May 3, 2013

Plan B and the Demise of Parental Rights

However, our government has attempted to undermine parental rights and distance parents as much as possible from important decisions affecting their children. This is happening despite the fact that the Supreme Court has long upheld the highest standards of protection for the rights of parents to educate and bring up their children without interference. The latest blow to the traditional family structure has been leveled by “reproductive rights” groups, a federal judge, and the FDA – all of which support the availability of a high dose hormonal contraceptive over the counter to young girls without a prescription.

In 2011, Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied a recommendation by the FDA that would have allowed over the counter access to Plan B, a high dose “emergency contraceptive,” for young girls. Both she and President Obama stated that the FDA did not present enough evidence to show that this hormone would be safe for girls.

In fact, there have been no studies on the effects of Plan B on teens. All safety studies have been done on adults and assume proper use. There is no reason to believe that young girls understand that this contraceptive should only be used once a month and that it is not meant to replace oral contraceptives.

Yet a federal judge, Edward Korman of the Eastern District of New York, unilaterally disposed of those concerns when he handed down a ruling last month requiring the FDA to provide over-the-counter access of Plan B to all girls of reproductive age without a prescription. Family Research Council authored a letter to Sebelius asking her to appeal this decision, and thankfully, the Department of Justice has decided to appeal the judge’s decision. In the midst of this controversy, however, the FDA issued an approval of over the counter access to Plan B to teens as young as 15 (the previous age limit was 17).

This decision is particularly disturbing because it allows Plan B to be sold on store shelves, not behind a pharmacy counter. Thus, the only thing standing in the way of a girl purchasing this product is the local drug store cashier, who supposedly is required to check the purchaser’s ID before selling the product. There is no indication that Sec. Sebelius will overturn this new FDA decision. In fact, President Obama, in an about face from his previous support of keeping Plan B off retail store shelves, came out in support of the FDA’s new decision.

This decision is troubling, to say the least. It will only serve to distance young girls most at risk for sexual abuse and sexually transmitted infections from medical care and parental guidance. The decision to exclude parents and doctors from dealing with the sexual behavior of underage girls and the administration of a serious drug is irresponsible and dangerous.

Parents have every right to be informed and to consent to any decision affecting their child’s health, education, or upbringing. It is important to encourage parent-teen communication regarding the moral and medical issues associated with pre-marital sexual activity, as the consequences of such activity are weighty.

Teenagers under the age of 17 cannot even be admitted to an R–rated movie and schools are required to obtain a parent’s permission to administer any type of medication to a child or teen, for good reason. The new Plan B decisions, made without regard to parental or medical concern, will only serve to endanger the health and safety of children. Parents should remain vigilant as this debate continues.

Planned Parenthood's Chicago gala features national, state abortion advocates

CHICAGO - Thursday evening, Planned Parenthood Illinois held a fundraising gala at Chicago's Navy Pier, and featured National Chairman Cecile Richards, contraception advocate Sandra Fluke. Others notables included event co-host State Senator Heather Steans and special guest, Attorney General Lisa Madigan.

Last week, President Barack Obama became the first president to keynote a Planned Parenthood national convention. Cecile Richards (pictured third from left) joined Planned Parenthood in 2006, and has expanded the organization’s advocacy power while pulling over 33 million online visits annually to its website. Richard's frequently comments on women’s rights, reproductive health, and sex education. She is a contributor to the Huffington Post and serves on the board of the Ford Foundation.

Sandra Fluke (right) was at first rejected for testimony before Congress in 2012, but at the special invitation of U.S. House Minority Speaker Nancy Pelosi, she shared the need for Obamacare to provide taxpayer-funded contraception. She became a media sensation, and has tapped into her popularity to expand her political influence.

The Generations Gala was co-hosted by Illinois Senator Heather Steans (far left), and attended by Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan (Second from the left). Both Steans and Madigan have been committed to abortion rights during their political careers.

Outside the event, 30 picketers from Pro-Life Action League informed gala attendees about the atrocities of abortion and abortion's link to Planned Parenthood's mission.

 

 

April 19, 2013

Professors: Pro-life students “appear to have a lot in common with those who supported lynching”



Idealistic young men and women at the University at Buffalo may have dedicated their lives to protecting the unborn, but according to some of their professors, they are similar to Americans "who supported lynching."

Six history professors swiftly condemned the campus chapter of Students For Life after a university-approved display stirred controversy.

UB SFL hosted signs erected by the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP), which placed the deaths of 55 American million babies by abortion in the context of atrocities carried out against six million Jewish Holocaust victims and 3,446 blacks lynched in the American South. Organizers placed images of all three events side-by-side.

