“The entire abortion industry is based on a lie” – Follow the Money



by Daniel Klimek

The affidavit did not happen the way I said it did, pure and simple. I lied! Sarah Weddington  and Linda Coffee needed an extreme case to make their client look pitiable…Sarah knew the  truth, the real truth, long before she ever went to the Supreme Court in 1971. Yes, the stated  reason for my abortion is based upon a lie, a great lie. So the entire abortion industry is based  on a lie.

- Norma McCorvey, a.k.a. “Jane Roe” of Roe v. Wade

No matter where one stands on life issues, few people know—whether conservatives, liberals, or independents—about how much deception went into legalizing abortion in our country. The corruption is centered around two U.S. Supreme Court cases, both of which were passed down on the same day on January 22, 1973: Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Focusing on the facts and fictions surrounding these notorious cases, let us go deeper into the rabbit hole and uncover their troubling histories. We just passed the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Let us consider how, exactly, this case and its lesser known “sister-case” came to be.

Roe v. Wade

In the late 1960s, two Texas attorneys named Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee searched for a case to launch—both being recent law school graduates—their careers. Both women knew each other as students at the University of Texas School of Law, where the classmates were only two out of five females in a class of 120 students. Coffee, after law school, a bit more successful than her counterpart, was already working as a law clerk in Dallas for Federal District Judge Sarah T. Hughes. Weddington, who has proudly proclaimed herself as the “Lawyer who won Roe v. Wade,” was, ironically, the daughter of a Christian minister. She is also someone who has allegedly had personal experience with abortion. While in law school, Weddington was impregnated by her boyfriend and, thereafter, decided to get an illegal abortion in Mexico. In Texas, the procedure was legally allowed if the mother’s life was at risk. Since that element played no role for Weddington—though the child was seen as an inconvenience for the law student—she made the effort to cross the border in order to abort the life. In Mexico, though illegal at the time, abortion was performed pervasively through the black market.

It is one of the more interesting things to note that when it comes to Roe v. Wade and its opponents, the person most identified and demonized as the perpetrator in the case that has helped to abort millions of lives since its implementation has been Norma McCorvey, the so-called “Jane Roe” of the case, thus the plaintiff. She once explained that many people “see me as a demon. To them I’m a blasphemer and a baby-killer.” In the past this has been the situation even when, in actuality, McCorvey, self-admittedly, was nothing more than a pawn in an ambitious plan orchestrated by her two attorneys. “I was nothing to Sarah and Linda, nothing more than just a name on a piece of paper,” she once recalled.

Today, to the dismay of many proponents of legal abortion, McCorvey is actually a strong pro-life advocate and a passionate supporter of overturning the Supreme Court decision that carries her notorious alias. Believe it or not, the former “Roe” herself never even had an abortion, giving her child up for adoption before the Supreme Court decision was finalized. McCorvey, in reality, has conceived and delivered three children in her lifetime. Within the infamous case, she solely existed as a plaintiff just to be used by her attorneys—since they were searching for a vulnerable pregnant woman—and, thereafter, according to McCorvey, she was socially disposed, seldom hearing from either lawyer again; no longer being needed.

After decades of abortion advocacy and many years of working in numerous abortion facilities, on August 8, 1995, in the city of North Garland, Texas, Norma McCorvey was baptized a Christian, abandoning her former identity as “Jane Roe” and gradually becoming a full supporter of the pro-life movement and its humane cause. She has since started the Roe No More Ministry, a ministry through which she has been able to encourage pro-life groups, speak to women about the lies she has personally witnessed within the abortion industry, and support the overall cause and natural gift of life.

In April 1996, McCorvey returned to the U.S. Supreme Court with efforts to lobby its justices to overturn Roe v. Wade. She presented to them a video titled Reversing Roe: The Norma McCorvey Story, which had then been recently released. She recalled the event by explaining, “I couldn’t unsign the affidavit the justices had already argued and decided upon, but perhaps I could, through that video, help them see the lies of that fateful decision.”

