Should these examples of testimony from former abortionists be considered in the legislative process?
1) Former abortionist, Anthony Levatino, M.D., says, "I want the general public to know that the doctors know that this is a person, this is a baby. That this is not some kind of blob of tissue . . ."
2) Former abortion counselor, Nita Whitten, says, "It's a lie when they tell you they're doing it to help women, because they're not. They're doing it for the money."
3) Former abortion counselor, Debra Henry, says, "We were told to find the woman's weakness and work on it. The women were never given any alternatives. They were told how much trouble it was to have a baby."
4) Former abortionist, Joseph Randall, M.D., says, "The picture of the baby on the ultrasound bothered me more than anything else. The staff couldn't take it. Women who were having abortions were never allowed to see the ultrasound."
5) Former abortionist, David Brewer, M.D., says, "My heart got callous against the fact that I was a murderer, but that baby lying in a cold bowl educated me to what abortion really was."
6) Former abortion counselor,Kathy Sparks, says, "The counselor at our clinic could cry with the girls at the drop of a pin. She would find out what was driving them to want to abort that child and she would magnify it."
7) Former abortionist, McArthur Hill, M.D., says, "I am a murderer. I have taken the lives of innocent babies and I have ripped them from their mother's wombs with a powerful vacuum machine."
Some of these pieces of testimony are more useful as evidence in the legislative process than others. In addition, these bits of testimony will need to be balanced with witnesses who will take opposing points of view.
Some of these pieces of testimony are no more than personal opinion. The fact that they come from people who once did abortions does not make them any less of opinions. For example, numbers 1, 5, and 7 here are simply the opinions of the doctors who once did abortions. They do not have (or at least they do not offer in these excerpts) any scientific evidence to show that what they were doing was actually ending human lives. Their opinions are certainly relevant to the issue of whether abortion is murder, but they are not any more relevant than the opinions of the doctors who still perform abortions and do not believe that what they are doing is murder.
Some of the other pieces of testimony are of value if the laws being contemplated have to do with regulating the practices of abortion counselors. This is particularly true of #3 and #6. These could provide some insight into whether counselors are pushing women to have abortions. Again, however, these have to be weighed against the testimony of people who do not believe that counselors are actually promoting abortion.
Finally, at least one of these, #2 is of no use whatsoever. This person is attributing motives to others with no evidence (in this excerpt) that her testimony is true. This is no different than someone who was once pro-life saying that other pro-lifers are really motivated by a desire to oppress women. In both cases, we have one person saying what other people feel and believe.
In the end, however, none of this would be likely to change many minds. People are typically fairly entrenched in their positions on this issue.