In 2008, a handful of notable pro-life evangelicals and Catholics threw their support behind a presidential candidate sworn to uphold elective abortion as a fundamental right.
They argued that doing so constituted an enlightened pro-life vote that was morally superior to the narrow party politics of religious conservatives. Instead of passing laws against abortion, so the argument went, the candidate and his party would "reduce" it by addressing its underlying causes.[1] True, they said, he was mistaken on abortion, but he was right on other, important "whole-of-life" issues such as opposition to war, concern for the poor and care for the environment.
The candidate's political strategy was simple: shrink the significance of abortion so it was more or less equal with other issues.[2] It worked. Twice as many white evangelicals age 18 through 44 voted for Barack Obama in 2008 than voted for John Kerry in 2004. Catholics, meanwhile, supported Obama at 54 percent, up seven points from what they gave Kerry four years earlier. The candidate got just enough pro-life votes from these groups to tip the election his way.[3]
"Of course abortion isn't the only issue -- any more than the treatment of slaves wasn't the only issue in the 1860s or the treatment of Jews the only issue in the 1940s. But both were the dominant issues of their day."
I submit that each of these alleged pro-life votes represents a profound misunderstanding of the pro-life position. The fundamental issue before us is not merely how to reduce abortion, but who counts as one of us. How we answer will determine whether embryos and fetuses enjoy the protection of law or remain candidates for the dumpster. As Francis Beckwith points out, a society that has fewer abortions but protects the legal killing of unborn humans is still deeply immoral.[4] Given what's at stake, it's vital that pro-life Christians persuasively answer five key questions before the 2012 election:
1. Are pro-life advocates focused too narrowly on abortion? After all, informed voters consider many issues, not just one.
Of course abortion isn't the only issue -- any more than the treatment of slaves wasn't the only issue in the 1860s or the treatment of Jews the only issue in the 1940s. But both were the dominant issues of their day. Thoughtful Christians attribute different importance to different issues, and give greater weight to fundamental moral questions. For example, if a man running for president told us that men had a right to beat their wives, most people would see that as reason enough to reject him, despite his expertise on foreign policy or economic reforms. The foundational principle of our republic is that all humans are equal in their fundamental dignity. What issue could be more important than that? You might as well blame politicians like Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt for focusing too narrowly on defeating the Nazis, to the neglect of other issues. Given a choice, I'd rather pro-lifers focus on at least one great moral issue than waste their precious resources trying to fix all of them.[5]
2. Why don't pro-life advocates care about social justice both here and in developing countries?
They do, which is why pro-life crisis pregnancy centers vastly outnumber abortion clinics in the U.S. and why committed evangelicals, most of whom are pro-life, give more than their secular counterparts.[6] Nevertheless, pro-life Christians should reject the premise that because they oppose the intentional and unjustified killing of innocent human beings, they must therefore take responsibility for all of the world's ills. Is the American Cancer Society wrong to focus on one deadly disease to the exclusion of others? It's highly unfair to demand that local pro-life groups take their already scarce resources and spread them even thinner fighting every social injustice imaginable. This would be suicide for those opposed to abortion. As Frederick the Great once said, "He who attacks everywhere attacks nowhere." True, as defenders of human dignity, we should care about the poor, clean water and the rights of others everywhere. The U.S. government, however, is not going to solve those problems in developing countries the way it can solve abortion here. For example, our government can't ban poverty or stop the sex trade of young girls in Thailand. That is the job of that nation's citizens and government. However, the U.S. government can and should ban the killing of unborn humans within its own borders. That is why prudent pro-lifers have always sought both moral and political solutions to that problem.
While poverty and the sex trade are evil, no one in America proposes legalizing them. Abortion is different. Far from reducing the practice, our government currently advocates it both here and abroad. For example, during his first week in office, President Obama restored funding to organizations that promote and perform abortion overseas. A year later, he signed a health care bill that subsidized insurance plans that fund it here in the U.S. At the same time, he rescinded federal regulations that protect doctors from forced participation in elective abortion and threatened to cut off Medicaid funding to any state that denied tax funding to health care entities that provide abortions.[7] Finally, he nominated to the federal courts justices sympathetic to the abortion license whose rulings could set the pro-life cause back for decades to come. Because ours is a government of the people, Christians have a fundamental duty to work within the political system to limit evil and promote good. Shouldn't social justice start in the womb?
3. Why don't pro-lifers oppose war like they do abortion?
War can be a moral evil, but it isn't always so. Careful thinkers make distinctions between intrinsic (absolute) moral evils and contingent ones. For example, the decision to wage war may or may not be wrong, depending on the circumstances. However, the decision to kill intentionally an unborn human being for socioeconomic reasons is an intrinsic evil and laws permitting it are scandalous. True, a general in a just war may foresee that innocent humans will die securing a lasting peace, but he does not intend their deaths. With elective abortion, the death of an innocent human fetus is not merely foreseen; it is intended.
4. Instead of passing laws against abortion, shouldn't pro-life Christians focus on reducing its underlying causes?
First and foremost, the abortion debate turns on the question of human equality. That is, in a nation dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, do the unborn count as members of the human family? With that fundamental question in mind, it's unreasonable for liberals to insist that pro-lifers surrender the legal fight to focus on underlying causes. As my colleague Steve Weimar points out, this is like saying the "underlying cause" of spousal abuse is psychological, so instead of making it illegal for husbands to beat their wives, the solution is to provide counseling for men. There are "underlying causes" for rape, murder, theft, and so on, but that in no way makes it misguided to have laws banning such actions.[8]
Moreover, why are liberals even concerned about reducing the number of abortions in the first place? If destroying a human fetus is morally no different than cutting one's fingernails, then who cares how many abortions there are? The reason to reduce elective abortion is that human life is unjustly taken -- but if that's the case, then restricting the practice makes perfect sense. Imagine a 19th-century lawmaker who said that slavery was a bad idea and we ought to reduce it, but owning slaves should remain legal. If those in power adopted his thinking, would this be a good society? True, politics isn't a sufficient answer to injustice, but it's certainly a necessary one. Martin Luther King Jr., once said, "The law can't make the white man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me."[9] Frankly, if Christians don't think the government-sanctioned killing of unborn children merits a political response, then they not only misunderstand the moral gravity of the situation, but also their mandate to love their neighbor as themselves.
5. Should pastors challenge church members who support politicians sworn to protect elective abortion?
Yes and no. They should challenge believers and nonbelievers alike with the truth that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being -- and that truth should impact who we support. They shouldn't claim that supporting a particular party or candidate saves us from God's righteous wrath against sin (only the Gospel does that) or that members of the opposite party are not Christians. Nevertheless, in a nation where the people are the government, Christians have a duty to apply their biblical worldview in a way that limits evil and promotes the good insofar as possible given current political realities. At the legislative level in particular (House and Senate races), that usually means voting for those that, though imperfect, will best protect unborn humans against one that sanctions killing them. The reason is simple: at the legislative level, political parties more than individuals determine which laws see the light of day. Consider the House of Representatives. If a party committed to elective abortion controls the chamber, it will squash pro-life bills and promote pro-abortion ones. Even if that pro-abortion party has a few pro-life members, those members will likely never get to vote on a pro-life bill unless their party is not in power.
