Cowards or Accomplices in the Abortion Holocaust?
By Patrick Johnston, D.O.
I have boldly gone where few physicians have gone before. Where? you ask. I’ll give you a hint. It’s a very lonely place. You are liable to be rejected by your peers, slandered by your superiors, and avoided by those following in your footsteps if you dare venture into this arena. It’s a place where you defend innocent life against not only the mammon-lusting attackers, but also from those medical colleagues who would turn a blind eye and endorse silence in the face of murder of Holocaust proportions.
I was fearful of exposing the moral corruptness of previous superiors, under whose leadership I received fine training as a physician, but now I am on my own in a flourishing medical practice, and God has proven himself able to shut the lions’ mouths. On March 27, 2000, I, a second-year family practice resident at the Southern Ohio Medical Center in Portsmouth, Ohio, gave a lecture to the medical students, interns, and residents, entitled, “Ethical Considerations in Elective Abortions - From a Physician’s Perspective”. In this graphic photograph-laden powerpoint lecture, I gave a scientific defense for the humanity of the pre-born child and a logical argument that the lives of these innocent human beings should be protected not only by law, but by the physicians who care for them and their mothers.
The lecture went well with the exception of one student who said that it was not well balanced – “I didn’t give the other side”. I explained to her that she was well acquainted with the “pro-choice” position, and that it was only fair that she also be acquainted with the pro-life arguments. I also explained the pro-choice position was not based upon scienctific fact, but the rejection and censorship of plain scientific fact, and so it would be impossible to give an honest, science-based lecture legitimizing the destruction of innocent, living human beings. Such arguments could be based upon atheistic philosophy and case law, polls and popular opinion, but not objective scientific data.
More than one medical student told me that they were shocked at our profession’s tolerance of the baby-killing industry. However, one of the forty lecture attendees went to one of my superiors and complained. The Director of the Family Practice residency told me over the phone that I would not be allowed to give this lecture again. I rebutted that the lecture would save innocent lives and was based upon scientific fact, and should not be censored. I was told that the lecture was appropriate for religious groups, but not for physicians. I responded that it was a scientific argument for the humanity of the pre-born child and that of all those who should familiarize themselves with this evidence, for physicians it was most critical. I was told that I could not be unbiased and so I was disqualified to give such a lecture on such an emotionally-charged topic. The physician who informed me of the administration’s decision was sympathetic with my arguments, but the decision was not his; he was simply the chosen vehicle to relay it to me. I was informed that if I did not voluntarily comply with their censorship, then the administration of the hospital would “gag me”.
Gag me?! They hadn’t even heard or read the lecture yet. I was tried and found guilty without even a hearing. I went to Kendall Stewart, M.D., psychiatrist and Director of Medical Education, who was responsible for this decision, and I gave him a copy of the lecture and asked him to at least peruse it before censoring it. I told him he was prematurely basing his opinions of my lecture solely on the evaluations of my critics, and he was not familiar with the substance of the lecture at all. Refute my arguments, if they were so erroneous, but “gagging” the messenger was neither scientific nor ethical.
It was then that I was verbally blasted for fifteen minutes on why I would be censored! It came down to an ad hominem abusive argument.
“People perceive you as a religious zealot…”
“And what’s wrong with that? I don’t apologize for my faith…”
“You’re a one issue physician! You have employed science to cloak your passionate religious opposition to abortion…”
“Show me how, please, sir. There’s the notes of the lecture I gave. Where did I say anything remotely religious?”
“You have offended many with your comments. We will censor you, you will not be allowed to give this lecture again!”
The psychological abuse was relentless. “You have an ulterior motive for your lecture.”
“What? That’s not true.”
“You’re blushing as I’m speaking!” he retorted. “Your denial of the obvious is evidence of your problem.”
“Sir, I have no secondary gain, as if I enjoyed controversy,” I said calmly. “I only want to fulfill my Hippocratic oath – to care for human beings, especially the defenseless, those who were being discriminated against and killed by medical professionals.”
“That is so…” he swallowed hard and shook his head as he searched for the words. “That is soooo insulting! That is soooo offensive to me! Don’t you realize how very condescending and judgmental you are?”
"My dilemma is similar to that of a physician in Nazi Germany where Jews were being experimented upon and fatally discriminated against. German physicians who protested the Holocaust and protested the medical profession’s involvement in the killing were considered 'one issue physicians'. But it was only ethical to oppose the slaughter then, and it is only ethical to oppose the slaughter now, in spite of those in our profession who take offensive with the presentation of the evidence of the humanity of the unborn child, which is all I gave today in that lecture. The only way a physician can justify abortion and claim he is being true to his oath is if he dehumanizes those being discriminated against, namely, the fetus, the unborn child. Just as slave societies dehumanize those they want to abuse, just like Nazi Germany dehumanized those they sought to destroy, so the medical profession today turns a blind eye to scientific fact and accepts the dehumanization of an entire class of human beings, at the cost of the lives of our most helpless patients. My lecture gave the scientific case for the humanity of the fetus and the legal basis for their protection in natural and constitutional law. It should not be censored,” I told him.
