September 19, 2014

Parents Reject Abortion, Prepare for Arrival of Conjoined Twins Who Share One Heart

For any couple preparing for the birth of a new baby, there’s great anticipation and much nervousness. Even if the baby is healthy, the birthing process and having a new little one to care for brings on a certain amount of stress.
But imagine the stress of preparing for twins. Then, multiply that by imaging the stress of preparing for conjoined twins. Multiply that again by preparing for the birth of conjoined twins who share just one heart. That;s the world in which Robin and Michael Hamby find themselves.
But they say their twin babies may have just one heart but they say it’s a perfect one. And that’s why the Hambys rejected an abortion and are looking ahead to the birth of the twins, who are headed their way around Thanksgiving.
conjoinedtwins16At over the years, we’ve profiled a number of conjoined twins. In some cases, parents of the twins were given suggestions by doctors to have an abortion. In other cases, the babies were given a chance at life and they were unable to be separated because their unique medical situation made it medically dangerous to perform the surgery, which could have placed their lives at risk.
In those later cases like Tatiana and Christa, who are joined at the head, while some people in society would view them as “freaks” who have a low “quality of life,” they can see through each others’ eyes and they totally support each other physically and emotionally.
Like those courageous sisters, twin boys Asa and Eli will not be able to be separated.
One heart. One perfect heart.
That’s how Robin and Michael Hamby describe the condition of their conjoined twin sons, sharing one heart, one perfect heart, a ray of hope in a pregnancy where many may see only darkness and imperfections.
conjoinedtwins15Medically, one heart, one perfect heart, means the twins won’t be separated, but it also means they have a better chance of surviving than other conjoined twins with one heart because that organ usually is deficient in some way.
Emotionally, one heart, one perfect heart, means Robin and Michael intend to have sons as united in brotherhood as they are in marriage.
And spiritually, one heart, one perfect heart, means this Ladonia, Ala., couple was motivated by their faith instead of their fear when they decided to ignore the naysayers and bring these budding boys into this world.
So when families around the Chattahoochee Valley gather around their tables to give thanks on Thanksgiving, the 34-year-old Hambys expect to be on the verge of a delivery that some contend will be a burden but they insist will be a blessing.
Against the odds
Robin, a registered nurse at Regional Rehabilitation Hospital in Phenix City, and Michael, a hydrant valve technician for the Columbus Water Works, know the odds are overwhelmingly against a healthy ending to this journey. According to the Center for Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, conjoined twins occur once in every 50,000 to 60,000 births — and most are stillborn.
Statistics from the University of Maryland Medical Center are additionally daunting: 35 percent of conjoined twins survive only one day, the overall survival rate is between 5 percent and 25 percent, and female conjoined twins are three times more likely than males to be born alive.
The Hamby boys are connected, side by side, a category among the least common types of conjoined twins. They have one trunk but two separate heads. The technical term is dicephalic parapagus, although they won’t be classified until they are born.
Doctors haven’t determined all the organs and systems the Hamby twins share or have separately. With a total of two arms and two legs, each boy probably will control one arm and one leg, Robin said, so they will have to cooperate and coordinate. But they have two spines, she said, which will boost their stability.
During the 4-D imaging session July 19, the Hambys got a sneak peek of their sons’ personalities. The video camera showed Asa rest his head on Eli, who was sucking his fist. Eli promptly took his fist out of his mouth and popped Asa in the face.
As the proud parents shared a good laugh, they witnessed a symbol of that one heart, that one perfect heart: Eli extended his hand toward Asa again, but this time he appeared to give his brother a loving caress.
Robin said, “It was almost like, ‘Sorry, dude, I kind of got upset, but I didn’t mean it.’”

September 17, 2014

1992 video depicts NFL players opposing abortion

The NFL is in a heated controversy over whether the league is too permissive of players involved in domestic abuse. Over twenty years ago, NFL members felt strong enough about one social agenda to make a public service announcement opposing abortion. 

A video from 1992 with various members of the Washington Redskins and the Buffalo Bills discussing the evils of abortion was unearthed Monday and published on the sports site SBNation.

Hultgren takes to House Floor to Criticize Obamacare's Abortion Coverage

Wednesday, on the floor of the U.S. House, Representative Randy Hultgren (IL-14) criticized the White House and health insurance companies following a report from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) confirming that under the President’s health care law—Obamacare—taxpayer dollars are subsidizing more than 1,000 plans nationwide that cover elective abortion, contrary to promises made by the President and Democratic leaders when the law was passed in 2009.

Rep. Hultgren was not serving in the House when Obamacare became law, but at the time, many Members of Congress and their constituents raised concerns that there were not adequate safeguards preventing taxpayer-funded abortion, a suspicion confirmed by the GAO report.

Rep. Hultgren urged full transparency from the President and for the Senate to pass the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act which ensures the Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal tax dollars from paying for abortions, is implemented across the federal government.