If parties drive legislation, how should a pastor educate his flock on the relationship between politics and Christian morality? First, he should teach a biblical worldview affirming that all humans have value because they bear the image of their Maker. Second, he should challenge church members to live out that biblical view in every area of their lives, including their political affiliations. Third, he should stress that while no political party is perfect, on the question of fundamental human value, some parties are more in line with biblical truth than others. Suppose, for example, that it's 1860 and 50 percent of professing Christians in your church are members of a political party dedicated to the proposition that an entire class of human beings can be enslaved or killed to meet the needs of the white race. If you're a pastor committed to applying a biblical worldview in all areas of life, is this OK? You might be sympathetic to new converts coming to grips with Christian teaching, but mature church members? Pastors can't use church resources to endorse political candidates or parties, but they can (and must) teach that a biblical worldview informs our political behavior.
This column first appeared in the Christian Research Journal.
1 For an evangelical example, see the interview with Donald Miller on August 25, 2008: http://www.burnsidewriterscollective.blogspot.com/2008/09/interview-with-donald-miller.html. For a Catholic example, see Michael New, "Professors Robert George and Douglas Kmiec Debate Abortion, a Pro-Life Recap," Life News, June 1, 2009.
2 Alex Spillius, "Barack Obama Doubles Support from Evangelical Christians," The Telegraph, November 7, 2008.
3 "How the Faithful Voted," Pew Research Forum, November 10, 2008.
4 Francis J. Beckwith, "Why Reducing the Number of Abortions Is Not Necessarily Pro-Life," Moral Accountability, February 12, 2009. http://www.moralaccountability.com/2009/02/12/why-reducing-the-number-of-abortions-notnecessarily-prolife/%
5 See Randy Alcorn (EMP Blog, November 16, 2008) and Steve Hays (Triablogue, January 30, 2006) for more.
6 Helen Alvare et al., "The Lazy Slander of the Pro-Life Cause," Public Discourse, January 17, 2011; Arthur C. Brooks, "A Nation of Givers," The American (March/April 2008).
7 O. Carter Snead, "Protect the Weak and Vulnerable: The Primacy of the Life Issue,"Public Discourse, August 22, 2011.
8 Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture(Wheaton: Crossway, 2009), 169.
9 Speech at Western Michigan University, December 18, 1963.
Contact: Scott Klusendorf
Source: Baptist Press
The Diocese of Peoria has joined dozens of other dioceses and Catholic organizations in filing suit against the Department of Health and Human Services in an attempt to halt the implementation of its contraceptive-coverage mandate.
“I have an obligation to protect the Church’s ability to freely practice our religion," said Bishop Daniel Jenky. "Fortunately, we have recourse to the Constitution and the strong conviction of our Founding Fathers who clearly intended to keep the government out of the internal affairs of the Church. America’s great history and tradition of religious freedom is embedded in the First Amendment.”
“As bishop of the Diocese of Peoria, I cannot remain silent while the right of Catholics to practice our faith is being so gravely threatened,” he added.
Source: CatholicCulture.org
Life Legal Defense Foundation Demands Information About Planned Parenthood Death
The death of Tonya Reaves, a 24 year-old who died after an abortion at Planned Parenthood's Loop Health Center in Chicago, has remained a mystery because employees at the Chicago Office of the Medical Examiner failed to comply with the Life Legal Defense Foundation's request for Reaves' autopsy report. The controversial manner of Reaves' death on July 20th triggered a hailstorm of calls for abortion provider regulation in Illinois, one of the few states that allows abortion providers to function virtually unfettered with little or no oversight.
Attorney Allison K. Aranda, Senior Staff Counsel for the Life Legal Defense Foundation, stated that a formal public records request for Reaves' autopsy report was made in writing on July 23rd by a staff member of Operation Rescue, who received a denial of her request via telephone. The caller, from the medical examiner's office, informed Operation Rescue that their request was denied because they did not have family authorization or a subpoena.
Illinois law specifically states that all records in the custody or possession of a public body are presumed to be open to inspection or copying, and nowhere does the state exempt autopsy reports from compliance. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Guide for Law Enforcement published July 12, 2012 by the Attorney General's Office specifically states that autopsy reports are public records and should be released. A 2010 Illinois Public Access Counselor review also stated clearly that autopsy reports in the files of the medical examiner are within the provenance of FOIA and concluded that, "the reports are public records and should be released."
"The medical examiner's office has no basis to deny my client's request for the autopsy report involving the deceased Tonya Reaves," explained Aranda, who called for immediate compliance from the medical examiner. In the event that Operation Rescue's lawful request for this public document is not met, Aranda promised legal action. She also noted that the medical examiner is already in violation of Illinois law, which provides that, "Each public body denying a request for public records shall notify the requester in writing of the decision to deny the request, the reasons for the denial, including a detailed factual basis for the application of any exemption claimed, and the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial." Operation Rescue received none of this required due process of law in their valid FOIA request for the autopsy report of Tonya Reaves.
The Life Legal Defense Foundation's letter to the Office of the Medical Examiner is here.
Contact: Tom Ciesielka
Source: Life Legal Defense Foundation
Andrew Moore (’14) participating in the
2010 Walk of Compassion in Ojai, Calif.
An uncle of a young pro-life advocate killed by a car during his
pro-life walk across America is flying to the U.S. to take his nephew’s
place and complete the remainder of the journey.
U.K. resident Paul Brilliant will attend his nephew Andrew Kentigern
Moore’s July 31 funeral in Concord, Calif. and then meet the pro-life
group Crossroads in Steubenville, Ohio to help complete their walk from
San Francisco to Washington, D.C.
Brilliant “really wants to represent Andrew's family and be with the
group as they make it to Washington, D.C.,” Crossroads president James
Nolan said July 25.
Moore was praying the Rosary and walking alongside a highway near
Indianapolis early on July 20 when he was hit by a car and killed.
Investigators found no fault with the driver and Moore might have
accidentally stepped onto the roadway.
The 20-year-old was a student at Thomas Aquinas College and was considering joining the priesthood.
His group had walked about 2,200 miles from San Francisco and had 600 miles remaining before reaching Washington, D.C.
The other volunteer walkers have decided to finish their walk in honor of Moore and his pro-life dedication.
“We are not surprised by their decision to continue,” Nolan said. “These
are some of the most amazing and dedicated young people I've ever met.”
The Crossroads travelers will suspend their nighttime walking for the rest of the summer.
Caleb Glaser, the leader of the central route which Moore walked, said the group still considers Moore part of the team.
“We believe that he will be walking those miles in spirit with us,” he said.
The treks will finish in Washington, D.C. on Aug. 11 with a noontime rally and memorial at the U.S. Capitol.
Walk participants speak to parish groups to encourage pro-life activism.
They stop at local abortion clinics to pray, to hold peaceful protests,
and to counsel those who enter.
The Maryland-based Crossroads has held pro-life walks across America for
18 years. It holds four simultaneous pro-life walks across the country
to witness to the sanctity of human life and to win converts to
protecting life from conception until natural death.
Its website is http://www.crossroadswalk.org.