After her visit, McCorvey quietly remained for a moment before the steps of the Supreme Court building, where she knelt on the sidewalk and offered a personal prayer. Praying to God to help “them see the truth,” about the lies surrounding abortion, McCorvey also declared that one “of the ‘truths’ I wanted people to see involved an admission I had made many years before.” She then explained:

“As Sarah Weddington presented my case, she used the fact that I had claimed to have become pregnant through a gang rape. The public had certain misgivings about abortion in the early seventies, but there was much greater acceptance of abortion in cases of rape.…
This means that the abortion case that destroyed every state protecting the unborn was based on a lie.”

Doe v. Bolton

 I am against abortion; I never sought an abortion; I have never had an abortion. Abortion is  murder. … The Doe v. Bolton case is based on deceit and fraud.
- Sandra Cano, a.k.a. “Mary Doe”
of Doe v. Bolton

On January 22, 1973, not one, but two abortion cases were decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of the deadly practice. While Roe legalized abortion during the first two trimesters of a pregnancy,  Roe’s “companion case,” titled Doe v. Bolton, allowed abortion to be performed throughout all three trimesters of pregnancy, from conception to the destined end, on demand. In other words, this was the case that legalized the indisputably murderous procedure known as partial-birth abortion. Incidentally, the case was granted affirmation by the same seven majority on the Court that were capable to magically conjure up a never-before-seen “privacy” right within the Fourteenth Amendment for Roe’s legalization. Two tricks in one day actually took place—most people don’t know this, unaware of the second deadly magic act.

The story of Doe shares so many similarities to the story of Roe, especially from the perspective of the utilized plaintiffs—both of whom are strong pro-life advocates today—that the only word to justly define the comparison is uncanny, if not a bit disturbing, in its fateful nature.

A division that separates the facts behind the two cases is something present within their likeliness. Both cases are based on lies—but, compared to the fraudulent deceptions (or, more aptly, pure falsifications) present in Doe, Roe has the unlikely tendency of looking like child’s play in the game of perjury, despite its horrific aftermath. Doe, on the other hand, is a case that—according to its plaintiff—is fully fictitious, a complete hoax conjured up by an ambitious attorney with an alternative agenda and self-serving motivations; motivations that solely required the needed assistance of a vulnerable pregnant woman to be misused as a plaintiff (sound familiar?).

The plaintiff herself once stated that being young, “uneducated, and naive, I was taken advantage of by an aggressive self-serving attorney, Margie Pitts Hames, the legal-aid attorney. I never wanted an abortion.” In our current American culture the usage of vulnerable and pregnant women, ironically, has become a lucrative trademark of the abortion industry, thus it may come by no surprise that its foundations began with the same routine of exploitation.

Sandra Cano, who may historically be known by her unwanted and undeserving alias as “Mary Doe” of Doe v. Bolton, was seventeen years old when she first met her future husband, a 22 year-old man named Joel Lee Bensing. Sandra grew up in a poor neighborhood in the State of Georgia, the daughter of an Atlanta City sanitation worker. She already had dropped out of school as a result of her environment, poor grades, relentless classmates making fun of her weight, and also the pains of Bell’s Palsy—which Sandra had, causing for disfiguration in her smile; and, not to mention, she also possessed a learning disorder. Sandra’s domestic life, likewise, did not help her already-present disposition at adolescence. She grew up in a poor family where abuse made its occasional presence, frequenting the helpless girl herself numerous times.

The loneliness, vulnerability, and insecurity that perpetually rotated around young Sandra’s personal and social life led her to make one of the early decisions that would prove unfortunate, to put it modestly, in the long term. She married Bensing, with whom Sandra thought she could find escape from the contemporary tragedy that was life. Bensing, however, only ended up adding to the drama. A week after the sudden, shotgun wedding, “Sandra found out that her husband was serving probation for molesting two different 5-year-old children,” according to a friend. Notwithstanding this horrific discovery, by no means did it mean that Sandra’s husband solely had a disturbing past—for it never left him. Within years later Bensing, once again, was charged; this time with kidnapping and molestation.

Sandra had three children with Bensing before she finally attempted to file for divorce against him in 1970. At the time, while searching for an attorney, Sandra was pregnant with her fourth child. Going through an emotionally unstable mental stage and having difficulty raising them with a continually absent spouse, Sandra’s other children were put in foster care. Deciding that it was time to place her life back on track, which necessitated the need to regain her children and permanently disband the civil union she had with her husband, Sandra turned to public legal assistance for help.

