JWR still not fixing things

Dear JWR:

I am very distressed to see that Ms. Eisner's column, "Pro-lifers shouldn't mix issues," is still posted on JWR, without so much as a caveat that her information is far from accurate. To the contrary, she is bearing false witness, and JWR is giving her the bandwidth to do so.

She bears false witness against former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, claiming that he "concluded after an exhaustive study that the psychological effects of abortion are minuscule from a public health perspective." He did no such thing. As I pointed out in a previous email, that conclusion was drawn by researchers for the notoriously pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute, and put out under Koop's name by an underling by the name of George Walter. Here is a link explaining how this was done:

http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa041200a.htm

Ms. Eisner is also bearing false witness against the congresspersons who are standing up for post-abortion women, claiming that they are "conflate[ing] that real and present danger [of post-partum depression] with the, so far, unproven assumption that abortion causes widespread depression." She specifically bears false witness against U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts (R., Pa.), saying that in "introducing legislation last June to provide $15 million in research and $1.5 million in treatment" for post-abortion depression, he is wasting money on "a condition for which there is, at best, very weak evidence."

To the contrary, there is abundant evidence of post-abortion depression, including a high risk of suicide. As I stated in my previous email, the most recent research indicates that a woman is seven times more likely to kill herself in the year following abortion than in the year following childbirth. In fact, the post-abortion woman is more likely to die from a variety of causes, including accidents and murder, than the postpartum woman:

http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa061600a.htm

Here's more of a summary of research linking abortion to a higher risk of suicide:

http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa070700a.htm

The link between abortion and women's violent deaths, such as accident, homicide, and suicide, was even stumbled upon and commented upon by the abortion supporters at the Centers for Disease Control:

http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa032700a.htm

Yes, the individual accounts of postpartum suicide are heart wrenching indeed. And yes, we should strive to prevent these needless deaths. But it's unconscionable to also ignore post abortion suicides, such as the cases of:

-Arlin della Cruz: http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa030503a.htm
-Sandra Kaiser: http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/deaths/bl84skaiser.htm
-Carol Cunningham: http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa030603a.htm

Even in her closing, Ms. Eisner bears false witness against helpless newborns, calling them "babies whose births have caused so much suffering." She blames the mother's suffering not on an illness, but on the innocent children who have done no wrong! How much more clear could she make her bias?

In the final analysis, one can even apply common sense. Postpartum depression would have been much easier to spot throughout history, because a pregnancy carried to term, and a newborn infant, are fairly obvious signs that a significant event has taken place in a woman's life. Any aberrant behavior could easily be linked to the birth, even by a casual observer. But an abortion is done in secret. Aberrant behavior afterward would be linked to the abortion only by close examination of the woman's circumstances. Which problem, then, would be more likely to be noticed?

Christina E. Dunigan