What Percentage of PP's Business Really Is Abortions?

| 20 Comments

(ARTICLE UPDATED SEPT. 16, 2007)

It depends on what percentage of what financial categories you're using to answer the question.

Also would someone please pass this info on to the good folks fighting this PP clinic in Aurora for me? Thanks.

Since some Planned Parenthood supporters brought this up in their testimony before Aurora's city aldermen council (as seen in JT Eschbach's great videos), I figured I'd jump back in with the analyses we and others did of Planned Parenthood's own Annual Report.

Mind you, I haven't picked apart one of their AR's since the 2004 one, but STOPP does so regularly, and it doesn't change all that much year to year, except to say that most services allowing the ultimate in unfettered personal sexual freedoms keep rising, some astronomically.

Abortions represented between 63.3% and 71% of Planned Parenthood Federation of America's total clinic revenue in 2003-04. And that's a fact straight from their own Annual Report.

Abortions were the end result in 93% of all pregnancies seen by Planned Parenthood.

The number of Morning After Pill Kits sold by PPFA went UP 22.2%, Reversible Contraception for women (birth control, shots, patch, ring, implants, IUD, etc.) went UP 2.2%, and condom use for men went UP 9.1% (reversible contraception, etc.). All these "good health services", according to pro-choice folks, are supposed to reduce the number of and need for abortions. Yet in that same year, at PP, abortions that PP did went UP 6.1%.

AUTHOR's EDIT: I have corrected this post to reflect that I was in fact referring to PP's share of abortions continuing to rise.

The estimates of the number of abortions since 2000 show them remaining extremely level overall in this country. This latest officially-available CDC Abortion Surveillance report was done in 2003. Figure 1 in this document shows that the number of abortions has remained extremely level from the start of 2000 through 2003. Not even estimates exist past 2003.

This PDF file shows figures from both Planned Parenthood's Allan Guttmacher Institute and from the CDC. KEEP IN MIND: all figures from 2001 forward are merely estimates, and note the considerable differences between what the CDC reports and AGI reports.


We reprinted the chart showing how many of each one of PPFA's services were sold/dispensed between 2003 and 2004 here.

This article kicked it all off for us, and I'll excerpt it and others below.

When one asks the question, "How much of PP's business is performing abortions?" one must consider numbers of products/services and dollars and also that they receive boatloads of taxpayer dollars ($3.5 Billion in the two decades since 1987), as well as beaucoup private donations.

For example, in 2003 according to their annual report, PP's total "clinic revenue" was $306.2 Million. "Total revenue" was $810 Million. Profits were $35.2 Million. They got more money ($456.2 Million) from taxpayer dollars ($265.2 Million) and private charitable contributions ($191 Million) than they earned in clinic revenue.

So when they say that abortions are only a small percent of their revenue, technically they may be right. However, clinic revenue is the only gauge for what services they provide. Remind them of that.

Keep in mind that when I refer to Planned Parenthood, the following facts represent all of Planned Parenthood Federation of America and are only 2003-2004 single-year numbers and single-year-over-year percentage changes. However, it is not a stretch by any means to say that a single facility such as Aurora's would mirror the overall totals described here.

Any prochoice folks out there are welcome to do their own homework on this. I don't make this stuff up. In fact, I invite you to do so. (Ahem, do your own homework, that is, not make your stuff up.)

I also calculated the following information based on PP's annual report and statistics from the CDC itself about how many abortions are done by 8 weeks vs. after 8 weeks, to use this to estimate the actual revenue from abortions at PP.

"Planned Parenthood probably brought in AT LEAST between $193,744,400.00 and $217,229,560.00 just from abortions alone, out of $306.2 Million in clinic revenue. Abortions represented between 63.3% and 71% of their clinic revenue in 2003-04, and probably much, much more.

Why much, much more? Two reasons:
1) Who knows if they charge more in higher-cost-of-living areas like the Northeast or California?

2) Those CDC numbers [on which this is based] did not include the States of New York, California or Massachusetts, three of the largest "consumers" of abortion, nor 6 other states."


CONTRACEPTION DOESN'T DECREASE ABORTIONS: THE PROOFS

Often, claims are made and even studies done by abortion-friendly groups that purport that "Increasing Contraception Reduces Abortion".

Some PP-specific numbers were presented in this original article. Further evidence has since been added that disproves this claim.

First: PP delivered 3,097,597 ways of preventing pregnancies in 2003 (birth control, EC, reversibles for men and women), yet also delivered 6.1% MORE abortions and did 9.6% FEWER adoption referrals than the year before.

Reversible Contraception for women (birth control, shots, patch, ring, implants, IUD, etc.) went UP 2.2% and condom use for men went UP 9.1% (reversible contraception, etc.).

"Plan B" usage from Planned Parenthood soared 22.2 % from 2002 to 2003 (from 633,756 packs to 774,482), assuming each new user only used it once that year. After all, not even those who support Plan B recommend making it your oft-used birth control method. Even if each new user in 2003 used Plan B twice that year, that is still an 11.1 percent increase in people using it.

Yet the numbers of abortions did not decrease, as promised by the prochoice factions, either within PP's centers or in the national figures determined by the CDC (as we showed above):
- PP did 230,630 abortions in 2002 and 244,628 in 2003, a 6.1% jump, representing 93% of all pregnancies seen by PP, yet pregnancy testing went DOWN 16.4%.

- PP did 255,015 abortions in 2004, a 4.2 % jump from 2003.

- According to the CDC, the numbers of U.S. abortions (TABLE 1 referenced above) have not decreased or increased between 2000 and 2003. No post-2003 figures are available yet.

Two published studies also found that more contraception doesn't lessen the need for abortion. In Finland and Scotland, abortion rates stayed the same despite increased "over-the-counter" Morning After Pill (MAP or "Emergency contraception") use (by girls aged 15 or more) of 25% in one year and 300% over eight years, respectively. Even worse, in Finland, 23% more girls under the age of 15 had abortions that year. Read the original article, here, http://www2.hs.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20030317IE4 .

The Scottish Council on Human Bio-ethics' "Briefing Paper on the Morning-After-Pill," Jan. 2002, found that, despite a 300% increase in the use of MAPs in Glasgow from 1992-1999, the abortion rate stayed the same (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-willsprint032102.html ).

This Forbes Magazine article cites a third researcher, Anna Glasier, director of family planning and well woman services at Lothian Primary Care National Health Service Trust, in Edinburgh, Scotland: "Ten different studies found that giving women a supply of emergency contraception to keep at home increased its use twofold to threefold but had no measurable effect on rates of abortion or pregnancy, Glasier noted in her editorial. 'So, despite significant increases in the use of emergency contraception in the U.K. over the past 20 years, abortion rates continue to rise, and in Sweden and France the same holds true.'" The article noted that in Britain in 1984, 1 percent of women requesting an abortion said they had used the "morning-after" pill to prevent pregnancy. By 2002, 12 percent had used it, while abortion rates increased from "11 per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 in 1984 (136,388 abortions) to 17.8 per 1,000 women in 2004 (185,400 abortions)."


