The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association (AMA) stated in their amicus brief filed on Dec. 19, 2013 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in support of Planned Parenthood's challenge to Texas House Bill (HB) 2 (Planned Parenthood v. Abbott), available at ACOG.org:
"[We] oppose legislative interference with the practice of medicine and a woman’s relationship with her doctor...
Access to safe and legal abortion is an important aspect of women’s health care. Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States. The risk associated with childbirth is approximately fourteen times higher than abortion. Over 90% of abortions in the United States are performed in outpatient settings and almost all complications that arise after an abortion can be, and are, treated on an outpatient basis. Hospitalization due to an abortion is rare. There is a less than 0.3% risk of major complications following an abortion that might need hospital care and a recent study found that the risk of major complications from first trimester abortions by the aspiration method is even less—0.05%."
[Editor’s Note: After the Dec. 19, 2013 "Pro" statement above, the AMA made a "Not Clearly Pro or Con" statement in a May 23, 2014 email to ProCon.org from AMA Media & Editorial, which stated: "The AMA is neither pro or con regarding abortion. No 'position' [pro or con] should be ascribed to the AMA." As of June 27, 2014, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has not altered its official abortion policy, reaffirmed in July 2011, which stated: "The College continues to affirm the legal right of a woman to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability."]
Donna Schaper, DMin, Senior Minister of Judson Memorial Church in New York City, stated in her Dec. 4, 2013 article for the Huffington Post titled "Most Women under 40 Haven't Heard the Pro-choice Moral Argument":
"Women are moral agents. Women are capable of making soulful, moral decisions about their own bodies. Assuming that a woman cannot decide for herself if and when to bear a child demeans women. Mandatory childbearing makes the woman a hostage to the will of others -- those unfamiliar with her story, her life experience and her needs, and may have disastrous consequences for the children. Medical choices, like terminating a pregnancy, are medically available. Other life sustaining medical procedures are not considered immoral. Why the complaint against abortion?
Our faith tradition teaches soul competency, a Baptist principle that is violated in restricting the right to choose an abortion. Our forebears suffered greatly, even to the point of death, to express their conviction that no one stands between the individual and God...
As Christians, as Baptists, we wearily say, the right to choose a medical procedure is also a woman's right. It has to do fundamentally with the freedom of our souls to practice our religion and morality in our own ways."
Hillary Rodham Clinton, JD, US Secretary of State at the time of the quote, stated during an Apr. 22, 2009 House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing titled "New Beginnings: Foreign Policy Priorities in the Obama Administration," available at YouTube.com:
"...I've been in hospitals in Brazil where half the women were enthusiastically and joyfully greeting new babies and the other half were fighting for their lives against botched abortions. I've been in African countries where 12 and 13 year old girls are bearing children. I have been in Asian countries where the denial of family planning consigns women to lives of oppression and hardship. So we [pro-life supporters and pro-choice supporters] have a very fundamental disagreement and it is my strongly held view that you [pro-life supporters] are entitled to advocate, and everyone who agrees with you, should be free to do so anywhere in the world and so are we.
We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women's health and reproductive health includes access to abortion, that I believe should be safe, legal, and rare."
The New York Times stated in its Oct. 15, 2012 editorial titled "If Roe v. Wade Goes," available at nytimes.com:
"We do not need to guess about the brutal consequences of overturning Roe [v. Wade]. We know from our own country's pre-Roe history and from the experience around the world. Women desperate to end a pregnancy would find a way to do so. Well-to-do women living in places where abortion is illegal would travel to other states where it is legal to obtain the procedure. Women lacking the resources would either be forced by the government and politicians to go through with an unwanted or risky pregnancy, attempt to self-abort or turn to an illegal — and potentially unsafe — provider for help. Women’s health, privacy and equality would suffer. Some women would die."
Mary Elizabeth Williams, staff writer for Salon, stated in her Jan. 23, 2013 Salon article titled "So What If Abortion Ends Life?":
"I believe that life starts at conception. And it's never stopped me from being pro-choice.
...I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that's what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn't make me one iota less solidly pro-choice...
Here's the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That's a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She's the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always...
...I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing."
