So, pro-abort Wonder Woman/Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis lied about her backstory? So she tricked out her bio’s details to make them more cue-the-violin-music heart-tugging? What’s new about this kind of thing? Davis is a liberal, pro-infanticide firebrand — conniving deception and tinkering with the facts is their toxic, society-ravaging bread-and-butter. The forces of judicially sanctioned child-killing have been trafficking in such for decades and, by all appearances, have no intention of easing up.

It’s publicly available — if little disseminated — knowledge, for instance, that the circumstances leading to 1973′s Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton were shot through with falsehood. That diabolical duo of Supreme Court travesties forms the indispensable legal bedrock of our government’s  modern abortion policy — and they were sparked by muddled to downright fraudulent claims. Howcum neither decision has been reviewed, overturned or at least popularly repudiated? Has the “fruit from a poisonous tree” principle been dumped like an abortuary’s medical waste?

Roe v. Wade‘s eponymous “Jane Roe” (real name: Norma McCorvey) was never raped, as initially claimed, let alone gang-raped, as many came to believe. She never sought that her situation become the pivot point for an historic, federal court lawsuit. Originally, she approached her lawyers, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffey, to find out where she could obtain an abortion, that’s all. “She [Weddington] lied to me just like I lied to her! … I was their willing dupe,” McCorvey insists. In any event, the native Texan never ended up undergoing an abortion — before, during or after her moment in the spotlight.

Likewise, Doe v. Bolton‘s plaintiff, “Mary Doe” (actual name: Sandra Cano), has a bristling beef with the Court decision that bears her surname. In a 1997 signed statement, Cano indignantly avers, ” I am against abortion, I never sought an abortion, I never had an abortion. Abortion is murder. For over twenty years and against my will, my name has been synonymous with abortion. The Doe v. Bolton case is based on deceit and fraud.”

Testifying in 2005 before a congressional Judiciary Sub-Committee on the Constitution, the now-sixty-five-year-old clarified, “Using my name and life, Doe v. Bolton falsely created the health exception that led to abortion on demand and partial birth abortion. How it got there is still pretty much a a mystery to me. I only sought legal assistance to get a divorce … and get my children from foster care. I was very vulnerable: poor and pregnant with my fourth child, but abortion never crossed my mind. ”

As with McCorvey,  Cano accuses her lawyer, Margie Pitts Hames, of misleading her by implying the lawsuit was about “a woman’s liberation right”, women’s rights issues, equal pay, etc.– not killing an unborn human being. “So that’s what I thought the issue was about, ” Cano has stated. “I really was that naive and that stupid.”

Evaluating the fallout of her own case in a succinct but damning summary that just as scorchingly could be applied to Doe, McCorvey rips, “Since all these lies succeeded in dismantling every state’s protection of the unborn, I think it’s fair to say that the entire abortion industry is based on a lie.”

Again, no bombshell revelation there for those who’ve paid attention the past forty-one years: distraction, diversion and dishonesty go with legalized infant-killing like a seared conscience goes with the neighborhood “abortion provider”. From child-loathing lesbians to Planned Parenthood’s perfumed but perfidious propagandists to testosterone-challenged male abortion enablers, the apologists of this bloody business rely upon THE LIE. It is their stock-in-trade, without which they couldn’t look themselves in the mirror every morning, let alone press on with their homicidal crusade.

Go ahead, wind them up; listen to the soulless recitation of their indoctrination points:

– The child in the womb — a human being? Nahh. Glob of cells; or whatever.
– Fret not about those fetuses — they feel no pain while they’re being vacuumed out of their mommies.
– The procedure brings no lasting physical, psychological or emotional consequences for the almost-mother.
– Adoption vs. Abortion? Slam dunk: abortion’s the better choice nearly every time.

Manipulating the language is paramount to these people, because frank terminology, honest discussion skewers their rationalizations. That thing developing inside the mommy-to-be? It’s a “fetus”, “product of conception”, a “pregnancy”. “Baby” is only allowed if the parent already has consciously decided to bring the child to term.

Meanwhile, from the time-to-reiterate-the-obvious department, I’ll quote former New Hampshire Senator Gordon Humphrey: ”The offspring  of human beings are human beings.” Or perhaps the late William F. Buckley, Jr: “If the fetus were  … a tomato, then there would be no reason at all for the discussion.”

Even the act’s clinical label makes its enthusiasts squirm: “abortion” is the medical procedure that dare not speak its name. Preferred instead, is the shopworn “choice” or sterile “reproductive rights”. Quite a few years ago, one doctor’s office informed my wife they settled on the term “menstrual extraction”. Well, I guess that resolves the controversy …

“Buffer zones” around abortion mills are flatly a must: Gotta keep those “anti-choice” demonstrators outta sight. Hell forbid potential clients get jostled by truth because some unwashed pro-lifer, standing nearby, holds up a placard or utters a reminder there are alternatives to offspring extermination.

And Sonograms? Grab the smelling salts! (They’re right next to the dismemberment tools). The “Free-to-Choose” set convulses into full vampire-before-a-crucifix mode at even the mention of that technology. Enabling a potential mother to actually see the life gestating within her womb? Little toes, fingers, eyelids, nose, mouth – what chance does pro-aborts’ basic-decency-defying boilerplate have before those heart-melting images?

Wendy Davis continues to reflect this pattern of distaste for truth, the latest iteration – albeit a pink-sneakers-wearing one – of the pro-abortion movement’s modus operandi: dependence on duplicity. Illicit death is routinely yoked to deception and Davis has explicitly elected to make illicit death – abortion – a mainstay of her political ambitions. Thus, as should have been expected all along, she’s a deceiver – and will continue to be so. She reaffirms: champions of infanticide don’t just abet lots of killing, they generally do lots of lying, too. Always have.

Image: Courtesy of: http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/abortion/