AL#6 Media & Lies; Violence

This is the sixth in a series of emails on abortion and related subjects. To

be removed from this mailing list please send an empty email from the account

in which it was received with the subject line "REMOVE." If you find the materials

you will be receiving worthwhile you are encouraged to forward them to your

own email lists. If you missed any of the other emails (AL#1..., AL#2..., etc.) and

would like to receive them, please let me know.


This email is directed somewhat less to activists (unless they are fairly

new to the pro-life movement) and somewhat more to those who have been

reading along.

It is a foregone conclusion to anyone who has been active in pro-life work

that the media are not going to play fair with us and we're going to have to

cope with this. Just a week or so ago a reporter on what I call Necropimping

Propaganda Radio (aka NPR or National Public Radio) spoke of the "choice

issue" while covering an election campaign. Choice issue? Is there something

controversial about choice? What could she have meant? Ohhhhhhhhhhhh!!! She

meant the choice to have a prenatal child dismembered alive or cranially

suctioned without benefit of anesthesia at any time in pregnancy for any

reason. THAT "choice issue."

It's bad enough that so much of the public now resorts to dishonest

euphemisms about abortion. At least it can be said for them that they've

already arrived at the conclusion that the "choice" of abortion may be

legitimate, however faulty the logic and premises may have been, so speaking

of it as a question of choice might be viewed in charity as understandable.

But it's inexcusable for professional journalists who know very well the

power of words to use such prejudicial rhetoric, especially at this late


In 1990, the Los Angeles Times did a four part series entitled "Abortion

Bias Seeps Into News." You can access it at Even this

series, which is something of a classic, uses the term "abortion-rights

advocates" which in my view is itself seriously biased. There's no such

thing as a right to a wrong. How about "abortion access advocates" or

"defenders of abortion availability" or simply of "legal abortion"? These

terms are as accurate as I can manage while still being neutral. So why

don't the media use terms like these?


In 1999, Christianity Today ran an article by Clarke Forsythe of Americans

United for Life which tried to explain why Americans are largely opposed to

abortion but still want to keep it legal. The article can be accessed at and is highly

recommended. [1/04 note - Except for a few introductory lines the

article is now only available to paying members.] The article identifies

four myths which have been critical to continued public support for legal abortion:

Myth #1: One to two million illegal abortions occurred annually before


Myth #2: Thousands of women died annually from abortions before legalization

Myth #3: Abortion law targeted women rather than abortionists before


Myth #4: Legalized abortion has been good for women

(I really hate to say this because it's so cynical on my part, but I suspect

that another significant reason many Americans want to keep abortion legal

is so that they can easily clean up their own little messes, should the need

arise, and just say hang all the ethical niceties. I'll never forget the

teenage girl I saw being led into a local abortion mill in tears by her own

parents. So much for "choice.")

All of the myths identified by Forsythe have taken hold in our society

largely because of their uncritical acceptance and dissemination on the part

of the media. All have their origin in the ongoing disinformation campaign

of Birthist Abortionites in this country. All have been exposed and

discredited by pro-life organizations and individuals in books, editorials,

articles, websites and many other media. (One of many excellent sources of

these materials is But don't expect the mass

media that most of us depend on for most of our news and information to take

up the cause of clearing things up.

The last myth (#4) really encompasses the others and destroying it is the

key to future progress. Legal abortion has been a disaster for women and to

the rest of us as well. I will go into this in more detail in a future

email. It is the woman-centered approach that breaks down barriers of

communication and demonstrates that legal abortion brings more and worse

problems than those it was intended to solve.

You can find much more on the various myths above at pro-life websites,

especially if you know what key words to use. For example, a search on

"Horatio Storer," the AMA physician who spearheaded the medical profession's

drive to outlaw abortion in the nineteenth century, yielded a number of

interesting articles on myths #1, #2 and #3.


The third of the four part series in the Los Angeles Times mentioned above

dealt with the outrageous differences in the manner of coverage for the

Birthist Abortionite rally in Washington, DC in 1989 and the pro-life rally

the following year. Since I attended the latter, I want to relate my

personal experience as far as media coverage.