Susan Bevan, JD, National Co-Chair of Republican Majority for Choice (RM4C), stated in her self-titled essay posted at catholicsforchoice.org (accessed May. 5, 2014):
"I am pro-choice because, as a lifelong Republican, I believe that individual rights should be paramount—and that this extends to the rights of individuals to make personal decisions about reproduction. As a mother, of course I am pro-life, and I believe that the government’s role in creating and enforcing reproductive health legislation is to protect individuals’ ability to access all options. While this is the truly Republican thing to do, it is also the right thing to do. The government must not be involved in personal healthcare decisions. Those who oppose contraception and abortion are free to make that choice for themselves and their families, but not for others...
Those under the supposedly "pro-life” umbrella falsely believe that outlawing abortion prior to fetal viability will reduce the rate and occurrence of abortions. Decades of data show that this is simply not the case.
The actual impact is an increase in later term abortions that risk the life and health of the mother—a decidedly anti-life result. In addition, these efforts are explicitly unconstitutional and a waste of both time and tax dollars in defense of a losing cause, diverting attention from the real work our Congress needs to do to run our country. We know—both from the recent testimony of hundreds of Texan women and from the statistics provided by the CDC and other health organizations—that these kinds of unnecessary intrusions into the private relationships between individuals and their physicians are dangerously out of line with any efforts to promote or protect life. They are similarly out of line with a genuinely conservative philosophy of limited government."
Louise Melling, JD, Director of the Center for Liberty at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), wrote in her Jan. 22, 2009 article, "Common Hopes," published by the Daily Kos:
"We know that women have abortions for many reasons. Even if we disagree on the issue of abortion, we can agree that these are private personal decisions we all must be able to make based on our own circumstances, beliefs, and values. We should respect and support a woman and her family as they face the life-altering decision of whether to have a child. It is neither my place nor our government's place to make such an important life decision for someone else... We all care about life and about doing our best for the people we love. When we bring children into the world we want them to have the opportunity to live a good life. And we want to build a better future for our children and our grandchildren.
Abortion and reproductive freedom more broadly defined are important pieces of ensuring this common dream. To obtain a better future, we each must be free to make profoundly personal decisions about our reproductive lives without unwarranted government intrusion. As with all freedoms, there are limits. But a government that respects the personal integrity of its people both interferes in these essentially private decisions as little as possible and helps ensure that everyone has the opportunity to make these decisions responsibly."
The Democratic Party stated in its document titled "Moving America Forward: 2012 Democratic National Platform," published in Sep. 2012 on its website Democrats.org:
"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions."
The National Abortion Federation, a nonprofit association of abortion practitioners, stated in its article "Pro-Choice and Proud," published on its website ProChoice.org (accessed Apr. 29, 2014):
"[B]etween the 1880s and 1973, many thousands of women died or suffered serious medical problems after attempting to self-induce their abortions or going to untrained practitioners who performed abortions with primitive methods or in unsanitary conditions. During this time, hospital emergency room staff treated thousands of women who either died or were suffering terrible effects of abortions provided without adequate skill and care. However, since the legalization of abortion, the risk of death resulting from abortion is many times less than a woman's risk of death during pregnancy and childbirth...
The ability to access safe and legal abortion has been critical for many women as they seek to define and live their lives with dignity. Honoring women means honoring their choices, including the choice of whether and when to have children.
Women are capable of making intelligent and conscientious decisions about their own lives and families. Women deserve the autonomy and dignity to act in accordance with their personal convictions, and to decide what is best for their own lives and families. Women should be trusted and respected to exercise the choices about their bodies and lives that are best for them, and not be forced by the government into personal reproductive decisions that are against their will."
Barack Obama, JD, 44th US President, issued the following statement on Jan. 22, 2014, published on WhiteHouse.gov:
"Today, as we reflect on the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle: that every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health. We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her constitutional right to privacy, including the right to reproductive freedom. And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children. Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams."
The United Church of Christ, a denomination of the Protestant religion, stated in its article "Reproductive Health and Justice: Why the UCC Is a Leader in this Area," published on its website UCC.org (accessed Apr. 29, 2014):
"God has given us life, and life is sacred and good. God has also given us the responsibility to make decisions which reflect a reverence for life in circumstances when conflicting realities are present. Jesus affirmed women as full partners in the faith, capable of making decisions that affect their lives...