For a poor young woman in Georgia, Atlanta Legal Aid seemed an ideal, if not—to put it more aptly—a last available, resort. That is where Margie Pitts Hames presented herself, appearing surprisingly eager to help Sandra with her situation.

Hames, whose soul no longer graces our green earth, is the lawyer largely responsible for the legalization of partial-birth abortion—along with seven other lawyers who sat on the Supreme Court when the case came before them. She is Orwellianly known today by many as one of the great civil liberty advocates of our time, in certain Georgian circles at least; as a true pioneer of “women’s rights,” and the right of “choice,”—though seldom do the blind supporters of the late lawyer ever mention what goes on behind that so-called “choice.” The reality is more troubling than euphemistic language can convey or conceal.

The Catholic activist and law professor Helen M. Alvaré, while once making an appearance before Congress on Capitol Hill, gave a frank testimony describing exactly what the partial-birth procedure entails:
“In sum, this procedure is designed such that an abortionist kills a human infant who is partially delivered outside of his or her mother’s womb. The infant is not directly anesthetized to prevent pain… Once so delivered, according to the writings of one prominent practitioner of this method, Dr. Martin Haskell, the infant is killed by inserting a pair of sharp curved scissors into the base of the child’s skull. The scissors are then spread wide enough to insert a catheter to suction out the contents of the skull before the head is collapsed and the infant fully delivered outside of the mother.”
It must take quite the stomach to consider support for such an act a civil “liberty” or “right.”

Dealing with the proper litigation for the Doe case first required finding the right plaintiff, then either coercing her into the situation or—if she resisted, as Sandra did— omitting from her the knowledge of the essential details presented within the cover-up. “Sandra was kept in the dark and told only that her case had something to do with ‘Women’s Rights,’” reflected Sybil Fletcher Lash, an author and friend of Sandra’s. Though Sandra went to seek help from Margie Pitts Hames in order to get her children back and to divorce her husband, Hames had other plans for the then-pregnant girl and her future role as plaintiff.

Hames’ solution for Sandra’s problems—a “solution” that Sandra herself could never even realistically imagined, as her subsequent actions would show—was to receive an abortion. There was one issue. Sandra did not believe in abortion and would not agree to have the atrocious procedure executed against her own child. This would seem to the rational observer enough reason to disqualify Sandra as Hames’ ideal plaintiff. But, apparently the mind of an ambitious lawyer functions a little differently, especially when such an evident obstacle—like a mother who does not want to kill her child, no matter what her social circumstances are—arises.

Hames, despite Sandra’s opposition, relentlessly pushed for abortion as the sole option for the young mother, in the course of action involving Sandra’s family in the persuasion process. “Instead of real help, my mother, stepfather and my lawyer persisted in their demands that I have an abortion,” Sandra explained in an affidavit in 2001, attempting to expose the fraud that is the Doe case. “When the demand for an abortion persisted, I fled to Oklahoma and stayed at the home of my ex-husband’s grandmother.”

Notwithstanding this strong dissidence produced by the young mother, Hames took no consideration, deciding, in the end, to push her agenda across with or without Sandra. Without the plaintiff’s presence is the road that the attorney eventually took, which did not mean that Hames did not use Sandra. The opportunistic lawyer used Sandra’s name and—therefore—“identity” as “Doe,” distorting and fictionalizing the story of the plaintiff’s needs, wants, and actions in the process; doing so all the way to the United States Supreme Court, where the lies unquestionably helped her win the case. 

Sybil Fletcher Lash, a friend of Sandra’s who has traveled across numerous cities and states in the U.S. trying to assist efforts to publicly expose the lies and deceptions behind the Doe case—predominantly through public talks and events—once explained, “Sandra believes that the Supreme Court was deliberately deceived . Things that Sandra had no knowledge of, and never consented to, were presented as actual events.” In other words, “throughout the process, judges were continually told lies and then based their decisions on the lies they were fed.”

Let’s carefully examine these fabrications.

Speaking before the nation’s Supreme Court, according to the transcript, these are the lies that Hames told the justices:
She [Sandra] applied to the public hospital for an abortion, where she was eligible for free medical care. Her application there was denied. She later applied, through a private physician, to a private hospital abortion committee, where her abortion application was approved. Her – she did not obtain the abortion, however, because she did not have the cash to deposit and pay her hospital bill in advance.