September 15, 2014

These Hollywood Celebrities Aren’t Afraid to Speak Out and Say They’re Pro-Life

It’s not easy being pro-life in Hollywood. Tinseltown USA is notorious for its left-wing politics and actors and actresses who push all sorts of political causes that are politically correct or en vogue at the time.
But when it comes to abortion, a few Hollywood celebrities and entertainment icons are willing to speak out and say they are pro-life. Here are a few of them, in their own words:
Jack Nicholson
Nicholson’s opinions on abortion were formed by personal experience. He was a grown man when he discovered the woman he thought was his sister was actually his mother, and the woman he knew as his mother was his grandmother. His mother became pregnant as a teenager and was encouraged to have an abortion, even back in 1937, but she chose life for her son. The revelation that his sister was his mom was understandably difficult for Nicholson, and had a profound affect on him. For one, it made him pro-life:
I’m very contra my constituency in terms of abortion because I’m positively against it. I don’t have the right to any other view. My only emotion is gratitude, literally, for my life.
This short statement is full of humility, wisdom, and courage. Note that he says, “I don’t have the right to any other view.” He has understood, thanks to the knowledge that his own life almost never happened, that life is a gift for which we should all feel gratitude. His willingness to vocally oppose abortion in the face of Hollywood and his own political party is inspiring and should be encouraged.

Mel Gibson
Mel Gibson is not without controversy and he’s admittedly made some mistakes in his life. Still, Gibson has never wavered on the issue of life.
In a Barbara Walters interview in 1990, at the height of his fame, Gibson said:
One can’t decide for oneself who comes into this world and who doesn’t. That decision doesn’t belong to us.
Later, he vocally spoke out against life destroying embryonic stem cell research. He said this on a television commercial:
…[I]n 23 years embryonic stem cell research has not produced a single human cure. All it has yielded is tumors, rejection, and mutations. See bad science doesn’t attract venture capital. So why should the taxpayers be bled dry? This is Mel Gibson and I’m voting NO on Prop 71. Creating life simply to destroy it is wrong.

Patricia Heaton
Patricia Heaton is one of the few prominent pro-life women in Hollywood. Recently, LifeNews notedhow Heaton takes to Twitter to voice her pro-life convictions as she often does, most recently highlighting how abortions target a disproportionate number of black babies.
But where do her pro-life convictions come from? As she tells The Blaze, her pro-life views and Christian faith go hand in hand and that becoming a mother made it so abortion was something she felt more passionate about and gave her an additional reason to do so.
Heaton said, as far back as 2004, that she and her pro-abortion Hollywood colleagues didn’t see eye to eye on abortion – explaining why her name was not on a list of Hollywood celebs supporting a pro-abortion march that year.
“Many of the celebrities on the list are my friends,” Heaton explained, “but when it comes to championing abortion, we go our separate ways.”
“I find it impossible to subscribe to a philosophy that believes that the destruction of human life is a legitimate solution to a problem that is mostly social, economic and psychological,” said Heaton. “In reality, most women ‘choose’ abortion because they believe they have no other choice.”

Donald Trump
Donald Trump shocked attendees at a CPAC conferencewhen he declared himself pro-life after years of supporting the pro-abortion position.
“One thing about me, I’m a very honorable guy. I’m pro-life, but I changed my view a number of years ago. One of the reasons I changed… a friend of mine’s wife was pregnant, in this case married. She was pregnant and he didn’t really want the baby. And he was telling me the story,” Trump said. “He was crying as he was telling me the story. He ends up having the baby and the baby is the apple of his eye. It’s the greatest thing that’s ever happened to him. And you know here’s a baby that wasn’t going to be let into life.

Justin Bieber
A young Justin Bieber was widely criticized for his open stance on abortion. “I really don’t believe in abortion,” Bieber told Rolling Stone in 2011. “It’s like killing a baby.” When asked about cases of rape, the pop star said, “Um. Well, I think that’s really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don’t know how that would be a reason. I guess I haven’t been in that position, so I wouldn’t be able to judge that.”
Bieber may have made mistakes in his life since then and needs to get on a more upstanding path, but he apparently still holds to his pro-life views.

Kenny Chesney
Chesney’s most notable example of pro-life advocacy is in the song he has called one of his favorites, “There Goes My Life.” It spent seven weeks at number one, and it tells the story of a teenager whose girlfriend gets pregnant and has the baby rather than having an abortion. The teen initially believes that his life has been ruined, but in the end, he realizes how much of a blessing the child is.

Jordin Sparks
jordinsparksSparks has repeatedly participated in pro-life conferences as a volunteer and singer. She sang at Arizona’s Right to Life 2005 conference and attended the conference with Dr. Alveda King, the pro-life niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the keynote speaker at the event.
Sparks hasn’t been shy about her pro-life beliefs either. She appears on Fox & Friends last year with Brian Kilmeade who asked her questions based on emails from viewers. Sparks was asked about a ring she wears on her wedding ring finger even though she is 17 year-old and unmarried.
She said, without hesitation, that it was her Purity Ring, and that it says she’s waiting until she is married, and saving herself for true love.
Jim Cavieze
Jim Caviezel, famed for his role as Christ in The Passion of the Christand currently starring as the leading man in TV’s Person of Interest, is no stranger to being, well, different in Hollywood. From his publicly Catholic faith to his committed pro-life views, he stands in stark contrast to the typical movie star.
Caviezel’s personal life is even more remarkable than his incredible on-screen talent. Taking the road less traveled, Jim and his wife Kerri have adopted two children from China, both of whom had special needs.
Their first adopted child, Bo, came to the Caviezels after a traumatic first five years of life. The little boy had a brain tumor and had been abandoned before he was taken in by an orphanage and subsequently adopted by his loving parents. Bo is a remarkably boisterous child, and with the love he has received from Jim and Kerri, it is hard to believe that just a few short years ago he was struggling to survive in a hostile environment.
When asked how becoming a father had affected him, Caviezel toldCatholic Digest, “Even though they’re adopted, it’s as strong as any instinct. That’s what blew me away. I always thought if I adopted that I wouldn’t have the same feeling [as I would] if they were genetically my own children. Nothing could be further from the truth.”
The actor told Catholic Digest in 2009 that being pro-life is more important to him than his career. He told the digest, “How are we so arrogant to think the 51.5 million babies who have died in this country… Look, I am for helping women. I just don’t see abortion as helping women. And I don’t love my career that much to say, ‘I’m going to remain silent on this.’”

