If Abortion Is "Choice," Why Do They Cover Up And Lie? by Doug Wrenn

If Abortion Is "Choice," Why Do They Cover Up And Lie?

By Doug Wrenn

June 20, 2007

How many times have we all heard the euphemism "choice" used in mentioning abortion? "It's a woman's choice." "It's a woman's right to chose," etc. OK, just this once, I'll play along and call it "choice" instead of abortion. If "choice" is so innocuous and wholesome, why do its proponents and enablers so often lie and cover-up the truth?

First of all, why can't the "pro-choice" faction call "abortion" "abortion?" Let's face it, euphemisms are like underwear. They cover what we all know is really underneath, but might deem unpleasant. And what "choice" does the baby on "death row" have? Convicted murderers get appeals and endangered animals have their eggs protected by federal law, yet since 1973, we have butchered our young, now 40 + million and still counting by the bushel. "Choice"?

Abortion, oops, excuse me, "choice" providers have withheld information to women regarding studies that show links to abortion and cancer. Yes, I know, some of those studies are being supposedly disputed right now. Gee, I wonder why. Still, if these people are all about "choice," why not objectively educate their clients with the pros and the cons?

OK, forget cancer. These same providers also withhold pertinent, significant health related information to women with regard to the detrimental physical and mental side effects that plague many women after this gruesome procedure is performed. Why? Don't many of these practitioners claim to be concerned about "women's health"? My favorite is "reproductive rights." "Reproductive"? What are they "reproducing"? They aren't "reproducing" anything. They are killing babies. We all have "reproductive" rights. Those rights are inherently given to us by God. We don't need some trendy clinic to tell us that, and no such clinic can even give us that right. But there is no right for a woman to kill her own offspring, and even those who agree with Roe vs. Wade have stated that that case, which erroneously granted a man-made right for a woman to kill her offspring, was poorly decided on bad law.

In a June 18th op-ed in the Waterbury Republican-American, entitled, "Planned Parenthood's Millions; Profitable Nonprofit," the editor commented that organizations such as Planned Parenthood Federation Of America (PPFA) "bristle" as being referred to as the "abortion industry," and prefer being called "providers of sexual-health advice" and "advocates of reproductive rights." Yet, in 2005-2006, PPFA killed 264,943 children and made zero, yes, that's zero with a "z", adoption referrals. The article also disclosed that as per cnsnews.com, PPFA also reaped $305 million from taxpayers and $212 million in donations toward its overall $900 million income, minus $847 million for expenses, leaving PPFA with an approximate net profit of $56 million. That is a horrific notion, given how that money was earned, and despicably, at taxpayer expense. I find it equally disturbing that those donors actually zealously and voluntarily cut checks for a total of $212 million for this "charity." "Charity" to do what? Think about it!

When was the last time we ever heard of Planned Parenthood referring a client to an organization like "Birth Right," which supports mothers and children? What about those "reproductive rights"? What about "choice"? Doesn't "choice" include "options"? And why do they call themselves "Planned Parenthood," when they are in the business of preventing their clients from becoming "parents"? Or is that really "the plan"? What about what every double-talking pro-choice advocate and liberal politician who has hypocritically and sanctimoniously preached to us about "limiting" abortions while "supporting more adoptions"? Something is seriously wrong when you see the long trail of innocent blood and bitter tears the so-called "right to choose" has gotten us since its false inception 34 years ago and you then juxtapose that sordid fact over the needless and agonizing situation lived out every day by many married couples, some of whom cannot naturally have children of their own and would make wonderful, loving parents, desperately wait for years in anxiety and torment to finally have the opportunity to adopt any child. "Adoption" for a pro-choicer is nothing more than just another euphemism, which in that case, simply means, "Change the subject," or, "Vote for me."

Why don't these infant slaughterhouses with hearts and flowers for names dare even mention Rachel's Vineyard to their clients? Rachel's Vineyard is an organization that counsels both women and men who have been emotionally scarred by making that "choice" of abortion, much to a later life and long future of extreme torment and regret.

In Connecticut, a 75-year-old Bridgeport man impregnated a ten-year-old girl. Two different doctors neglected to report the incident. A New London man impregnated a 14-year-old girl three times. All three times, she had abortions performed at Planned Parenthood of Norwich. No questions asked. In 2002, an actress from Life Dynamics Incorporated (LDI) called 800 Planned Parenthood facilities nationwide, posing as a 13-year-old girl impregnated by an adult male. The vast majority of those clinics either dismissed the age of the hypothetical father or counseled the girl to either lie about his age or not mention it to prevent the necessity of calling the police regarding an act that amounts to the crime of statutory rape. In Connecticut, five such Planned Parenthood facilities also tried to encourage the caller to lie about or dismiss the father's name. Those facilities were in Willimantic, West Hartford, Bridgeport, New London, and yes, once again, Norwich. (I think I see a pattern here!) A taped transcript of some of these recorded phone conversations from LDI to Planned Parenthood was obtained and reported by WTIC TV news in Connecticut. It is high time that taxpayer dollars are spent prosecuting members of PPFA for their illegal activities, such as serving as accomplices to statutory rape, rather than supporting these activities.