The LA Times article does not say anything about the inflated claims for the

attendance at the Abortionite rally which the media all too enthusiastically

assisted in. The actual attendance of perhaps 100,000 people was exaggerated

to several hundred thousand. When the National Right to Life Committee

responded with its own rally in April of 1990 it actually did draw several

hundred thousand. The NRLC published aerial photos of the two rallies in its

newspaper for comparison and the difference was huge. The pro-life rally was

clearly several times larger. You could even make your own crowd estimate

because the Washington Monument, an object of known height, was the focal

point. But the media managed to reverse this great success by minimizing the

pro-life attendance while exaggerating the Abortionite turnout. During the

pro-life rally it was announced that CNN (Cable Necropimping Network) was

reporting that our turnout was 50,000. The huge crowd broke into a

spontaneous, angry chant of "Tell the Truth!" The worst abuse, however,

didn't occur until the following year.

In 1991, ABC News did a special program on "The Abortion Wars." They went so

far as to interview a government employee (Parks Service or Capital Police -

I don't recall) who described on camera how he went up into the Washington

Monument during the pro-life rally at 10 or 11 A.M. (he named the time -- it

was definitely in the morning) and went through the procedure used to

estimate crowd size. He confirmed his estimate as 50,000 people.

There's only one little problem with ABC News' special retrospective

coverage of the pro-life rally: the main event wasn't scheduled to begin

until 2:00 P.M. The gathering of 50,000 in the morning was for a preliminary

event -- a sideshow -- and was itself a huge success in terms of attendance.

Many of those who came to Washington for the main rally hadn't arrived yet.

Many others, including myself and my companion for the day, were making the

most of our trip by touring the Capitol Building, Smithsonian Institutions

and National Archives. We also visited the "Cemetery of the Innocents," a

display of 4,400 crosses and stars of David arranged like grave markers on

The Ellipse, a park across the street from the White House, to represent the

number of abortions every single day in America at that time.

ABC News managed to convey an enormous lie without saying a single thing

that wasn't absolutely true. With most of a year to investigate and get it

right, that didn't happen by accident.


CBS (Confraternity of Birthist Slanderers) has a popular program called 60

Minutes which is infamous for its necropimping. At one point they aired a

story showing their heroes, the abortionists, barricaded and armed to defend

themselves from the pro-life demonstrators who were terrorizing them. It was

hard not to sympathize with these poor fellow citizens who were being

cruelly subjected to psychological stress. However, not surprisingly, my own

direct experience with such people has shown a considerably different side

of them.

One cold morning about a decade ago, about half a dozen of us were waiting

outside the door of a local Abortionite temple to prevent the daily living

human sacrifices from taking place. When the abortionist drove up alone he

marched straight to the door and attempted to open it. This proved

impossible with some large men holding it shut. No one touched him or

threatened him although someone was heard to ask him how he lived with

himself. The point is that this man obviously knew he had nothing to fear

from us. But you'd never know it by listening to 60 Minutes.


Below are several letters to the editor in which I addressed the problem of

media complicity with the abortion industry's lies. This first one is a

draft. I may need to delete the first paragraph to shorten it enough to

increase the likelihood of publication:

March 23, 2002

To the Editor:

The national news and entertainment media have long provided pimping

services for the medical whores of the abortion industry who have

prostituted their skills to destroy human life, typically using only

euphemisms like "pro-choice" (which presumes a moral choice when that's the

only thing at issue) or oxymorons like "safe abortion" or "abortion rights"

(there's no such thing as a right to a wrong). Abortion "rites" would make

sense to reflect the living human sacrifices to the idols this nation now

worships (money, power, sex, image, convenience, physical and mental

perfection) but don't count on seeing it.

The media have sensationalized the seven murders of abortionists and their

staffs and stereotyped the "typical" pro-lifer as an incoherent religious

fanatic who rationalizes murder. This shoot-the-messenger strategy

capitalizes on the deep American distrust of religious fanaticism. Our

brain-washed masses can now recall these crimes on cue like Pavlov's dogs.

