National Abortion Federation - Not So Pure As They Claim

As I mentioned in a couple of posts last week (here & here) I was not at all surprized that the National Abortion Federation didn't turn in Kermit Gosnell. I mentioned the book Lime 5 as a reason why I had the reaction I did. I knew that NAF was mentioned quite a bit in it. Chapter 3 takes a good look at them. However what is important for my purposes is the 25 NAF members mentioned in Chapters 1 & 2. (As an aside Planned Parenthood gets mentioned 8 times & the rest of the stories involve independant abortionist &/or clinics.) Chapter 1 (Safe & Legal) looks at case histories of malpractice by abortionists. Chapter 2 (The Canned Hunt) looks at rape & sexcual assauit in the abortion industry.

Like I said, the book shows the real face of the industry. The book focused mostly on the 70s & 80s because of various factors that made more recent events harder to document. But in the 15 years since the book came out, many of the cases that were just starting to work their way through the system have done so. Hopefully they will be able to do an update sometime now that more is available from the 90s & ealy part of this century.

When the book came out there was an attempt to debunk it. The article mocks Mark Crutcher for claiming that there is a huge cover-up that is "a conspiracy between the abortion industry, state and local governments, doctors, the Center for Disease Control, and of course, the ever popular villains, the media." Given what has come out in the Gosnell case about how NAF & various state & local regulators over the last 30 years did exactly that thing, it sure looks like Crutcher eas right after all. I wonder if Anne Bower who wrote the article would like to retract her attack now that there is all this evidence out there that Crutcher was right & she was wrong?

I suspect that (assuming she is still arround) that she would still deny the facts. Or, like I pointed out in the other posts, she would try & spin the facts like NAF is to cover up the truth once more.

& let's not forget all I have shown over the past few days how the media is aiding & abetting in the cover-up as well.

Of course she doesn't try & deny any of the cases in the book. she knows they are too well documented for her to do so. So she takes another tact. She tries to make it sound like he still didn't prove a thing, despite the facts.

We find her attempt to undermine him in the last paragraph where she says "Mr. Crutcher obviously thinks he has proved this assertion in the pages of Lime 5, but he is sadly deluded. If, after sending out scores of operatives researching for over two years, all he could find to indite the practice of legal abortion is contained in this book, then the real conclusion is, Mr. Crutcher has not made a mountain out of a pebble, but a grain of sand." Of course she conveniently ignores what Crutcher actually says about the case histories in the book. On page 19 he points out that the book is not all inclusive of the cases the research found. As he says "these are only a fraction of the cases we found." & she should have known that is usually how books like this deal with the research. they rarely give all the examples but include a variety of incidents that represent the entire body of them.

Sorry Anne Bower, but the facts will out. & they are proving Mark Crutcher was right all along. You tried, & failed, to make a grain of sand out of a mountain. Your article was nothing but another attempt to spin things to aid & abet in the cover-up of the real face of the abortion industry. It didn't work then. & it is working even less now.