"[A]s historians, we feel it is imperative to speak out against this crass, uninformed, and dangerous misuse of history," the professors wrote in a letter to the campus newspaper, The Spectrum, on Tuesday.

The letter likened the display to marauding lynch mobs that hanged black men for raping white women, alleging SFL members shared views prevalent in the Reconstruction and Post-Reconstruction South.

"The inability to see women as capable of making decisions about their own sexuality. The use of violent, inaccurate, and misleading imagery. The pretense of protection. Anti-abortion protesters appear to have a lot in common with those who supported lynching," they wrote.

"If students wish to learn more about the history of racial and sexual violence, including lynching, we welcome them to take any of our classes."

The signatories were:

Susan Cahn, Professor of History;
Carole Emberton, Assistant Professor of History;
Theresa Runstedtler, Assistant Professor of American Studies;
Lakisha Simmons, Assistant Professor of Global Gender Studies;
Victoria Wolcott, Professor of History; and
Jason Young, Associate Professor of History.
"As a student in the history department and president of the pro-life club on campus, not only am I ashamed and appalled that my professors twisted our message to suit their point of view, but I am offended due to their false characterization of our argument," responded chapter President Christian Andzel. "We were citing the history of oppression and voicelessness of the victims who deserved human rights and justice."

The national organization has said the conduct is irresponsible and unprofessional.

"This is not the kind of example professors from a public university, funded with our tax money, should be setting for our students," said Students for Life of America President Kristan Hawkins. "We stand with UB Students for Life for courageously fighting to bring the truth of abortion to a liberal campus, despite attempts to shout them down, cover the display, and personally attack group leaders like President Christian Andzel."

The letter to the editor was not the only act of opposition from a UB faculty member. Laura Curry, a professor of media studies, cursed at the students – and then at her arresting officers – claiming the display was more profane than her repeated use of the f-word.

"UB SFL is the pro-life generation and they are already showing they know how to behave like better adults than the ones opposing them," Hawkins said.

Labeling the pro-life movement as a "hate group" is an increasingly common tactic on campus and in society. This month, Johns Hopkins University reluctantly approved the petition of Voice for Life after a member of the student government likened the pro-life movement to an alleged "hate group," the White Student Union at Towson University.

Hawkins said the University at Buffalo, a part of the State University of New York, has had a troubling history of disregarding the First Amendment rights of its conservative students.

Its application process took longer and faced more hurdles than the norm. According to SFL, the Student Association Vice President admitted that, in SFL's words, "the Student Government (SGA) was simply waiting for the club to die out," by refusing to process their application, not returning e-mails, and not keeping appointments with officers.

In May 2011, three waves of vandalism hit the club's "cemetery of the innocents," uprooting 330 crosses. "We wanted a statement condemning it. We didn't expect that [Unversity at Buffalo president Satish Tripathi] wouldn't even take our phone call," said Sara Buttitta, then-president of UB Students for Life.

Tripathi stated she wanted to find out who was responsible for the successive actions before condemning them. No action was taken.

Last December the UB chapter of Amnesty International refused pro-life students the opportunity to participate in its annual Human Rights Day Celebration because of SFL's views on abortion. Campus leaders said they wanted to participate to show their support for prisoners of conscience.

"This campus is clearly intolerant of the pro-life position and incapable of having a discussion on the morality of abortion," Hawkins said. "Sadly, we have seen an increase in this type of behavior nationwide this year where abortion advocates have become desperate, refusing to address any issues of abortion but personally attacking the students forcing the discussion."

Contact:

Office of the President, Satish K. Tripathi

501 Capen Hall
University at Buffalo
Buffalo, NY 14260

Phone: 716-645-2901
Fax: 716-645-3728
E-mail: president@buffalo.edu
Web: www.buffalo.edu/president

Source: LifeSiteNews

Former head of pro-abortion group pleads guilty to soliciting sex with 12-year-old



The former executive director of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA) has pleaded guilty to charges of soliciting sex with a 12-year-old.

Scott Richard Swirling was charged earlier this year after he engaged in online conversations with a man who claimed to be offering his 12-year-old daughter for sex. In fact, Swirling was speaking with an undercover D.C. police officer.

During conversations with the man, Swirling had expressed concerns about a possible police sting, and had asked for a photograph of the girl with the date on it. When he received a photo of his purported victim, he replied, "You are definitely a cutie."

When he arrived at the arranged meeting place, however, he was arrested.

