Remember the post "UN Groups Cook the Numbers to Sell Abortion" from late April? It concerned a study just then published in The Lancet, Britain's leading British medical journal, showing that maternal mortality rates had been significantly overestimated by United Nations agencies over the years.Those "cooked" figures helped pro-abortion advocates in the UN make greater access to abortion a foundation of their maternal health programs.
The Lancet’s editor, Dr. Richard Horton, even admitted to the New York Times that he was pressured “by advocacy groups” to delay publication of this new report until later this year.
One might have concluded that the light shed by this "outing" story would have caused some serious shame among the abortion zealots; maybe even a few apologies and promises to let the facts guide their policies from now on.
But no. All that's happened is their re-dedication to fight the light!
But David Horton, referring to the the Federalist Papers and freedom of the press, fought back.
Check out the latest from C-FAM:
At a meeting on maternal and child health research in Washington last week, United Nations (UN) staff and abortion advocates told scientists they should “harmonize” their findings or discuss them “in a locked room” so that the press could not report maternal death numbers that conflicted with the ones they use to lobby policy makers and major international donors.
Ann Starrs, co-founder and president of the abortion advocacy organization Family Care International (FCI), told a roomful of scientists to “lock all the academics in a black box and have them come out with a consensus set of numbers” or “at least hide that there is disagreement” and “infighting.” FCI is the founder of Women Deliver, which is hosting a massive UN-backed reproductive rights fundraising conference in Washington next week...
Dr. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, pushed back saying researchers should not come to a “consensus” or “harmonize” but rather have a “scientific summary view of what the totality of available evidence should be.” He argued that this should not be centered at the UN, but housed “independently within the scientific community.” Horton responded to Starr’s objection by saying, “Unless we subject numbers to that peer-review process, I think we are accepting second-class data, and that applies wherever the numbers come from.”...
Highlighting the tension in the room between the researchers’ desire for openness and activists call for secrecy, Horton said, “For God’s sake, your country, the United States, was founded on the press! One of the best documents in the history of humankind is the Federalist Papers; if it wasn’t for the press, we wouldn’t have a United States! So learn to love the press.”