The United Church of Christ has affirmed and re-affirmed since 1971 that access to safe and legal abortion is consistent with a woman’s right to follow the dictates of her own faith and beliefs in determining when and if she should have children, and it has supported comprehensive sexuality education as one measure to prevent unwanted or unplanned pregnancies, and to create healthy and responsible sexual persons and relationships....
We have also supported that women with limited financial means should be able to receive public funding in order to exercise her legal right to the full range of reproductive health services. What is legally available to women must be accessible to all women."
The Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations stated in its Mar. 13, 2013 Public Policy Statement titled "Reproductive Choice," published on its website UUA.org:
"The Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations affirms the worth and dignity of every person as well as the goal of a world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all, and thus affirms the access to family planning and reproductive health care including birth control, age-appropriate comprehensive sexuality education, and abortion. The UUA (Unitarian Universalist Association) opposes any attempt to enact a position on private morality into public law. Thus, the Association supports the following domestically and internationally:...
The right of any female of any age or marital, economic, or employment status to have an abortion at her own request upon medical/social consultation of her own choosing with a guarantee of unrestricted access to services.
Federal legislation that guarantees the fundamental right of individual choice and privacy in reproductive matters.
Protection of medical personnel who supply abortion services, and their families, from harassment and intimidation."
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, a national sexual and reproductive health care provider and advocate, stated in its article "Protecting Abortion Access," published on its website PlannedParenthood.org (accessed Apr. 29, 2014):
"[T]o protect their health and the health of their families, women facing an unintended pregnancy must have access to safe, legal abortion services without interference from the government. Decisions about childbearing should be made by a woman in consultation with her family and doctor — not by politicians.
Access to abortion is legal, constitutionally protected, and consistently supported by a majority of Americans; yet anti-choice organizations and policymakers have made it increasingly harder for women to access needed care. Anti-choice hardliners erode access to abortion through court battles, ballot measures, and burdensome legislative restrictions on abortion services — some extremists even resort to intimidation, harassment, and violence against women and health care providers."
The American Medical Women's Association (AMWA), a nonprofit organization of women physicians and medical students, stated in its "Position Paper on Principals [sic] of Abortion," published on its website, AMWA-doc.org (accessed Apr. 29, 2014):
"[T]he American Medical Women's Association has adopted the position that the decision to continue or interrupt a pregnancy belongs to the pregnant woman, in consultation with her physician.
Pregnancy is a major medical event in the life of a woman, a condition that involves medical risk for a patient, ranging from minor physical inconveniences to death itself. In the United States, 49% of the 6.3 million pregnancies a year are unintended. A pregnancy that is unintended or unwanted carries a greater medical risk for the woman because neglected prenatal care results in higher rates of pregnancy-related disease and death. A pregnant woman's decision to complete or terminate a pregnancy is a medical issue to be made in the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship...
Abortions will be chosen whether they are legal or illegal. When abortion was illegal in this country, it was brought about by dangerous, self-induced methods or by clandestine, often untrained, practitioners under unsterile conditions with no follow-up care. Many women suffered reproductive tract damage, infection, bleeding, permanent sterility, or death. Since the advent of legal abortion in the United States, there has been a marked decrease in all pregnancy-related deaths and an even greater drop in pregnancy and abortion-related complications..."
NARAL (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws) Pro-Choice America, a nonprofit pro-choice organization, wrote the following in its Jan. 1, 2014 article "Roe v. Wade and the Right to Choose," published on its website ProChoiceAmerica.org:
"By striking down laws that forced women to resort to back-alley abortion, Roe saved many women's lives...
Since abortion was legalized in 1973, the safety of the procedure has increased dramatically. The number of deaths per 100,000 legal abortion procedures declined from 4.1 to 0.6 between 1973 and 1997.
In addition, Roe has improved the quality of many women’s lives. Although most women welcome pregnancy, childbirth, and the responsibilities of raising a child at some period in their lives, few events can more dramatically constrain a woman’s opportunities than an unplanned pregnancy. Because childbirth and pregnancy substantially affect a woman’s educational prospects, employment opportunities, and self-determination, restrictive abortion laws narrowly circumscribed women's role in society and hindered women from charting their paths through life in the most basic of ways. In the 40 years since Roe, the variety and level of women’s achievements have reached unprecedented heights."