Swirling was charged with travelling across state lines to engage in illicit sexual conduct. He reportedly reached a plea deal. The terms of that deal have not been released.

After Swirling's arrest, Lila Rose, the president of the pro-life group Live Action, had said that Swirlings actions point to the connection between abortion and the exploitation of minors.

Rose's group has conducted several undercover sting operations in which they found that abortion workers were willing to arrange illegal abortions to cover up sexual crimes.

"The National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA), Planned Parenthood, and other pro-abortion organizations have demonstrated their complicity with child sexual abuse and should be investigated, not funded by hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars," said Rose. "Live Action calls for investigative action and the immediate and total removal of government funds from all abortion industry initiatives."

Swirling had served as the head of the NFPRHA for 10 years, from 1981 to 1991. He has also served as head of the American School Counselor Association, and in recent years has been running a construction-management business.

Source: LifeSiteNews

Post-abortion mom: ‘I wish abortion was illegal! I would be with my child’



The young woman sat inside her friend's dorm room, cramping and bleeding on the toilet. It was early 2008, the eve of her nineteenth birthday. The clinic worker had given her a pill to take orally and a few others to place inside herself internally. She knew that in a few more hours it would all be over. She would be over this inconvenience. She would have her life back.

She had convinced herself again that this was the best thing to do.

But Hannah Smith (named changed) could not ignore the irony of the timing. Why was it that on the day she should have been celebrating her own birth, she was deliberately making sure that the new life inside of her would never have a birthday to celebrate? How did things come to this? Hannah replayed the events in her mind's eye.

The young woman had recently started her freshman year at an out-of-state university. Her parents, who were footing the bill, had big expectations for her. Hannah had been raised Catholic, but had traded in what she considered to be outdated and restrictive religious values for the glamorous goods and pleasures offered by the world.

It was during a Christmas break visit at home that things really became complicated. Hannah's mom, who had been playing matchmaker in her absence, introduced her to the son of a close friend. But they got carried away way too fast. The young couple partied hard and ended up having sex a few times. Hannah had thought at the time that she was invincible and that nothing could get in the way of her life's plan.

But then she discovered she was pregnant.

She didn't dare tell her mother, who she was sure would make her keep the baby. If this happened, then her life as she knew it would be over. Her boyfriend made it evident that he no longer wanted anything to do with her or their baby. He had given Hannah $350 and told her to go and get an abortion.

Abandoned, alone, and scared, Hannah couldn't imagine life as a single mother. So here she was on her nineteenth birthday, sitting on the toilet in her friend's dorm room, aborting her baby.

Living to forget

A few years went by. Hannah was now married and pregnant with her first child from that marriage. She had tried to live as if the abortion had never happened. Her plan was to forget that chapter of her life for the rest of her life. She had even kept the secret of her abortion from her husband.

Then, one day, her repressed abortion experience suddenly rose up like a specter from the past, confronting her head-on.

Hannah had been reading about a near death experience of a man in which he saw himself on the verge of being cast into hell for choosing to love and serve himself instead of those who had been placed in his life by God.

Suddenly the pregnant mother found herself breaking down and wailing uncontrollably. Her husband asked what was wrong. Hannah told him that she did not want to end up in hell because of her choices. She now saw clearly that she was responsible for the death of her baby and would one day face judgment for her choice.

Hannah also read around this time the near death experience of Dr. Gloria Polo, the Columbian orthodontist who was struck by lightning and found herself to be deserving of hell for aborting one baby and unintentionally ending the lives of many other babies through her use of toxic contraceptives.

In Dr. Polo's testimony, Hannah read that abortion is the "worst of all sin" because it is "to kill your own children, to kill a baby." She read that at the moment when a new life is created, it's as if a beautiful spark of light sent from God explodes in the womb of the new mother. For the first time, she saw the conception of her first child as a beautiful event full of light and full of spirit.

She realized that she had been too selfish and too self-absorbed to allow such beauty to enter her life. She now plainly saw her choice to abort as nothing but a selfish, cowardly act. She realized that she had ended the life of a new, unrepeatable, beautiful person who she would have grown to love and who would have in time returned that love to her.

Finding peace after abortion

Hannah, now 24, believes that sorrow and loss do not have the final word over her abortion experience. Despite frequently shedding tears over her loss and grief, she believes in her heart that her aborted baby is with God in heaven. And she hopes to be there one day with her child, where God "will wipe away every tear from their eyes," as the Bible says (Revelations 21.4).

