Blog | Subscribe | Free Trial | Contact Us | Cart | Donate | Planned Giving
Log In | Search
facebook
rss
twitter
  • CURRENT
    • Winter 2025 PDF
    • WINTER 2025 HTML
    • THE HUMAN LIFE REVIEW HTML COLLECTION PAGE
    • NEWSworthy: What’s Happening and What It Means to You
    • Blog
    • Pastoral Reflections
    • About Us
  • DINNER
    • GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER 2024: NEW MEDIA ADDED!
    • Great Defender of Life 50th Anniversary Dinner Ticket 2024
    • Great Defender of Life 50th Anniversary Dinner TABLE for TEN Ticket 2024
    • Great Defender of Life 2024 Young Adult / Pregnancy Center Staffer Tickets
    • HOST COMMITTEE Great Defender of Life Dinner 2024
    • DINNER JOURNAL ADVERTISING 2024
    • ARCHIVE: GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER 2023
  • ARCHIVE
    • Archive Spotlight
    • ISSUES IN HTML FORMAT
  • LEGACY
    • Planned Giving: Wills, Trusts, and Gifts of Stock
  • SHOP
    • Your Cart: Shipping is ALWAYS Free!

Insisting on Life

2 Comments

Friends of the Court

Maria McFadden Maffucci
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

 

Over 75 amicus and amici curiae briefs have been filed by petitioners for the upcoming Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court case, including many by Human Life Review contributors and allies. One, filed by the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, refers directly to two recent Review articles written by Robert Marshall, who served as a member of the Virginia General Assembly for 26 years and is the author, with Charles Donovan, of the indispensable study Blessed are the Barren: The Social Policy of Planned Parenthood.   

From Section II of the Argument, titled ROE’S FLAWED ASSUMPTIONS UNDERSTATING THE MATERNAL RISK FROM ABORTION,  which discusses Justice Blackmun’s “three possible justifications for a state to criminalize abortion”:

The second rationale for State regulation was the health of the mother. He speculated that “[w]hen most criminal abortion laws were first enacted, the procedure was a hazardous one or the woman.” Id. at 148. He found this rationale no longer convincing because of “medical data indicating that abortion … prior to the end of the first trimester, although not without its risk, is now relatively safe.” Id. at 149. He went so far as to assert that the mortality rates for lawful, early abortions “appear to be as low as or lower than the rates for normal childbirth [and thus] any interest of the State in protecting the woman … has largely disappeared.” Id. For this claim he offered a string cite containing some highly questionable data.

The majority of the studies were authored by famed abortion advocate and Planned Parenthood advisor Christopher Tietze, M.D. An analysis of the data available to the Roe Court in 1972 was published recently as the lead article in The Human Life Review, written by long-serving Virginia State Delegate Robert G. Marshall. His documented analysis demonstrates the serious flaws in Blackmun’s assumptions and reasons to doubt his work, as well as other data sources on maternal risk. No stickler for the truth, in 1964, Dr. Tietze counseled against telling women the truth about how intrauterine devices (“IUDs”) work. Tietze was concerned that if women understood that the IUD “prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus,” resulting in the death of the fertilized egg, they might not use IUDs even though they should. Deception was essential, so as not to “‘disturb those people for whom this is a question of major importance.’” R.G. Marshall, “Abortion, Women, and Public Health: Getting the Whole Truth,” The Human Life Review, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Spring 2020) at 10-11. For his work in supporting abortion rights, in 1973, Dr. Tietze was awarded the Margaret Sanger Award by Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

 

Justice Blackmun’s other source for the safety of women having abortions was the CDC, and again, in the Review’s pages, and cited in the brief, Marshall challenged the data:

 

Marshall convincingly demonstrated that not only did the CDC never develop a comprehensive and accurate method of recording and reporting maternal abortion-induced injuries and death, but also the systems it did develop were clearly designed to discourage the collection of such data so pro-abortionists could falsely make claims about the safety of abortion for women, which continues even to this day.

 

In the Section IV: ROE ERRONEOUSLY ASSUMED STATE ANTI-ABORTION LAWS WERE NOT WRITTEN TO DEFEND THE PREBORN , Marshall’s article in our current (Spring 2021) issue, “Lies that Keep Abortion Legal,” is cited to refute Blackmun’s claim that abortion laws were written to protect women, not the unborn (see note 8).