Source: CNA
On July 6, 2012, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce released a
pro-abstinence staff report called “A Better Approach to Teenage
Pregnancy Prevention: Sexual Risk Avoidance.” This report details how
Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA), abstinence, truly lowers the rates of
sexually transmitted infections (STI’s) and unintended teenage
pregnancies as opposed to comprehensive sex education (CSE), which only
focuses on reducing these risks. Truthfully, SRA paves the way for
healthy teen development, because it is based on adolescent behavioral
theory, relies upon effectual techniques of public health prevention
programs, emphasizes the importance of parental guidance and support,
and teaches personal skills teens need to avoid dangerous sexual risks.
In the end, the report successfully drives home a pro-abstinence message
by concluding with 22 peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate that teens
have benefitted from SRA programs. To advance these efforts, the
Abstinence Education Reallocation Act is seeking to promote abstinence
by appropriating $15 million more for abstinence education programs and
$80 million less for President Obama’s Teen Pregnancy Prevention
Program.
Today’s push for abstinence education truly reflects how taxpayer-funded
comprehensive sex education has devastated our society. Based on the
idea that teens are predisposed to have premarital sex, CSE motivates
teens to make decisions about sexual behavior without parental guidance
and to use contraception and condoms. Although CSE does discuss
abstinence, it more so emphasizes “safe-sex” practices. Instead of
encouraging teens to avoid the risks associated with premarital sex, it
encourages them to become promiscuous and increase their chance of
getting STI’s. While Americans have become aware of these demoralizing
effects, the Obama administration has been heavily promoting CSE through
programs like Teenage Pregnancy Prevention, the Personal Responsibility
Education Program, the Pregnancy Assistance Fund, and Aban Ava Youth
Program. For example, the Obama administration demanded for the Aban Ava
Youth Program, CSE geared towards African-American children, to be
replicated, even though it had large shortcomings after it was
implemented.
Because sex education has had such devastating consequences on our
society, more young Americans have realized that abstinence is the way
to go. In fact, a CDC survey released last year shows that 75% of
American 15-17 year olds are abstaining from premarital sex. Thus, this
recent pro-abstinence congressional report could not have been released
at a better time than now. In support of the parent-child relationship,
this report promotes federal policy as a means of helping parents inform
their kids about the dangers of risky sexual behavior. Although both
the report and the Abstinence Education Reallocation Act are a step in
the right direction, we must always remember that more government
appropriations cannot solve our societal problems. Instead, parents need
to step up and educate their children about the risks of sexual
promiscuity and the benefits of abstinence. A resurgence of stronger
American families, rather than continuous government intervention, will
truly counteract premarital sex as a societal norm.
Contact Anna Maria Hoffman
Source: FRC Blog
The congressman leading an investigation of Planned Parenthood wants it
to testify at a Capitol Hill hearing after the post-abortion death of
one of its clients and the organization's failure to answer his
questions the last 10 months.
Rep. Cliff Stearns, R.-Fla., told Fox News July 24 he has received
massive amounts of information with no answers since he launched an
investigation in September 2011 of Planned Parenthood Federation of
America (PPFA) and its affiliates. Planned Parenthood is the country's
leading abortion provider.
"I would like to put them under oath," said Stearns, who is chairman of
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House of
Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee. "I would like to find out
how they spend our half a billion dollars, and I would also like to
explore some of the safety aspects, particularly in light of this death,
of this tragedy."
Tonya Reaves, 24, died July 20 after undergoing an abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Chicago.
In a written statement for Baptist Press Friday (July 27), Stearns said,
"Although Planned Parenthood has provided some 8,000 pages of
documents, they have not provided some of the records requested such as
internal audits and audits by state agencies.
"For far too long, Planned Parenthood and its affiliates have operated
with near immunity from Congressional oversight, gladly accepting over
$1 million per day in taxpayer support while claiming an exemption from
the normal standards of accountability that every other recipient of
public funds is expected to meet," said Stearns, who described his
investigation as the first congressional effort to hold PPFA accountable
for its use of government funds. "State audit reports and admissions by
former Planned Parenthood employees detail a pattern of misuse of
federal funds by some Planned Parenthood affiliates, as well as ignoring
state reporting laws designed to protect women and minors from sexual
abuse."
In September, Stearns wrote PPFA President Cecile Richards to request
information about the organization's use of federal funds and compliance
with federal law. He asked Richards to provide audits, documentation,
policies and procedures regarding such issues as improper billing,
segregation of federal funds from abortion services and reporting of
suspected sex abuse and human trafficking.
PPFA and its affiliates received $487.4 million in government grants,
contracts and reimbursements in 2009-10, the most recent year for which
statistics are available. That total is for all levels of government --
federal, state and local. That money helps support an organization with
clinics that performed 329,445 abortions in 2010. That was more than
one-fourth of the abortions in the United States for the year.
Various scandals have plagued Planned Parenthood in recent years, and a
growing number of former clinic directors and other workers have made a
variety of charges against the organization.
Sue Thayer, a former Planned Parenthood clinic director, charged the
abortion giant's Iowa affiliate with filing nearly 500,000 false
Medicaid claims over a seven-year period, according to a federal lawsuit
unsealed July 9.
Hidden camera investigations conducted by the pro-life organization Live
Action have uncovered PPFA workers demonstrating a willingness to aid
self-professed sex traffickers whose prostitutes are in their early
teens and seeking to cover up alleged child sex abuse. Other undercover
videos released in May and June by Live Action showed Planned Parenthood
employees in four states -- Hawaii, New York, North Carolina and Texas
-- seeking to help women who indicated they wanted sex-selection
abortions.
Last July, Americans United for Life (AUL) documented in a 181-page
report of known and alleged abuses by PPFA over a 20-year period and
called on Congress to investigate it for misuse of government funds and
circumvention of state laws.
Reaves' death is the latest in this ongoing series of scandals and negative reports.
Documents show Reaves underwent a dilation and evacuation abortion at 11
a.m. July 20 at the Loop Health Center Planned Parenthood, CBS Radio
affiliate WBBM reported. A dilation and evacuation abortion typically
takes place in the second trimester of a pregnancy and normally involves
the use of a suction tube and/or forceps to remove the unborn child's
body in pieces.
Bleeding ensued, but she was not taken to Northwestern Memorial Hospital
until 4:30 p.m., according to the report. An hour later, the hospital
performed a second abortion procedure because the first was incomplete.
Further tests revealed a perforated uterus. Doctors performed surgery on
Reaves at 10:12, when an "uncontrollable bleed" was discovered, and she
was pronounced dead at 11:20, WBBM reported.
Illinois pro-life organizations called on state legislative leaders to
act to regulate Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics in the
wake of Reaves' death. Illinois does not require such clinics to undergo
inspections, according to a July 26 letter from the Life Education and
Resource Network and other organizations.
"A woman who goes to an abortion provider naturally assumes that she is
going to a medically approved facility and not to a company that is
operating an unlicensed, uninspected, and unregulated surgery," the
letter said.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration has acted three times this month
alone to circumvent state or local decisions and aid PPFA affiliates
that have lost government funds.