PP HEALTH SERVICES DON'T NECESSARILY HELP PEOPLE AVOID STDs: THE PROOFS
HIV Testing for women went UP 12.1%; for men, UP 6.8%. Yet 'STI Procedures, Women and Men,' meaning treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, almost DOUBLED, going UP 95.4%. From about 1.2 million people treated to 2.4 million in one year. Shouldn't that last one have gone DOWN, or at least matched the testing increases, if so many were getting testing as they ought: as a preventative? After all, so many people think they're avoiding STD risk when in truth they're not.

UPDATE: A reader pointed out that there is no way to know if the increases reflect "existing Planned Parenthood family planning clients, or first time users of PP services."

This is true. Only Planned Parenthood knows that, and big surprise, they're not telling.

So if most or all of the new 1.2 million STI treatment procedures at PP were for new PP clients, that's still a whopping increase of 95.4% in the number of treaments. Regardless of whether they are new or existing clients, it's still a horrific increase, especially after Planned Parenthood has received $3.5 billion taxpayer dollars in two decades, part of which was supposed to fund safe-sex education. Wasn't it?

At a December 2003 public health conference in Washington DC, doctors cited evidence of an epidemic of STDs among the nation's teenagers, citing "safe sex" programs and condom distribution as contributing factors of the problem. Dr. David Hager gave these statistics: within the U.S. each year, chlamydia cases increase by 4 million, pelvic inflammatory disease by 1.2 million, gonorrhea by 2 million, genital herpes by 1 million and human papilloma virus (HPV) by 5.5 million.

Keep in mind: in 1967 (when there was virtually no sex education), 1 out of 32 sexually active people contacted sexually transmitted diseases. In 1983, 1 out of 18 sexually active people contacted STDs. In 1996, 1 out of 4 sexually active people contacted STDs.

It coincides all too closely with the rise of sexual education as provided by Planned Parenthood and similar groups. Annually since 1990 alone, Planned Parenthood has participated in the parents-not-allowed "Nobody's Fool" conference, teaching children as young as nine how to masturbate, have sex and giving them nine reasons to have abortions. Sexual promiscuity is encouraged of children of any age. Just go look at PP's TeenWire.com site. There are no enforced restrictions on members' ages for viewing or signing up there. 1994 is the highest birth year allowed by users. That means you're supposed to be 13 years or older, but there is no lie-detection test that stops younger users from signing up.

Here you can read FDA testimonies and published studies on the actual correlations between increased use of emergency contraception and the drastic rise in STDs, life-threatening ectopic pregnancies and increased need for medical followup:

1) "chlamydia and gonorrhea rates have risen nearly 20 percent in [the U.S.] in the last four years, concomitant to the high profile advertising of the morning after pill which, intended or not, promote the notion that taking Plan B will make up for the lack of sexual responsibility,"

2) "Both U.K. and New Zealand have warned doctors when they had a 5.9 percent rate of unintended pregnancies which were ectopic" and "The Washington State data...indicates that the pharmacist said that 85 percent of the subjects needed medical follow-up, needed medical information. Is there concern about failure to diagnose ectopic pregnancy among this population [of Plan B emergency contraception users]?"

3) In 2002-04, UK studies in the British Medical Journal and at Nottingham University Business School showed that, after dispensing free ECs to females from 1998 to 2002,
a) "between 1998 and 2004 rates of diagnoses of infectious syphilis (primary and secondary) in males increased by 1520%",
b) syphillis in females increased from 1999 to 2000 by 36% and 31% from '98 to '99, and
c) "gonorrhoea ... rose by 102%, from 10,204 to 20,663, between 1995 and 2000, with the steepest increase (29%) between 1999 and 2000. The rises have been widespread and have been highest among older teenagers (16-19 years), at 178% for male[s] and 133% for female patients." The uplift from 1998 to 1999 was 23%. Prior to 1998? 1996-98 were level at 13,000 cases and 1993-1995 remained 10,000 cases.

I can give you the 3 links to the sources for those, found in the British Medical Journal and Nottingham University Business School, but I'm probably over my quota for links.

Yes, one needs to do studies to determine if massive coincidence with PP's sex ed program is actually correlation. But who do you think would ever be bold or stupid enough to conduct such studies when there are massive forces of pro-choice and pro-abortion advocates and virtually the entire media and entertainment industries ready to pounce and beat such scientists into silent submission?

Lastly, think about this: when even the secular Ohio State University posts on its health website that "Abstinence...[is the] only 100% safe choice for preventing unwanted pregnancy and STIs", then it isn't about religion, it isn't about us imposing our beliefs on anyone, and it isn't some bible-thumping, "puritanical" website.

In my own state, the Connecticut Post published an article about "Pregnancies among children aged 10 to 14 declined precipitously in Connecticut during the last decade...in Connecticut, the number of live births among 10-to-14-year-olds declined from 311 to 178, a 42.7 percent drop. Martha Okafor, director of the state public health department's maternal and child-health program, attributes the lower girls' pregnancy rates to improved abstinence-education efforts in schools. 'We have tried so many things over the years, working with both school-based health clinics that provide comprehensive reproduc-tive health information, but abstinence has played a major role,' Okafor said."

Don't take my word for it: call the reporter who wrote that story, MariAn Gail Brown; her number is 203-330-6288. They don't keep articles online forever, but I saved a copy-paste of it if anyone wants it in its entirety.

Will the pro-choice and pro-abortion folks condemn and ridicule Ohio State University and government public health department directors as well?

THE NUMBERS PP CHOOSES TO TELL--AND WITHHOLD FROM--THE PUBLIC:
It seems fair to say that "most women go to Planned Parenthood for healthcare," if only 244,628 of maybe 2.49 million women clients got abortions from them that year. It's also fair to say, though, that they'll go back to PP for their abortions and abortifacient MAPs.

It's a time-tested business model: massive numbers of "repeat customers." Offer reproductive health care services, relatively cheaply, and they'll come back for the more expensive offerings too.

In the business world, it's called 'offering low-cost product lead-ins,' 'qualified lead management' and 'building the brand,' 'developing a brand's image and standing with a view to creating long term benefits for brand awareness and brand value.'

Despite their non-profit status, they still are part of a $1.3 BILLION industry. They still make $35 Million profit a year.

As for other PP's so-called "other services:"
"Breast exams also went DOWN 13.3%, and "Other Services" (whatever those are) for women went DOWN 36.9% but for men, they went UP 285.4%."

Planned Parenthood's adoption referrals decreased (for the seventh straight year) by 9.6%, to a mere 0.67% of all pregnancies seen. Why? Because they make between $400 and $1,200 per abortion, and not a dime from adoption referrals.

20 Comments

Your cherry picking of statistics and plain lack of information make this piece nothing more than ill-informed conjecture. It doesn't matter how accurate your math is if the methodology is fundamentally wrong.