Randy Hultgren, JD, US House Representative (R-IL), stated in his Jan. 21, 2014 article for RedAlertPolitics.com titled "Americans Should Not Have to Pay for Abortions through Obamacare":
"Since the Supreme Court’s sweeping Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 overturned hundreds of laws in states across the country, more than 55 million unborn children have lost their lives to abortion — about one-third of the millennial generation...
It’s disturbing that, for more than four decades, our nation has been complicit in this gross violation of human rights. With the advent of the ultrasound and improved prenatal care, science has shown in vivid detail the life inside of a mother...
When we tell one another that abortion is okay, we reinforce the idea that human lives are disposable, that we can throw away anything or anyone that inconveniences us."
Robert P. George, JD, DPhil, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, and Patrick Lee, PhD, the John N. and Jamie D. McAleer Professor of Bioethics at Franciscan University of Steubenville, wrote in their chapter titled "The Wrong of Abortion," published in the 2005 book Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics, edited by Andrew I. Cohen and Christopher Wellman:
"[T]he choice of abortion is objectively immoral...
[A]s early as eight or ten weeks of gestation, the fetus has a fully formed, beating heart, a complete brain... a recognizably human form...
There are three important points we wish to make about this human embryo. First, it is from the start distinct from any cell of the mother or of the father. This is clear because it is growing in its own distinct direction. Its growth is internally directed to its own survival and maturation. Second, the embryo is human: it has the genetic makeup characteristic of human beings. Third, and most importantly, the embryo is a complete or whole organism, though immature. The human embryo, from conception onward, is fully programmed actively to develop himself or herself to the mature stage of a human being, and, unless prevented by disease or violence, will actually do so...
So, a human embryo (or fetus) is not something distinct from a human being; he or she is not an individual of any non-human or intermediate species. Rather, an embryo (and fetus) is a human being at a certain (early) stage of development – the embryonic (or fetal) stage. In abortion, what is killed is a human being, a whole living member of the species homo sapiens, the same kind of entity as you or I, only at an earlier stage of development."
Rand Paul, MD, US Senator (R-KY), stated in his article titled "Sanctity of Life," posted on his official US Senate website (accessed Apr. 30, 2014):
"I am 100% pro-life. I believe life begins at conception and that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. It is the duty of our government to protect this life as a right guaranteed under the Constitution. For this reason, I introduced S. 583, the Life at Conception Act on March 14, 2013. This bill would extend the Constitutional protection of life to the unborn from the time of conception.
It is unconscionable that government would facilitate the taking of innocent life. I have stated many times that I will always support legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion. There are many ways we can work toward this ultimate goal and items we can hope to accomplish in the near term. I strongly oppose any federal funding of abortion and will attempt to stop the flow of tax dollars to groups who perform or advocate for abortion...
I would strongly support legislation restricting federal courts from hearing cases like Roe v. Wade. Such legislation would only require a majority vote, making it more likely to pass than a pro-life constitutional amendment."
Mark Driscoll, MA, founding pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, WA, stated in his Oct. 18, 2013 op-ed for FoxNews.com titled "What Do 55 Million People Have in Common?":
"Since 1973, legal abortions in America have taken the lives of 55 million people. If 55 million Americans died tomorrow, whoever led the genocide would not get a parade in celebration, bumper stickers in support, or be a viable candidate for political office.
Fifty-five million lives equals 17.5% of the country’s current population. It's a number greater than the population of any state in the Union, and greater than the population of 219 of the world's country's [sic] including South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Australia, Argentina, and Canada. Fifty-five million is about the same as the population of the 25 smallest states and Washington D.C. combined...
Both science and Scripture are absolutely clear that life begins at conception. Taking a human life is murder, by definition, which makes abortion a murderous act...
...Believe it or not, federal legislation forbids the murder of an unborn baby—except in the 55 million instances when it doesn't. And a father can be convicted of murdering his unborn child without the mother's consent, but if a woman decides to end her pregnancy against the wishes of the father, that’s her right to choose.
Choose murder? Can't follow all of the logic? Perhaps that’s because it’s illogical...
Abortion is not a matter of politics. It’s a matter of life and death, for 55 million and counting. Enough."
Brit Hume, Senior Political Analyst for FOX News Channel, stated during his Jan. 22, 2014 commentary on the FOX News Channel program Special Report, available at realclearpolitics.com:
"[T]he Supreme Court found that a generalized right to privacy it had basically invented, meant that a woman has a constitutional right to snuff out an unborn life, a human being with a beating heart. That's what a fetus as young as six weeks is.