It’s hard to see how a woman who solely wanted a divorce from her husband and to regain custody of her children could be so manipulatively exploited by a lawyer as to change those needs into the “desire” for an abortion, which Sandra would have never permitted—deciding instead to flee the state rather than to be coerced into killing her own child in the womb. Yet these factors evidently did not stop Hames from pursuing her self-serving agenda.

“A number of years ago, I decided that I wanted to see my file in the case so I could see what was said about me,” Sandra explained, recalling the event. Wanting to get her records unsealed to find out the actual details of the case that carried her alias—since the plaintiff, once again, was not even present at the Court hearings—Sandra hired an attorney named Wendell Bird to assist her with the process. This happened many years after the two landmark abortion cases; in 1989, when Sandra’s own socioeconomic situation had improved and, therefore, she was capable to afford the resources necessary to unveil the truth.

Following the immediate discovery of these intentions, Sandra explained that the “attorney who represented me in Doe v. Bolton, Margie Pitts Hames, tried to stop me from getting my own records, and I did not understand why.” After the records were unveiled so was the reason for the cover-up.“It was only when I first saw the opened records in Doe v. Bolton that I understood why Margie didn’t want me to see them.” The evidence was astonishing to the former “Mary Doe,” the woman who, once again, solely wanted to regain legal custody of her children and attain a spousal divorce, nothing else from her trustworthy lawyer. Thus, in Sandra’s own words:
The records stated that I applied for an abortion, was turned down, and, as a result, sued the state of Georgia. According to the records, I had applied for an abortion through a panel of nine doctors and nurses at a state-funded hospital, Grady Memorial Hospital. That was a false statement. After reading the court records, I contacted the hospital and tried to obtain my records. At first I was told there were records, but when my new attorney sent his legal assistant to review the records, we were told that they did not exist. The hospital said they didn’t have any records. I never sought an abortion there or anywhere else.

In fact, the search for these alleged records that Hames conjured up, predominantly in her own ambitious imagination, was taken very seriously by Grady Memorial Hospital, which performed a 32-hour search for the records “under every possible name and variation.” Despite all this thorough dedication, time, and work given into the task of finding the elusive information, no such records were ever discovered, validating the fact that they never existed; that Sandra never applied for an abortion; that Hames filled her case with a pack of lies before the Supreme Court; and that—again—one of the landmark decisions used to legitimize the abortion industry in the United States was based on an array of severe fraudulency and deception.

One can see why Hames, a supposedly respected civil liberties lawyer (during her time) would want to stop Sandra from uncovering the previously sealed records of the Doe case: to cover her own lying tracks.

“My lawyer became upset with me because I would never say to anyone that I would have an abortion,” Sandra recalled. She further emphasized how persuasive with her manipulation Hames attempted to be, connecting the legal right to take unborn life with real women’s issues, such as equality in pay. “I remember Margie debating me. She claimed we were involved in a liberation right. She said women were entitled to equal pay for equal work, and I agreed. I never saw the pleading filed in court.” Coincidentally, most of the issues that brought Sandra to seek help from legal aid were never filed in court. Talk about justice under law as a public service.

The Supreme Court was well deceived—if not cooperative—with this one. Sandra Cano as a young woman never wanted an abortion, believing any substitute better for her child than death. In fact, Sandra, knowing very well at the time of her fourth pregnancy that she could not provide her child with an ideal or, simply, affordable life, due to her socioeconomic disadvantages, gave her daughter up for adoption after the birth. Ironically, just like the former Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, the former Mary Doe of Doe v. Bolton also, in the end, picked life for her child instead of death. Not necessarily the ideal spokeswomen the abortion movement was looking for when pressing its agenda across the country. Sandra poignantly explained the situation regarding her own views and, unquestionably, the views of millions of mothers in our nation who would never consider the luxury of personal convenience a matter justifiable to ending the life of a child.
“But no matter how hard life happens to be, no one has the right to kill a baby – especially the baby’s mother. She is the trustee of her child’s life. She, of all people, has the sacred duty to protect the child. But the child’s interests are not at odds with her own. They are in concert with one another. The mother derives a great benefit from her relationship with her child. It is as beneficial to her as it is the child. It is never in the interest of a mother to terminate the life of her own child.”

