CTVL Newsletter April 2011

Emergency Contraception Is Abortion

Emergency Contraception: The Morning-After Pill
Thursday, July 24, 2003 – By ALL


What is it?

Emergency contraception (also known as the morning-after pill) is a high dosage of the birth control pill. It is recommended to be used after sexual intercourse, over a period of 72 hours, to achieve the goal of preventing or ending pregnancy. There are three different ways birth control pills are currently being promoted for this use: progesterone alone, estrogen alone, or both of these artificial steroids together.

These are the same steroids found in the typical birth control pill.

Where did this idea come from?

The idea of emergency contraception?or a morning-after pill?is based on a theory. Under this theory, if a woman has sexual intercourse and fears she may be pregnant, she can take large doses of birth control pills. If in fact the woman is pregnant when she takes these birth control pills, the high dosage could act to kill her preborn child-a living human being. The only “emergency” in this case is the woman’s fear of being pregnant.

There are currently two specific morning-after pills on the market ? Preven and Plan B. Additionally, double doses (or more) of existing birth control pills can be prescribed for similar purposes. Though no testing has been done to confirm the safety of these large doses of birth control pills for women, the Food and Drug Administration has approved this use.

How do emergency contraception/morning-after pills work?

The emergency contraceptive/morning-after pill has three possible ways in which it can work:

  1. Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released;
  2. The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation; or
  3. It can irritate the lining of the uterus so that if the first and second actions fail, and the woman does become pregnant, the tiny baby boy or girl will die before he or she can actually attach to the lining of the uterus.

In other words, if the third action occurs, her body rejects the tiny baby and he or she will die. This is called a chemical abortion.

Abortion is an act of direct killing that takes the life of a tiny human being-a life that begins at fertilization.

Is it safe?

No. Here are some of the side effects:

  • nausea
  • vomiting
  • infertility
  • breast tenderness
  • ectopic pregnancy-can be life threatening
  • blood clot formation

Emergency contraception also offers no protection against sexually transmitted diseases including AIDS.

There are no long term studies to show whether women will be permanently damaged, or risk such diseases as cancer, from these chemicals being given in such high doses.

What is my best option?

Some people may try to convince you that emergency contraception is totally without risk. Don’t believe it!

Don’t depend on emergency contraception. It could be harmful to you. It could also kill your baby-without you knowing it.

If you’re single, abstinence is always your best choice. It isn’t always easy, but it always works. By abstaining from sex, you eliminate the possibility of pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.

If you are married, be faithful to your spouse, trusting in the Lord and His will.

Be good to yourself. Don’t use emergency contraception.


“A Consumer’s Guide to the Pill and Other Drugs,” by pharmacist/researcher John Wilks.

“Infant Homicides Through Contraceptives,” by pharmacist Bogomir Kuhar; 2nd edition, 1995.

Medical consultant: Stephen Spaulding, M.D. Dr. Spaulding is a board-certified family practitioner whose writings have appeared in a variety of medical journals.

Contraception and the Abortion Connection

Abortion Connection

Proponents of hormonal contraception — particularly the pill — contend that contraception does not cause abortion. They argue that contraception prevents pregnancy and thereby reduces the need for induced abortion. However, they intentionally define the term “pregnancy” as implantation of a fertilized egg in the lining of a woman’s uterus, as opposed to “pregnancy” beginning at fertilization.

Whether one understands pregnancy as beginning at “implantation” or “fertilization,” the heart of the matter is when human life begins. Embryological science has clearly determined that, when we consider natural sexual human reproduction, human life begins at the beginning of the process of fertilization — at the moment of first contact between the female oocyte and the male sperm immediately resulting in a new, genetically distinct human being. This is not a subjective opinion, but an objective scientific fact.[1]

Keep in mind that fertilization normally occurs in the fallopian tube. The newly created child then travels down the fallopian tube to the uterus (womb) where he or she implants. Implantation is necessary for the new child to receive nourishment from the mother and continue developing. The journey from the fallopian tube to the womb takes between five and seven days during which pregnancy cannot be readily detected.