...Some estimates are that as many as 55 million abortions -- 55 million -- have occurred since the Court acted. In that time, science has given us an ever clearer picture of just how much of a baby a fetus is. At 20 weeks, we now know, these tiny creatures can hear, even recognize a mother's voice. Their toenails are growing and their hearts beat loud enough to be heard by a stethoscope.
The moral case for allowing such beings to be killed grows ever weaker and its advocates resort to ever more absurd euphemisms to describe what they support. They're not really pro-abortion, they've long said, they're pro-choice. This isn't about killing unborn babies, it's about reproductive health. And the biggest chain of abortion clinics in the country refers to itself as Planned Parenthood."
The Pro-Life Action League, a nonprofit pro-life organization, stated on its website, ProLifeAction.org, in a section titled "Where We Stand" (accessed Apr. 29, 2014):
"The Pro-Life Action League opposes abortion because abortion kills an innocent unborn child, a human person at one of those early stages of human development through which each one of us passes before birth.
We fully appreciate the many pressures and crises which may lead some parents to believe they have no choice but to abort their child. That is why we work to offer abortion-bound mothers and fathers the help they need to overcome their difficult situations and choose life when faced with an untimely pregnancy.
However, killing an unborn child is inherently wrong, and therefore can never be justified regardless of circumstances. It is no more just to kill an unborn child in order to avoid hardship than it would be to kill a toddler to avoid hardship. Because the unborn child is unseen, it is easier for society to condone killing him or her, though this is morally indistinguishable from killing any child at any stage of development.
In addition, abortion does not solve the deeper problems that have contributed to having an untimely pregnancy—problems such as low self-esteem, sexual exploitation, unchaste sexual behavior, poverty, lack of education and absence of moral guidance. In fact, the negative effects of abortion can actually compound these problems.
Finally, a society which allows the killing of its most vulnerable members, in the very place in all the world which should be for them to be safest and most nurtured—their own mothers' wombs—is incapable of cherishing and nurturing human life or valuing childhood and motherhood."
The Republican Party (GOP) stated in its document titled "2012 Republican Platform: We Believe in America," published on its website GOP.com in Aug. 2012:
"Faithful to the 'self-evident' truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health car which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life."
The Family Research Council, a nonprofit conservative educational organization, wrote in its article titled "Abortion," published on its website FRC.org (accessed Apr. 29, 2014):
"Few things touch on the sanctity of human life more than the practice of abortion. A pregnancy should not simply be 'terminated,' as if it were something impersonal and problematic and it cannot be without physical and emotional consequences. A child in the womb is a distinct, developing, wholly human being, and each time a mother decides or a father pressures to end such a life it is a profound tragedy. Abortion harms the mother as well, and deprives society of the gifts of the unborn.
Nevertheless, our laws rarely recognize this, and so FRC uses various media to present the intrinsic dignity of unborn human life and the costs of abortion to the public, to lawmakers, and to the courts. The Roe v. Wade decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, declaring abortion to be a constitutional 'right,' was without foundation in the text of the constitution and thus was wrongly decided, and we look forward to the day when this grave error will be corrected."
Americans United for Life, a pro-life legal group, stated in the mission statement titled "Abortion," published on its website AUL.org (accessed May 27, 2010):
"The social experiment in abortion on demand, imposed by the judiciary in 1973, has disastrously failed by ending the lives of more than 30 million children while damaging the physical and emotional health of millions of women... [A]bortion is a violent deception that results in two victims: the child whose life is destroyed, and the woman who suffers devastating physical and psychological harm...
Unfortunately, the Roe v. Wade decision and its progeny have created a cultural ethic that views destruction of innocent human life as an acceptable solution to personal, economic, or social problems. Rather than respecting the dignity of each individual human life and seeking humane and creative solutions to our personal and social problems, Roe [v. Wade] has deceived our society into believing that the quick-fix solution of death is an acceptable solution."
George W. Bush, 43rd US President, stated during a speech at the opening of the 36th annual National Right to Life Committee Convention held on July 3, 2008 in Washington DC:
"Our nation's declaration of independence promises that all people have an unalienable right to life. It states, that this right comes from our creator. And that government exists to secure the rights of its citizens.