Hannah, who submitted her testimony to LifeSiteNews, said in an interview that looking back she can see what put her on the path to choosing abortion.

"All of my friends were not religious and didn't have the morals I was raised with, so I wanted to fit in with my friends and if that meant doing things that I was taught not to do, then so be it. Also with so much sexualization in the media, it was thought that being sexually active was 'cool,' especially in a college setting."

"I felt the pressure of society and became the selfish self proclaimed woman that society had wanted me to be," she said.

As a mother of two, Hannah says she now understands the reasons behind her Christian up-bringing that would have her honor and respect all human life and save sex for marriage.

"Now that I am a little bit older and have a family of my own, I understand why my parents and my faith taught me those things. Now I know it is important to be a better person and display this to be a good role model for my children."

Hannah has come to deeply regret her 'choice'. She wishes that ending her baby's life had never been a legal option for her.

"I know I wouldn't have made that choice if it were not so accessible to me. I would have dealt with my consequences as I should have," she said. "I wish abortion was never legal, and I never would have had that choice, because I would be with my child, and my life would not be so full of pain and regret."

Hannah pointed out that if the right to life guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence were cherished and lived by all Americans, then abortion would not be tolerated. She has come to see 'choice' as an ugly euphemism for 'murder'.

"Abortion is the greatest evil of our time, and we have brushed it off as if it is a woman's choice. If I could do time in prison for the murder I committed, I would. It shouldn't be a choice," she said.

A gift to your baby

Hannah hopes that her testimony might spare other young women from making her mistake.

"Please, do not take the life of your child. Keep hope, and keep your head up high. You can still accomplish your goals even with a child, or you could always give the child up for adoption to a loving couple who are in need of a loving child," she said.

"Don't rob that child of its life because you are scared or because you think your life will be over. If you keep the child, that child will bring you so much happiness and love like you never imagined possible. I know because I have two loving children now who have given my life so much meaning."

"Don't do it because you will regret it so much later in your life, especially when you do have children of your own. You will know what you missed out on. It is very painful and very hard to forgive yourself after abortion. You must look at how beautiful your life is, and how if your mother would have chosen abortion, you would have never experienced it."

"Please give your child this gift. Please choose life."

Healing is available for post-abortive women experiencing depression or feelings of unworthiness, feeling guilt, anger, shame or sorrow in relation to your abortion, using drugs or alcohol in order to cope, having abortion related nightmares, dreams or flashbacks. Visit:

Rachel's Vineyard
www.rachelsvineyard.org
(610) 354-0555

Abortion Recovery International
www.abortionrecoveryinternational.org
(866) 469-7326

Silent No More Awareness Campaign
www.silentnomoreawareness.org
(888) 735-3448

Project Rachel
www.hopeafterabortion.com
888-456-4673

Source: LifeSiteNews

Two babies with handicaps, two different fates



On March 26, Live Action published an article on how women who are told that their children will be disabled are often pressured to abort.

Marie Ideson found out firsthand how great this pressure can be when she found herself 16 weeks pregnant with a baby who had Down syndrome. Ideson, who was 46, had been told that amniocentesis was a routine part of prenatal care. Although she had not expressed the desire to abort a handicapped baby, she underwent the procedure, and doctors told her that the baby would have Down syndrome.

According to Ideson, she originally wanted to keep her baby. She recounts hearing the news that her baby would be handicapped:

A woman said, "I'm sorry to say your baby has Down." It was devastating. My first thought was, how will we cope?

I told Allan [her husband] I wanted to keep the baby and he agreed.

But Ideson was about to experience intense pressure to abort. She had hoped that the doctor she was seeing would support the decision to keep the baby. Instead:

… doctors said she could be born needing emergency heart surgery and have bowel and muscle tone problems - and that was if she survived. At no time did anyone suggest we might keep our baby. A termination was presented as the only way forward.

A nurse said not aborting my baby would cause it to suffer, and she'd only become a burden on society if I went ahead. She even said, "99 per cent of women in your situation wouldn't want the baby." Having it would be a burden on our other children, too, she said, especially if it was likely to need many operations throughout its life.

Our children were at the hospital with us. I looked at them and thought the medical staff must be right.

Ideson was not told that 99% of adults with Down syndrome report being happy with their lives. Seventy-nine percent of parents who have their babies with Down syndrome consider "their outlook in life to be more positive" because of their children, and 97% of siblings of children with Down syndrome who are 12 and older express feelings of pride for their brother or sister, while 88% of these siblings believe that they are better people because of their relationship with their brothers or sisters.