Planned Parenthood is not the only abortion provider, so conclusions based on the number of abortions they perform have little to do with the overall abortion rate. Increasingly, PP is picking up the slack from for-profit providers driven out of business by increasingly hostile regulatory environments in some states, one likely explanation for their higher numbers.



Furthermore, you have no idea whether the increase in abortions is from existing Planned Parenthood family planning clients, or first time users of PP services, so your conclusion that "CONTRACEPTION DOESN'T DECREASE ABORTIONS: THE PROOF" is a complete fallacy.



Your conclusion that "PP HEALTH SERVICES DON'T HELP PEOPLE AVOID STDs: THE PROOF" is flawed the same way. There are a lot of people out there NOT using PP services who contract STDs, and then seek treatment.



Finally, if abortions represent a large percentage of PP clinic revenue, this is no surprise because they cost significantly more than other PP services. They have higher expenses associated with them, too, so non-profit PP isn't necessarily making huge "profits" on them. They are still outnumbered in visits by family planning and general healthcare visits, such as pap smears.



Planned Parenthood does not have an agenda of promoting abortion and performing as many as possible. Its mission is to provide reproductive health care services, including constitutionally protected abortions, where there is need and demand. If they happen to be efficient at it, then good for them.

Mr. Koltys,

You write: "Planned Parenthood does not have an agenda of promoting abortion and performing as many as possible. Its mission is to provide reproductive health care services, including constitutionally protected abortions, where there is need and demand."

If PP's mission is "to provide...constitutionally protected abortions", pray tell how that squares with your statement that PP "does not have an agenda of promoting abortion" as you claim?


Either they are in the business to promote and provide abortions or they are not.


From what I've seen and read about PP, truth is not high on their list of priorities.

Abortions were the end result in 93% of all pregnancies seen by Planned Parenthood.

Which again shows that even the name is a lie. Their business is avoiding parenthood.

I still don't think abortion is their main money maker. It's the STD testing, passing out birth control, etc., that they can bill the taxpayers for at exhorbitant rates. The profit margins on tax-billable "services" is very high. I think abortion serves to maintain the customer base, since a pregnant woman isn't coming in for pregnancy tests or birth control. Pregnancy removes the woman from the customer pool for nearly a year, while she goes and gets prenatal care from a real health facility.

Mr. Koltys, I do not "cherrypick" statistics. For the sake of brevity I did not repeat the complete coverage we gave to that year's annual report, but gave all the link to go review the stats in their entirety for yourselves. This accusation of cherry picking is kind of amusing actually: I was purposely trying to avoid the common mistake of "those with too much time on their hands (or a gift for speed writing) who present far too many arguments at one time in hopes of 'burying' their opponent under the supposed 'empirical' weight." So instead I get chopped up for NOT presenting all the statistics!

I don't exist to present you who already defend Planned Parenthood with any more justifications for your defense of it, but by not doing this, I am not arguing there are no stats that might be in your favor.

How in the world do you really think that PP's own annual report and the stats from the CDC represent a "plain lack of information"? Are they also "fundamentally wrong" in their data?

I never said or implied that "Planned Parenthood is...the only abortion provider" and if you'd really read the post, you'd see that I'm not "comparing the number of abortions they perform ...with the overall abortion rate." I strictly compared the number of abortions they perform with THEIR own regular, yearly increases in those numbers! THEY are the ones claiming that their "health services" reduce abortions.

You may have a point that one cannot determine if the rise in PP abortions is due to new clients. If it was possible to add up all the stats from all the abortion clinics in the US, and then add up all the contraception packs they all provided, then one could do this. Right now, I just don't have that kind of time. Be my guest.

The point is, your beloved Planned Parenthood and all like providers have sold you a bill of goods about how contraception reduces the need for abortions, and how they help educate people to avoid STDs. While abortion rates have , you clearly cannot say the same about STDs which have skyrocketed in rates and numbers and severity since the sexual revolution of which PP has been a key supporter.

The fact that abortions represent the largest part of PP clinic revenue is exactly the point I made. I already knew they cost much more than other PP services. These other services are still the "loss leader" to get people back for their cash cow business, which is abortion.

Actually you're probably right that PP "does not have an agenda of promoting abortion and performing as many as possible." It wasn't merely to provide abortions that they were founded by Margaret Sanger. It was to eradicate the "human weeds" that Sanger and her board of directors believed Black Americans to be. Those were her words, not mine. One of her board members was even a well-known eugenicist. Dont' take my word for it, though. You won't anyway, no matter how many reliable sources or links I give you.

You've--like many--been duped into thinking they're so pro-woman. If they were so pro-woman why would they lie about the reality of so many women who suffer traumatically from their abortions, instead of helping those women find relief? Why do they lie to women still, telling them there's no such thing as a lasting pain and grief, that it's all in their heads or that they were unstable to begin with, never mind not telling them of the physical harm that's happened to so many women? Don't you think women should be warned of medical complications from this surgical procedure? You'd be in favor of that if it were an appendectomy, why not for abortion?

If they were truly pro-woman, they'd not be trying to shut us up as they've been trying for years. If they were pro-woman, they'd care for us too.

I'll tell you why they don't: because they would be out of business if they didn't have their cash cow of abortion. They are not pro-woman, they are pro-abortion, since it pays their nice paychecks (at least the heads of the affiliates, who make good six figures in many if not most cases).

correction of typo above

"...While abortion rates have risen more slowly, you clearly cannot say the same about STDs..."

Annie, it's not just minority races that Margaret Sanger dismissed as "human weeds". It was poor people. People with disabilities. And just average Joes and Janes who weren't brilliant socialites like Mrs. Sanger.

PP wasn't founded purely on racism. The true underpinning is elitism, of which racism is only one facet.

Point well taken, Christina. I haven't looked at all her quotes in a long time, but you are right, it was poor people to include the racism factor. I do recall their Negro Project as one key mechanism with which Planned Parenthood first began.

As we both agree, it's all bad stuff.

Oh, and interested parties can read St. Margaret's screed, The Pivot of Civilization, online here.

Let's savor a few gems, shall we:

The lack of balance between the birth-rate of the "unfit" and the "fit," admittedly the greatest present menace to the civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. The example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit, and therefore less fertile, parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem to-day is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective. Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon American society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupid, cruel sentimentalism.

Sanger has an extremely low opinion of women who don't embrace her birth control philosophy: "As long as the mother remains the passive victim of blind instinct, instead of the conscious, responsible instrument of the life-force, controlling and directing its expression, there can be no solution to the intricate and complex problems that confront the whole world to-day."

She didn't see undesirable people as just an occasional phenomenon: "Authorities tell us that 75 per cent. of the school-children are defective."

I won't linger on how she scorns the poor rural family. All I can say is that she's probably spinning in her grave over the mere existence of such an abomination as Dolly Parton, who grew and flourished under conditions were Sanger was so appalled. And her opinon of folks like Dolly Parton's parents is illustrative of her elitism: "We hear these days of the selfishness and the degradation of healthy and well-educated women who refuse motherhood; but we hear little of the more sinister selfishness of men and women who bring babies into the world to become child-slaves of the kind described in these reports of child labor." The idea that these families might actually love their children was clearly alien to Sanger.