For the past eight years my administration has proudly stood with you to ensure that our nation lives up to this noble promise. Working together, we promoted adoption, abstinence education and crisis pregnancy programs. We have fought to ensure that US tax dollars were not used to perform or promote abortions overseas. We have worked to secure legislation that allows prosecutors to charge those who harm or kill a pregnant woman, with harming or killing her unborn child as well.
We’ve extended legal protection to children who were born despite abortion attempts, and we’ve enacted a ban on the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion. We defended this good law all the way to the Supreme Court, and we prevailed...
For eight years we have stood together to defend the principle that every human life has value. I thank all of you for your support, and I join you in looking forward to the day when every child is welcomed in life, and protected in law."
The National Right to Life Committee, a pro-life lobbying and educational organization, wrote in its Jan. 2004 handout titled "Reasons for Abortion and a Few Responses," posted on its website NRLC.org:
"While there are many things that society can and should do to ensure that women are never denied basic rights or opportunities on account of their sex or reproductive status, to claim that these rights require the death of the innocent is to undermine the very foundations of justice itself...
We believe in freedom, but absolute freedom, to do whatever one wishes without limits, cannot exist. If people are 'free to choose,' to harm or kill one another for any reason whatsoever, all live in fear, not freedom... [S]ociety as a whole has something at stake when one human being claims the right to kill another or to decide who is worthy of life."
The National Association of Evangelicals, a nonprofit organization representing US Evangelical churches, stated in its article "Abortion 1973," published on its website NAE.net (accessed Apr. 29, 2014):
"[T]he moral issue of abortion is more than a question of the freedom of a woman to control the reproductive functions of her own body. It is rather a question of those circumstances under which a human being may be permitted to take the life of another. We believe that all life is a gift of God, so that neither the life of the unborn child nor the mother may be lightly taken. We believe that God Himself, in Scripture, has told us what our attitude should be towards the unborn. Several times it is specifically stated that He conferred divine blessing upon unborn infants. He also provided penalties for actions which result in the death of the unborn.
Therefore, we deplore in the strongest possible terms the decision of the U. S. Supreme Court which has made it legal to terminate a pregnancy for no better reason than personal convenience or sociological considerations. We reaffirm our conviction that abortion on demand for social adjustment or to solve economic problems is morally wrong..."
Mother Teresa, late founder of the Order of the Missionaries of Charity, stated in an amicus curiae brief for the Feb. 1, 1994 US Supreme Court cases Loce v. New Jersey and Krail et al. v. New Jersey:
"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts - a child - as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically-dependent sons and daughters. And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners.
Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign."
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon Church) stated in its article "Abortion," published on its website LDS.org (accessed Apr. 29, 2014):
"Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the [Mormon] Church."
The American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) stated in the "About Us" section on its website AAPLOG.org (accessed Apr. 29, 2014):
"[E]lective disruption/abortion of human life at any time from fertilization onward constitutes the willful destruction of an innocent human being, and... this procedure will have no place in our practice of the healing arts...
[W]e are deeply concerned about the profound, adverse effects that elective abortion imposes, not just on the women, but also on the entire involved family, and on our society at large."
Bernard Nathanson, MD, late pro-life activist and former abortion physician, stated in his 1984 documentary film The Silent Scream:
"You know I think I know a little about abortion. I was one of the founders of NARAL [Pro-Choice America], the National Abortion Rights Action League in 1969 and for a period of two years I was [the] [d]irector of the largest abortion clinic in the Western world...
Since those times we have a science, which is known as Fetology, [which] has allowed us to study the human fetus. And all those studies have concluded without exception that the unborn child is a human being indistinguishable from any of us and an integral part of our human community.
In discussing abortion we must also understand that the unborn child is not the only victim. Women themselves are victims, just as the unborn children are... Women in increasing numbers, hundreds, thousands, and even tens of thousands, have had their wombs perforated, infected, destroyed. Women have been sterilized, castrated, all as a result which they have had no true knowledge...
Now the destruction of a living human being is no solution to what is basically a social problem. I believe a resort to such violence is an admission of scientific and even worse, ethical impoverishment. Somehow I refuse to believe that Americans, who have put men on the moon can't devise a better solution than the resort to violence... Let's all for humanity's sake, here and now, stop the killing."