Kathy Ireland
Kathy Ireland rose to fame in the 1980s as a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model. In 2011, Ireland was the keynote speaker at the Council for Life’s annual luncheon, where she professed her religious beliefs and detailed her journey from being an advocate for women’s right to choose to become a pro-life supporter.
kathyirelandAs a supermodel who graced the covers of magazines world wide, Kathy Ireland told over 300 people gathered in Columbia, Mo., on September 24 she was told by photographers to “shut up and pose.”  Now this design company mogul tells those fighting for the pro-life cause to “speak the truth and never let anyone silence you.”
The former Sports Illustrated (SI) swimsuit cover model considered herself a “Pro-Choice Christian” until she dove into the medical books of her husband, an emergency room doctor.  She used those science texts to even change her husband’s view on abortion.  Then she did something many told her not to do—go on Bill Maher’s HBO show “Politically Incorrect” and take the pro-life view.
“I was told it was a lose-lose situation and would kill my business.  But I thought if I did this maybe one woman watching wouldn’t kill her baby,” Ireland shared.  Thankfully she had a business partner who encouraged her to do it, saying if one woman watching cancelled her abortion appointment, it would be so worth it.”

Nick Cannon
Nick Cannon, the rapper and husband of R&B/pop superstar Mariah Carey, released a song in 2005 entitled “Can I Live.” The song tells of Cannon’s near abortion death.

Phil Robertson
In a video featuring Duck Dynasty’s Robertson, the TV star – in what appears to be a religious sermon – declares his pro-life stance on the issue of abortion.  When discussing the ethics of, and that there’s even a debate on, the issue, he asks, “What in the world happened to us?”
“Listen, from the time you started inside your mother’s womb, Thomas Jefferson had it right, you have the God-given right to life for crying out loud. You’re this long (pointing to his finger). You’re a week old inside your mother. They suck you out of there when you’re about like that (point to finger again). You wouldn’t be here tonight!

“And, when you got to be the size of my thumb, they suck you out. You wouldn’t be here. Then, you grow a little bigger, like my fist – and finally eight, nine months later you come out. by Steven Ertelt

September 12, 2014

Study Proves Abortion is More Dangerous Than Childbirth

Pro-abortion activists fight for abortion throughout pregnancy for any reason—no exceptions. Their fundamental argument centers on women’s health.

But stunning research shows this concern is all smoke and mirrors.

Pro-abortion activists have long tried to claim that abortion is safer than childbirth. For years they’ve touted manipulated numbers, trying in vain to bolster this myth. We’ve always known those statistics were bogus, and a study by Dr. Priscilla Coleman and Dr. David Reardon reveals abortion is much more dangerous to women than giving birth. And the results are sadly even more devastating to women’s health than even I had anticipated.
abortiondangerousFirst, let me vouch for the authors of this research. I know them both to be solid individuals with a reputation for thoroughness. I met Dr. Coleman in Santiago, Chile where we lectured at their largest university. We again shared an academic podium in Quito, Ecuador the following year.

Second, allow me to explain why this study is so important. It’s compelling because of its unmatched scope:
  • The study includes a large number of women—nearly one-half-million—experiencing first-time pregnancies.
  • The medical records are profoundly reliable because the data was compiled from Danish government sources including fertility records of births and stillbirths, the national abortion registry and cause of death registry.
  • The study covers an extensive ten-year time period, providing comprehensive long-term data.
  • It analyzes both early and late-term abortion compared to childbirth.
In other words, this isn’t a biased study with a relatively small sample size produced to cater to pro-abortion activists—or any side for that matter. This research was conducted at the national level, over the course of a decade, providing substantial credibility, a comprehensive level of detail, as well as earning publication in respected medical journals. The reliability has been substantiated, which is why the results are even more troubling.

When it comes to which is safer—abortion or childbirth—the results speak loudly and clearly:
  • During the first six months after an early abortion (12 weeks or less), a woman has double the risk of death compared to giving birth.
  • During the first year following a late abortion (after 12 weeks) a woman has over three times the risk of death compared to giving birth.

Pro-abortion activists prey on the fear of Americans by perpetuating the myth that if Roe v. Wade is reversed, women will suffer horrific back-alley abortions and tragic deaths. The reality is that under legalized abortion, women are being killed on a much larger scale.

Remember when we heard the news that Planned Parenthood is responsible for 24-year-old Tonya Reaves’ death following a botched abortion. Reports showed that a devastating five-and-a-half hours passed between the time of her abortion and her transport to a local hospital.

There’s no record that a 911 call was placed by Planned Parenthood. The autopsy report indicated that her injuries were survivable if she had received proper emergency care in a timely manner. The only difference between her death and a back-alley abortion death is that Ms. Reaves’ abortion was sanctioned by the US Supreme Court, giving her a false sense of security that the procedure was safe.

Now Tonya’s one-year-old son will grow up without a mother. Sadly, there have been additional victims after Tonya’s death. And don’t forget the Gosnell “house of horrors.”