Instead, Ideson was faced with negativity. She gave in to pressure to abort. She swallowed the tablet that would kill her child:

I felt numb as I swallowed the tablet. I remember saying to Allan, "I just want to keep my baby." But he just kept saying, "But they must think the baby's really bad, Marie - it's for the best."

It wasn't until Ideson delivered her stillborn baby girl that she was faced with the horror of what she had done:

She was so small, but otherwise perfect. I started sobbing uncontrollably. What had I done? I realized I'd been bullied into taking that first pill. I felt overwhelmed by anger. I should've been sent home to think about all the options. It should've been pointed out that having my baby was an option and that, with medical advances, most Down babies go on to live happy lives.

Ideson named her child Lillie and mourned deeply for her. She said:

I was bullied into going ahead with an abortion…I only wish I could turn back the clock. I think of the daughter I never had every day. I'll always regret it.

Ideson came to resent her husband for encouraging her to abort, and the abortion eventually tore apart their marriage.

I knew he was devastated, too, but I was angry he'd allowed staff to rush me into getting rid of her. The feeling he didn't support me when I needed him most festered between us.

The final straw came when I was in labor with Reuben [her next baby]. We were at home and the midwives wanted me to go to the hospital, but I told them I couldn't go back to where I'd terminated Lillie. Allan tried to persuade me to go and, in the end, I had no choice. I felt, again, Allan hadn't spoken up for me when I was at my most vulnerable. I couldn't find it in my heart to forgive him.

The marriage did not survive. Ideson went on to say:

My eldest sons are 25 now. When I was pregnant with them, I knew of women who had babies with Down syndrome. Today, I never see mums with Down babies. I can't believe that everyone who finds out their baby has Down syndrome willingly chooses to abort it. I can't help feeling that other women must be having abortions they don't want.

When radio show host Dr. Laura took a call from a woman who had aborted her child after finding out that the child would be handicapped, a number of parents of disabled children wrote letters in protest. One letter that was read on the air said the following:

Dear Dr. Laura,

… I had to respond to a call I heard today that was from a woman who justified killing her 20 week old fetus because they found out that the baby had down syndrome. She felt it was more humane to kill her child than to allow the child to experience life with Down Syndrome.

I am sad she feels that way. I have a 10 year old daughter who has a severe seizure disorder that causes her to have between 8-10 terrible seizures every month. She also has gross and fine motor delays, mild mental retardation, speech delays and low muscle tone throughout her body.

I admit it is a lot of work to take care of and raise my daughter, but when I look at her do I see a sad, depressed child who wished she were never born? No way! I see a beautiful, brave, happy, strong, wonderful child who brings happiness to every life she touches. I see a courageous child who wants to learn as much as she can and sees the world in such a wonderful and peaceful light. She is not concerned with the problems of the world, the worries of the day, the way her hair looks or the way she's dressed. She isn't counting her friends or what she has or doesn't have. She is busy making the people around her laugh. Looking forward to seeing her grandpa and spending their special time together on Friday. Feeling proud that she is learning to stand on 1 foot and the progress she is making! So much innocence in the way she sees the world. I wish I could be more like her.

I gave her the right to life, but she has given so much more to me! She has taught me how to be strong, how to laugh, how to stand up for her rights! How to teach other children acceptance! How to celebrate the smallest of successes! How to reach out to others who learn and grow differently than myself. She has given me more than I can write in just one letter.

How sad for that lady that she will never have what I have. The chance to hug and love one of God's most precious children! The chance to mold and guide one of God's special angels. I am fortunate to have ALL my children in my life. But I feel especially blessed and honored that God entrusted ME with one of his most delicate and precious creations! In return, I promise to do my best to give her the best and happiest life that I possibly can, as long as I am lucky to have her in my life! Keep up the great work!

Susan C.
California

Every life has value. Every child can be a blessing despite his or her handicap. Parents who have handicapped children seldom wish that they aborted. The late C. Everett Koop, former U.S. Surgeon General, was a leading pediatric surgeon specializing in correcting birth defects. He opposed abortion for handicapped children and was quoted saying:

Yet, I have a sense of satisfaction in my career, best indicated perhaps by the fact that no family has ever come to me and said: "Why did you work so hard to save the life of my child?" And no grown child has ever come back ask me why, either. (1)

According to pro-life activist John Willke, there has never been an organization for the parents of handicapped children that endorsed abortion. (2)

No one will ever argue that life with a handicapped child is easy. But parents who give in to the pressure to abort miss out on the joy of seeing their children live and grow. The baby is robbed of her chance at life, and the parents are robbed of the gift of knowing and loving their child.

