It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Finally, Darwin comments that, “Malthus has discussed these several [population] checks, but he does not lay stress enough on what is probably the most important of all, namely infanticide, especially of female infants, and the habit of procuring abortion."28 Darwin lived shortly after an age when infanticide was particularly visible and shortly before abortion was to become a major variable in reproductive outcome. The killing of babies need not be a deliberate act in a poor society. In the 18th century, use of opiates, dosing with gin, and too little food probably took many a child's life. Other parents smothered their infants in bed, and abandonment was a common method of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. In 1700, Coram, appalled by the plight of babies born in London, petitioned King George II “to prevent the frequent murders of poor, miserable infants at their birth and to suppress the inhuman custom of exposing new infants to perish in the streets.” However, the Foundling Hospital, which Coram founded (1741), merely institutionalized infant death. Of the first 14,934 admitted, 10,204 died. Between 1770 and 1789, 31% of the baptisms in Paris were foundlings. The foundling hospital in Florence, Italy, kept unusually accurate records, and it is interesting to note that the majority of admissions were children of legitimate birth. For the period 1775–1794, foundlings from one (probably representative) group of villages constituted 4.2% of all legitimate births and 50% of all legitimate births to mothers with six or more children in those villages.32
When the poor stayed with their children in workhouses, the outcome was little better. Between 1728 and 1757, there were 468,081 christenings and 273,930 infant deaths in those younger than the age of 2 in London workhouses. Foundling hospitals and workhouses were institutionalized infanticide machines.
In 1800, the average married woman in the United States could expect to have 7.04 children; by 1900, the number was 3.56. In Britain, 25% of women marrying in 1860 had eight or more children; by 1925, 40% were to have one or no children. Fertility regulation was so hidden at the time that when demographers began to analyze demographic transition, they often saw it in socioeconomic terms, rather than in behavioral and technologic terms, as if education or income itself could affect fertility directly. Obviously, this is not true, although the exact balance of contraceptive use and induced abortion can never be established in detail. Very low coital frequencies, which may have occurred in some marriages fearful of unintended pregnancies, may also have played a role.33 Oral and anal intercourse were, as today, taboo subjects, and if they were significant variables in achieved family size must forever remain unmeasurable. Coitus interruptus was certainly widely used and is referred to commonly. Spermicides and condoms were well known in the 19th century. Finally, abortion played an important role. In 1889, Rentoul, in Britain, wrote the following:
“Everyone must notice that, although the number of marriages is on the increase, the number of births to each couple is decreasing, and also that no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming. Instead of the number of cases of abortion undergoing a diminution, an enormous increase is taking place."34 In France, in 1868, one commentator wrote that abortion had grown “into a veritable industry.” One of the few statistical estimate measures of abortion was made at the Manchester Lying-In Hospital by Whitehead in 1845 and 1846. He questioned 2000 women, and more than one third of them (747) reported one or more abortions. The women with abortions had been pregnant more often (mean, 6.4 pregnancies) than the total population (mean, 4.3 pregnancies).32 In 1873, an American physician pointed out that “abortion has become so frequent that it is rare to find a married woman who passes through the childbearing period who has not had one or more!” One student of abortion patterns estimated that probably 75% to 90% of the abortions performed at that time were for married women.35 Legal cases sometimes illuminate 19th century abortion practices. In 1896, the Chrimes brothers set up a mail-order business in London for the sale of a simple blood tonic that their advertisements implied was an abortifacient. The brothers attempted to blackmail the women who wrote in to purchase the remedy, but their plan was exposed and they were arrested, convicted, and jailed for extortion. In the course of 2 years, they had collected a file of more than 10,000 names, and they were only one of many similar businesses peddling various types of medication for the relief of a “delayed period."36
In 1868, a representative of the British Medical Journal replied to newspaper advertisements for ladies who were “temporarily indisposed.” More than half the advertisements offered abortions.32 In the United States, an English immigrant, Ann Lohman, trading under the more colorful name of Madame Restell, began practicing in New York in the 1830s. She offered both pills and surgery to induce abortions. By the 1840s, she had opened branch agencies in Boston and Philadelphia, and by 1870 she was spending approximately $60,000 each year on advertisements alone. First arrested in 1841, she was convicted of only minor infractions of the law. Her final arrest was because of the activities of the notorious Anthony Comstock, who had launched a personal crusade to ban every form of birth control and prosecute every abortionist.35
However, the scale of abortion and, to some extent, the acceptability of 19th century abortion services are revealed in the number of years it took Comstock to bring Madame Restell to trial: He succeeded in 1878. The confrontation between the missionary of purity and the most famous 19th century abortionist ended dramatically when Madame Restell committed suicide immediately before her trial.
The prices quoted for services were high, ranging from 10–50 guineas ($15–75) in Britain, or 5% or more of the annual income of an average lower middle class family of the time. There was frequent physician involvement in the delivery of services, and fee splitting was common. Services provided in the 19th century parallel those currently found in many parts of the developing world.
One abortion provider claimed to have been in the business for 27 years, beginning in the first years of Queen Victoria's reign. She had patients who came back six or seven times and is quoted as saying, “I'm a jokelar [jocular] person, I am; and cheers 'em up. She needn't mind and mustn't fret, and I'll see her all right. I'm the old original, I am, and have had hundreds."
Planned Parenthood is suing David Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress, the organization that caught the abortion company selling aborted baby parts and fully intact aborted babies.
“Planned Parenthood says Daleiden broke multiple laws and violated confidentiality agreements to obtain interviews with officials to discuss how some clinics were compensated for providing aborted fetuses for medical research purposes,” a Washington Examiner report on the lawsuit indicates.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
If there was no truth to the videos they would have filed a suit using something other than RICO statutes.
The civil suit accuses the defendants -- the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress and a fake fetal tissue procurement company called "BioMax"-- of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and committing fraud, invasion of privacy, illegal secret recording and trespassing. The accused conspirators, David Daleiden, Troy Newman and four other activists, used fake government IDs to gain entry into private medical conferences, secretly taped conversations with Planned Parenthood staffers, and sliced up those interviews into a series of inflammatory videos that accuse the family planning provider of selling fetal tissue for profit.