Her boundless love for folks with developmental disabilities is patent: "There is but one practical and feasible program in handling the great problem of the feeble-minded. That is, as the best authorities are agreed, to prevent the birth of those who would transmit imbecility to their descendants. Feeble-mindedness as investigations and statistics from every country indicate, is invariably associated with an abnormally high rate of fertility. Modern conditions of civilization, as we are continually being reminded, furnish the most favorable breeding-ground for the mental defective, the moron, the imbecile."

The philosophy of Birth Control points out that as long as civilized communities encourage unrestrained fecundity in the "normal" members of the population--always of course under the cloak of decency and morality--and penalize every attempt to introduce the principle of discrimination and responsibility in parenthood, they will be faced with the ever-increasing problem of feeble-mindedness, that fertile parent of degeneracy, crime, and pauperism. Small as the percentage of the imbecile and half-witted may seem in comparison with the normal members of the community, it should always be remembered that feeble-mindedness is not an unrelated expression of modern civilization. Its roots strike deep into the social fabric. Modern studies indicate that insanity, epilepsy, criminality, prostitution, pauperism, and mental defect, are all organically bound up together and that the least intelligent and the thoroughly degenerate classes in every community are the most prolific. Feeble-mindedness in one generation becomes pauperism or insanity in the next. There is every indication that feeble-mindedness in its protean forms is on the increase, that it has leaped the barriers, and that there is truly, as some of the scientific eugenists have pointed out, a feeble-minded peril to future generations--unless the feeble-minded are prevented from reproducing their kind. To meet this emergency is the immediate and peremptory duty of every State and of all communities.

She quotes, with great approval, a fellow named Dr. Walter E. Fernal: "We now have state commissions for controlling the gipsy-moth and the boll weevil, the foot-and-mouth disease, and for protecting the shell-fish and wild game, but we have no commission which even attempts to modify or to control the vast moral and economic forces represented by the feeble-minded persons at large in the community."

People Sanger didn't approve aren't just poor or uneducated or disabled. They're VERMIN.

I'll add my own emphesis this passage: The notorious fecundity of feeble-minded women is emphasized in studies and investigations of the problem, coming from all countries. "The feeble-minded woman is twice as prolific as the normal one." Sir James Crichton-Browne speaks of the great numbers of feeble-minded girls, wholly unfit to become mothers, who return to the work-house year after year to bear children, "many of whom happily die, but some of whom survive to recruit our idiot establishments and to repeat their mothers' performances."

I have to leave for Korean class. But I recommend reading the entire thing. Sanger dresses it up as compassion, but it's all, "Oh, ICK! How disgusting! Yucky people just keep breeding!"

Just change "feeble-minded" to "Jews" and re-read the above. That's all you have to do to see that history has been repeating itself here in this country. Genocide has been alive and well here in the ol' US of A.

I hope Mr. K and Suricou Raven read that last comment of yours, Christina, in its entirety.

I just love this line: "encourage unrestrained fecundity in the "normal" members of the
population--always of course under the cloak of decency and morality".

The young women and girls (and the young men too) of today have no idea what horror lies at the root of what they're supporting when they support abortion and Planned Parenthood. They can say all they want that "that's not how it is today" but it doesn't wash, because the ideals and goals of Sanger have succeeded and continue to thrive, "under the cloak of decency and morality" as those who defend abortion and its purveyors always bring up (just one example? "It's more decent and moral to not let the child live than to allow it to be born into this horrible, abusive world" when the statistics overwhelmingly show that women and their men who choose to abort are more likely to abuse their other children they may have, while women who adopt are not!). Suricou and Mr. K, look at the typically greater numbers of minority and poor who have abortions: usually much higher and many more repeat abs.

The people who work for PP and other ab. clinics now may be all good, well-meaning people who genuinely believe they are helping women avoid burden and pain. I do believe that many are good people who think that way, but they are misinformed by their own employers and by the media.

They just don't have a clue what they are helping to foist on the American people, really.

contraception and the option of abortion is a fundamental right that Planned parenthood provides.
Who failed their statistics class. Reliable statistics must show a correlation of how they are connected. Condom use, contraception etc. goes up due to education of pregnancy prevention, and increased awareness of STDs. Abortion also goes up due to increased access and availability. A small percentage of women who have been denied this right have been able to gain access which increases abortion rates. Also not analyzed was the number of abortions performed with out a doctor. Dangerous `back alley` abortions are being perfomed more and more with legitamate doctors.
This being said, those of you who argue that abortion legality should be regulated by the government, read up more on the history of government policy regarding female health care. U.S government has a long history of funding programs that sterilzed women with out their consent, racial profiling for who gets access to health care, and making abortions more dangerous. For instance to make a woman wait 2 weeks to `think it over` further endangers the woman. Abortion should be a safe, affordable option included with non biased counseling before and after the decision.

Reliable statistics must show a correlation of how they are connected.

Then how come the states that get an A+ on their Planned Parenthood report cards for access to contraceptives have the highest abortion rates, and states that get a D or F have the lowest rates?

We need for somebody with a graphics program to do a graphic that juxtaposes the grade PP gives a state on "prevention of abortion" and the actual abortion rates in that state.

Any takers?

I think you are looking at the wrong statistics. You shouldn't be looking for a correlation between contraception access and abortion, because the indirect link is so easily distorted by other factors (access to abortion, political and social view of abortion in the state, etc). You should be looking for a correlation between contraception access and the unwanted pregnency rate. Also the teen pregnency rate.

Cassie, "contraception and the option of abortion are NOT fundamental rights." Fundamental rights are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in that order. They are only made legal rights by laws, not fundamental, but they are also not civil rights that we obtain by being born black or minority or female.

Where are YOUR statistics to back up your outlandish claims, if you passed statistics class?
"Also not analyzed was the number of abortions performed with out a doctor. Dangerous `back alley` abortions are being perfomed more and more with legitamate doctors."

Give me a break. We've done the research. The numbers of such abortions were low even pre-Roe v. Wade. Show us your sources, cassie. I'd really like to explore that one.

Increased condom use, contraception etc. has also been associated with the skyrocketing increase in STDs.

In truth, I must edit the original post, as the estimates of the # of abortions since 2001 show them decreasing overall in this country, although PP's share of them keeps going up.

This could very well be because the pro-abortion and prochoice crowds have so fewer children, so there's fewer women around period who will resort to abortion!

Go google "roe effect" and you ought to see that it's been written in many secular newspaper articles.

Suricou Raven, when you've addressed the other researched counterpoints I answered you with in the earlier posts, then perhaps we will "do your newest research request" for you.

I wonder if we'll ever hear from you, cassie? The true facts--not what you just claimed are facts-- aren't pretty, but now that you know them, it isn't surprising that we didn't get a response from you.