1.Ronald Reagan "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation" (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 1984) P. 55 Quoted in John Ankerberg and John Weldon "When Does Life Begin? And 39 Other Tough Questions About Abortion" (Brentwood TN: Wolgemuth and Hyatt Publishers, 1989)

2.John Willke, Abortion Questions and Answers (Cincinnati, Ohio: Hayes publishing Company, 1988) 211

Sarah Terzo is a pro-life author and creator of the clinicquotes.com website. She is a member of Secular Pro-Life and Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians.

Editor's note. This appeared at liveactionnews.org

Contact: Sarah Terzo
Source: National Right to Life

Legal Abortion - "Safety" was NEVER the Goal



A couple weeks ago, I published a blog post discussing the reality of back-alley abortions 40 years after the legalization of abortion. The fact that abortion "clinics" are allowed to operate virtually unregulated in most states (either as a result of a lack of regulations or lack of enforcement) puts the health and lives of Americans in danger. In light of their demands that abortion be legalized for safety reasons, it is the ultimate form of hypocrisy that abortion advocates refuse to support regulations that would make facilities safer for women.

The Gosnell trial highlights one such horrific instance of a supposed "medical" facility allowed to operate unencumbered by regulation or inspection from 1993 until 2010 when a Federal drug raid revealed far more than prescription drug misuse. Planned Parenthood and others claim this is an isolated incident and that abortion facilities are safe for women. Absent the ability or will to inspect and maintain records on these facilities, how do they know enough to make any statement on the safety of abortion clinics? The fact is that there have been many instances of abortion facilities being reported for unsafe and unsanitary conditions.

Just last week, the Planned Parenthood in Wilmington, Delaware was forced to close its doors when two of its employees reported the facility for violating health and safety standards. As LifeNews.com reported, "Jayne Mitchell-Werbrich and Joyce Vasikonis told WPVI-TV of a 'meat-market style of assembly-line abortions where the abortionist refused to wear gloves, surgical instruments were reused without being cleaned, and bloody drainage remained on abortion tables between procedures, exposing women to blood-borne diseases.' 'It was just unsafe. I can't tell you how ridiculously unsafe it was,' said Mitchell-Werbrich."

In his Wall Street Journal op-ed, James Taranto notes that, "Safety is one of the most potent defenses of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that imposed a national policy of abortion on demand." Yet, abortion clinics remain vastly unregulated and unsafe. In Pennsylvania, Gosnell was allowed to operate his "house of horrors" with impunity thanks to irresponsible and unjustifiable policies put in place by former Governor Tom Ridge. As Taranto noted, the grand jury report in the Gosnell case revealed that "Ridge administration officials concluded that inspections would be 'putting a barrier up to women' seeking abortions. Better to leave clinics to do as they pleased.'" This refusal by government officials to protect their own citizens is inexcusable and should be properly investigated. Imposing health and safety restrictions on any medical procedure hardly poses a "barrier" to medical care.

Taranto goes on to call the argument that Roe v. Wade made abortion safe for women, a "cruel hoax." It is at the very least a hoax. At the heart of the issue, however, is that the Roe v. Wade "safety" argument served simply an excuse to perpetrate mass killing of "unwanted" or "undesirable" children merely for the sake of selfish convenience. It is time to admit how unsafe abortion really is, to confront the inherent wrongness of Roe, and stop all procedures intended to kill children.

Contact: Anna Higgins
Source: FRCBlog

Death Doc Kermit Gosnell's silent co-conspirators



Planned Parenthood now says it's "appalled" by the Philadelphia house of horrors run by accused serial baby-killer and pregnant-mom murderer Dr. Kermit Gosnell. Bull.

The appalling inaction of the nation's largest abortion provider, along with countless other clinics and "pro-choice" groups in the know, speaks far louder than their belatedly self-serving words.

The criminal trial of Gosnell is entering week six. The death doctor faces seven counts of first-degree murder for severing the spinal cords of babies born alive during abortions. That's in addition to one count of third-degree murder in the death of Karnamaya Mongar, a 41-year-old Bhutanese refugee who died of a monstrously negligent drug overdose at Gosnell's "Women's Medical Society" clinic. Her family has brought a separate civil suit against Gosnell.