But they will have never even heard of the seventy-seven murders of pro-life

people, many of them women who resisted coercion to abort (so much for

"choice"). These and thousands of other crimes against pro-life people have

been almost completely ignored by the media (documentation at

One can only imagine the media reaction if pro-lifers adopted a threatening

slogan like "No Justice, No Peace" for which the politically correct get a


But the worst abuse has been the blackout of images whose power they know

full well. They will show the bodies of genocide victims in places like

Rwanda, even the naked bodies of Nazi death camp victims. This is

appropriate, lest we forget. But they have never shown the mutilated bodies

of aborted babies, lest we ever know.

A slogan of Orwell's totalitarian party was: "Who controls the past controls

the future; who controls the present controls the past." By their near total

control of the present the media Thought Police have manipulated a nation

into meekly accepting the slaughter of its young.

You can go directly to the web page on violence against pro-lifers at the

Human Life International website (referenced in the above letter) with this


(Links updated 2015:,,, - detailed report)

This short letter had been sent only to the Detroit major daily newspapers

and its theme was incorporated in the draft letter above:

February 3, 1995

Dear Sirs:

Coverage of the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz included

pictures of the victims' bodies, lest we forget. Meanwhile, in the ongoing

holocaust of abortion, which has killed three times as many people in this

country alone, the electronic and print media have scrupulously avoided

showing pictures of the victims' bodies, lest we ever know.

This letter was mass faxed nationwide to address partial-birth infanticide

and the habitual practice of lying by the abortion industry:

January 6, 2000

To the Editor:

First the abortion lobby claimed that the mother's anesthesia killed the

unborn baby before the horrific partial-birth abortion procedure. This

irresponsible and dangerous lie could have caused many women to postpone

necessary surgery for fear of endangering their unborn children. Although it

exposed the carefully nurtured myth of the industry's concern for women's

health, the media chose not to notice.

Later, the industry insisted upon a health exception to the ban, knowing

that the Supreme Court cleverly concealed its ridiculously broad definition

of health (it can mean anything) in *Doe v. Bolton*, the largely overlooked

companion decision to *Roe v. Wade*. This old, reliable ploy destroys the

support of borderline legislators by making them appear insensitive to the

health needs of women if they oppose it. Ethical physicians know that

partial-birth abortion is never necessary and that its only real purpose is

to assure a dead baby that is sufficiently undamaged and fresh that its

parts will fetch top dollar in the market for research specimens. The media

reliably failed to explain any such critical details.

What other practice must be sold almost exclusively on the basis of lies?

What does it say about the abortion industry's relationship with the media

when it can churn out lie after boldfaced lie for over three decades and

never have its credibility challenged? Would any pro-life organization get

away with the same tactic even once?

With such complicity by the media, will America ever get wise to the lies?

This one was sent only to the Detroit Free Press:

August 5, 1991

Dear Sirs:

For an event that has resulted in over 1,500 arrests at this writing, the

massive anti-abortion rally in Wichita, Kansas, has received scant coverage

by the national news media. Provision of any details as to why the Wichita

"clinic" was targeted has been studiously avoided. One suspects there is a

reason for this. According to Operation Rescue, the group staging the

protest, this particular abortionist specializes in second and

third trimester abortions, soliciting clients from all 50 states and six

foreign countries, and killing 150 of these late term prenatal babies in an

average week. They also claim that polling data show that most

Americans do not realize that abortion is legal through all nine months of pregnancy under the extremely loose definition of health given in the *Doe v. Bolton* ruling, the companion decision to *Roe v. Wade*. It follows that abortion advocates have a strong interest in

keeping this information from becoming better known because most Americans

would be repulsed by the kind of grotesque and demonic practices occurring

daily in Wichita.

Could it be that the national news media we trust to provide us with

information on important issues don't want us to know why these

demonstrations are occurring? Could it be that the rabidly pro-abortion

national media would deliberately suppress such information to advance their

own agenda?