Hormonal birth control has three modes of action; that is, it can work in one of three ways:

  1. Prevent or delay the release of an ooctye (egg) from the ovary (ovulation). However, women can and do experience “breakthrough ovulation” — meaning that an oocyte is released from the ovary, thus making fertilization possible.
  2. Cause the cervical mucus to thicken, making it difficult for the sperm to reach the oocyte. It is possible, though, for the sperm to break through the mucus and for fertilization to occur.
  3. Thin the lining of the uterus (endometrium) so as to inhibit implantation.

The package inserts for all forms of hormonal contraception clearly indicate that each can work to prevent a “fertilized egg” (which is actually a newly formed human being) from implanting in the uterine wall.

Therefore, if a woman ingests hormonal contraception after fertilization has taken place, the third mode of action can occur. The lining of the uterus can be altered causing the woman’s body to reject the living human embryo, making implantation impossible and the child will die. This result is called a chemical abortion; therefore hormonal contraception has an abortifacient nature.

The lower the dosage of the pill (i.e. mini pills), the more likely it is to work by causing a chemical abortion.

The common descriptions given for chemical birth control fail to accurately describe their possible abortifacient actions and are misleading the public. The confusion is aggravated by attempts to re-define pregnancy as occurring after implantation.  Potential users of chemical birth control are not told that these drugs may abort an established pregnancy. This is not informed consent.

With the introduction of chemical birth control, abortion statistics have not gone down — they’ve gone up — way up!

“Family planning” experts have always recognized that the high failure rate of contraceptives would lead to more abortions. In fact, they demand that abortion be made available as a “backup” to widespread contraception.

Abortion statistician Christopher Tietze stated baldly that women who use contraception are inevitably going to have several “failures” during their reproductive lives:  ”The safest regimen of control for the unmarried and for married child-spacers is the use of traditional methods [of contraception] backed up by abortion; but if this regimen is commenced early in the child-bearing years, it is likely to involve several abortions in the course of her reproductive career for each woman who chooses it.”

What birth control has done for our society is turn little babies into disposable objects. Pregnancy is no longer seen as a blessing, but as a curse or a disease. Parents of large families are looked down upon instead of being held in high esteem. We now place more value on getting big salaries, driving nice cars and living in huge homes.

Young married couples want to wait years before starting families because they have been told by our society that children will take away from their freedom. So, if a child is conceived at the “wrong time” or is unplanned, abortion becomes a likely option for the couple who cannot see that children are a great blessing.

[1] “The Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development: Chart of all 23 Stages, Detailed Descriptions of Stages 1 – 6″ http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_123carnegiestages1.html

Also see:

ALL’s “The Pill Kills” website at www.thepillkills.com

From Contraception to abortion: A timeline

Contraception and Abortion: The Deadly Connection

Condom effectiveness

The Flawed Condom
Tuesday, July 2, 2002 – By ALL

Condom effectiveness

Condoms have always posed a great use-effectiveness problem. The FDA requires contraceptive manufacturers to list the typical rate of pregnancy for one year of use. For male condoms the FDA says the rate is 14 percent.1 In other words, over a span of a year, for every 100 typical couples using condoms, 14 will become pregnant. But this rate is based on birth prevention, not disease prevention.

This distinction is critical when safety and protection are honestly considered and evaluated. For example, a woman’s window of fertility is about 7 days out of an average 28-day cycle. Infections such as HIV/AIDS, however, can occur every day. This means that there are at least four times as many days during which disease can be transmitted compared to the amount of time for possible fertilization - the simple transmission of a sperm into an egg.