Then of course, there is the whole issue, debated in several states, regarding the so-called "right" of a minor child to cross state lines to have an abortion, or to have an abortion without parental knowledge or consent. Either scenario is potentially harmful to the girl in a variety of ways, including by protecting the identity of child predators. Such legislative proposals are an attack on the family and a flagrant intrusion of parental rights, yet a school nurse still can't give your minor child an aspirin in school to treat a headache without first obtaining parental consent. Feminist agenda, perhaps? All the sex offender registries, Internet undercover stings and Amber Alerts won't be worth a plug nickel to protect or help any vulnerable child from sexual predators as long as this atrocious hypocrisy is both actively supported and passively tolerated.

With my teeth now into Planned Parenthood like a hungry pit bull, I just can't let go. In a recently aired program on Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN), noted Catholic speaker, Rev. John Corapi cited that for quite a while after September 11th, priests in Catholic churches across the country were soon deluged like they have not been in years by long lines of anxious Catholics, seeking to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation ("Confession"). Father Corapi also noted that for one entire week, Planned Parenthood in New York City had no clients and performed no abortions. It finally got so bad that PPFA actually had to increase its advertising to bring in more business. (I can just envision that grisly ad in the classified section of a New York newspaper: "Wanted: Babies to kill. Ask about our special post-9/11 discount, now available for a limited time only at participating PPFA clinics.") I wonder if some of those pregnant "pro-choice" mothers were re-thinking their plans and were instead standing in line for Confession at the local church to get back into God's grace, rather than be-bopping into the local PPFA abortion mill to have little Junior executed before supper time. If "choice" is so natural, healthy and good, why was PPFA out of business for a week after 9/11? Let me take a shot in the dark here, guilt, perhaps? Fear, maybe? Shall we call it an "Epiphany" after a presumed near-scrape with death and the dice rolling up "craps," on the sudden and unexpected appearance of Judgment Day before God? I recently had a couple conversations with two fellow Catholics, one of whom reluctantly attends mass every Sunday, and willfully rejects Confession, and another who willfully rejects both the Eucharist and Confession. They both confidently told me that they have nothing to fear because they are "good" people anyway. As I said to them, "How sure of yourself are you that you are willing to gamble your soul for all of eternity in Hell if you are, per chance, wrong?" Likewise, if PPFA clinics in New York City were all empty of clients for the week after 9/11, how absolutely sure are those strident pro-choicers that they are morally right in killing God's most precious gift, and the epitome of innocence and vulnerability in their womb without instigating His wrath? "Choice"? As Father Corapi also observed, why does the all-too common euphemism, "The right to choose" not have an ending? What are these folks talking about? Why can't they say it? "Choose" what?

Why is it that the pro-choicers, specifically those who earn their income from that so-called cause, also bristle at showing the sonograms of babies, OK, I'll again play along again, "fetuses," to their mothers before aborting their offspring? Most mothers shown sonograms of their children later change their minds and instead choose to have their babies. I am reminded of a conversation I once had with a friend who is a labor and delivery nurse in a major urban hospital. Despite her Catholic faith, she is "pro-choice," as she told me, because of what she has seen in her career. I then asked her if she believes that life begins at conception. (Hint: it does!) She then suddenly looked very noticeably uncomfortable and told me that she "cannot allow" herself to think about that. I have news for you folks, they say "the truth hurts," but so does denial!

Why is it that these same promulgators of infanticide also continue to defend partial birth abortion, the most gruesome variety of them all, by claiming that women have a "right" to that procedure when their health is compromised when doctors have repeatedly told us that there is no such instance to necessitate performing a partial birth, or "late term" abortion to save the life of the mother? These abortions can literally be done up to and including the day of delivery. The baby is delivered half-way through the birth canal, and then aborted by stabbing him or her, yes, "him or her," not "it," through the back of the skull (without anesthesia) and then suction his or her brain out of the skull. Then he or she is an "it," as the corpse of the otherwise previously viable baby is then completely removed from the birth canal. Say what you will about cannibals, but at least they carry out their barbaric practices for survival. What's our excuse, here in what is allegedly "civilized" society?

Euphemisms. Cover-ups. Lies. Is this what Helen Reddy meant when she sang, "I am woman, hear me roar"? Ladies, or where more applicable, women, is this where so-called "feminism" has brought you? The softer, kinder, gentler sex of the very flawed human species that was intended to bear, nourish, nurture, comfort and love children has done a complete 360 degree turn and actually become more barbaric than we men, who were originally intended to be strong, manly and the providers, guardians and protectors of our wives and children. How can we justify "choice," no, that's it, I'm done with that nonsense, "ABORTION," if we continue this insidious pretend game of willful and ludicrous deceit, like the lemming townspeople in the children's fairy tale, "The Emperor's New Clothes"? Newsflash, folks, just in case you are not familiar with the story, for the benefit of you adults who have not read it, or you children who have been murdered under the false auspice of "choice," the Emperor had no new clothes. As a matter of fact, the Emperor, although everyone was afraid to admit it, was buck-naked. He was absolutely wearing nothing, not even underwear. Despite what the townspeople denied, they knew what they saw, and all that could be seen was exposed and seen. Closing our eyes does not make the Boogey-Man go away. It is time for the naked truth. The underwear needs to finally come off the abominable abortion issue. It is time to expose all that is real, and especially, all that is unpleasant.