Planned Parenthood and other abortion facilities continue to lure young women under the false premise that they perform “women’s healthcare services.” Abortion isn’t healthcare. It’s killing. In fact, they’re an industry of death—killing unborn babies and exposing their mothers to a staggering increased risk of death. Let’s not let this grave injustice continue. Share this with those you know and take a stand. You now have compelling proof that abortion is not safer than childbirth. Help us warn unsuspecting women. Note: Bradley Mattes is the executive director of Life Issues Institute, a national pro-life educational group.

Pro-lifer warns about Planned Parenthood-trained 'navigators'

Some people signing up for ObamaCare may find they are exposing very private information without knowing it.

Planned Parenthood has received over a half-million dollars to hire and train so-called "navigators" to sign up people for medical insurance. But it's allegedly a backdoor approach for the abortion business to generate more income.

"These people are going to steer the general public to insurance companies that will reimburse Planned Parenthood for their medical services," says Jim Sedlak of the American Life League.

"They will sign them up for these insurance companies, then these people will come back to Planned Parenthood for their services and Planned Parenthood will get paid," he explains.

Sedlak also alleges the navigators receive very little training or screening, and their job gives them access to the "personal information for all citizens of the United States, because they're going to be able to access through systems that tie into the IRS and to the medical system and everything else."

So the pro-lifer calls the navigators' jobs "Planned Parenthood's gold mine."

Since President Obama has Planned Parenthood to thank for his successful re-election, Sedlak considers the added half-million dollar grant a "political payoff."

Charlie Butts (

Pro-life groups to hold memorial services Saturday honoring aborted infants

In the walls of the earliest Christian catacombs outside Rome, Italy are countless small tombs, only a foot or two across. These gravesites mark the burial places of infants that were commonly cast out of their pagan homes and left to die of starvation and exposure. With care and grief, the early Christians buried the innocent victims' bodies and mourned their loss in a time of prayer.

On Saturday, September 13, 21st Century Christians will memorialize the innocents that have died due to legalized abortion in America with the National Day of Remembrance for Aborted Chldren. Mourners across America will visit the gravesites of aborted children whose broken bodies were recovered over the last 40 years from trash dumpsters and pathology labs.

The memorial service will be held at several sites throughout Illinois, including the gravesite of 2000 babies at the Queen of Heaven Cemetery in Hillside. His Eminence Francis Cardinal George will officiate the memorial starting at 2:00 PM.
Another service will be held at the Resurrection Cemetery in Romeoville, Illinois at 1:00 PM, and another at the St. Mary Cemetery in Evergreen Park at 2:00 PM. In addition to the above burial sites in Illinois, also see the list of other memorial sites in Illinois dedicated to the memory of aborted children.
Eric Scheidler, Executive Director of Chicago-based Pro-life Action League, stated, "It's sobering to realize that grave markers for the unborn victims of abortion list only a date of burial. They have no birthdays because they were never allowed to be born. We can list no date of death, because those who killed them discarded their bodies like garbage. But they are not garbage to us. They are our brothers and sisters. That's why we buried them, and that's why we visit their graves to mourn for them and testify to their humanity."
Monica Miller, Director of Citizens for a Pro-life Society, added, "Since 1973, 55 million innocent unborn children have been killed with the sanction of law. A fraction of these victims of the American slaughter have actually been buried. The graves of these victims are scattered across America - graves of sorrow and graves of indictment on a nation that permitted the killing of the innocent. As we visit these graves on September 13, we call upon our nation to remember these victims and bring an end to the injustice of abortion."

"Abortion is not an abstract issue," explained Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life. "Having a memorial service where these babies are buried reminds us that abortion is not merely about beliefs, but about bloodshed; not just about viewpoints, but victims. By visiting the graves of the aborted unborn, we allow our hearts to be broken for them, and we recommit ourselves to protecting other children from suffering the same fate."

The first National Day of Remembrance was held September 2013 on the 25th anniversary of the solemn burial of several hundred abortion victims in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Prayer services were held at over 100 locations, with thousands of mourners participating. Response was so great that the National Day of Remembrance has been established as an annual event, to be held on the second Saturday each September. More information at Abortion Memorials.

Illinois Review

September 9, 2014

It’s Time for Pro-Life Voters to Get Involved in the 2014 Elections

As only one-third of Americans have given any thought to the elections coming on November 4, citizens who stand for the rights of defenseless pre-born lives must ask ourselves: in what direction will today’s candidates lead our nation?

Right before their summer vacation, the U.S. Senate considered two staunchly pro-abortion bills: S. 1696, which would wipe out hundreds of common-sense safety measures in over the half the United States; and S. 2578, designed to overrule the Supreme Court’s recent pro-liberty decision Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.
voteprolife18The busy rush before break allows only a few bills to be prioritized, so it’s telling the Senate Judiciary Committee made time for a hearing on S. 1696—and majority leader Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) called for a vote of the full Senate on S. 2578.

While neither bill will likely proceed further in the current Congress, key legislative actions send a signal to voters: These are the first bills a pro-abortion Congress will reach for upon taking power.

Policy expert Peter Wehner, who served in the Reagan Administration, has seen this coming for months: “Prepare for an assault by Democrats on a range of cultural and quasi-cultural issues, including contraception, gay marriage, abortion [and] religious liberties.”

