Your statement, commemorating 1-22 anniversary of Roe vs Wade, is now taking a cliche (with no basis of truth) and creating a new statement, again with errors. "Since 1973, the Roe decision has saved countless lives by ending the dark days when women were forced into the back alleys and made to continue pregnancies that endangered their lives and health"
No women were forced into back alleys AND made to continue pregnancies. This is more inaccurate than the widely reported but inaccurate statistics of "back alley abortions". First of all why did your ilk NOT prosecute all these back alley abortionists. Medical procedures in a back alley are and were illegal.
Secondly those abortionists of ill repute (aka back alley butchers) still exist but are protected by the do-good legislators (looking for votes) who do not want ANY restrictions on abortion..........in fact they proceed full steam ahead assisting, with disproportionate numbers, abortuaries in minority communities. Thus, the genocide, the ethnic cleansing ideals of Margaret Sanger is carried out by her Planned Parenthood, protected and embraced by legislators, AND paid for years by taxpayers.
This commemoration of Roe vs Wade leaves out an embarassing fact. Roe's situation (aka Norma McCorvey) was a fraud. The whole scene was embellished and perpertrated by lawyers of abortinists so the business of abortion could grow. Which it did, rapidly the number of abortions grew from 586,760/yr in 1972 (versus 3,258,411 live births) to 1,034,170 (versus 3,144,198 live births) in 1975. Within 4 years the abortion rate doubled.
Interestingly the live birth rate had been decreasing from 1971 to 1976, but then continued back on track increasing slightly each year until 1991 when it decreased each year until 1997. But the decrease from year to year, of live births, NEVER correlates in any manner to the number of reported abortions.
So is this grand scheme to decrease live births aka population control not working? Are the vast number of abortions forced (not in back alleys mind you) upon women via societal pressures early in the first tri-mester when more than likely that pregnancy would not have continued! Statistics seem to indicate this - given our birth rate. OR even worse has this free access to abortion increased the sexual promescuity of minors and thereby increased the coffers of the abortion industry.
In otherwords the abortions imposed on minors in that first tri-mester is a business and political enterprise, supported by legislators such as Ms Boxer. It is not in the best interests of young women, young men, a nation, and certainly not the unborn. In fact have we created two generations of women with VAST and FURIOUS abortion stories, far worse than the "forced into the back alleys and made to continue pregnancies" Ms. Boxer has inaccurately dramatized!