The practice of Orwellian reality control, the revising of history by those

who control the present, is not limited to cooperation with the news and

entertainment media. Birthist Abortionites have also significantly

infiltrated many of our churches and attempted to establish as true the lie

that Christianity did not get around to coming out against abortion until

relatively late. However, we still have an ancient text, believed to date

from the latter half of the first century, called the Didache, or Teaching

of the Twelve Apostles. It can be accessed in its entirety at: (updated 2015 - 2002 text from another source shown below)

The relevant section is shown below:

2:2 Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not

corrupt youth; thou shalt not commit fornication; thou shalt not steal; thou

shalt not use soothsaying; thou shalt not practise sorcery; thou shalt not

kill a child by abortion, neither shalt thou slay it when born; thou shalt

not covet the goods of thy neighbour;

Thou shalt not kill a child by abortion? Could that be any clearer? Show

this to a Birthist Abortionite and you'll probably get an argument that the

translation was poor. Thou shalt not corrupt youth? Tell it to Planned

Parenthood, the nation's largest operator of abortion mills, which is

pushing condoms in our public schools and evangelizing for the Meat Model of

humanity. Under the Meat Model, human beings are not moral agents made in

the image and likeness of God but merely meat endowed with intelligence and

subject to uncontrollable urges. The Meat Manager Mentality is evident in

Abortionite approaches to prenatal child-slaying, cloning, euthanasia,

assisted suicide -- just about every life issue you can name. And then they

hypocritically accuse pro-lifers of introducing religion into our public

schools! They're about the most religious people you could find anywhere.

It's just that they serve false gods.


Attached to this email is a speech I gave in 1990 on an early observance of

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. It can also be accessed by this link: (link updated 2015)

I tied a lot of things together in this speech. Note especially my critique

of the "literature" of the so-called Religious Coalition for Abortion

Rights. An abbreviated version of my point about arguing that life begins at

puberty appears in this letter to Necropimping Propaganda Radio which I

doubt they aired:

January 24, 1998



635 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001-3753


Three out of the four NPR commentators on *Roe v. Wade* last week babbled

pro-abortion drivel. Why am I not surprised?

Perhaps the most idiotic and dangerous nonsense came from the rabbi. He

seems to believe that we must respect any idea - such as his delusion that

human lives begin at birth - regardless of how inane - and the actions it

justifies, regardless of how horrific, if the idea is put forth as a

religious belief. Let's suppose there were a religion that believed life

begins at puberty because the ability to reproduce is essential to every

living thing, a belief that is actually more plausible than the good rabbi's

fixation with birth which is biologically insignificant. Presumably, under

his perverse concept of religious freedom, pre-pubescent children could be

subjected to poisoning, live dismemberment and having their brains sucked

out in the same manner as prenatal children and we would be constitutionally

powerless to prevent it.

[End of letter]

Birthist Abortionite necropimping from the religious perspective often

attempts to use the First Amendment as a universal cover. After making their

ludicrous assertions that contradict biological realities, they draw the

equally ludicrous conclusion that the only reasonable societal standard to

adopt when "religions" disagree about the standing of prenatal lives is the

lowest possible standard -- which is no standard at all. We must tolerate

the unrestricted slaughter of prenatal children because to do otherwise is

to violate religious freedom.

This is worse than ludicrous. It is obscene.


Reformed Abortionites (aka the "politically correct") enthusiastically

embrace non-discrimination on the basis of the more universally repudiated

Abortionite criteria such as race. They love to smugly congratulate

themselves for their moral superiority in thoroughly rejecting these

criteria. But they are incapable of seeing their own hypocrisy since they

have mentally aborted the prenatal child. I responded to an NPR piece on the

renaming of a Baltimore school from former Chief Justice Roger Taney, the

infamous author of *Dred Scott v. Sandford* in 1857, to Thurgood Marshall,

one of the conspirators in *Roe v. Wade*, with this letter:

March 7, 1993


All Things Considered

Weekend Edition

National Public Radio

Washington, D.C. 20036

To whom it may concern:

The conclusion of your piece on the renaming of a Baltimore school was

liberal hypocrisy at its best. Although Justice Taney's opinion in Dred

Scott was deplorable, it could be argued that slavery had some basis in the

Constitution, veiled though the references to it were. Thurgood Marshall and

his fellow constitutional assassins, however, profaned the Constitution by

claiming in Roe v. Wade to have found a right to kill a prenatal child in a

"penumbra" (a region of darkness appropriately enough) emanating from the

Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment enacted to safeguard the rights of the

powerless, the newly freed slaves. The words "...nor shall any State deprive

any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" were

rendered meaningless by the simple expedient of redefining the word "person"

so as not to include the prenatal child. This ultimate act of exclusion,

which has resulted in some 30 million "disappeared" in this country,

overshadows any good Thurgood Marshall may have done in the field of civil

rights. Only a truly depraved mind could describe him and his ilk as



There were some highly publicized murders of abortionists late in 1994. My

response to the media feeding frenzy this caused was to send the following

letter to both The Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press. The edited

versions which were actually published are also shown below.

January 16, 1995

The recent klinik shootings have prompted a tidal wave of nauseating

hypocrisy about violence from the caring people who dismember alive over

4,000 prenatal children every day. Aside from the obvious, these culture

assassins have done enormous violence to the foundations

of our civilization in countless ways. They have done violence

to truth, language, law, medicine, government, ethics, values and the

principles of human rights. Decades of disinformation campaigns, euphemisms

("pro-choice", "reproductive freedom", "pregnancy tissue", etc.), oxymorons

("safe abortion", "abortion rights"), and Orwellian revisionism have

fashioned a nation of pimps for the medical whores who have prostituted

their skills to destroy human life.

Every day the death squads labor on and the list of the nameless disappeared

grows longer in a grotesque and violent caricature of freedom. But it is

only when one of the abortionmongers' fellow anarchists lets his anger

overcome his respect for what remains of the law that the public suddenly

notices violence and indulges itself in a hollow and unconvincing fit of


The nation is beyond brain dead. It is soul dead.

This is the published version of the letter after editing by The Detroit

News. The publication date was January 26, 1995, a Thursday:

The recent clinic shootings have prompted a tidal wave of nauseating

hypocrisy about violence from the caring people who dismember alive over

4,000 prenatal children every day. Every day the death squads labor on and

the list of the nameless grows longer in a grotesque and violent caricature

of freedom. The nation is beyond brain dead. It is soul dead.



Note how even the dropping of the single word "disappeared" destroyed the

intended allusion to human rights abuses in Latin America.

This is the result after editing by the Detroit Free Press. The publication

date was January 30, 1995, a Monday:

Recent clinic shootings have prompted a tidal wave of nauseating hypocrisy

about violence from the caring people who dismember alive over 4,000

prenatal children every day. These culture assassins have done enormous

violence to the foundations of our civilization in countless ways. They have

done violence to truth, language, law, medicine, government, ethics, values

and the principles of human rights.

Every day, the death squads labor on and the list of the nameless

disappeared grows longer in a grotesque and violent caricature of freedom.

But it is only when one of the abortion mongers' fellow anarchists lets his

anger overcome his respect for what remains of the laws that the public

suddenly notices violence and indulges itself in a hollow and unconvincing

fit of indignation.

The homicidal sociopaths who are slaughtering our nation's young responded

to the high profile crimes by demanding that pro-life organizations renounce

violence, as though they had somehow been advocating it. What prompted me to

write this letter was the incredible defensiveness of pro-life organizations

in response to this vomit. I wanted to write something that would not just

fight back but virtually smoke off the page. While both papers denied me

this, I think the main points got across. A friend told me they probably did

me a favor by cutting what they did. Perhaps so, but I'm not about to

apologize for my position on this and I'm certainly not going to let any

perpetrators or enablers of prenatal child-killing claim the high moral

ground. And I'm not about to renounce anything I've never advocated and

never will to satisfy the demands of a gang of depraved and obscene

hypocrites who practice violence on a daily basis on a scale that is

historically unprecedented, even during war.


That should do it for now. Thanks again for reading.

Al Lemmo

Dearborn, Michigan

October, 2002