On July 25, a Planned Parenthood affiliate in Durham, N.C., received
$426,000 in Title X family planning funds from the federal Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS). The North Carolina legislature had
voted July 2 to override Gov. Bev Perdue's veto and defund Planned
Parenthood and other private family planning providers.
Earlier in July, HHS made similar grants to Planned Parenthood
affiliates in New Jersey and Memphis, Tenn., after their funds were cut.
Federal family planning funds may not be used for the performance of
abortions, but pro-life advocates point out the government grants free
up other funds for use in Planned Parenthood's abortion business.
When the Stearns-led congressional investigation was announced in
September, Southern Baptist ethicist Richard Land said he could think of
"very few organizations that are more deserving of a thorough federal
investigation than Planned Parenthood."
PPFA "should not be getting any government funding, period," said Land,
president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. "But as long
as they are getting government funding, they should be the subject of
aggressive congressional scrutiny."
Contact: Tom Strode
Source: Baptist Press
Operation Rescue releases a video illustrating the timeline leading to Tonya Reaves Death
Operation Rescue stands in solidarity to statements released today by
the Black Prolife Coalition and Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics, Inc.
related to the death of Tonya Reaves from hemorrhage following a second
trimester abortion she received at a Planned Parenthood clinic in
Chicago on July 20.
Video: Timeline in the Abortion Death of Tonya Reaves
Operation Rescue joins Mr. Crutcher in calling on Cook County Illinois
State's Attorney, Anita Alvarez, to immediately launch an investigation
into the death of Tonya Reaves under the state's "depraved indifference
murder" statutes.
Planned Parenthood waited over 5 hours to call for emergency assistance
after Reaves suffered uncontrolled bleeding after her abortion at the
Loop Health Center Planned Parenthood office on Michigan Avenue. She
died later that day at a local hospital.
"If it can be found that Ms. Reaves would have survived if paramedics
had been called earlier, then Planned Parenthood could be criminally
culpable," said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue and Pro-Life
Nation.
Operation Rescue has released a short video illustrating the timeline
that lead to Reaves death as reported by Steve Miller of News Radio
WBBM.
Watch the Video
Contact: Troy Newman, Cheryl Sullenger
Source: Operation Rescue/Pro-Life Nation
But 154 Lawmakers vote to Defend Current D.C. Policy of Legal Abortion for any Reason Until Birth
In a landmark vote, a solid majority of the U.S. House of
Representatives today voted to reject the current abortion policy of the
District of Columbia, which permits legal abortion for any reason until
birth, and to replace it with a law that would generally prevent
abortion after 20 weeks fetal age.
The legislation is the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child
Protection Act (H.R. 3803). The vote was 220-154 in favor of the bill – a
strong majority (a 66 vote margin), although short of the two-thirds
vote required under the fast-track procedure utilized today (“suspension
of the rules”).
“Today’s groundbreaking majority vote constitutes a giant step towards
this bill ultimately becoming law -- perhaps after the replacement of
some of the lawmakers who today were unwilling to protect pain-capable
unborn children in the sixth month of pregnancy and later,” said Douglas
Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee
(NRLC), the national federation of state right-to-life organizations.
“154 House members will have to explain to their constituents why they
voted to endorse a policy of legal abortion for any reason, until the
moment of birth, in their nation’s capital.”
H.R. 3803 contains findings that by 20 weeks after fertilization (if not
earlier), the unborn child has the capacity to experience great pain.
(This is equivalent to 22 weeks in the alternate “LMP” or “weeks of
pregnancy” dating system used by ob-gyns and abortion providers.) The
bill prohibits abortion after that point, except when an acute physical
condition endangers the life of the mother. Nine states have already
enacted abortion limitations based on the pain suffered by unborn
children; no court orders have blocked enforcement of any of those laws.
The District Clause of the U.S. Constitution (found in Article I,
Section 8) provides that “Congress shall . . . exercise exclusive
legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District . . .” Like any
other “legislation,” of course, laws pertaining to the federal district
are subject to the president’s review. Asked about H.R. 3803 today,
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney responded, “The president’s
position on a woman’s reproductive freedom is well known,” and went on
to refer to the legislation as “controversial, divisive social
legislation.”
On July 30, a federal judge in Arizona upheld as constitutional a new
state law that generally prohibits abortion after 18 weeks fetal age (20
weeks of pregnancy) – two weeks earlier than H.R. 3803. U.S. District
Judge James A. Teilborg, a Clinton appointee, found that “by 20 weeks,
sensory receptors develop all over the child’s body” and “when provoked
by painful stimuli, such as a needle, the child reacts, as measured by
increases in the child’s stress hormones, heart rate, and blood
pressure.” Judge Teilborg also noted, “Given the nature of D&Es and
induction abortions . . . this Court concludes that the State has shown a
legitimate interest in limiting abortions past 20 weeks gestational
age.”
Also today, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), the prime sponsor of the Senate
companion bill (S. 2103, which has 30 cosponsors), filed the bill as an
amendment to an unrelated bill that is currently pending on the Senate
floor, S. 3414.
Source: National Right to Life Committee
The death of 24 year-old Tonya Reaves on Friday, July 20, following an
abortion at the Chicago Loop Planned Parenthood has prompted a renewed
call for accountability in Illinois' currently unregulated abortion
industry.
Pastor Ceasar LeFlore, Midwest Director of Life Education and Resource
Network (L.E.A.R.N.), appealed via letter to Illinois' President of the
Senate John Cullerton, Speaker of the House Michael Madigan, and House
Republican Leader Tom Cross to increase abortion clinic regulation.
Reaves' death following her abortion in a facility not regulated by the
State of Illinois is a tragedy, but the letter to Illinois' legislative
leaders points out that "this state's lack of even the most basic health
regulation of abortion providers and clinics is setting the stage for
it to happen again."
Illinois law does not require Planned Parenthood's clinics to be
inspected by the state's Department of Public Health. This lack of
oversight is particularly negligent in light of the fact that Reaves'
second trimester abortion was performed in Planned Parenthood's Loop
Health Center in Chicago, a facility that, according to its own website,
refers all surgical procedures to two other abortion clinics, only
offering "medication abortion," commonly known as the "abortion pill,"
at the downtown site.
LeFlore's missive implores the lawmakers to join the twenty other states
that mandate counseling for women who are scheduled to undergo an
abortion. Often referred to as "Informed Consent" laws or "Women's Right
to Know" laws, these measures require the physician to inform the
pregnant woman of the many risks involved in an abortion. More than half
of the states require at least a 24-hour waiting period between
receiving counseling for the abortion and completing the procedure.
"Planned Parenthood's Loop Health Center is clearly not equipped to
provide a second trimester abortion or to respond to an emergency
situation such as the one that resulted in the tragic death of an
otherwise healthy young woman," explains LeFlore. "A woman who goes to
an abortion provider naturally assumes that she is going to a medically
approved facility and not to a company that is operating an unlicensed,
uninspected, and unregulated surgery."