One media-savvy businesswoman isn’t taking the challenge lying down. Longtime CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Carly Fiorina kicks back at the mainstream media in explaining why she is launching the Unlocking Potential Project—a political action committee (PAC) to connect with women on a wide range of issues.

“Everywhere I go I meet strong, intelligent women who are tired of being taken for granted and are sick of the current political environment belittling them,” she says. “From career women to dedicated public servants to stay-at-home moms, they are thirsty for a genuine debate about real issues impacting their lives.”

Fiorina, a former U.S. Senate candidate, explains the so-called “War on Women” in a recent video interview with Genevieve Wood of The Daily Signal:

The Hill recently reported on women’s response to the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, a law proposed to protect pre-born children capable of feeling pain in the womb.

“Several national polls have shown that women voters back the GOP’s 20-week abortion ban, including a 2013Washington Post-ABC News survey that pegged their level of support at 60 percent,” The Hill notes.
In the spirit of “all Americans working together to reduce the number of abortions” as Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) phrases it, another pro-life group has centered its election efforts on promoting this proposed law. It passed the U.S. House yet has been stalled in the Senate since November.

Women Speak Out PAC, affiliated with the nonprofit Susan B. Anthony List, has brought together local grassroots activists in three battleground states – Arkansas, Louisiana, and North Carolina – to bring attention to the records of pro-abortion Senators currently holding office.

The Hill predicts pro-life election efforts will be far outspent by their pro-choice counterparts. Yet casting an inviting, positive vision for the future – “building a Senate majority that will finally pass pro-life laws,” to quote Women Speak Out – has the potential to win over voters fed up with Congress’ inaction on key issues.

“Think about how the language (and spirit) of the pro-life movement shifted,” says Peter Wehner of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. “From accusing people of being ‘baby killers’ to asking Americans to join a movement committed to enlarging the circle of protection to the most vulnerable members of the human community, in which every unborn child is protected in law and welcomed in life.”

He continues, “Science, in the form of sonograms, has been a friend of the pro-life movement. It’s no accident, then, that Americans have become more pro-life in their views over the last 15 years.”
Presenting a winsome pro-life message remains a constant focus for many, notably The Heritage Foundation whose 2014 Index of Culture and Opportunity tracks key social indicators like fertility and the abortion rate – enlightening stats to inform effective policy solutions moving forward.

“Many conservatives relish the fight and welcome putting abortion at the center of the midterm elections,” reported the New York Times recently. “The problem, they argue, is not that conservatives talk too much about social issues, but that they say too little, and do it in the wrong way. They are urging greater compassion for women with unplanned pregnancies…”

Honing a persuasive message on why pro-life policies matter—vitally important to grow the movement—does not make political clashes go away.

When President Barack Obama claimed at a recent fundraiser, “We’re going to have Supreme Court appointments [in the next two years],” it set off a frenzy of speculation around the nation’s highest court.
According to the National Law Journal, “President Obama made the statement to bolster his pitch that ‘I need a Democratic Senate’ to be elected in November, to ‘get things done’ during the remainder of his tenure as president.”

The U.S. Senate votes to confirm all Supreme Court justices. Because the court has largely set abortion policy in America, any change in the nine Supreme Court justices has a great bearing on future cases surrounding the right to life.

What are we to make of all this? As a leader of the National Day of Prayer recently discussed, the lines on life are clearly drawn. “Candidates have aligned with opposing sides of the spectrum, leaving no middle ground.”

He continues, “Based on the arguments, life is described as either (1) sacred and meant to be preserved, no matter the circumstances, or (2) a decision—not a right.”

While one side has two pro-abortion laws waiting in the wings, the pro-life coalition in Congress has ramped up efforts to pass laws protecting more women and children—notably the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and revisions to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.

“Personnel is policy,” President Ronald Reagan often said. Injecting Congress with fresh pro-life blood, while removing “personnel” who refuse to stand for vulnerable pre-born lives, suddenly changes what is possible to accomplish.
Ronald Reagan - Personnel is Policy
These monumental issues call us to a place of prayer and action. Citizens who stand for life should be highly engaged in this election, even if most Americans aren’t paying attention.

The first step is registering to vote, which Bound4LIFE has made easy with an online Voter Registration tool. State deadlines to register are fast approaching.

In addition, a variety of resources exist to help citizens navigate the voting process. Leading pro-life groups National Right to LifeFRC Action and Heritage Action (among others) offer detailed scorecards that examine the votes cast by current Members of Congress.

Be sure to connect with the Family Policy Council in your state, as critical issues affecting life are on state ballots across America.

“Look for able men from all the people,” states the command to Moses in Exodus 18:21. “Men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people…” Because we are blessed to live in a democratic republic, this command rings true as we decide our representatives in government—many of whom are courageous women like Rep. Martha Blackburn (R-TN) and Rep. Jamie Beutler (R-WA).

However involved with elections and campaigns, be faithful to pray for those in authority over us. Intercede for candidates talking to citizens daily on important issues, that the value and sanctity of each life would be clear in their conscience.

Pray for elected officials who will truly serve the people of their state and district—leaders who will look beyond the power structures of men and rely on steadfast convictions.

LifeNews Note: Reprinted with permission from Bound4LIFE.

Journal of Public Health publishes study linking autism to vaccines made with aborted fetal cells

study linking autism to vaccines made with aborted fetal cells
I’ve written previously (here and here) about the possible connection between autism and vaccines made with aborted fetal cells.

Now, the September issue of the prestigious Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology has published astudy conducted by scientists at Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute that shows an spike in autism in country after country where vaccines using fetal cells from aborted babies have been introduced.

