthen their immune systems through ‘natural’ methods—and then we make no money and go out of business and end up pumping gas in Death Valley. Hmm. Which choice do we make? Let’s take a vote…”

 

Related Story:

Massive flu outbreak? Here’s the real story the media won’t touch. The lies, the hoax, the scandal.

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Flu Outbreak Across America—Really?

Flu Vaccine Scam


By Jon Rappoport

The press is playing up two angles this winter: the seasonal flu vaccine may only be 10% effective; and there is an outbreak of flu across 37 states, at last count.

Underneath these claims, something far different is going on.

Dr. Peter Doshi, writing in the online BMJ (British Medical Journal), revealed the monstrosity.

As Doshi states, every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory samples are taken from flu patients in the US and tested in labs. Here is the kicker: only a small percentage of these samples show the presence of a flu virus.

This means: most of the people in America who are diagnosed by doctors with the flu have no flu virus in their bodies.

So they don’t have the flu.

Therefore, even if you assume the flu vaccine is useful and safe, it couldn’t possibly prevent all those “flu cases” that aren’t flu cases.

The vaccine couldn’t possibly work.

The vaccine isn’t designed to prevent fake flu, unless pigs can fly.

Here’s the exact quote from Peter Doshi’s BMJ review, “Influenza: marketing vaccines by marketing disease” (BMJ 2013; 346:f3037):

“…even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the ‘flu’ problem because most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive.

“…It’s no wonder so many people feel that ‘flu shots’ don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.”

Because most diagnosed cases of the flu aren’t the flu.

So even if you’re a true believer in mainstream vaccine theory, you’re on the short end of the stick here. They’re conning your socks off.

What are typical flu symptoms? Fever, chills, cough, sore throat, muscle aches, headache, fatigue. Well, these symptoms can be caused by a variety of circumstances.

Immediately calling them flu is an unwarranted assumption. And as it turns out, respiratory samples from patients, sent to labs, are going to come back with no sign of the flu, in the overwhelming percentage of cases.

But the mainstream press can’t report any of this.

It would topple the flu-treatment money machine.

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Cadillac Tax: Like Your Health Insurance? Then 40% Tax


“Affordable” Care Act? The cost of health insurance is going up faster than a cryptocurrency and a new 40% tax is about to be levied on “Cadillac Policies” — i.e. the health insurance you like and want to keep. Stacy Washington joins David Knight to break it down.

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Cancer Breakthrough: Potential Cure Could Be Ready As Early As Next Year


By Mark Reynolds
Express.co.uk

British scientists are developing an immune therapy based on blood cells from patients who have made “miracle” recoveries from the disease.

They believe they have found a way to extract the cancer-killing immune cells from donor blood and then multiply them by the million.

The team at King’s College London say they are excited by early results of lab tests.

It could signal not only better treatment for cancer but also one day a possible cure.

Cancer research bodies in the UK described the breakthrough last night as “very promising”.

The therapy involves neutrophil cells, which form part of the body’s first line of defence against foreign invaders.

Such cells are believed to be a key reason why some lucky individuals spontaneously and inexplicably shrug off lethal cancers, giving rise to “miracle recovery” headlines.

The researchers, along with a leading biotech company, are now preparing for early trials on patients.

Alex Blyth, chief executive of LIfT Biosciences, said: “We’re not talking about simply managing cancer. We’re looking at a curative therapy that you would receive once a week over the course of five to six weeks.

“Based on our laboratory and mouse model experiments we would hope to see patients experiencing complete remission. Our ultimate aim is to create the world’s first cell bank of immensely powerful cancerkilling neutrophils.”

GETTY - STOCK

The team is focusing first on pancreatic cancer

The team is focusing first on pancreatic cancer, which killed Mr Blyth’s mother Margaret in 2014.

Each year about 9,600 people in the UK are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and 8,800 die from the disease.

A key advantage of neutrophil treatment is that a donor’s cells can be given to anyone without fear of serious rejection, Mr Blyth explained.

They live in the body for only five days and disappear before the recipient’s immune system has got into gear.

The problem with neutrophils is that too often they become “blind” to cancer.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

The Great Flu Vaccine Hoax: New Evidence



 

by Jon Rappoport

Apparently, the powers-that-be want everyone to take the seasonal flu vaccine out of loyalty and blind faith. Because actual science reveals the hoax.

A new study, published in the PLOS Journal on 10/23, by contributing authors from the Scripps Institute and the University of Pennsylvania, is titled: “A structural explanation for the low effectiveness of the seasonal influenza H3N2 vaccine.”

Oops. Low effectiveness? The public has been taught to believe the vaccine is quite effective.

Here is a key quote from the study: “It is common to use chicken eggs for culturing clinical isolates and for large-scale production of vaccines. However, influenza virus often mutates to adapt to being grown in chicken eggs, which can influence antigenicity and hence vaccine effectiveness.”

Translation: The virus in the vaccine mutates, in the chicken eggs, and therefore the patient’s immune system responds to the wrong version of the flu virus.

Here is another quote: “Our study describes a mechanism [that explains]…the low influenza vaccine effectiveness and reaffirms the urgency for replacing the egg-based production of influenza vaccines.”

It gets worse, far worse.

Here is evidence I have cited for several years now. It comes from a 2013 review:

Dr. Peter Doshi, writing in the online BMJ (British Medical Journal), reveals a monstrosity.

As Doshi states, every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory samples are taken from flu patients in the US and tested in labs. Here is the kicker: only a small percentage of these samples show the presence of a flu virus.

This means: most of the people in America who are diagnosed by doctors with the flu have no flu virus in their bodies.

So they don’t have the flu.

Therefore, even if you assume the flu vaccine is useful and safe, it couldn’t possibly prevent all those “flu cases” that aren’t flu cases.

The vaccine couldn’t possibly work.

The vaccine isn’t designed to prevent fake flu, unless pigs can fly.

Here’s the exact quote from Peter Doshi’s BMJ review, “Influenza: marketing vaccines by marketing disease” (BMJ 2013; 346:f3037):

“…even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the ‘flu’ problem because most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive.

“…It’s no wonder so many people feel that ‘flu shots’ don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.”

Because most diagnosed cases of the flu aren’t the flu.

So even if you’re a true believer in mainstream vaccine theory, you’re on the short end of the stick here. They’re conning your socks off.

There is much more to say about the ineffectiveness and danger of the flu vaccine, but I’ll leave it here for now.

The “experts” and their loyal parishioners, who are worshiping at the altar of the medical cartel, need to pick up their brains, which they checked at the door, and engage in a process called THINKING. I know it’s painful, but it’s very useful.

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Former Merck Rep Says Mandatory Vaccination Is For Profit and Not Public Health


Brandy Vaughan is a former sales rep for Merck & Co. - a vaccine maker - and she details how vaccine companies are using vaccines as a vehicle for massive profit and not public health. Brandy researched the safety of vaccines and found that not only do vaccines contain known toxins that can cause neurological damage, but that vaccine makers do not create the same safety studies for vaccines as they do for other drugs. This lack of true safety research of vaccines combined with the known adverse reactions to vaccination has helped Brandy to decide to never vaccinate her own child. Brandy says giving children a vaccine is like playing Russian roulette with our children and that mandatory vaccination is simply a way for vaccine makers to profit off of our children. Don’t be fooled: we do not need mandatory vaccination.

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)