L.E.A.R.N. is the nation's largest black pro-life organization and its
Midwest Director is not alone in sounding this clarion call for
increased abortion clinic regulation. The letter is cosigned by leaders
from the Illinois' broader pro-life community, including Aid for Women
of Northern Lake County, Belleville Area Right to Life, Catholic
Citizens of Illinois, Concerned Women for America of Illinois, Illinois
Citizens for Ethics PAC, Illinois Family Institute, Illinois Federation
for Right to Life, Illinois Review, Illinois Right to Life Committee,
Knox County Right to Life, Lake County Right to Life. Life Advocacy
Resource Project, Lutherans for Life, McHenry County Right to Life,
Professional Women's Network, Pro-Life Action League,
Pro-Life/Pro-Family Coalition, Students for Life of Illinois, Tradition
Family and Property, and Word of Hope.
The coalition insists that, "The Illinois General Assembly must take
seriously the health and safety of the women of Illinois... [and]
immediately enact laws and policies that insure the protection of
women."
It is noteworthy that in the last legislative session, the Illinois
legislature failed to call for a vote on H.B. 4117 which would have
required all abortion clinics to meet the same health and safety
standards as all other ambulatory surgical treatment centers, including
those run by Planned Parenthood.
Source: Illinois Review
One day before the U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on
a bill to overturn the current policy in the District of Columbia of
allowing legal abortion, for any reason, until the moment of birth, a
federal judge in Arizona today upheld a new state law generally
prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy (18 weeks fetal age),
based primarily on “the substantial and well-documented evidence that an
unborn child has the capacity to feel pain during an abortion by at
least twenty weeks gestational age.”
The ruling by U.S. District Judge James A. Teilborg came in a legal
challenge brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights and the ACLU on
behalf of abortion providers, which asserted that the law was
unconstitutional because it restricted abortions prior to “viability.”
The Arizona law generally allows abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy
(18 weeks after fertilization) only when necessary to prevent the
mother’s death or “serious risk of substantial and irreversible
impairment of a major bodily function.”
Judge Teilborg specifically found that “by 20 weeks, sensory receptors
develop all over the child’s body” and “when provoked by painful
stimuli, such as a needle, the child reacts, as measured by increases in
the child’s stress hormones, heart rate, and blood pressure.” Teilborg
quoted a U.S. Supreme Court decision describing the D&E method of
abortion used at this age: “[F]riction causes the fetus to tear apart.
For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus . . .” He described
another method also used: “In an induction procedure, the fetus is
injected with a medication that induces a heart attack.’”
Judge Teilborg continued, “Given the nature of D&Es and induction
abortions, . . . this Court concludes that the State has shown a
legitimate interest in limiting abortions past 20 weeks gestational
age.”
“This recognition by a federal court that a general prohibition on
abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy is constitutional, based chiefly on
‘substantial and well-documented evidence that an unborn child has the
capacity to feel pain during an abortion,’ makes it even more
indefensible for any House member to vote to continue the current policy
of legal abortion for any reason until the moment of birth in our
nation’s capital,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the
National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).
The bill to be voted on Tuesday by the U.S. House, the District of
Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 3803), is
strongly backed by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the
nationwide federation of state right-to-life organizations.
The Council of the District of Columbia, employing authority delegated
by Congress, repealed the entire D.C. abortion law. Thus, in the
nation’s capital, abortion is currently legal for any reason through all
nine months of pregnancy. (See confirmation by the Associated Press, here.)
H.R. 3803, sponsored by Congressman Trent Franks (R-Az.), was approved
by the House Judiciary Committee on July 18, and is being brought to the
House floor on a fast-track procedure. In the bill, Congress adopts
findings that by 22 weeks of pregnancy (20 weeks after fertilization),
the unborn child has the capacity to experience great pain. (Note that
this is two weeks later than the line established in the Arizona law
upheld today.) The bill prohibits abortion after that point, except when
an acute physical condition endangers the life of the mother. Seven
states have already enacted legislation very similar to H.R. 3803
(Nebraska, Kansas, Idaho, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana); no
court orders have blocked enforcement of any of those laws.
“This roll call will be a landmark – the House has never before voted on
the question of whether to endorse legal abortion for any reason until
birth,” said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. “Under the
Constitution, members of Congress and the President are ultimately
accountable for the current abortion-until-birth policy. Any lawmaker
who votes against this bill is voting to ratify the extreme policy
currently in effect in the nation’s capital, where abortion is perfectly
legal for any reason until the moment of birth.”
"If we can achieve a big majority on this groundbreaking initial vote,
it will lay the foundation to achieve legal protection for pain-capable
unborn babies in the not-distant future,” Johnson said.
The District Clause of the U.S. Constitution (found in Article I,
Section 8) provides that “Congress shall . . . exercise exclusive
legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District . . .” Like any
other “legislation,” of course, it is subject to the president’s review.
The White House has not yet taken any position on H.R. 3803, although
it has 223 House cosponsors.
According to a nationwide live telephone poll of 1,000 adults (MOE
+/-3.1%), conducted July 12-15, 2012 by The Polling Company,
Inc./WomanTrend, 58% of American adults would be more likely to vote for
lawmakers who support this legislation (62% of women were more likely).
In a separate question, 63% favored a policy of not permitting abortion
anywhere "after the point where substantial evidence says that the
unborn child can feel pain unless it is "necessary to save a mother's
life." (The questions and response totals are available in a document here.)
The NRLC website provides links to abundant documentation on the
scientific authorities that support the bill’s findings that unborn
children, by 20 weeks fetal age if not before, have the capacity to
experience great pain, here. A compilation of citations to medical journal articles on the subject is posted here. The abortion method most often used at this stage, the "D&E," is depicted in a medical illustration, here. The poll results and other information on the legislation is also posted at http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/Fetal_Pain/index.html
Source: National Right to Life Committee
The U.S. House of Representatives will vote on Tuesday, July 31, 2012,
on legislation that would end the current legal policy allowing
abortion, for any reason, until the moment of birth in the nation's
capital.
The legislation, the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child
Protection Act (H.R. 3803), is strongly backed by the National Right to
Life Committee (NRLC), the nationwide federation of state right-to-life
organizations.
The Council of the District of Columbia, employing authority delegated
by Congress, repealed the entire D.C. abortion law. Thus, in the
nation's capital, abortion is currently legal for any reason through all
nine months of pregnancy. (See confirmation by the Associated Press, here.)
"This roll call will be a landmark - the House has never before voted on
the question of whether to endorse legal abortion for any reason until
birth," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. "Under the
Constitution, members of Congress and the President are ultimately
accountable for the current abortion-until-birth policy. Any lawmaker
who votes against this bill is voting to ratify the extreme policy
currently in effect in the nation's capital, where abortion is perfectly
legal for any reason until the moment of birth."
"If we can achieve a big majority on this groundbreaking initial vote,
it will lay the foundation to achieve legal protection for pain-capable
unborn babies in the not-distant future," Johnson said.
The bill, sponsored by Congressman Trent Franks (R-Az.), was approved by
the House Judiciary Committee just last week, and is being brought to
the House floor on a fast-track procedure. In the bill, Congress adopts
findings that by 20 weeks after fertilization (if not earlier), the
unborn child has the capacity to experience great pain. (This is
equivalent to 22 weeks in the alternate "LMP" or "weeks of pregnancy"
dating system used by ob-gyns and abortion providers.) The bill
prohibits abortion after that point, except when an acute physical
condition endangers the life of the mother. Seven states have already
enacted very similar legislation; no court orders have blocked
enforcement of any of those laws.