I'm sad that the prochoicers who come here, all guns blazing and erroneous facts flying, don't learn from those mistakes, and don't have the strength to admit they made mistakes and shouldn't have rushed to condemnation of us here on this blog or to conclusions based on falsehoods and disinformation campaigns on the part of the abortion industry and its supporters. I wish that, as our friend Achromic did, they'd realize they didn't have all the facts and that there really are legitimate complaints about PP and abortion itself, because they were MISLED, by PP and the abortion advocates in general.

It takes a strong person to admit they were wrong, both about what they had come to believe and in some cases about attacking us personally, and to learn from that. Ray, Suricou Raven, cassie, meg, any lurkers, you are still welcome to join in intelligent, supported debate here and on my AfterAbortion blog, no matter what you've said or done before. Hopefully you all have learned that you have been in fact misled by the abortion industry.

to start out, my original claim was not responded to. i will copy and paste.
Reliable statistics must show a correlation of how they are connected. Condom use, contraception etc. goes up due to education of pregnancy prevention, and increased awareness of STDs. Abortion also goes up due to increased access and availability.` this is shown in almost all literature about abortion - websites, books, etc. it is not an outlandish claim.
your second remark.

`Fundamental rights are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in that order. They are only made legal rights by laws, not fundamental, but they are also not civil rights that we obtain by being born black or minority or female.`
life, libery, and pursuit of happiness involves having control over ones own body. this also falls into the liberty category, and i might add, pursuit of happiness. a fundamental right is different from the United states constitution. There are human rights laws, and `government laws`. although in many countries these overlap. (hopefully) but i think we can all acknoweldge that they don`t much of the time.
back alley abortions - currently where i live in Bogota all forms of abortions are illegal. i also volunteer in a hospital. reliable statistics are hard to obtain, but everyday, in a small section of the town where this hospital is located women die, or need surgery from abortion complications. often times they cannot afford the surgery and are sent away to deal with it.
I will search around from internet sites for the exact statistics for the u.s.
I think the debate should be about truth, not about trying to get into a word debate. Lets get to the raw issue.
This is what I believe - government is irresponsible and corrupt and should not regulate women`s health. Abortion, while a very controversial issue has many ties to religion and morality that has no clear cut consensus. There are also questions about incest, rape, endangering the health of the female. The line is very fuzzy on what most people can agree on. Therefore more energy should be preventing the causes of abortion. Such as sex awareness - using condoms,etc. preventing violence - rape and incest. As well as options for women who do become mothers. Better childcare systems, options for supporting children once they come into this world.
Here are my questions for you. these are for my curiousity.
In what circumstances do you think abortion is ok?
at what stage is the fetus a separate living entity apart from its mother. (aka can be called a baby and no longer a fetus)
are you also against contraception or just abortion?
Should the government and big corportations be held responsible that cause higher rates of spontaneus abortion through contamination of water, chemical pollutants (mines, etc. )?
Perhaps pro choice and anti choice groups can come to some kind of agreement rather than fighting about these issues.


Cassie, re: "Reliable statistics must show a correlation of how they are connected."

You didn't seem to understand the fundamental point, perhaps, that Planned Parenthood, being the largest. single. provider. of these such services in this country, is clearly a sufficient gauge to assess the rest of the country. It is not really any different than any of the pollsters who survey 5,000 people and then extrapolate that out to assess the country as a whole. You must demand that all polls ever conducted be stricken from record, if you demand correlation of their "statistics."

Life, libery, and pursuit of happiness DOES NOT "involve having control over ones [sic] own body." If you violate a serious law and are caught, your "control over your own body" is gone: they put you in jail. And further, the U.S.' founding fathers never put into our constitution or declaration of independence that one would have a right to terminate pregnancies. Period. The entity inside women that is being terminated by abortion, or emergency contraception in some cases, is not your or my own body. You parrot back the rhetoric of the feminist/PP crowd, but that doesn't make it "your body." It's a whole other being's body growing. Otherwise why does one have to "terminate" it? It's either separate and living or it doesn't need termination in the first place. If you leave your leg alone, it won't grow into a huge monstrosity and kill you eventually. If you leave an unborn human life alone, it will grow into a born human life. It isn't your body, it isn't a "body part."

Your living in Bogota is an important fact, I wish you'd said so in your first post. Without it, you appeared to be speaking for the US, where this blog and most of its bloggers are based.

I hear you, you likely do see many more illegal backalley types of abortions than was ever the case in the US. I really don't know that the solution though is to legalize abortion there. Why not the Uganda solution? From the President on down, they emphasized abstinence not condoms, not abortion, and they have seen great results in reducing STDs and abortions. Do some research on their success, rather than on the backalley abs of the US. I have those numbers already.

"I think the debate should be about truth, not about trying to get into a word debate. Lets get to the raw issue."

I agree. The truth is it isn't good for "women's health" to have abortions. We've cited many, many published scientific studies to show this is true. No matter what you are told or read or believe.

The truth also is that it is still another human life that has begun, and no one should have the right to end that life. The government should not regulate giving that right to terminate another's life, born or unborn, to another person.

I had the right, and I did terminate my child's life and there is nothing I regret more in life or ever will. I know there are many who don't regret and I accept that. It's just that it's a whole other life and we don't have the right to end it, no matter what governments say.

The fact is, you really DO want government to regulate women's health! You think abortion is healthier for a woman who doesn't want the baby, because instead of a legal ab she has to do it elsewhere and risk dying. So you want the govt to regulate that health by giving women the right to abortion!

I agree with you about better care systems for mothers, there are thousands of free centers in this nation that do provide free care and help to such mothers. 3,400 in the USA and 1,400 outside the USA. Here is the international website for finding them: http://www.heartbeatinternational.org/worldwide_directory.asp

Here are the ones in Columbia, 4 of which are in Bogota:

Centro Internacional para Mujeres Barranquilla, Atlantico
CENPAFAL Bogota
FANA Bogota
HOGAR MARGARITA Bogota
OBRA SAN RAFAEL Bogota
Centro Asesor De Accion Familiar Cali
Centro de Apoyo a la Mujer Cali
Fundacion Farbajal Cali

In the UK and Canada, here http://www.optionline.org/advantage.asp
and
http://birthright.org

We do care about the women, not just the unborn babies, and people in those places are working solely on private donations in most cases, getting precious little funding if anything from the govt., while PP doesn't do any real prenatal or postnatal health service at all! Yet they got $3.5 BILLION from the US Govt in the last twenty years!

To answer your last questions:

"In what circumstances do you think abortion is ok?" If the mother is imminently at risk of death, right then and there, on the table. Even the Catholic religion allows for this (I am Catholic).

"at what stage is the fetus a separate living entity apart from its mother. (aka can be called a baby and no longer a fetus)"

A human life is a human life at conception, according to many world-renowned scientists. The scientific "definition" of viability applies only to its ability to "survive outside the womb" not to whether it's a human life or not and should not have been made the "test" of whether abortion is ok or not. Even a newborn baby cannot exist outside the womb without "mothering," feeding and protection from SOMEONE, so too, the unborn person cannot survive without without mothering, feeding and protection.

are you also against contraception or just abortion? Yes, and not just because it prevents the natural order, but because most contraception has been studied to show that there are serious health risks directly to women or indirectly.