For a refutation of the policy arguments made by abortion supporters, see R.G. Marshall, “Lies that keep Abortion Legal,” supra, refuting six common objections: 1. Women will be prosecuted if they use the Pill or IUD; 2. Women will be prosecuted as criminals for spontaneous miscarriage; 3. Women who abort will be prosecuted for capital murder; 4. Women who abort will be prosecuted and jailed; 5. Women will be prosecuted for self-abortion; and 6. Abortion does not kill a human being or person.

Elsewhere in this eminent brief, I was struck by this, from Section I of the Argument THIS COURT SHOULD OVERULE ITS RIGHT TO ABORTION PRECEDENTS, Part C: Casey Is Also Fundamentally Flawed:

Strangely, it may be the stare decisis aspect of the Casey decision that is the most constitutionally offensive. It manifests a bald arrogation of judicial power in its perverse refusal to correct a profoundly flawed precedent, purportedly so as not to undermine public confidence in the integrity of the Court’s decision-making.

 

And in Part D, The Corrosive Effect of the Court’s Abortion Jurisprudence Cannot Be Ignored:

 

A willingness to admit when the Court is fundamentally wrong, and a restoration of the appropriate balance between the Court and states—as well as between the Court and Congress—is necessary to respite that confidence.”

 

Amen and Oremus!!

Stay tuned! Next week we will look at the brief filed by pro-life feminist organizations and 240 women scholars and professionals.

 

633 people have visited this page. 1 have visited this page today.
About the Author
Maria McFadden Maffucci

DSC_2711is the Editor in Chief of the Human Life Review

Social Share

  • google-share

2 Comments

  1. Pingback: Article: Friends of the Court (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization) - William J. Olson, P.C., Attorneys At Law

  2. Steve Koob August 12, 2021 at 11:24 pm Reply

    Hi Maria,
    Could you be available next Tuesday Noon ET to talk about this case and the arguments being made in the many amici briefs that you have studied?

    Is the case being reviewed a direct threat to RvW & DvB? If not, could it be decided so narrowly that nothing significant would result?

    I host “The Quest for a Culture of Life in America” on Radio Maria USA for 55 minutes. You would need to call 866.333.6279 at 1155 ET.

    I would need a brief bio and a personal cell number to resolve any same-day technical problems.
    You could use Skype (as do I) to call in to “Radio Maria US Studio” and then the 866 number. We begin with the Angeles Prayer.

    May God bless you.

    Steve Koob
    937.626.0027 c
    steve@oloas.org

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Comments will not be posted until approved by a moderator in an effort to prevent spam and off-topic responses.

*
*

captcha *

Get the Human Life Review

subscribe to HLR
The-Human-Life-Foundation
DONATE TODAY!

Recent Posts

Israeli Supreme Court Minimizes Biological Parenthood

22 May 2025

Pro-life Groups Can’t be Forced to Accommodate Abortions, Federal Judge Rules

14 May 2025

Yonkers Woman Learns Abortion is Not the ‘Quick Fix’ She Thought 

12 May 2025

CURRENT ISSUE

Alexandra DeSanctis Anne Conlon Anne Hendershott Bernadette Patel Brian Caulfield Christopher White Clarke D. Forsythe Colleen O’Hara Connie Marshner David Mills David Poecking David Quinn Diane Moriarty Dr. Donald DeMarco Edward Mechmann Edward Short Ellen Wilson Fielding Fr. Gerald E. Murray George McKenna Helen Alvaré Jacqueline O’Hara Jane Sarah Jason Morgan Joe Bissonnette John Grondelski Kristan Hawkins Madeline Fry Schultz Maria McFadden Maffucci Marvin Olasky Mary Meehan Mary Rose Somarriba Matt Lamb Nat Hentoff Nicholas Frankovich Peter Pavia Rev. George G. Brooks Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth Rev. W. Ross Blackburn Stephen Vincent Tara Jernigan Ursula Hennessey Victor Lee Austin Vincenzina Santoro Wesley J. Smith William Murchison

Shop 7 Weeks Coffee--the Pro-Life Coffee Company!
Support 7 Weeks Coffee AND the Human Life Foundation!
  • Issues
  • Human Life Foundation Blog
  • About Us
  • Free Trial Issue
  • Contact Us
  • Shop
  • Planned Giving
  • Annual Human Life Foundation Dinner

Follow Us On Twitter

Follow @HumanLifeReview

Find Us On Facebook

Human Life Review/Foundation

Search our Website

Contact Information

The Human Life Foundation, Inc.
The Human Life Review
271 Madison Avenue, Room 1005
New York, New York 10016
(212) 685-5210

Copyright (c) The Human Life Foundation.