The District Clause of the U.S. Constitution (found in Article I,
Section 8) provides that "Congress shall . . . exercise exclusive
legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District . . ." Like any
other "legislation," of course, it is subject to the president's
review.
H.R. 3803 currently has 223 House cosponsors. (218 constitutes a House majority when all seats are filled and all members vote.)
According to a nationwide live telephone poll of 1,000 adults (MOE
+/-3.1%), conducted July 12-15, 2012 by The Polling Company,
Inc./WomanTrend, by more than a 2-to-1 margin (58-27%), American adults
would be more likely to vote for lawmakers who support this
legislation. Women were more likely by 62-27%, and men more likely by
53-27%. (The questions and response totals are available in a document here.)
In response to a separate poll question, respondents favored, by a
3-to-1 margin (63-21%), a policy of not permitting abortion anywhere
"after the point where substantial medical evidence says that the unborn
child can feel pain," unless it is "necessary to save a mother's
life." Women said "should not be permitted" by a margin of 70-18%
percent. Men said "should not be permitted" by a margin of 55-25%.
The NRLC website provides links to abundant documentation on the
scientific authorities that support the bill's findings that unborn
children, by 20 weeks fetal age if not before, have the capacity to
experience great pain, here. The abortion method most often used at this stage, the "D&E," is depicted in a medical illustration, here. The poll results and other information on the legislation is also posted at www.nrlc.org/abortion/Fetal_Pain/index.html.
Contact: Megan McCrum, Jessica Rodgers
Source: National Right to Life Committee
A federal court ordered an injunction Friday halting the implementation
of a mandate that would require a Catholic-owned business in Denver to
offer insurance coverage for contraception and potential
abortion-inducing drugs as a federal court case proceeds.
The Newland family owns a private company that makes heating and air
conditioning units. The Obama administration has given all secular
businesses a deadline of Aug. 1 to begin offering the insurance when
their next enrollment period begins, which people of faith say violates
their consciences. Faith-based groups, such as Catholic hospitals,
universities and nonprofit ministries, have until August 2013 to comply.
“Every American, including family business owners, should be free to
live and do business according to their faith,” said Alliance Defending
Freedom Legal Counsel Matt Bowman, who is representing the Newland
family. “For the time being, Hercules Industries will be able to do just
that.”
Bowman said the mandate could harm the Newland family business.
“The cost of freedom for this family could be millions of dollars per
year in fines that will cripple their business if the Obama
administration ultimately has its way,” Bowman said. “This lawsuit seeks
to ensure that Washington bureaucrats cannot force families to abandon
their faith just to earn a living. Americans don’t want politicians and
bureaucrats deciding what faith is, who the faithful are, and where and
how that faith may be lived out.”
A trial date has not been set.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Read the judge’s order in Newland v. Sebelius.
Contact: Bethany Monk
Source: CitizenLink
National pro-life leaders are calling on fellow pro-life believers to
join them in Washington, DC, next year for the National Memorial for the
Pre-Born. It will be the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme
Court decision that legalized abortion.
Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life explains that the 2013 event in January will focus on prayer and repentance.
"Repentance has to come to us as a nation for all that we have failed to
do to protect our unborn brothers and sisters in these 40 years of
legalized killing," he says. "Prayer, of course, that we not go too much
longer in this state and that the healing begin. So much healing has to
take place and in so many ways."
Pavone tells OneNewsNow there is nothing that takes more life than abortion.
"No crime or disease, no national disaster or war, not terrorism, not
AIDS, not poverty, not drug abuse -- it [abortion] has taken and
continues to take more life than anything else precisely because Roe v.
Wade allowed it throughout all nine months of pregnancy," he declares.
"It's an incredible thing."
Pavone points out the January observance of the 40th anniversary will
launch a full year of activities related to ending abortion and a
special website has been set up to draw attention to it.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
National pro-life leaders are calling on fellow pro-life believers to join them in Washington, DC, next year for the National Memorial for the Pre-Born. It will be the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.
Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life explains that the 2013 event in January will focus on prayer and repentance.
"Repentance has to come to us as a nation for all that we have failed to do to protect our unborn brothers and sisters in these 40 years of legalized killing," he says. "Prayer, of course, that we not go too much longer in this state and that the healing begin. So much healing has to take place and in so many ways."
Pavone tells OneNewsNow there is nothing that takes more life than abortion.
"No crime or disease, no national disaster or war, not terrorism, not AIDS, not poverty, not drug abuse -- it [abortion] has taken and continues to take more life than anything else precisely because Roe v. Wade allowed it throughout all nine months of pregnancy," he declares. "It's an incredible thing."
Pavone points out the January observance of the 40th anniversary will launch a full year of activities related to ending abortion and a special website has been set up to draw attention to it.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, today announced it has filed an emergency motion asking that Federal District Judge Robert H. Cleland of the Eastern District of Michigan stop the HHS Mandate which goes into effect on August 1, 2012. The motion was filed late yesterday afternoon.The backdrop for the Law Center's motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is one of the U.S. Supreme Court's greatest statements on our fundamental rights recognized by the Bill of Rights: "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."Click here to read entire motion.Thomas More Law Center attorney, Erin Mersino, is the lead counsel in the lawsuit. Joining as co-counsel is Charles LiMandri, the Law Center's West Coast Regional Director.Mersino stated, "We have asked Judge Cleland to set a court hearing on our motion for the earliest possible time to prevent immediate injury to our clients' right of conscience. Without the Court's intervention, the HHS mandate effectively penalizes their free exercise of religion." The Thomas More Law Center filed its federal lawsuit on May 6, 2012 against the Obama administration on behalf of Legatus, the Nation's largest organization of top Catholic business leaders, and the Ann Arbor-based Weingartz Supply Company, and its president Daniel Weingartz, also a member of Legatus.The purpose of the lawsuit is to permanently block the implementation of the HHS Mandate which requires employers and individuals to obtain insurance coverage for abortions and contraception on the grounds that it imposes clear violations of conscience on Americans who morally object to abortion and contraception. The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the HHS Mandate under the First Amendment rights to the Free Exercise of Religion and Free Speech and the Establishment Clause. It also claims that the HHS Mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and the Administrative Procedure Act.Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center commented, "The Obama administration deliberately declared war on the Catholic Church by promulgating the HHS Mandate. And contrary to what they want you to believe, this case is not about contraception. It is about the religious freedom of Christians, in this case Catholics, to peaceably practice their faith free from government coercion. If the government succeeds in this case, the religious freedom of all Christians is in danger." The motion for a temporary restraining order focuses on violations of the Plaintiffs' rights guaranteed by the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993."Legatus" is the Latin word for "ambassador", and its members are called upon to become "ambassadors for Christ" in living and sharing their Catholic Faith in their business, professional and personal lives. It currently has over 4,000 members in 73 chapters located in 31 states. It was founded in 1987 by Tom Monaghan, the former owner of Domino's Pizza, to bring together the three key areas of a Catholic business leader's life -- Faith, Family and Business. Named as Defendants in the lawsuit are Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the of the Department of Health and Human Services; Hilda Solis, Secretary of the Department of Labor; Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Department of the Treasury; and their respective departments. Contact: Erin MersinoSource: Thomas More Law Center
There’s a two-tier system of abortions in the U.S.: those for the haves, and those for the have-nots. President Obama may fundraise for Planned Parenthood, but he’d never send his daughters there. Who would, if they could send them anywhere else?