On March 23, 1997, the former Mary Doe and the former Jane Roe came together to publicly speak out against abortion and their own tragic roles in the legalization process, formalizing their stances by having plaques installed into the National Memorial for Unborn Children declaring their respect for life. The location of this national site is in Chattanooga, Tennessee, where a former abortion clinic—responsible for the deaths of 35,000 lives during its years of business—previously resided. The clinic was purchased by pro-life supporters after its co-owners, two middle-aged women were both diagnosed with, and eventually died of, cancer. The “half of the building, which had contained the abortion chambers, was demolished with a bulldozer. In the ruins the next morning a neatly placed teddy bear was found….” McCorvey explained. “A memorial was built on this site to remember those valuable lost lives, and to recognize the grief carried by millions of living victims of abortion.”

The Economics of Abortion: Following the Money

Abortion advocates, specifically those who support partial-birth abortion— since many within the movement do draw lines as to where their support ends—predominantly argue that the procedure should remain legal, for it is mostly used when a women’s health is at risk, seldom mentioning the numerous girls who wait months into their pregnancies before even entering an abortion clinic (the wait is usually based on insecurity and uncertainty). These are the same advocates who—if they possess the historical knowledge of America’s abortion cases—defend Hames’ actions to fight for the legalization of partial-birth abortion throughout the latter months of pregnancy, despite the fact that Georgia’s abortion laws (which Hames challenged) were very “liberal” to begin with, systematically stating that an abortion was legally allowed if going through the process of birth held the possibility of “seriously and permanently” injuring the mother’s health, for instance, among other circumstances. After the Doe ruling, however, health was no longer an issue in justifying the act; social convenience itself was enough to legalize three-trimester abortion on demand. Hence, the Doe decision did not reassure women their health in hospitals or medical situations (since the partial-birth procedure was already legal for that case), but gave abortion businesses the legal right to kill developing children for the sake of any reason.

Before the Doe decision, in Georgia partial-birth abortion was a medical procedure performed to save the life of a woman in an established hospital if there were complications with her pregnancy. After the Doe decision, partial-birth abortion became nationally privatized; privatized to be used for any means and by any recognized business that “certified” itself the authority to perform the act in order to profit from the economic expansion of the deadly practice. Hence, hospitals had just lost their “monopoly” on partial-birth abortion, no longer being the only institutions that could legally perform the procedure; no longer was the procedure to be limited to medical reasons. These were the great beginnings of an unspoken “abortion-industrial complex.” And this is one of the unmentioned, corporate benefits that Hames argued for in front of the Supreme Court. The allegation as presented here is not by any means, nor should it be insinuated as to being, a conspiracy theory, for it is nothing but substantial fact, as written by Doe author Harry Blackmun himself in the majority opinion:
Appellants and various amici have presented us with a mass of data purporting to demonstrate that some facilities other than hospitals are entirely adequate to perform abortions… We hold that the hospital requirement of the Georgia law…is also invalid. In so holding we naturally express no opinion on the medical judgment involved in any particular case, that is, whether the patient’s situation is such that an abortion should be performed in a hospital, rather than in some other facility.
The majority opinion, furthermore, manifestly explains the true purpose for the case: that there would be no dilemma in legalizing and justifying other facilities—not medical hospitals, but privately operated businesses—the right to execute abortions. Oh, yes, this is the great history of the abortion culture that its proponents never even consider discussing, silencing the topic to a narrow stream of euphemistic rhetoric fueled with contorted claims of “choice” and “privacy” while ignoring the economics and big business involved in the franchise.

