The fall of Roe--Addendum

The previous piece was intended to be short, and focus on the less-than-honorable circumstances of Roe. In essence, a troubled woman (Norma McCorvey aka “Jane Roe”) who wanted an abortion sought legal counsel to obtain one. Instead, she was used as a pawn in litigation that led to the heralded Supreme Court case. Moreover, she perjured herself regarding accusations of gang rape.

Our purpose here is to present a few more points, which are not well-publicized.

The matter of of how many abortions are funded by Medicaid is complicated by how individual states interpret the Hyde Amendment. The available statistics are another case of how government numbers for virtually anything are theoretically available, but are obscured either by infrequent reporting, or reporting whereby the desired information is hidden within gigantic tables of massively grouped data.

According to the abortion industry’s own Guttmacher Institute,

• In 2014, most abortion patients—53%—paid out of pocket; Medicaid was the second most common national payment method (used by 24% of patients). The overwhelming majority of those who used Medicaid to pay for abortion care lived in the 15 states that, at that time, provided coverage beyond the limits of the Hyde Amendment.

• In the 15 states that provided coverage in 2014 beyond what Hyde required, Medicaid was the most common payment method and was used by 52% of abortion patients. In 2014, 89% of Medicaid-enrolled abortion patients in those states had their abortion covered by their insurance.

Good luck finding more recent data. Physician friends tell me that the current national number is much higher than 24%. Government policy regarding children of poor women—especially single women—always seems to favor either aborting them, or at least removing them from the “offending” mother. Thus, funding is often provided to foster parents preferentially to helping the birth mother.

Consider that a by-product of the abortion procedure is the sale of fetal parts. Thus, the Feds are subsidizing the already profitable “aftermarket.”

Finally, there is the matter of the link between abortion and breast cancer. A number of studies suggesting this link appeared in the 1990s, and were soon condemned by the “authorities.” At the time, it was hardly mainstream to suggest that an agenda might be in play regarding science.

These days, given the fiasco of COVID-19, and the monstrously over-hyped “vaccines,” as well as the public flogging of formerly revered medical figures such as Peter McCullough, more people are waking up to the notion of “Science” that can promote a sinister agenda.

To quote from the above linked article, which cites 21 references…

Breast cancer is the leading cause of death in women aged 30-50 in Europe and North America.

• Abortion is the commonest surgical procedure performed on women.
• 28 out of 37 studies published since 1957 show an association between abortion and breast cancer.
• There is a plausible biological explanation.
• Breast cancer rates are up by 40% since the 1970s.
• Abortion is a preventable risk factor.
It is no longer possible to argue that abortion is safe: abortion providers and their apologists should be held to account.

Perhaps poor Norma McCorvey is not the only pawn of the abortion movement.