The implicated vaccines are MMR (measles/mumps/rubella), Varicella (chickenpox), and Hepatitis A.
Using data from the U.S. government, United KingdomDenmark, and Western Australia, researchers found a spike in autism around the world after vaccines using animal cells were replaced by vaccines using aborted fetal cells:
Autistic disorder birth year change points were identified as 1980.9, 1988.4 and 1996 for the US, 1987 for the UK, 1990.4 for Western Australia, and 1987.5 for Denmark. Change points in these countries corresponded to introduction of or increased doses of human fetal cell line-manufactured vaccines….
This pattern was repeated in the US, UK, Western Australia and Denmark. Thus, rising autistic disorder prevalence is directly related to vaccines manufactured utilizing human fetal cells. Increased paternal age and DSM revisions were not related to rising autistic disorder prevalence.
Lead researcher Dr. Theresa Deisher noted something more alarming, “Not only are the human fetal contaminated vaccines associated with autistic disorder throughout the world, but also with epidemic childhood leukemia and lymphomas.”

Right to Life of Michigan goes into great detail explaining the origin of the aborted fetal cell vaccine lines. The implicated manufacturers are Barr LabsGlaxoSmithKlineMerck, and Sanofi Pasteur.
The RTL Michigan website lists other vaccines using aborted fetal cells and some alternatives. Unfortunately, there are currently no approved alternatives to the MMR, Varicella or Hepatitis A vaccines.

CDC and FDA implicated in cover-up

The bombshells don’t stop. From Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute’s press release announcing the publication:
Their study comes on the heels of recent breaking news that the CDC deliberately withheld evidence of the significant increase in autism among African-American boys who were vaccinated prior to 36 months of age.
 So it should come as no surprise that the FDA has known for decades about the dangers of insertional mutagenesis by using the human fetal cell lines and yet, they chose to ignore it. Instead of conducting safety studies they regulated the amount of human DNA that could be present in a vaccine to no greater than 10ng.
Unfortunately, Dr. Deisher’s team discovered that the fetal DNA levels ranged anywhere from 142ng – 2000ng per dose, way beyond the so-called “safe” level.
“There are a large number of publications about the presence of HERV (human endogenous retrovirus – the only re-activatable endogenous retrovirus) and its association with childhood lymphoma,” noted Dr Deisher. “The MMR II and chickenpox vaccines and indeed all vaccines that were propagated or manufactured using the fetal cell line WI-38 are contaminated with this retrovirus. And both parents and physicians have a right to know this!”
Certainly these discoveries by SCPI should generate an immediate investigation by FDA officials, if not an outright ban on the use of aborted fetal cell lines as substrates for vaccine production. There are numerous other non-human FDA-approved cell lines that can and should be used.

September 8, 2014

Supreme Court brought in on abortion drug debacle

Since federal appeals courts have issued differing opinions on how RU-486 is used for abortions, the Supreme Court has been asked to make a solid decision on the matter.

When Arizona passed a law requiring the abortion drug to be used according to protocols issued by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA), Planned Parenthood objected and filed suit, and the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the state. So now, Arizona is asking the Supreme Court to settle the issue.

Josh Kredit, an attorney for the Center for Arizona Policy, tells OneNewsNow lawmakers and the FDA are simply trying to protect women.

"In 2010, [the FDA's] website was updated, and it still says you can only use [RU-486] according to these ways," Kredit cites. "That's exactly what the legislature has said … it's in our interests and the interests of protecting the public safety for women and preborn children in Arizona, so you should do it according to the FDA protocol. And that's really all we're doing."

Kredit explains that if the Supreme Court accepts the case, the impact will reach beyond Arizona's borders.

"Texas has had this exact law upheld by the Fifth Circuit," the attorney notes. "The Sixth Circuit has upheld Ohio's same law. And so given the circuit split and the fact that the Ninth Circuit is the most overruled circuit in the nation, we're hopeful that the Supreme Court will step in and come down with a uniform policy and really come on the side of women with saying that this is completely okay."

Kredit reiterates that the safety issue is important. According to the National Right to Life Committee, one in 100 patients using the drug had to be hospitalized, and eight percent of those suffered incomplete abortions.

Charlie Butts (

AARP Kicks Assisted Suicide Group Out of Its National Expo

I rarely say these words, but good for the AARP.

The suicide pushers at Final Exit Network want to have a booth at AARP’s Expos to push their poison. But the oldster lobby said no and now FEN is crying in its hemlock. From the UT San Diego story:
elderlycoupleIn case you’re cloudy about Final Exit Network, it’s a national organization (related to the former Hemlock Society) that, in the words of local right-to-die activist Faye Girsh, “provides information and support to its members who are considering a peaceful, hastened death.” ’
In March, Final Exit Network applied for a booth at a spring expo in Boston. AARP responded that it had not established guidelines for right-to-die groups but hoped to do so this year. In June, responding to a Final Exit request for booth space at the San Diego convention, AARP wrote: “
After further consideration, we are unable to approve right-to-die societies and other like organizations as exhibitors.”
I repeat: Good for the AAPR.
FEN is a fanatical and destructive group of suicide pushers:
  • It teaches people how to commit suicide with helium;
  • It has gone around family to help suicides;
  • “Counselors” sanitize the sites of FEN-involved suicides in which the are ”witnesses.” It is a crime to disturb a death scene.
  • It helped facilitate suicide of a mentally ill woman in Arizona, for which two members were guilty of felonies.
  • It works in places like Oregon–also where physician- assisted suicide is legal for the terminally ill, since it has no such ideological limitations.
If AARP ever let’s such groups near its members–or Compassion and Choices that teach seniors how to commit suicide by self-starvation–it will invite oppobrium. Note: Wesley J. Smith, J.D., is a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture and a bioethics attorney who blogs at Human Exeptionalism.