Looking closely at the already-present abortion laws in Georgia, it becomes devastatingly apparent that the laws were extraordinarily liberalized for a pro-abortion advantage, allowing partial-birth abortion for numerous instances. Here are the exact Georgia laws that were present before the Doe case was decided on. The Supreme Court observed, “Section 26-1202 (a) states the exception and removes from 1201′s definition of criminal abortion, and thus makes noncriminal, an abortion ‘performed by a physician duly licensed’ in Georgia when, ‘based upon his best clinical judgment . . . an abortion is necessary because:
‘(1) A continuation of the pregnancy would endanger the life of the pregnant woman or would seriously and permanently injure her health; or
‘(2) The fetus would very likely be born with a grave, permanent, and irremediable mental or physical defect; or
‘(3) The pregnancy resulted from forcible or statutory rape.’”
The fact that Georgia’s abortion privileges were already so expansive and available makes the argument clear that Hames’ role in her Doe advocacy had much less to do with “women’s rights”—since, once again, if such rights include legalized abortion than they were more than available—and much more to do with corporate rights. The most tangible change that was nationally implemented as a result of the Doe decision was the original expansion of the corporatization of abortion, the procedure now becoming a very economically advantageous commodity for a lot of individuals with special (hence, predominantly financial) interests. Notice one of the phrases mentioned above in Blackmun’s opinion, abortion “performed by a physician duly licensed.” This requirement was struck down in Georgia, and therefore—due to the federal power of the U.S. Supreme Court—also in every state in the nation. No longer was a licensed medical professional required to perform abortions for no longer were abortions required to be solely medical procedures; once again, they have just been privatized as commodities into a business.

The questions need to be asked: What did the well-concealed abortion case really grant? What was the truly underlying purpose behind the injunction of the Supreme Court? Where seven justices (out of nine) were seated in an entity of legal power whose history with governmental and business connections have been far from small.

Women’s rights? – or – Corporate rights?  Ask yourself.

Can there be another explanation to why so many so-called “pro-life” Republican presidents—those who held excessively strong business ties in our capitalistic country—have “mistakenly” nominated so many pro-abortion justices to the Supreme Court, disappointing their conservative bases on so many instances with the “mishap” decade after decade? Since the year of the Roe and Doe decisions, four out of six U.S. presidents have been Republicans. Eight Supreme Court justices have been appointed to the Court after a Republican nomination with the chance to overturn Roe, six of which have supported the upholding of legalized abortion—seven if you count Blackmun, who was appointed before the Roe decision and subsequently became its prime author.

In addition to authoring Roe, Harry Blackmun, nominated by Republican Richard Nixon in 1970, ruled to uphold abortion in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey; John Paul Stevens, nominated by Republican Gerald Ford in 1975, ruled to uphold abortion in Casey; Sandra Day O’Connor, nominated by Republican Ronald Regan in 1981, ruled to uphold abortion in Casey; Anthony Kennedy, appointed by Reagan in 1988, ruled to uphold abortion in Casey; David Souter, appointed by Republican George H. W. Bush in 1990, ruled to uphold abortion in Casey.

Furthermore, it deserves merit that both Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr., both nominees of Republican George W. Bush, helped uphold Roe v. Wade in the 2007 case Gonzales v. Carhart. To their credit, Roberts and Alito did vote with the 5-4 majority opinion to overturn partial-birth abortion.However, what is seldom mentioned is that there was a separate concurrence filed along with the majority opinion. That concurrence, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas and accompanied by fellow originalist Antonin Scalia, aptly proclaimed that Roe v. Wade has no constitutional basis. Neither Roberts nor Alito joined that opinion. 

Hence, in 1992 alone every Supreme Court justice that ruled to uphold abortion in the United States was a Republican nominee. In 2007, additionally, the newest Republican nominees were also instrumental in protecting Roe’s legal standing. What was all this based on – rotten luck in personal selection of justices, or billions of dollars in annual profits for one of America’s most lucrative industries, subsidized by the American government?

The logics of economics do, after all, play a role in every branch of American government, let’s not forget.

In its 2004-2005 Fiscal Year Annual Report, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the country’s biggest abortion provider, reported a total revenue of $882.0 million—$272.7 million coming from government grants and contracts. This was even better than the year before. In its 2003-2004 Fiscal Year Annual Report, Planned Parenthood reported a total revenue of $810.0 million—$265.2 million coming from government grants and contracts.  This is the same entity that in its 2004-2005 Annual Report explained on the cover page “that every child should be wanted and loved,” while documenting on page 5 of that same report that in 2004 255,015 abortions were performed by the organization, a little more than in 2003, which saw 245,092 abortions executed by Planned Parenthood against children in the womb. Is that how every child should be wanted and loved—by killing over 500,000 of them within a two-year period? Or was the point specifically made through the usage of the conjunction and (“wanted and loved”), meaning those children who are not wanted do not deserve to be loved—just be put straight to death?