The Left’s public enthusiasm for Sanger’s brainchild plasters splashy wallpaper on prison walls and plants a smiley face on an urn.
Planned Parenthood is corrupt to the core. Just look at their marketing. The more sexually active the population, the more Planned Parenthood stands to profit. Expecting Planned Parenthood to give abstinence information is like waiting for McDonald’s to hand out dieting advice. It may talk about “safe sex,” but not even “protected sex” halts the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. No matter. This isn’t about health; it’s about sales. If people want birth control, Planned Parenthood can sell it to them. When the birth control fails, they can sell them an abortion. And, while Planned Parenthood promotes equal opportunity sexual activity (females with females, males with males) we can’t neglect females-with-males, because that’s what keeps the abortion stream going.
It gets worse. The standard of care is that if a patient is going to undergo a procedure, they should give informed consent. This implies two things: that the patient has been adequately informed of the risks and benefits of the procedure, and that they are freely choosing to carry out the procedure. Planned Parenthood can market to the desperate mother who feels she must have an abortion at any cost, or the mother who needs convincing.
Former Planned Parenthood staff have confessed the levels of manipulation they have used to convince a woman to abort. Even when this line isn’t crossed, there’s still a highly emotional decision happening, with possible pressure from family, friends, husband, boyfriend, or pimp. But if you have been sexually exploited or emotionally manipulated, don’t expect Planned Parenthood to help you. As Live Action has abundantly demonstrated, implausible deniability even in cases as clear-cut as sex trafficking is alive and well at Planned Parenthood.
Adequate information is another fiction. While claiming “We're here to give you the medically-accurate information you need to decide what is best for you,” Planned Parenthood misrepresents the inherent risk involved in having an abortion. Their website states, “Abortion is legal in the U.S. and is one of medicine's safest procedures.”
Given the fact that many medical procedures are no more than skin deep, such as removing a mole, it’s surprising that the organization would make such a bald-faced claim. But then, those kinds are less likely to be suspected. No supporting information is given to support this claim, and the probability of various complications from abortion is not presented. One key risk factor that gets inadequate treatment is late-term abortions. All of the women and girls presented in Planned Parenthood’s featured tutorial video on in-clinic abortions are 14 weeks or less pregnant, and none has even an inkling of a baby bump.
While 88% of abortions are done within the first trimester of a child’s life, Planned Parenthood provides abortions through the third trimester. It makes sense to have one tutorial directed toward women at an earlier stage of pregnancy, but where is the tutorial for women further along? Toward the end of the video, the calm, measured voice of the narrator promises that Planned Parenthood will provide referrals for women who experience complications from their abortion.
Elsewhere, it’s claimed that abortions through 20 weeks are 11 times safer than childbirth, but that after that abortion and natural childbirth have equal risk. Again, no evidence is given to substantiate this claim. Instead of bracing for serious complications, wouldn’t it be better if women were told there are viable options beyond abortion?
The results of a procedure depend not only on the inherent risk, but also on the skill of the individual physician. The average rate of mishap for a certain procedure may be very low, but with a careless physician it will be very high. But a Planned Parenthood patient shouldn’t expect to know anything about their abortionist before they show up. If she was going to a doctor or a dentist for the first time, she could look up their name, specialty, and most likely even their picture online. Not with Planned Parenthood. The Illinois Planned Parenthood website assures potential clients:
“For nearly 90 years Planned Parenthood of Illinois (PPIL) has been Illinois' most trusted provider of reproductive health care. Our skilled health care professionals in the Chicago area and central Illinois work to ensure that each woman receives personal, sensitive and confidential care in a professional setting. All of our physicians are board certified or board eligible in Obstetrics and Gynecology or board certified in Family Medicine.”
It declines to list anything more than this, so it’s impossible for a first-time visitor to research their physician by name. Clients put their lives into the hands of a complete stranger. If abortionists were gifted physicians, wouldn’t they be proud to list their credentials publicly?
Placing clinics in low-income neighborhoods increases Planned Parenthood’s access to minorities, but it also removes accountability and ready access to emergency personnel and resources. Of course, even great physicians sometimes make mistakes, which is why hospitals regularly hold Morbidity & Mortality conferences. It’s here that the medical staff discusses cases that went wrong so that the core issues can be identified and mended.
For abortionists running solo practices, who provides this level of accountability? Are they ever questioned by their medical peers on their techniques, or botches? The ghastly findings in Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s abortion practice in Philadelphia last year spurred nine abortion clinic inspections in Illinois. Some hadn’t been inspected for over 15 years, and two were closed because of what was found. The inspections stopped short of any Planned Parenthood clinics, however, because these clinics are not licensed or inspected due to their similarity to doctor’s offices. This includes the clinic where Tonya Reaves was treated.
If the Planned Parenthood clinics had been adequately monitored, might Tonya Reaves be alive today? How many abortion clinics have emergency plans? Who vets the skill levels of physicians applying for jobs? Is the convenient location of clinics enough justification for their isolation from trauma units?
If Planned Parenthood of Illinois had fully informed Tonya Reaves of the risks she faced in her second-trimester abortion, would she have continued with her decision? It’s a question we will never know. But each woman should be given a fully informed choice. When it comes to abortion, it’s not just a woman’s body that’s at stake: it can be her life.
Contact: Hannah Ihms
Source: Illinois Review
The Washington Surgi-Clinic, located just five blocks west of the White House, advertises on its website that it performs abortions 26 weeks (6 months) into pregnancy. The website of another clinic advertises second- and third-trimester abortions involving the "intercardiac injection of medication into the fetal heart" at a "private facility in the Washington, D.C. area." All of this is perfectly legal.
Abortions may be performed in the nation's capital for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy. But a bill passed by the House Judiciary Committee last week would curb D.C.'s abortion-until-birth policy by putting a limit on abortions at 20 weeks after fertilization, when science suggests an unborn child can feel pain. And national grassroots pro-life groups are making a strong push to bring the bill to the House floor.
"There is ample biologic, physiologic, hormonal, and behavioral evidence for fetal and neonatal pain," Dr. Colleen A. Malloy, assistant professor at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine, said during congressional testimony in May. Malloy, who works in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, said that infants born 20-weeks and later "are the patients that I perform procedures on every day and I can guarantee you that when I put a test tube in and I incubate a patient or put an IV in, they feel it."
The modest restriction would still leave Washington's abortion law more liberal than many western European nations, which restrict abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy. But the D.C. late-term abortion ban would present a challenge Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade's 1973 companion case, Doe v. Bolton, that there must be "emotional, psychological, [and] familial" health exceptions to late-term bans. The D.C. ban has exceptions if a late-term abortion is necessary to save the life of the pregnant women or prevent the "substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, not including psychological or emotional conditions, of the pregnant woman." (Read the text of the bill here.)