Some claim that condoms will cut down on the spread of many sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS. However, a July 20, 2001 report from the National Institutes of Health, Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention, concluded that scientific evidence does not support condom use as a means to prevent infections of genital herpes (HSV), human papillomavirus, chlamydia, syphilis, chanchroid, and trichomonas (pages 20, 26, 17, 23, 21, 18 respectively). There is evidence of protection for men against gonorrhea, but not women (p.16).

The NIH report did say that consistent condom use decreased the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by about 85 percent (p.14). But that is not very good for a uniformly fatal disease. Keep in mind that the other diseases listed above may also be fatal. For instance, HPV can lead to cervical cancer which kills more American women each year than HIV disease.2 The NIH study did not address other potentially fatal diseases such as Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C.

Condom permeability

The width of the head of a normal human sperm is 2.5 to 3.5 microns,3 but viruses are much smaller. In a 1998 article in Rubber Plastics News, C. M. Roland of the Naval Research Laboratory Chemistry Division and M. J. Schroeder of the U.S. Naval Academy Department of Chemistry stated the following:

“The defining feature of viruses is their diminutive size. For example, the AIDS virus is only 0.15 microns, and the hepatitis B virus is even smaller. Given the presence in rubber of intrinsic defects two orders of magnitude larger in size, the ability of a condom or surgical glove to prevent transmission of viral particles is problematic.”4

Roland and Schroeder tested samples of rubber taken from two commercial latex condoms, one about 50 microns thick and the other about 90 microns thick. In both cases, they found that more than one million particles having a diameter of 0.1 microns passed through a square centimeter of condom latex within 30 minutes and, during the same time span, ten times larger particles of 1 micron in diameter passed througat a rate of about 1000 per square centimeter.5

Condom breakage and slippage

In a 1999 study published in Family Planning Perspectives, Karen Davis and Susan Weller note that in several in vivo [real life] trials to measure condom failure due to slippage and breakage, rates have varied from 0.5 to 6.7 percent for breakage and 0.1 to 16.6 percent for slippage.6

Condom + spermicide

On August 4, 2000, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a strong warning against the use of the spermicide, nonoxynol-9, regarding HIV. From 1996 to May, 2000 a study was conducted in Africa in which nearly 1,000 HIV-negative female prostitutes were enrolled. All were counseled to use a condom consistently and correctly and were asked to also use a vaginal gel each time they had intercourse. Half the women got a placebo gel and the other half got N-9. Researchers found that those who used the N-9 gel had become infected with HIV at about a 50 percent higher rate than those who used the placebo gel.7 Despite this CDC warning in 2000, Planned Parenthood Federation of America was advertising on its web site, in 2002, that, “Some Planned Parenthood condoms are coated with the spermicide nonoxynol-9.”8

Condom coverup

On the issue of condom use, however, the CDC has been less than forthright according to a national group of doctors. Just a few days after the NIH released the study referenced above that exposed the truth about condom ineffectiveness, The Physicians Consortium, which has some 2,000 members nationwide, sent a letter, dated July 23, 2001, to President George Bush calling for the resignation of the CDC chief Dr. Jeffery Koplan. The letter said the CDC “has misled millions of women into believing that condoms provide safety… Despite the billions of dollars used to promote a `safe sex’ health policy, the CDC lacks clinical research to back its claims.”9

The next day, a coalition representing 10,000 doctors, including the Catholic Medical Association, Congressman Dave Weldon, M.D., and former Congressman Tom Coburn, M.D.,10 accused the CDC of routinely breaking federal laws requiring it to dispense accurate information on the effectiveness of condoms in preventing STDs. By improperly promoting condom use, “the CDC has failed in its primary duty to protect public health,” said Dr. John Diggs, a member of the executive committee of the Physicians Consortium.11 Diggs also stated, “This has all the earmarks of a good old-fashioned medical cover-up.”12

The condom’s biggest flaw

The condom’s biggest flaw is that those using it to prevent the conception of another human being are offending God. God intends that sexual intercourse should take place only between a man married to a woman. If people follow God’s plan for human sexuality there would be no problem with sexually transmitted diseases. Furthermore, each and every act of marital intercourse must be both unitive and open to procreation. Any action, including condom use, which has as its purpose to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil. Those married couples who, for just reasons and not by selfish motivation, wish to space the births of their children, can avail themselves of the morally acceptable natural methods of birth regulation which are based upon selfobservation and the use of infertile periods. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2368-2370).