Should the government and big corportations be held responsible that cause higher rates of spontaneus abortion through contamination of water, chemical pollutants (mines, etc. )?

If that is shown to be happening, yes. Scientists' published studies would help prove if that's happening, and it's probably easier to show if that's happening outside the US (I don't know nor have I read that spontaneous abs are happening more often in the US) but still if it's happening and it's connected to corporations' pollution, they should be held responsible.

I want to just briefly touch on the statistics point because i think that there is simply a misunderstanding. correlation shows a connection between the two things. in this case abortion rates cannot be shown to connect directly with education of condoms and contraception. There are too many variables. it doesn´t matter that pp is the single. largest. provider.
(variables include increased access, chaning social attitudes, preg. resulted in inconsistently using contraception, or none at all...the list is large) therefore, there is not a direct correlation.

There is a point we agree on. That abortion is a difficult proccess. I have met many people who believe that the ´pro choice´crowd push abortion. I am a strong advocate for counseling before and after an abortion. Each woman knows her life and her body better than any other person, so it is not up to me to offer my advice or my push my opinion to a pregnant woman.
You mentioned early on

´The entity inside women that is being terminated by abortion, or emergency contraception in some cases, is not your or my own body.´
i think this is a fundamental point for the abortion debate.i copy and paste this next part because i could not have said it better myself

¨No matter how much value we place on a fetus's potential life, it is still inside the woman's body. To pretend that the pregnant woman is
separate - or as the discussion of fetal surgery suggests, irrelevant and non-existent - is to deny her not only her rights, but also her humanity.¨
www.protectchoice.org

The fact is, the fetus is a part of the women´s body. you mention that the newborn baby could not survive with out mothering. i agree. but i disagree that a fetus is on the same plane as a newborn baby. distinctions must be
made. your definition would also place disabled people, or old people who cannot care for themselves and must be fed- bathed, etc. on the same level as a fetus. A baby is inside the woman for 9 months for a reason. developing neccesary organs -heart, skin, spinal cord, etc. If you took the baby out too soon by c-secion perhaps, it would not survive no matter how
much ´mothering´you gave it. the analagy was also given that the baby is living because it is not the same as a human leg? i failed to follow the logic of this arguement. could you elaborate please, annie.

Let´s discuss contraception. i completely agree with you that some are dangerous to women´s health. which is dispicable and should be punishable by law. Some companies have knowingly profited by unsafe contraceptives and sold them anyways.
¨Depo was involuntarily tested on 14,000 women from 1967 to 1978, by Upjohn, Inc. 50% of the subjects were African American, low income and
rural women subjected to trials without their consent. Today poor women, women of color, and young women are targeted users.¨
href="http://www.sistersong.net/documents/RJBriefingBook.pdf">http://www.si
stersong.net/documents/RJBriefingBook.pdf

But there are alternatives. And these alternatives should be safe, and the proper information given. If there are risks they should be known. for example, certain contraceptives can cause a higher rate of breast cancer. Then this is the choice of the woman to decide if she wants to take that
risk or not. The information should not be withheld, nor should contraception be pushed. There are many resonably safe options out there
though, including condoms.

sex education: while this is increasing related to AIDS, STD´s, and pregnancy the sad fact is that the government is on a campaign to limit
information that could be life saving.
¨Between 1996 and 2005, Congress committed over $1.1 billion through both federal and state matching funds to "abstinence-only" programs. Virtually no money went to comprehensive sex education. Today the only sex education
for more than a third of all students is "abstinence only," even though
this curriculum teaches falsehoods about condom effectiveness rates and other matters.¨ href="http://www.sistersong.net/documents/RJBriefingBook.pdf">http://www.si
stersong.net/documents/RJBriefingBook.pdf
(in recognition of your point you brought up that in total pp had received 3.5 billion in tax payer dollars in the past 20 years... this equals to on average of 175 million a year for all their programs. The percentage of this spent on education - guest speakers, etc. compared with that of abstinence education which receives substantial government funding.)

Annie, you brought up the Uganda solution, which is interesting because i have just been doing some research on it. As AIDS rate is very high here in South America, and various things are being tried. you say:

¨From the President on down, they emphasized abstinence not condoms, not abortion,
and they have seen great results in reducing STDs and abortions¨
you misunderstand the uganda solution. the name of the program is called the ABC approach. A - abstain, B be faithfull, C use condoms. where did you read your info? here is some more info about Uganda.

¨Reports of consistent condom use by men rose to more than 50 percent by 2002, compared with 10 percent a decade earlier. Among women, reports of
condom use rose from virtually zero to 25 percent. href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/24/MNG2PBG3VF
1.DTL">http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/24/MNG2PBG3V
F1.DTL

¨ABC is far from all that Uganda has done. Uganda, he noted, "pioneered approaches towards reducing stigma, bringing discussion of sexual behavior out into the open, involving HIV-infected people in public education,
persuading individuals and couples to be tested and counseled, improving the status of women, involving religious organizations, enlisting
traditional healers, and much more."

¨The U.S. researchers found that the single greatest factor lowering the percentage of Rakai people infected by HIV was the premature deaths of those who were infected earlier with HIV and subsequently died of AIDS.... In the Rakai district, however, researchers found that abstinence and fidelity have actually been declining, but the expected rise in HIV
infections stemming from such behavior has not occurred. href="http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/5/gr060501.html">http://www.gut
tmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/5/gr060501.html

You also provided me with a list of organizations in Colombia. While this response is not about Colombia, i would like to touch briefly on the problems here. Human rights groups, ngo´s, any type of organization
providing services fo people are completely overwhelmed by the amount of need. Public hospitals lack funding, there is no public education. although the `public schools` are much cheaper than a good private school.
Colombia in numbers, 3 million displaced people, 40% poverty, the
government spends more on military than on education. Speaking out against
the abuses by the govenment is dangerous. Colombia currently leads the world for the most dangerous place for union workers. Homeless children, AIDs, state violence, paramiltiary violence....etc. Lets face it. female
health care is not a priority. also an important fact is that the u.s is funding this civil war with u.s taxpayer dollars. colombia is the third
largest recipent of military aid in the world. We should all be outraged by this.

Back to the U.S: Many of the same problems of Colombia exist in the U.S as well. There is simply not enough funding of government programs to pay for childcare, health problems, followup doctor visits, etc.

¨Approximately 40 million Americans, including about 9 million children,
(2), lack health insurance. It is estimated that an additional 10 - 15 million people have some coverage but not enough, and that an additional 2
million people have lost other health plans along with their jobs in the recent economic downturn.¨
www.motherfriendly.org

¨22% of America's already born children live in poverty¨ ¨pregnant woman would not be covered for any injury or disease she suffers that does not directly affect the pregnancy, nor apparently, would she be covered if she
suffers a miscarriage or stillbirth, as more than 900,000 women do each year¨
href="http://www.sistersong.net/documents/RJBriefingBook.pdf">http://www.si
stersong.net/documents/RJBriefingBook.pdf
there are quite a few other statistics i didn´t have time to find exact websites for. for example the amount of cases prosecuted of child abuse is about one percent. too much backlog and not enough workers. Or daycare
centers for mothers who need to work to support the family are too expensive and the families will end up forgoing medial care or other vital
options.