Conservative and pro-life journalists have covered the gruesome case since Gosnell's arrest more than two years ago. Through social media, last week faithful chroniclers of this evil killing spree finally forced national outlets to acknowledge their selective attention to mass murder. While mainstream journalists flogged partisan story lines about the GOP's "war on women," turned birth-control crusader Sandra Fluke into the nation's Florence Nightingale, and splashed the photos of Sandy Hook children all over their front pages, the mostly poor and minority women and babies victimized by Gosnell went ignored.

The liberal Atlantic Magazine admitted last week: It "should be a front-page story." After a relentless Twitter campaign by pro-lifers, The New York Times grudgingly sent a reporter to the trial. But this is so much more than a media malpractice story. It's the nightmarish consequence of medical and ideological malpractice.

As I first noted in my column and on my blog when the scissors-wielding sadist was arrested in January 2011, the murders committed under the banner of "choice" were ignored for four decades by abortion advocates. The Philadelphia grand jury report, now amplified by trial testimony, outlined the systematic execution of hundreds of healthy, living, breathing, squirming viable babies. The panel concluded that the "vast majority of the babies he aborted" were more than 24 weeks old.

Gosnell joked that one murdered baby was so big, the child "could walk around with me."

On Wednesday, clinic worker Kareema Cross said she witnessed between 10 and 15 babies breathing after being delivered by patients who had received labor-inducing drugs. After their spinal cords were cut, Cross recalled babies still moaning and moving after being stuffed in shoeboxes. Their skulls would be crushed after delivery. Their feet and other body parts ended up in row upon row of specimen jars on display in Gosnell's filthy facility.

Gosnell's silent co-conspirators include the abortion clinics in Virginia and Washington, DC, that referred Mongar and her family, who spoke no English, to his clinic because of its widespread reputation for doing abortions "regardless of gestational age." They also include the left-wing religious and immigrant community activists who "assist" refugees by hooking them up with government-funded "affordable reproductive health services," a.k.a. abortion mills.

Patients were "treated" by unlicensed incompetents, including a young girl groomed from her teenage years. The late-term mothers' wombs and bowels were perforated with infected instruments. Government inspectors "literally licensed Gosnell's criminally dangerous behavior," the Philly grand jury found. The Pennsylvania Department of State was "repeatedly confronted with evidence about Gosnell" -- including the clinic's unclean, unsterile conditions, unlicensed workers, unsupervised sedation, underage abortion patients and over-prescribing of pain pills with high resale value on the street -- "and repeatedly chose to do nothing."

As I noted in 2011, nearby hospital officials who treated some of the pregnant mothers who suffered grave complications from Gosnell's butchery did nothing. And an inspector for the National Abortion Federation, the leading association of abortion providers that is supposed to uphold strict health and legal standards, determined that Gosnell's chamber of horrors was "the worst abortion clinic she had ever inspected" -- but did nothing.

Gosnell's enablers have concocted all sorts of excuses for themselves. The billion-dollar abortion racket says "lack of funding" and "access" to "health care" is the real problem. But expanding "access" is exactly how Gosnell got away with murder after bloody murder. As the grand jury revealed, pro-choice bureaucrats in liberal GOP Gov. Tom Ridge's administration concluded that increased inspections "would be 'putting a barrier up to women' seeking abortions. Better to leave clinics to do as they pleased, even though, as Gosnell proved, that meant both women and babies would pay."

Gosnell's enablers also claim that his case is a grisly exception. But I repeat: Deadly indifference to protecting life isn't tangential to the abortion industry's existence -- it's at the core of it. In the past few years alone, Dr. Andrew Rutland of California and Dr. Steven Brigham in Maryland had their medical licenses revoked after their late-term abortion mills were exposed. Like Gosnell, Rutland killed an Asian woman after administering a drug overdose during a late-term abortion procedure. Like Gosnell, Brigham stored the bodies of late-term fetuses in freezers.

Just this week, the state of Delaware announced an investigation of several Planned Parenthood clinics after botched abortions and the resignations of two registered nurses who witnessed malpractice. Surgical abortions have been halted at one of the facilities. "What I believe should happen is that Planned Parenthood should no longer be self-regulated," Joyce Vasikonis told The News Journal.

Even as it disavows Gosnell's "criminal enterprise," Planned Parenthood's lobbyist in Florida officially testified three weeks ago that the group believes the decision to save a baby born alive after a botched abortion "should be left up to the woman, her family and the physician."

The sanctity of "privacy" and "choice" trumps the sanctity of life, you see. It's how all abortion profiteers get away with murder.

Source: OneNewsNow

April 12, 2013

5 Reasons behind the Abortion Industry Push for Chemical Abortions




Editor's note. The following is the summary of some of the most important factors that explain the abortion industry's push for chemical abortions in America and around the world.