  1. U.S Food and Drug Administration – Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Guidance for Industry – Uniform Contraceptive Labeling, July 23, 1998, p. 5.
  2. Centers For Disease Control web page, visited on 2/11/02, stated that about 4,100 women would die from cervical cancer in 2002. The CDC’s National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 49, No. 12, October 9, 2001, p. 14 stated that 14,370 people died from HIV disease in 2000. The White House’s web page, visited on 2/11/02, stated that 15% of AIDS deaths were female. Thus, about 2,156 women can be projected to die from HIV disease in 2002.
  3. A micron is one millionth of a meter. Sperm width from Parastie, S., “The Importance of Sperm Morphology in the Evaluation of Male Infertility,” viewed at the Hopitaux Universitaires de Geneve web site at on 2/13/02. Parastie is citing the World Health Organization’s 1992 WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-Cervical Mucus Interaction.
  4. Roland, C.M., and Schroeder, M.J., “Intrinsic defect effects on NR permeability,” Rubber & Plastics News, Jan. 12, 1998, p. 15.
  5. Ibid.
  6. Davis, Karen R., and Weller, Susan C., “The Effectiveness of Condoms in Reducing Heterosexual Transmission of HIV,” Family Planning Perspectives, November/December 1999, pp. 272-279.
  7. Gayle, H.D., CDC’s Director for National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, in a “Dear Colleague” letter dated August 4, 2000.
  8. Planned Parenthood Federation of America web page visited on 2/12/02.
  9. Zwillich,T., “Conservative Docs, Lawmakers Attack CDC on Condoms,” Reuters, July 24, 2001.
  10. The Physicians Consortium, ൒,000 physicians to ask for resignation of CDC director, end of cover-up,” press release of July 23, 2001.
  11. Zwillich, T., op. cit.
  12. The Physicians Consortium, op. cit.


Abortion and Racism.


Who Was Margaret Sanger?
Wednesday, January 1, 1997 – By ALL


To suggest that Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist is to raise the ire of many of the present-day leaders of Planned Parenthood and other anti-life organizations. However, the facts do speak for themselves.

For example, throughout the pages of the Birth Control Review, Mrs. Sanger’s journal, there are countless quotes which not only suggest that she favored eugenics, but that she provided a forum to those who wished to spread their fear of human life, when that life was conceived by someone other than a member of society’s elite.

This brochure is devoted to familiarizing you with the most outrageous of the statements to which Mrs. Sanger gave credence, as well as to a few of her own. Since books have been written about her, it is not necessary for us to go into her sordid background at length, but simply to give you a taste of the hypocrisy which has led so many people into the web Planned Parenthood weaves, even today. It is a web that distorts, misrepresents and ultimately cheapens the beautiful gift of human sexuality which God gives to each and every person at conception.

Who Was Margaret Sanger?

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an adulteress, racist and bigot, a supporter of Hitler’s Nazi party, and a believer in eugenics – the purification of a particular race of people by selective breeding. Her magazines and journals were filled with writings and articles by well-known eugenicists and members of Hitler’s Third Reich.


Sanger made every effort to promote philosophies which would assist the state in controlling the size of families. However, with regard to her own family, her first husband William Sanger, her children, and her subsequent divorce, she wrote in her 1931 book, My Fight for Birth Control:

“‘My first marriage failed, not because of love, romance, lack of wealth, respect or any such qualities which are supposed to be lacking in broken ties, because the interest of each widened beyond that of the other” (p. 296). “From the deep waters into which I had been swept by the current of events it was impossible to return to the shallow pool of domesticity’” (p. 92).[1]

The wife who is able to stay at home and care for her family because she wants to is characterized by Sanger as someone who is simply drowning in a “shallow pool of domesticity,” an attitude con-sistently promulgated in today’s society by the feminist movement and those who have relegated motherhood to the lowest level of achievement.