Last topic - evironment: This is existing all over the world, including the
U.S. Right now there are over 1,305 superfund sites scheduled for cleanup
¨About 11 million people in the U.S., including 3-4 million children, live
within 1 mile of a federal Superfund site and confront potential public health risks¨ href="http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/land/">http://www.scorecard.org
/env-releases/land/

¨Reproductive toxicity may be expressed as alterations in sexual behavior, decreases in fertility, or loss of the fetus during pregnancy.¨
visit the website for the list of over 80 toxicants that are recognized.
(not including those that are suspected) that are in these superfund sites.

-lawsuit against General motors for contaminating the lt lawerence river making it unsafe to breastfeed. href="http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/">http://www.advocatesforpre
gnantwomen.org/

¨All scientific experts agree that exposure to mercury is especially toxic to fetuses and children. Like lead, mercury is a highly toxic heavy metal that can cause brain damage and learning disabilities, and often causes
irreversible neurological damage.¨
href="http://www.epa.gov/region09/toxic/lead/enforcement.html">http://www.e
pa.gov/region09/toxic/lead/enforcement.html
¨Within the U.S., an estimated 10 tons of highly toxic mercury are released to the environment each year from mercury-containing light
switches during the shredding and crushing of old vehicles¨
href="http://www.epa.gov/region09/toxic/lead/enforcement.html">http://www.e
pa.gov/region09/toxic/lead/enforcement.html


I chose to use a lot of quotes for this one, to help show that this is just a small sample of tons of info of problems related to female health and childcare other than abortion.
i hope this shows that there is a wider debate than making abortion illegal. And those of us that cannot agree about the right to abortion
should all argree on these other topics. That there is substantial health risk to ALL people because of the environment. this includes pregant women and children. There is currently not enough programs for children in
poverty, or pregnant mothers to be raising healthy children. And that ´lifesavings education of STD´s pregancy prevention is inadaquate.

************************************************************************************************************************************************
BLOGGER'S RESPONSE:

Cassie, I see you chose to post this comment even though I just emailed you a number of details refuting many of your points. Interestingly your email to me included this (which you have omitted from this post); since you made this claim and insist on posting this comment, our readers deserve to know the whole exchange, to see why this if so unfruitful a conversation:

YOU WROTE:
"The other paragraph you presented did not refute my point about the baby being part of the women`s body. it is a different opinion. Did you take biology? so since your brain cell does not have the same DNA as your skin cell, is it not part of your body? and i can insert part of my DNA into a banana and still have it turn into a banana. is the banana my baby? You fail to bring up real points. you throw statistics at me, but don`t connect them to what we were actually talking about...and instead feel your paragraphs with telling me to open my eyes and say i am getting it all wrong. i wrote to your pro-life blog because i am interested in a real discussing about the issues i presented. so far you have answered NONE... and you claim these were only two of the facts i got wrong? what others did you find. (not to mention you didn`t disproved the first because pp involved in public school education ) and the second was an opinion. uh.... perhaps just let it post and see what anybody else has to say. this is about truth right? and so far i got nothin from you."

So here is my response to you, from my email, for the rest of the PLB's readers to read:

I was afraid of this response. I have answered them, Cassie, you just don't want to see what you don't want to see.

The point of selecting those two points was merely to show that if one is wrong on even a few points, then ALL one's claims must be called into question. It's a matter of credibility, Cassie. Here's another one that says you are working with incorrect knowledge: yes, I took biology and human physiology and "Every cell in your body has the same "blueprint" or the same DNA". http://www.biologycorner.com/worksheets/DNAcoloring.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=JkM063opkigC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=%22same+dna%22+%22brain+cell%22+%22skin+cell%22&source=web&ots=mZ5RcF3uQd&sig=NvqrmxGHwYVnYbUbnycH_tEwTek
There's more in that book excerpt that says the same thing in different words.

I'm not trying to say you're stupid for not knowing this, but that you have so many "facts" wrong, that all of what you say is "truth" must be doubted.

I won't go through each of your points one by one. I could, but I'm sorry, as I said, I have a dayjob, don't have time, have already done all the counterpoints many times before.

You have a point about PP not being in the schools as official permanent sex ed people, yet the DO come into our classrooms on a regular basis here, AS GUEST SPEAKERS in every school, and they give their whole spiel on sex ed and THAT they do and have done for decades.

My point is that sex ed doesn't just happen in the schools here (and menstruation, for one, has been taught here in school a LONG time: to me, 35 years ago, in school and that was a Catholic school!) You didn't dig deep enough into Teenwire if you didn't find it offensive. I brought it in because it's one of the things PP gets our taxpayer money for and it IS sex ed whether you think it is or not. Also, as for their little parents-not-allowed seminars, I guess you also really think girls 8 and 9 years old should be taught how masturbate, how to have sex and be given 9 reasons to have abortions as they're teaching them here in the U.S. I don't. Tons of parents like me don't either.

Don't kid yourself. PP is teaching the young of this country TONS of sex ed. They're priming their next generation of abortion clients. It doesn't have to be in schools. Yet they got $3.5 BILLION of our taxpayer dollars to do all these sex ed cartoons for kids online and for Teenwire and all its other subtle sex ed programs.

As for Uganda, you'll have to tell me what "new" news you know. If you're getting your info from Human Rights Watch, they're as pro-abortion/pro-contraception as a group can be.

The info I have is that "Uganda's success against HIV is due to abstinence, behaviour change and community, not condoms" as found in a study published in SCIENCE journal. http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/ed007047-0e93-4964-9fba-aa887d42817e.asp :

"The Ugandan government's initial response to HIV is also highlighted by the investigators as being key to the country's HIV prevention efforts. Prevention messages were simple and included a clear warning about the danger of HIV, and basic advice about behavioural change - "zero grazing", in other words, "faithfulness to one partner". More sophisticated messages about condom use were not part of the initial strategy and came later, after reductions in HIV incidence had already been achieved."

As for later reports that "condom use was responsible for Uganda's stable levels of AIDS", we debunked that study here, two years ago, http://afterabortion.blogspot.com/2005/02/its-condoms-that-are-responsible-for.html .

From 1994 to 2003, Ugandans started having sex younger than before, having more of it and with several partners and outside of marriage, and they used condoms significantly more often with casual partners. (They don't say anything about use with one steady partner or spouse). Yet the number of cases of HIV contraction among adolescents did not decline significantly, while they were all having more sex much earlier and with multiple partners and using more condoms.

The rate of Ugandan HIV incidence overall and in YAs and in teens did not decline during the same time that they supposedly attribute a "decline" in HIV cases to condoms.