September 4, 2014

Activists Who Condemned Illegal Abortions Now Push Do-It-Yourself Abortions

So how are a boat anchored in international waters off Dublin, Ireland, border town flea markets in Texas, a businessman in India, and a storefront in rural Iowa all related?
According to an article written by Emily Bazelon appearing in last Thursday’s New York Times (8/28/14), they’re all key pieces of the abortion industry’s transition from relying almost exclusively on standard brick and mortar clinics that performed surgical abortions to a new model where chemical abortifacients can be ordered over the internet or purchased over the counter and performed at home by women on themselves—hence the acronym D-I-Y (Do-It-Yourself) abortions.
RebeccaGompertsBazelon’s article, “The Dawn of the Post-Clinic Abortion,” begins largely as a profile piece on Rebecca Gomperts (right). As we will explained later in this story, while Gomperts herself is not currently working in countries where abortion is legal, abortion activists in the United States are watching her “radical idea of providing abortions without direct contact with a doctor” with great interest. (NRL News Today last wrote about Gomperts, a Dutch general-practice physician, at “’Women on Waves’ bringing abortions performed off shore to Morocco.”)
Gomperts is the former Greenpeace activist who launched the “Abortion Ship” from the Netherlands in June of 2001, heading for the coast of Ireland on a ship stocked with abortion pills—mifepristone (RU-486) and the prostaglandin misoprostol. She called her effort “Women on Waves.”
The plan was to anchor just outside Ireland’s coastal boundary and have women ferried out to the ship to take the pills and start their abortions. However disputes over licensing and strategy kept the group from performing any abortions there.
Undeterred Gomperts tried again in Ireland the following year, then tried Poland and later, Portugal. Met with great fanfare every time, but also resistance (according to Bazelon, warships, in one case), it is unclear whether Gomperts or her crew ever performed a single abortion or even gave out any abortifacients pills.
Gomperts was the beneficiary of enormous publicity, nonetheless, and made use of it. Gomperts began appearing on TV promoting chemical abortions and telling women there were other pills already on the market (misoprostol, which is legitimately used to deal with ulcers) that women could use. Bazelon says Gomperts began receiving emails from women from all over the world. At that point, Gomperts revised her strategy.
Women on Waves, Gompert’s group, set up hotlines in several countries where abortion was not legal – Chile, Argentina, Peru, Pakistan, Venezuela, Morocco – telling women how they could get misoprostol and use it to self-abort. Misoprostol is a widely available prostaglandin that is used to help prevent stomach ulcers in patients taking lots of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. It also has, used in a particular fashion, the property of inducing powerful uterine contractions that can kill and expel the unborn child. Misoprostol is used in conjunction with RU-486 to complete those abortions, but can and has been used as a stand alone abortifacient.
Seeing an opportunity, Gomperts shifted her attention to the development of the website,, where women from all over the world could click a few buttons, say “I need an abortion,” and have pills shipped from a manufacturer in India, Kale Impex, to have them delivered to their door in a matter of weeks. Indian pharmaceutical firms manufacture generic versions of many popular drugs, and several advertise and sell mifepristone (RU-486) and misoprostol on-line.
This is not the only effort to push for DIY abortions. Another Indian firm, Sun Pharmaceuticals has teamed with international abortion promoters like IPAS, PATH, and the Concept Foundation to push “Medabon,” a prepackaged blister pack of RU-486 and misoprostol pills, complete with cartoon illustrations of administration and complications for those who might be illiterate.
As noted Gomperts doesn’t work in the U.S. or in countries where abortion is legal. But the move to reduce direct medical involvement in abortion have already been seen here. Here is a key paragraph from Bazelon’s 7,000+word long profile:
Gomperts designed her program — based on the radical idea of providing abortions without direct contact with a doctor — for women in countries where abortion clinics are nonexistent or highly restricted. But her model is invigorating abortion rights activists in the United States, where the procedure is simultaneously legal and increasingly hard to access. In their eyes, medical abortion, delivered through a known, if faraway, source, could be a transformative response: a means of access that remains open even when clinics shut.
Note the “progression”: From a multi-step, highly supervised regimen that was recommended by the FDA when it approved use of the chemical abortifacients RU-486/prostaglandin combination in September of 2000; to fewer trips to the abortionist’s office (not coming back to take the prostaglandin in his office); to so-called “webcam abortions” where the abortionist never even sees the woman in person; to advertising how a woman can avoid a physician’s involvement all together—
(For more background on webcam abortions, see here.)
The next “logical” step for abortion advocates, as we will see below, is to figure out how to make mifepristone available “as a normal pharmaceutical product physicians can write a prescription for.” This would be followed (they hope) by making the RU-486/prostaglandin available over the counter.
DIY today
Much has been made of the abortion clinic closures in Texas that followed the legislature’s effort in 2013 to make sure that those clinics met basic safety standards and require that abortionists have admitting privileges in a local hospital if women suffer complications from their abortion. Many clinics decided they’d rather close than bring their buildings up to code and word on the street went out that women could get black market misoprostol pills at border town flea markets.
Bazelon shared the story of one activist, Yatzel Sabat, from Austin who was setting up a website called the “Texas Abortion Access Project.” There, on a page declaring “Abortion Without Apology,” Sabat shared a map of abortionists in other states and links to groups who would offer to assist women with travel and abortion expenses.