After a failed trial marriage at 18, she married William Sanger in 1902 and soon engaged in extramarital affairs while encouraging her husband to do the same. She pronounced the marriage bed to be “the most degenerating influence in the social order” and advocated a “voluntary association” between sexual partners.[2]

At the beginning of her “mission” to bring birth control to America, around 1912, she saw birth control as a tool in the class struggle and was clearly on the side of the poor.

However, her involvement with well-known socialists and eugenicists of the day (Eugene Debs, Emma Goldman, Will Durant, Clarence Darrow, and Ellen Key) changed her mind completely. Over a period of eight years she began to turn the birth control movement against the very people she had set out to help.

Jesus Christ

Mrs. Sanger, who did not have faith in God, and detested all those who did, wrote:

“I never liked to look at Jesus on the Cross. I could not see any good it did to keep looking at him. We could not help him, as he had been crucified long ago.”[3]

To know Christ and to appreciate His suffering, death and resurrection for each and every one of us would obviously have been foreign to Mrs. Sanger. To her, after all, many of those created in the image and likeness of God were simply less than human.

The Pivot of Civilization

Instead of helping the poor, she considered them slum dwellers (particularly Blacks, Hispanics, and Jewish immigrants) who would soon overrun the boundaries of their slums, contaminating the better elements of society with their diseases and inferior genes.

Throughout the 200+ pages of this book Sanger called for the cessation of charity, for the segregation of “morons, misfits, and maladjusted,” and for the sterilization of “genetically inferior races.”[4] In this same book she argued that organized attempts to help the poor were the “surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding, and is perpetuating . . . defectives, delinquents, and dependents.”[5] She called for coercive sterilization, mandatory segregation, and rehabilitative concentration camps for all inferior Blacks, Hispanics, poor Whites, and Catholics.

Sanger’s brand of prejudice was based on what author John L. Keller labels “Scientific Racism,” the belief that as long as people demonstrated “a good quality gene pool” they were esteemed a valuable part of society. On the other hand, if a group, including Whites, demonstrated undesirable traits, their fertility had to be curbed along with other “inferiors and undesirables.”[6]

George Grant stated in Grand Illusions: “In her book Women and the New Race she asserted that the ‘most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it.’”[7]


On October 19, 1939, Sanger outlined a plan for stopping the growth of the Black community. She predicted that “the most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their rebellious members.”[8] Her planning, which included being careful to make it appear that hand-picked Blacks are in control, is followed with success even today. Faye Wattleton’s position as President of PPFA was testimony to that fact.

The Birth Control Review

The Birth Control Review, founded by Sanger in 1917, was totally committed to the eugenics philosophy. The official editorial policy of The Review endorsed I.Q. testing, which classified Blacks, southern Europeans, and other immigrants as mentally inferior to native-born White Americans and called them a nuisance and a menace to society.[9] In the 1920s she tried to use the results from I.Q. tests, which classified the U.S. soldier as a near moron, to back up her own findings.

Sanger truly believed these groups were a “dead weight of human waste” and “a menace to the race.”[10]

Abortion and Birth Control

It was in the December, 1918, Birth Control Review that Margaret Sanger wrote perhaps the most ingenious comment of all: “. . . I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization. . .”[11]

How do you sell the practice of contraception to a public that is totally opposed to it? In 1918, when she wrote the above, no religious denomination accepted the practice of contraception. Well, you sell it to the people by insisting that with better contraception there would be less abortion! It sounds very familiar, doesn’t it?