Also, alhough there were fewer people in that study which "credited condoms" for reducing Uganda's AIDS cases (because more had DIED), the rates of contraction of HIV had in fact risen substantially for the overall population and for young adults. THAT happened while condom use increased there. Using more condoms should have reversed the rate and the number of cases of HIV, but it didn't. I don't see how HRW and their kind can even credit condoms with success with a straight face--and to an international conference of experts on AIDS no less--when the overall and YA infection rates went up 31% and 36% at the same time.

Cassie, as I said, we've analyzed it all before and debunked a good deal of what you think is truth.

You have a lot of the wrong and wrongly-analyzed information in your head.

You've gotten plenty of "truth from me." But if you really want the truth, it's in what I've written to you so far and on our After Abortion blog. www.afterabortion.blogspot.com

I'm sorry, but you need to get yourself better educated about all these things first, and with true scientific facts. That's just the way it is, Cassie. I suggest you do some homework like I did, with nonprochoice and nonprolife sources. I've given so many of those sources in my blog articles, if you want to save yourself some research time.

I don't have time to answer or publish any more of what you think is "fact", cassie.
Best of luck,
Annie




button02b.gif

Categories

Archives

Pro-Life Articles

add your site
Leaven for the Loaf Sep 25, 2017, 12:59 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 25, 2017, 12:40 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 25, 2017, 12:21 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 25, 2017, 6:21 am
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 25, 2017, 2:21 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 25, 2017, 9:56 am
Catholic Church Conservation Sep 25, 2017, 11:15 am
FREEDOM EDEN Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
Opinion Times Sep 25, 2017, 9:06 am
Catholic Fire Sep 25, 2017, 4:11 am
Opinion Times Sep 25, 2017, 2:46 am
LTI Blog Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
HumanLifeMatters Sep 25, 2017, 3:20 am
Opinion Times Sep 25, 2017, 12:30 am
Opinion Times Sep 25, 2017, 2:16 am
cultureshift Sep 25, 2017, 12:24 am
Quo Vadis Sep 24, 2017, 10:41 pm
PM Notes Sep 24, 2017, 10:01 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 10:42 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 10:52 pm
Spero News Dec 31, 1969, 11:00 pm
A Lifestyle of Peace Sep 24, 2017, 11:31 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 8:41 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 8:41 pm
Deacon's Blog Sep 24, 2017, 8:42 pm
cultureshift Sep 24, 2017, 6:16 pm
A Catholic Life Sep 24, 2017, 8:00 pm
SUNLIT UPLANDS Sep 24, 2017, 8:35 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Sep 24, 2017, 6:52 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 6:21 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 5:39 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Sep 24, 2017, 5:32 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Sep 24, 2017, 5:30 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Sep 24, 2017, 6:00 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 5:00 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 4:39 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 4:15 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 4:37 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 3:27 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 3:37 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 3:55 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 3:31 pm
A Catholic Life Sep 24, 2017, 3:09 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 24, 2017, 1:54 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 24, 2017, 1:24 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 24, 2017, 12:28 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 24, 2017, 1:14 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 24, 2017, 12:38 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 12:29 pm
Pro-Life Unity Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 12:50 am
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 1:45 am
The Ohio Anglican.blog Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
The Ohio Anglican.blog Sep 24, 2017, 4:35 am
A Follower of Francis Sep 24, 2017, 1:08 am
The Ohio Anglican.blog Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
The Ohio Anglican.blog Sep 24, 2017, 1:35 am
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 24, 2017, 12:47 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 9:42 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 10:16 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 7:54 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 23, 2017, 11:16 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Sep 23, 2017, 8:00 pm
SUNLIT UPLANDS Sep 23, 2017, 9:35 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 9:23 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 9:23 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 9:23 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 9:22 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 9:23 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 7:52 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 7:52 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 7:52 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 4:54 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 6:12 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 6:12 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 6:22 pm
Happy Catholic Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:26 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:24 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:35 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:38 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:31 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:13 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:07 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:11 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:15 pm
cultureshift Sep 23, 2017, 3:43 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 3:21 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 3:21 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 3:21 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 3:21 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 3:21 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 3:21 pm
Catholic Church Conservation Sep 23, 2017, 3:15 pm
Reclaiming Our Children Jan 1, 1970, 7:00 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 12:39 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 12:39 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 2:13 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 1:09 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 2:13 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 12:39 pm
Christian Musician...Pro Life! Sep 18, 2017, 12:02 pm
A Catholic Life Sep 23, 2017, 11:44 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 7:02 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 4:29 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 2:55 am
Greater Fitchburg For Life Sep 23, 2017, 4:20 am
Greater Fitchburg For Life Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
DEACON FOR LIFE Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
DEACON FOR LIFE Sep 23, 2017, 3:15 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 12:13 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 12:13 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 12:13 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 12:13 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 12:13 am
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 9:11 pm
Spero News Dec 31, 1969, 11:00 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Sep 22, 2017, 10:39 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Sep 22, 2017, 10:27 pm
Pro-Life Unity Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
Live Action Blog Sep 22, 2017, 9:27 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 10:03 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 9:50 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Sep 22, 2017, 9:22 pm
Rebelution Sep 22, 2017, 8:49 pm
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 9:12 pm
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 9:12 pm
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 9:12 pm
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 9:12 pm
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 9:12 pm
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 9:17 pm
Live Action Blog Sep 22, 2017, 4:41 pm
Live Action Blog Sep 22, 2017, 8:31 pm
Live Action Blog Sep 22, 2017, 4:29 pm
Live Action Blog Sep 22, 2017, 8:51 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 8:32 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 7:35 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 22, 2017, 10:39 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 22, 2017, 10:38 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 7:56 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 7:45 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 7:33 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Sep 22, 2017, 6:00 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Sep 22, 2017, 6:05 pm
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 7:14 pm
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 6:32 pm
NoisyRoom.net Sep 22, 2017, 7:13 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 7:15 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 5:32 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 6:56 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 5:57 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 6:54 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 6:06 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 6:21 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 6:43 pm
Happy Catholic Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 6:00 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 4:22 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 20, 2017, 3:01 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 20, 2017, 2:00 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 20, 2017, 9:00 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 20, 2017, 9:15 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 20, 2017, 3:00 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 20, 2017, 11:00 am
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 19, 2017, 11:00 am
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 19, 2017, 5:59 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 19, 2017, 4:33 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 19, 2017, 6:24 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 21, 2017, 3:01 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 21, 2017, 3:00 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 21, 2017, 5:10 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 22, 2017, 5:49 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 22, 2017, 4:10 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 21, 2017, 8:01 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 21, 2017, 7:51 pm
Students for Life of Illinois Sep 18, 2017, 4:00 pm
Reclaiming Our Children Jan 1, 1970, 7:00 am
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 3:12 pm
Live Action Blog Sep 22, 2017, 4:41 pm
Live Action Blog Sep 22, 2017, 4:29 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 4:50 pm
Leaven for the Loaf Sep 22, 2017, 4:54 pm
March For Life Sep 22, 2017, 3:51 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 3:31 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 3:34 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 22, 2017, 5:49 pm