To this he glibly responded, “Did that make you feel better?”
I spoke hardly another word during the remainder of our meeting, as he continued his diatribe against me. “Well,” I said, standing to leave after he concluded his reproof, “at least you have a copy of the lecture you’re censoring. I’d appreciate any scientific critique of it,” I said before shaking his hand and exiting the room.
Is the medical profession that bankrupt that we not only turn a blind eye to the illegitimate destruction of human life in our neighborhood, but we also censor and belittle those who would simply present the scientific facts of the humanity of the unborn child and expose the immorality of killing the most innocent and defenseless of human beings? Dr. Stewart is not only a popular psychiatrist and Director of Medical Education, but a practicing Methodist and professing Christian. My indictment of Dr. Stewart also applies to the medical profession at large, but also the Christian church in America which has been largely anemic in its all-too-tolerant response to the intolerable slaughter and has expressed outrage only at those who have the courage to speak up in defense of the innocent children and resist their slaughterers.
I had been looking forward to giving this lecture annually at S.O.M.C. Apparently, many physicians are afraid to comply with our Hippocratic traditions and expose the abortion industry. Medical students, interns, and residents have not heard the truth about abortion, and they will not, as long as the leadership of the institutions of higher education “gags” all dissenting professionals who have the audacity to face the gauntlet of intellectual barbarians and defend the humanity of the preborn and the sacredness of human life. The Holocaust will continue as long as physicians and pastors don’t care, as long they keep their patients, congregations, and communities in the dark about the killing centers in their town. As long as Christians remain silent, content with their wealth, their safety, their comfort, and give no care for “the least of these” (Matthew 25) who are being fatally discriminated against in their communities at a rate of over a million mutilated corpses annually.
I was part of a pro-life team in a pro-life vs. pro-choice debate in my medical school, Southeastern College of Osteopathic Medicine in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. When the facts of the humanity of the unborn child are exalted, the sophistry of the pro-choice-to-kill proponents is exposed and their justifications of the bloodshed crumble like a deck of cards in a hurricane. Students came up to me after that debate and told me that their minds were changed about abortion. It was then that I discovered that these debates were a great way to save lives. Unfortunately, my experience in trying to organize public debates on the issue of abortion is that it is virtually impossible to get a pro-choice spokesperson or physician to defend abortion in a public debate forum, even when I offered them hefty honorariums out of my own pocket! As my wife and I tried to acquire pro-choice defenders for a public debate on the campus of Florida State University on the twenty-fifth anniversary of Roe versus Wade, an abortion clinic director told us, “We really don’t have anything to gain and everything to lose by engaging public debates. You see, we are winning!”
That’s why Directors of Medical Education like Dr. Stewart would rather “gag” a pro-life resident than refute him. You see, they are winning. The killing continues every day, and as long as the scientific facts for the humanity of the unborn child and the Constitutional principles that protect innocent human life from discrimination are kept in the books and away from the minds of the masses, the bloodshed will continue with the blessing of the justice system. I fear that those who are most familiar with those facts, those who are most obligated to defend these innocent human beings from a “legal” kill, those who have the potential to turn the tide in the struggle for life and liberty in our nation and around the world, are either cowards or accomplices. The blood of the innocent stains their hands and the wrath of the All-mighty hovers over their heads.
Is it worth the persecution, my abortion-protesting comrades? Is it worth the abuse, the slander, the belittling, and the thousands of middle fingers? Oh, it is worth that and so much more! Let our reward be the smile of our Creator, and we will find the strength to endure in the fight for life. Let our satisfaction come in knowing that we are doing unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let our joy come in knowing that one day, murder will be outlawed and all impenitent murders, as well as cowards and accomplices, will be punished, be it through a revival of truth in our houses of worship, legislatures, and courtrooms, or be it via the second coming of Jesus Christ.
In the book of Genesis, God heard the blood of Abel that cried up out of the ground, and he consequently cursed Cain, humanity’s first murderer. In the Bible, God’s wrath consumed entire civilizations because the innocent blood shed in their land that went unavenged. God hears the cries of the slaughtered and the fervent prayers of the saints who care about their plight. Justice is inevitable! The fight for life will ultimately succeed.
(For a paper copy of “The lecture that SOMC banned”, send $5 to 759 Quarry View Dr., Heath, Ohio, 43056, or write to schedule a speaking engagement or a public debate. To own the non-copyrighted powerpoint lecture on disk, send $10.)
© 2003 WhereTheTruthHurts.org - All Rights Reserved.