Democrats have focused their attacks on the bill by pointing out it does not allow a late-term abortion of a severely disabled child who is not expected to live long after birth. "These are really arguments for prenatal euthanasia," says Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. Johnson says that in light of the Supreme Court's 2007 decision upholding the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, "we think that the court majority has opened the door to defer more to elected lawmakers on extended protections." The partial-birth abortion ban prohibited abortions when an unborn child had been delivered past its navel. But it did not ban any abortions based on an unborn child's gestational age or development.
"The American public's been actively misinformed for decades about the status of late-term abortion by shoddy journalism and misleading propaganda from pro-abortion advocacy groups," says Johnson. "I do think a great number of Americans believe that you can't get a late abortion unless there's a very compelling reason.
"This is news even to some members of Congress that it is only one method that has been banned by federal law. That involves the partial-live delivery before being killed," Johnson continues. "For everything else it still depends on state law. Or in the case of the federal enclave, Congress."
A poll conducted by the Polling Company for the National Right to Life Committee found strong support for a ban on late-term abortion. The poll asked Americans: "Unless an abortion is necessary to save a mother's life, do you think abortion should be permitted after the point where substantial medical evidence says that the unborn child can feel pain?" Sixty-three percent said abortion should not be permitted, while 21 percent said it should be permitted.
Of course, pro-choice Democrats point to some studies that contend unborn children can't feel pain until a few weeks beyond what the D.C. bill would ban. They also argue that the issue should be left to the D.C. city council (supporters of the ban point out the law would be perfectly constitutional; Congress has explicit constitutional authority over the District and banned slavery there during the Civil War). But this isn't an argument Democrats want to have.
Nancy Pelosi declined to comment on the bill last Thursday, after the Judiciary Committee had passed the bill. "I'm just not familiar with it. I'm sorry," Pelosi told THE WEEKLY STANDARD following her weekly press conference. During a subcommittee on the hearing in May, New York Democrat Jerrold Nadler slipped up and accidentally referred to an unborn child protected by the bill as "a preemie at 20 weeks in utero" before catching himself. "Excuse me," Nadler said, "a fetus at 20 weeks in utero."
The White House has not yet issued a statement on the bill. The issue of late-term abortion has tripped up Obama in the past. "I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother," Obama said in 2008. "Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother." But days later he backtracked on the issue.
Despite the law's popularity—there are 221 cosponsors in the House—it's not clear that the House GOP leadership will bring the bill to the floor. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has not scheduled a vote on it.
"We are urging strongly for there to be a vote," says NRLC's Douglas Johnson. "If it's not brought up and passed in the House, it's going to be viewed by many Americans as a dereliction or some kind of a ratification of this policy that they've learned about and are outraged by."
Contact: John McCormack
Source: The Weekly Standard via National Right to Life
Pro-life groups are calling for an investigation into the death of a woman who just underwent an abortion procedure at a Chicago Planned Parenthood.
Tonya Reaves, 24, the mother of a one-year-old son, recently visited the Loop Health Center Planned Parenthood clinic to abort her latest child. But Cheryl Sullenger of Operation Rescue tells OneNewsNow there were complications, resulting in Reaves being rushed to Northwestern Memorial Hospital.
"She died later that evening of hemorrhage related to a D&E (dilation and evacuation) abortion," the pro-lifer reports. "They did the autopsy the following day, and they confirmed that this was an abortion-related death."
A D&E procedure, done in the second trimester of a pregnancy, involves dismembering the baby to remove him/her from the womb. Reaves' family members are demanding answers -- none of which, according to Operation Rescue, are coming from Planned Parenthood.
"We believe this is most likely an error on the part of the abortionist, because women do not hemorrhage to death unless there has been some misadventure during the abortion, and if there's a delay in calling 9-1-1," Sullenger asserts. "We know that she was finally pronounced dead at 11:20 pm."
She goes on to add that "abortion deaths like this are completely avoidable," and Planned Parenthood should be held accountable.
Aside from the fact that an ambulance was called to a Planned Parenthood in Aurora, Illinois, and did not transport a patient, no further information has been made available.
Ann Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League wonders if this and another case will be investigated. (Listen to audio report)
She tells OneNewsNow there are two different types of abortion clinic in The Prairie State. The first is "pregnancy termination specialty centers, which don't have to meet the same standards as an ordinary ambulatory surgical center," Scheidler explains. "And then we have the ambulatory surgical centers that meet higher standards, closer to what a hospital would have to meet."
But Planned Parenthood does not fit in either category, "because they claim that a very tiny percentage of their business is abortion, which is only true if you counted in a peculiar way which only Planned Parenthood can figure out," the League vice president details. "So they don't ever get inspected."
That, according to Scheidler, puts any woman seeking an abortion at an Illinois Planned Parenthood at risk. But she asserts that the Pro-Life Action League will again be at the legislature's doorstep pressing for a change in current laws to require the regular inspection of Planned Parenthood facilities.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
A CBS news affiliate in Chicago reported over the weekend that a 24 year old woman died Friday, July 20, 2012, following an abortion at the Planned Parenthood clinic located at 18 S. Michigan Ave. in Chicago, Illinois.
The woman, Tonya Reaves, was transported from the Loop Health Center Planned Parenthood abortion clinic to Northwestern Memorial Hospital, where she was pronounced dead at 11:20 P.M. .
An autopsy conducted Saturday determined that Reaves died from hemorrhage following a Dilation and Evacuation abortion. The D&E abortion method is one employed in pregnancies that have advanced beyond the first trimester. It involves opening the cervix and removing the pre-born baby by dismembering him or her. The Loop Health Center Planned Parenthood advertises aborting babies up to 18 weeks.
The Tribune reports Planned Parenthood issued a statement of condolence after the Cook County coroner ruled the death an accident. The Tribune did not publish the statement's contents and it is not available on their website.
"Abortion deaths like this are completely avoidable. When a woman bleeds to death after an abortion, it is usually an indication of error on the part of the abortionist coupled with a delay in calling for emergency assistance. Planned Parenthood should be held accountable," said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue and Pro-Life Nation. "Our heartfelt prayers go out to the victim's family at this time of tragic loss."
This incident follows a report published in the Chicago Tribune in June, 2011, that took to task abortionists in Illinois for failing to report abortion complications and exposed the fact that some abortionists did not report complications at all, in violation of the law. At that time, Illinois officials made no attempt to enforce abortion laws in that state.
While the name of the abortionist responsible for this patient death is currently unknown, Planned Parenthood's most recent 990 Tax Forms list abortionist Caroline M. Hoke as its Medical Director. Hoke is reported to be currently under investigation by the Illinois Department of Public Health for charging the state $3 million for services through Illinois Planned Parenthood facilities.
The abortion death took place in Obama's adopted hometown of Chicago at a time when his administration is working to preserve funding to Planned Parenthood through the federalized health care system.
"In light of this tragedy, which is yet another in a long list of Planned Parenthood abuses, we call on President Obama to immediately withdraw all Federal funding and personal support from Planned Parenthood," said Newman. "Friday's death is yet another reason why men and women of conscience across this nation cannot and will not comply with the forced funding of abortion and its intentional violation of religious liberties."
Source: Illinois Review
