New York Times Doesn’t Care About Sloppy Science and Lack of Abortion Safeguards 

Jordan Estabrook - 08 Mar 2024

Abortion extremists who declare their undying commitment to women’s health and nonbiased science have no issue with sloppy science and lack of abortion safeguards.  

The New York Times showed a study reporting that at least one in six abortions, around 14,000 a month, was conducted via telehealth from July through September. WeCount of the Society of Family Planning, a research group collecting abortion numbers from providers nationwide and supporting abortion rights, suggests that the overall number of abortions provided by clinicians in the United States is slightly higher now than before the Dobbs decision.  

A couple of gaping holes exist, though – they don’t report the number of telehealth abortions provided under shield laws and report only from voluntary abortion providers.  

The same media that shriek at the slightest whiff of pro-life bias also highlights bad math based on voluntary information from a politicized pro-abortion source without public backlash. 

While it’s true that death by mail is growing, the public is left to trust abortionists to report the facts. These are the same “trustworthy” people who refuse to support a National Abortion Reporting Law, which gives everyone, regardless of their abortion stance, access to accurate data. Instead, politicized, subpar, and questionable math is presented as solid research. If the pro-life movement tried to pass off this kind of fairy dust and unicorn droppings as science, they’d be laughed out of the public discussion.  

Abortion extremists laughed out real science from Charlotte Lozier – science showing provable risk to women taking Chemical Abortions Pills. They stuffed unicorn droppings in their ears, ignoring the deadly consequences and instead praising the unguarded, unfettered access to dangerous Chemical Abortion Pills as “women’s health.”  

WORLD highlights Megan Gibson, a woman who decided to order Chemical Abortion Pills, not to abort her baby, but to see how easy it would be to obtain them. She wondered if she could obtain Chemical Abortion Pills while living in Oklahoma where the law prohibits all abortion. 

Turns out, it was easy as one, two, three. AccessMA required no proof of pregnancy except for an estimate of how far along she thought the pregnancy was with no medical vetting. Megan said they didn’t even ask for her name, only initials.  

Another company called the European group Aid Access required a similar lack of vetting, with WORLD reporting that they, “required her to email a copy of her ID. It also requested a photo of the ultrasound but added she could just say how far along the staff at the facility where she had a sonogram said she was if she did not get a photo. ‘Ignore this step if you didn’t have an ultrasound…’” 

When you can buy life-threatening Chemical Abortion Pills from across the country or across the seas with no serious I.D. requirements, it paints a vivid picture of what matters to the pro-abortion extremists. It’s not about facts or women’s health – it’s about pushing abortion regardless of the cost. The cost of sexual abusers getting away with their crimes, the preborn baby who dies in the womb, or the woman who suffers physical and mental complications is one they’re happily willing to pay.  

Why would they let good science get in the way of that? 

READ NEXT: 10 Reasons to Add Chemical Abortion Pills to Your HATE List

Share this post