On another page titled “What Else Can I Do?” Sabat offered information on misoprostol. While avoiding saying directly where or how women could get the pills, she did offer standards (presumably some sort of protocol) from the World Health Organization telling women how to use misoprostol and links to Women on Web.
Though, as mentioned earlier, Women on Web does not officially sell to women in the U.S., it not only tells a woman how to do a chemical abortion on herself, but refers women back to the Women on Waves site. That site tells women not only how they might go about obtaining misoprostol from the black market but also how they might persuade a local pharmacist to write a fake prescription or dupe the pharmacists that saying, for example, that she needs a few pills for her visiting grandmother who has rheumatoid arthritis and forgot to bring her prescription.
That is hardly the end of it. Bazelon points to an article appearing in this past February on the pro-abortion website RH Reality Check, in which Francine Coeytaux and Victoria Nichols “argued for over-the-counter status for misoprostol.” They called it “Plan C,” hoping to follow the pattern of “Plan B,” the so called “morning-after pill,” which a federal judge declared in 2013 had to be made available over the counter to women of all ages.
It wouldn’t end there.
Beverly Winikoff was one of those originally responsible for bringing RU-486 (mifepristone) to the U.S., now heading a group called Gynuity Health Projects. She told Bazelon that a first step towards increased access to chemical abortions would be making mifepristone available “as a normal pharmaceutical product physicians can write a prescription for.”
The next step would be “we could carefully think about how the combination of mife[pristone] and miso[prostol] might become available over the counter. How do you organize that, with the proper safeguards, so that women have the information they need?”
Bazelon mentions, but downplays the considerable risk involved. She admits that these abortions “take place over hours instead of minutes and can be more painful than surgical abortions.” (In fact, it is a matter of days.)
And there is the issue of ectopic pregnancies. A clinic with an ultrasound and a trained technician should be able to identify an ectopic pregnancy, which these pills have no effect on. The impact could prove deadly.
She shares that cramps, pain, diarrhea, vomiting may be part of the process (most of these are standard) and even grants that there have been 11 reported deaths.
In fact over three years ago, the FDA admitted (in April of 2011) that at that time, there had been 14 deaths reported in the U.S. and another five identified in other countries. Because patients are advised by groups like Women on Web not to tell doctors they’ve taken abortion pills, there is reason to believe that there may be many more.
This, of course, is largely under the current, doctor [read abortionist]-supervised protocol. Minimal though it is, at least a woman has a trained doctor to tell her how to take the drugs, how they work, how to recognize and deal with problems, and to answer any questions she might have if she has any. It is hard to imagine that any remote session will be as thorough. In addition, the woman should be able to contact the abortionist who performed the abortion if there are complications.
None of that is the case, of course, if she merely buys her abortifacient drugs over the counter or orders them over the internet.
The more you read Bazelon, the more worried you should be worried that women are placing themselves at enormous risk.
Women on Web’s site asks women if they have any high blood pressure, heart, kidney or liver conditions or other diseases that might disqualify them as candidates. But only a doctor can examine a woman, ask questions, and determine whether there are signs of such conditions that she may not be aware of and may not have been previously diagnosed.
When any chemical abortion begins, there is considerable pain, cramping, bleeding and often some form of gastrointestinal distress. The problem is, these are also the sort of signs and symptoms a woman might display if she were dealing with an infection or a ruptured ectopic pregnancy. It is hard enough for a doctor to tell the difference, much less a woman out in a rural farm village without emergency facilities or professionals nearby.
Bazelon writes
“When women do seek medical attention, Women on Web also counsels them about how to avoid criminal charges if they live in countries where they have reason to fear prosecution. To ingest the mifepristone and misoprostol they are told to place the drugs in their cheek or under their tongue, where the medicine cannot be detected in the body. (If they are inserted vaginally, they may leave fragments.) Gomperts says there is no medical reason of women to tell anyone they’ve used pills. Treatment, if needed, is the same as it would be for a spontaneous miscarriage. ‘Women should be afraid to look for care when they need it, and at the same time they shouldn’t do anything to incriminate themselves,’ Gomperts said.”
It seems, though, such information would have been highly relevant to doctors treating the inordinate numbers of chemically aborting women who suddenly and mysteriously came down with rare but lethal Clostridium sordellii infections in their reproductive tracts. That these were not simple miscarriages, but initiated events whereby certain bacteria could have been introduced into their birth canals was significant medical information.
The biggest lie, of course, behind this whole push for DIY abortions is that there is ever going to be some simple, private, safe way to dissolve the reality of baby away.
Will Women on Web be there when the woman is suffering through the throes of her chemical abortion? Will the web-cam abortionist be there when she is all alone, bleeding, doubled over in pain, struggling with the reality of her lost child? Will Gynuity make sure that there are instructions on how to deal with post-abortion grief stuffed into the bottle of pills sold over the counter?
They’ve disregarded the child all these years. Why should we be surprised if they abandon the mothers as well? Note: Randall O’Bannon, Ph.D., is the director of education and research for the National Right to Life Committee. This column originally appeared at NRL News Today.