Res Publica 2005

By Jill Stanek

Last week, California Democrat Congressman Henry Waxman issued a report claiming that most federally funded abstinence-only programs teach "false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health."

Generally speaking, if any of Waxman's charges are true, the misinformation should stop. There are more than enough factual reasons to avoid promiscuous sex without resorting to embellishment or distortion.

But Waxman's specific allegation that "abstinence-only curricula contain false and misleading information about the risks of abortion" stinks from a mile away.

First, Waxman corroborates this sweeping statement – in a widely publicized document – by footnoting only one page from one abstinence book four times – page 157 of "Me, My World, My Future."

Waxman then incredibly dismisses hundreds, if not thousands, of studies that link abortion to infertility, premature births, tubal and cervical pregnancies, anxiety, grief, regret, guilt, depression and suicide as false claims.

His sources?

* Three Waxman pro-abortion campaign contributors – the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America's research arm, the Alan Guttmacher Institute.

* "Williams Obstetrics, 21st Edition," an obstetrics textbook recommended by the pro-abortion American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

* Dr. Steven Gabbe, the former chairman of a medical school who required OB-GYN students to be trained in abortion.

Modus operandi

Waxman is a pro-abortion extremist who maintains a 100 percent approval rating from PPFA, America's largest abortion provider.

Waxman has received campaign money from PPFA, NARAL, and these pro-abortion medical associations that also financially benefit from abortion: the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers, among others.

But abortion providers and promoters can only make Waxman payoffs if our kids have promiscuous sex. If our kids don't have sex, their industries literally collapse.

Money the abortion industry makes off of abortion is only a portion of a portfolio that relies almost completely on illicit sexual activity to provide other "clinic services" such as contraceptive provision, pregnancy testing, and STD (sexually transmitted disease) testing and treatment.

PPFA reported an income of $766.6 million for fiscal year 2002-03. Of that, $288.2 million (37 percent) came from clinic income, $254.4 million (33 percent) came from government grants and contracts, and $228.1 million (30 percent) came from private contributions.

STOPP International estimated that only $91 million of PPFA's clinic income came from abortion (a reported 227,325 abortions multiplied by PPFA's stated average charge of $400 per). The rest came from promoting illicit sex and then preventing or repairing its consequences.

But the abstinence movement, and President Bush's support of it, has dealt a double blow to the abortion industry. Not only has some of its government funding been siphoned away, but premarital sexual activity is also being dissuaded.

The Guttmacher Institute stated that 83 percent of aborting mothers are unmarried and that only 25 percent of aborting mothers are over age 29.

Guttmacher also reported: "53 percent of women who have unintended pregnancies were using a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant, although usually not correctly every time."

How convenient it has been that up to now the very ones teaching our kids "responsible sex" have also been the ones selling them contraceptives and abortion, so they will continue performing "responsible sex" like rabbits, a fantastically hedonistic, money-making circle

.(some emphasis added)

I do admit that I am pro-life. But the reason I post this is because it is shows, if Ms. Stanek's allegations are true, a continuing willingness to mislead the public that the pro-abortion movement has had from the beginning (such as lying about how many women were dying from illegal abortions). I only make one statement, that cannot in reality be denied - that from the moment of conception, a person is a person. You may feel that until the person is able to breathe on his own, it's between the unborn and his mother. But I dicker with no other facts or figures to base my plea for the unborn on.

The other camp has a history of denying post -abortion depression, which leads many women into grief with no support.

There are some health issues with repeated abortion.

There is the reality of pain felt by unborn during later term abortions that has been swept under the rug because it would bother the mother to know.

Choosing what to do, what to believe and what action to take depends on true and accurate information.

Lieing about it, one way or the other, for political or economic gain is wrong and does no one, especially the mothers who are dealing with a crisis situation in their lives is wrong.

What does this have to do with the Waxman report? The answer deals with honest judgments about programs. If he is using biased data, how can we decide? Who benefits? Whether his conclusions were right or wrong, we have no way to judge, because he looked like he stacked the deck in his favor to prove a point.

And our young people will be impacted by this type of behavior. Their mental and physical well-being counts on good answers and correct data. Disinformation does no one good service here, and just hardens what ought to be a scientfic result into partisanship with perceived economic bias, and as a result, it is our children who bear the consequences.