Today, it is only the Roman Catholic Church that stands for the truth with regard to contraception, and among its members it is said that eighty percent practice contraception anyway. Would Mrs. Sanger be proud of her campaign if she could see the results we live with today – more than 50 strains of VD as well as the deadly AIDS virus?

And would she agree with current Planned Parenthood president Pamela Maraldo, who writes: “As Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders has so succinctly put it: ‘We’ve taught our children in driver’s education what to do in the front seat, and now we’ve got to teach them what to do in the back seat.’”[12]

Today American youth are told that the “responsible” thing to do is use contraception, be realistic and formulate your own values as you go, and if your contraception fails, get an abortion.[13] Responsible? Mrs. Sanger would be proud.

Thus through Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood has molded the sexual ethics of the day: Sex is a natural thing for a teenager to desire and if a teenager feels that he is to be sexually active that is his decision; all society asks is that he not produce children.

1. Goldstein, David, L.L.D., Suicide Bent: Sangerizing Mankind (Radio Replies Press, 1945) p. 23.

2. Drogin, pp. 15, 22.

3. Goldstein, David, loc. cit., p. 25.

4. Grant, George. Grand Illusions (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988), p. 55.

5. Drogin, p. 45.

6. Grant, pp. 98-99.

7. Grant, p. 59.

8. Drogin, p. 33.

9. Drogin, p. 20.

10. Drogin, pp. 17, 46.

11. Crawford, Linda, Life Dynamics, research notes, 1/25/93.

12. Maraldo, Pamela J., “Contraceptive Use: Coping With Psychosocial Barriers,” Family Planning World, 3-4/93, p. 5.

13. Reality-Based Sexuality Education, Planned Parent-hood Federation of America, 1993, p. 4 [brochure plus outline].

Abortion Counter




Prayer to End Abortion

Prayer to End Abortion

Lord God, I thank you today for the gift of my life,
And for the lives of all my brothers and sisters.
I know there is nothing that destroys more life than abortion,
Yet I rejoice that you have conquered death
by the Resurrection of Your Son.
I am ready to do my part in ending abortion.
Today I commit myself
Never to be silent,
Never to be passive,
Never to be forgetful of the unborn.
I commit myself to be active in the pro-life movement,
And never to stop defending life
Until all my brothers and sisters are protected,
And our nation once again becomes
A nation with liberty and justice
Not just for some, but for all,
Through Christ our Lord. Amen!

Oración para abolir el aborto
Dios Padre, te agradezco por el obsequio de mi vida,
por las vidas de todos mis hermanos y hermanas.
Sé que no hay nada que destruya la vida más que el aborto,
y me regocijo al saber que Tu has conquistado la muerte
con la Resurrección de Tu Hijo.
Estoy listo para poner de mi parte en la lucha para abolir el aborto.
Este día me comprometo
a nunca más quedarme en silencio,
nunca más quedarme pasivo,
y nunca más olvidarme de los no nacidos.
Me comprometo a ser activo en los movimientos pro vida,
y nunca dejar de luchar por la vida
hasta que todos mis hermanos y hermanas sean protegidos,
y que nuestra nación sea de nuevo una
nación con libertad y justicia
no solo para algunos, sino para todos,
Por Cristo Nuestro Señor. Amen!

Millions of Abortion Survivors

A survivor is anyone who has a relatively slender chance of being alive when many others in the same situation, for reasons beyond their control, are being killed. As survivors they have many deep psychological and interpersonal conflicts. 

Children are abortion survivors because:

  1. 50% to 80% of unborn children in their city or country are terminated.
  2. One or more unborn sibling were aborted,
  3. Their parents strongly debated whether or not they should be killed in utero but spared them because they were wanted,
  4. They are alive when many with their sex or handicap succumb to selective feticide,
  5. Their twin was killed by an attempt to abort both of them,
  6. They were aborted but failed to die,
  7. Their parents were frustrated enough to shout at them, “You ungrateful child, don’t you know I could have aborted you, or should have aborted you.”
  8. Though they lived for only a short while on a cold slab or in a clinic receptacle following an abortion, their pitiful cries were heard.