When Hames “represented” or—more accurately—used Mary Doe, what is less known is that the absent star plaintiff was not Doe v. Bolton’s sole plaintiff. For as the Supreme Court’s majority opinion acknowledges, “On April 16, 1970, Mary Doe, 23 other individuals…and two nonprofit Georgia corporations that advocate abortion reform instituted this federal action…” Who could some of these  corporations have included?

Well, according to a footnote found in the majority opinion, many answers arise, one of which states: “Briefs of amici curiae were filed by…Frederic S. Nathan for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., et al.”

Well, what is this?

A great financial interest, that’s what.

It is absolutely fascinating to acknowledge that within our intellectual culture—be it through institutions as informative as the media or academia—we habitually receive the fifth-grade version as to how abortion became legalized in our country, never truly understanding the powerful underlying interests that were invested in the process. The usual scenario our students and citizens are taught sells along these lines: a woman wants an a an abortion; during her time the procedure is illegal; she challenges the law all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, wins her case and, henceforth, “advances” American feminism as we know it. Seldom, if ever, is this fairytale unmasked by the truth behind the industry, for revealing the fact that the abortion culture stemmed not out of the basis of “women’s rights” but out of the basis of corporate rights would completely denounce the value of the ludicrous victory and its propagandistic theme as a “liberal” injunction. Far from a liberal entity, the original threshold of the abortion epidemic finds its American beginnings rooted in the highly lucrative, and dangerously razor-sharp, weapon of capitalistic corporatism, a byproduct of American traditionalism. “Protect freedom-of-choice” is a nice little bedtime story that sees its abundant utilization to publicly hide, consciously dismiss, and socially protect the nightmare that resides behind the tale. A pretty slogan intended for a naïve audience.

Now, clearly there were a lot of powerful interests involved here in the Doe case, yet, the plaintiff of Mary Doe—whether she existed or not (in the end it didn’t matter to the Supreme Court)—was instrumental for the process to take place, for it was her fictionalized story and her name that sold the case. Justice Blackmun, after all, conceded that “Inasmuch as Doe and her class are recognized, the question whether the other appellants…present a justiciable controversy and have standing is perhaps a matter of no great consequence.” All the interests, therefore, financial and political, rested on the need of a Mary Doe. An entire industry was at stake. 

Returning to the political perception, it is clear that Democrats have long ago sold out, overlooking the value of pre-born and partially-born children for the financially serving interests of corporate profit; but, judging by their Supreme Court nominees, by no means should it be assumed that the Republican Party has been the great establishment which supports life unequivocally. If Republicans truly wanted the abortion business to be gone, it would have disappeared years ago; three decades of power within the Executive branch—as well as many years within the Legislative—was more than enough to end one Supreme Court decision. That’s if the desire was truly there. Let’s look at an example which proves that such a desire may not exist, for either party.

During the Clinton years, with the enthusiastic help of the administration, Congress enacted the discriminatory Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) act, which enforced a “no-protest zone” around abortion mills. “Under FACE, protestors who obstruct access to abortuaries can be prosecuted for federal offenses” the act declared which, of course, is not the case for other protestors whose efforts target businesses (i.e. environmentalists, union workers, or political protestors). FACE is similar to a Bill of Attainder, an unconstitutional measure singling out one specific group of people for special punishment. In this case, that specific group of people are pro-life supporters. In 2004, FACE was challenged in the judiciary. U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt ruled that the act was unconstitutional, exceeding congressional authority and violating the reserved powers of the states. One would expect the allegedly “pro-life” Republican Bush administration to be supportive of this ruling. Yet, as soon as the ruling came down, the Bush Justice Department sent assistant U.S. Attorney General Peter Keisler to New Orleans to challenge it, in order to defend FACE on an appeal before a three-judge U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Speaking on the Bush administration’s behalf, Keisler argued that the ruling against FACE was erroneous, for “it does interfere with the workings of an interstate market.”


One thought on ““The entire abortion industry is based on a lie” – Follow the Money

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>