The Numbers Game: Preborn Babies Are Losing

April 30, 2008 09:00 AM
A headline appeared this past weekend suggesting that both the abortion rate and the birth rate were dropping. The United States Centers for Disease Control have recently released the latest numbers, from 2004, and the media is echoing precisely what the federal government has reported.

So once again we have consistency between the evil empire of acquiescent government agencies and the evil twin of smile-and-nod mass media – now there's a twist for you.

But a careful examination of the actual data from the government reveals a few problems in the calculations, at least from the perspective of a pro-life leader. To find the error, you must first recognize every act of abortion as an act of murder, whether the act is a chemical abortion, medical abortion or surgical abortion.

The fact is that the report addresses only those abortions defined as "induced," referring only to the abortions that were caused intentionally by administration of a chemical abortion compound, such as RU-486, or a surgical act.

The report makes it clear that its abortion data is based on estimates, not hard numbers. The CDC collects data from "most" states, not all of them. The CDC subsequently adjusts its numbers to coincide with the Guttmacher Institute reports but does state that their numbers tend to be lower than those published by Guttmacher.  So which set of numbers is accurate? Probably neither.

Also, the CDC points out that its own numbers may differ from previous estimates. In other words, what we are getting from the CDC is a best guess based on data that could itself be questionable. Who knows? Such reports keep a lot of bureaucrats employed so who cares about attempting total accuracy and requiring total compliance from all 50 states?

When Dr. William O’Brien, a pro-life physician, read the recent news item in the Baltimore Sun he circulated the following e-mail:
 
In my opinion, the most dangerous myth is that the number of abortions is declining ... Three things need to be done about this. The first is to recognize that the declining numbers refer only to surgical abortions. The fact that the total number of abortions (surgical chemical) is rising can only be proven by adding the data about chemical abortions to the reported data about surgical abortions. So the second thing that needs to be done is to get reliable sales data from the pharmaceutical producers of all abortifacients (not just RU-486) and conduct research on the utilization of these products.  The third thing is to recover the advantage of the language. The abortion industry is promulgating the term "medical abortion" to refer to killing the unborn with chemicals. Of course, most of us tend to think of medicine as a good thing that cures illnesses. I suggest that all 'Pro-Lifers' try to promote the more descriptive and accurate term, "chemical abortion" by all pro-life organizations.

To the above, I would add the caveat that "medical" abortions are those that occur after implantation, at least according to the pro-aborts who also tell us that pregnancy does not begin until implantation. Therefore, following this "logic," any child who is chemically killed prior to that time is not even recognized as having existed. This is the way they lie their way out of admitting that the birth control  pill and the inter-uterine device actually cause abortions.

I do agree that we pro-lifers have to take back the language; we have to stop issuing press releases brimming with joy when false figures come out of government agencies and we have to literally demand that people think about the basic scientific fact that pregnancy begins when a human being begins: at the moment of conception or creation.

The numbers game being played by the media in concert with the government is simply a sham. But then again, when the government is marketing abortion and the media is endorsing abortion, what else should we expect?
Back to news