 Like survivors of other disasters and death camps, they have: 

  1. Survivor guilt. “I don’t deserve to be alive when so many others have died. Maybe my parents would be happier if I died too.”
  2. Existential anxiety. “I know I am doomed sooner or later so why plan for the future?”
  3. Anxious attachments. “I can never know if my parents will stop wanting me, so I better cling to them, especially when they are angry.”
  4. Collusion over pseudo-secrets. “I suspect my parents killed my unborn brother or sister. I can’t bear to know the truth so I won’t ask about it or anything related to my parent’s earlier life.”  
  5. Distrust. “My parents tell me that they love me and wanted me, but I know they considered terminating my life. If that’s love, who needs it. How can I trust them?”
  6. Self-doubt. “My parents couldn’t control their most primitive destructive tendencies and killed a helpless infant. Now they doubt themselves and have inadvertently made me constantly question myself.”
  7. Ontological guilt. “I feel very badly for not properly using my opportunities and talents, but life is so uncertain. I refuse to fulfill my parents’ expectations of the “perfect child” they aborted and I replaced.”


Abortion survivors have many doubts, guilt, and fears which, while they are healthy and in supportive relationships, may not show. If they lose friends, family, job, respect, or become ill, their defenses quickly crumble.

They are much more affected than the recent trauma would warrant. Then they become excessively anxious or depressed with many psychosomatic symptoms of headache, abdominal pain, etc. Others have chronic problems of fatigue, unwellness, lack of joy and anger management problems. They are generally cynical, distrustful, hedonistic and rebel against authority. It is terrifying to be alive because you were wanted. 


Until the basic conflicts are addressed, medication and psychotherapy are usually ineffective. We recommend intensive group psychotherapy which includes open discussion with their parents about any actual or contemplated abortion. There must be reconciliation with those who have harmed abortion survivors, including the abortionists.

P.G. Ney, MD, FRCP© M.A. Peeters-Ney MD

References: Ney, P.G.. “A Consideration of Abortion Survivors” Child Psych Hum Development, 13: 168-179 (1983).Ney, P.G., Peeters, M.A. “Abortion Survivors”, PIONEER Publishing, Victoria, Canada (1993).


Tragic loss of life

Children DeathIt is so very painful to reflect on the senseless taking of the life of Christina Green and all the lost potential of the 9 year old girl killed by the murderous assassin in Tucson.  Thinking about the pain of losing a child…I pray that my children are able to live their lives in peace and happiness; that my grandchildren will live to achieve their dreams and are able to bring forth great grandchildren.

Christina, a budding elementary school politician, recently had been elected to her student council. She went with a family friend to see Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords speak, a way to learn more about serving in government.  Those who knew her say…”She had not only the energy and enthusiasm of a typical third-grader but also maturity and insight that most children don’t attain until much later…a leader in her classroom at Mesa Verde Elementary school, helping other students and contributing to discussions.”   (She had) “a sense of humor…her witty comments made people laugh…real special and real sweet…the only girl to play for the Pirates, the Canyon del Oro Little League baseball team…a strong girl, a very good athlete and a strong swimmer…interested in everything.”   “She got a guitar for Christmas, (so she could) learn to play guitar….Christina had just received her first Holy Communion at St. Odilia’s Catholic Church in Tucson.”

How tragic this loss of such a special person!  And yet, within the United Sates, we kill 1.2 million potential Christina Greens every year in their mothers’ wombs by abortion and call it health care and it’s legal!  If it is senseless to lose a wonderful life like Christina’s and it is, then it surely is senseless to kill so many potential wonderful lives, our unborn children, the (lost) future directors and leaders (just like Christina) of the United States and our world.

Jesus, Protect and Save the Unborn!

Dennis DeWine
Central Texas Voices for Life
Harker Heights