When RU-486, the abortion pill, was approved for sale in America in September of 2000, this two-drug chemical abortion technique didn't simply appear out of the blue.  It was the result of the years of planning, research, and market analysis by the abortion industry, the culmination of a long term strategy put in place decades earlier.  Today, that strategy is  playing out in clinics all across America and around the world.

So what was it the abortion industry saw? And what did they hope to accomplish by adding chemical abortifacients to their already deadly arsenal?  Here are five reasons behind the abortion industry's push of the abortion pill and an indication of how far they've gotten in fulfilling their awful aims:

Reason 1. The Need for an Abortion Makeover

Those working every day aborting women knew that whatever ignorance existed about surgical abortion in the early days after abortion's legalization, it quickly began to die off once women experienced the pain, the indignity, the intimidating reality of surgical abortion.

Not surprisingly, therefore, the fact that chemical abortions were not surgical abortions was one of the major selling points in the press release the abortion pill's sponsor put out announcing the beginning of trials in 1994.  Calling use mifepristone "safe," telling women it was like a "natural miscarriage," the Population Council assured people that "medication abortion avoids a surgical procedure," specifically claiming, "There are no risks of anesthesia or uterine perforation or cervical canal injury, rare complications of surgical abortion" (Population Council release, 10/27/94).

That the pill did not live up to the hype, that it took longer, was indeed bloodier, more painful, and far more dangerous than women had been led to believe, was of little consequence to the abortion industry, which was able to market the "new and improved" product to a new, though  largely misinformed customer base.

Reason 2. Seeing Earlier Babies as Easier Targets

In October of 1989, Harrison Hickman, a pollster for what was then called the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), told attendees at NARAL's 20th anniversary conference

"Probably nothing has been as damaging to our cause as the advances in technology which have allowed pictures of the developing fetus, because people now talk about the fetus in much different terms than they did 15 years ago.  They talk about it as a human being, which is not something I have an easy answer on how to cure."

Early promoters of the abortion pill, like Lawrence Lader, explicitly linked the push for the abortion pill with efforts to shift the argument to earlier stages of fetal development in his 1991 book, RU-486.

"… RU-486 works at such an early stage that moderate opponents of abortion might be persuaded to reexamine their objections in light of the drug's biological significance."

Lader goes on to argue, falsely, that the aborting woman encounters "no sign of personhood," quoting a doctor who researched the pill saying that, at this stage of fetal development, "You can't even find it."

Yet women who've had these abortions report seeing not "blobs of tissue," but fetuses with "tiny fists" (Newsweek, 9/18/95), "two dark spots like eyes and a little skeleton not quite formed" (Health, Jan-Feb, 1995). The New York Times talked to women who took the abortion pill who warned women  who did not want know when the embryo came out that they would not like the procedure.  "With this method, you are aware of everything that is happening," one women told the Times (NY Times, 10/28/94).

Unless they have done their own research, or found more comprehensive material from reputable pro-life sources, women are not likely to hear about this until maybe after they've paid their money and actually encountered their aborted child.

Reason 3. Finding New Allies, Expanding to New Areas

Though they imagine themselves as heroes, at their more candid moments, abortionists acknowledge their doubts and admit that they are not well respected in the medical profession.  Colorado Abortionist Warren Hearn told the New York Times in 1990 that abortionists "are treated as a pariah by the medical community… At best, we are tolerated" (NY Times, 1/8/90).

Despite the new packaging and the promise of easy money with chemical abortions, doctors continue to resist.  Some for moral reasons, others for practical ones.  But one of the explicit aims of those who pushed to bring RU-486 to America was to recruit new allies, to make doctors feel like they were somehow less direct agents of the killing, to make abortion something that could be more cheaply and discreetly added to a doctor's practice.

Though phrased in terms of "increased access," the clear aim is to increase the numbers of doctors and locations offering abortion.  Promoters of methotrexate and misoprostol–an alternative chemical abortion regimen uses as a stop gap before RU-486 and misoprostol obtained FDA approval in 2000–said it more directly:

"Perhaps the greatest advantage of medical abortion is that it can take abortion out of the clinics and distribute it among many physicians' offices,  particularly in many areas of our country that do not have abortion services."

Eleanor Smeal, head of the Fund for the Feminist Majority, a major fundraiser for U.S. trials of RU-486, told the San Francisco Examiner, "More doctors will be willing to write a prescription… It's easy to administer, and they don't have to do an invasive procedure" (SF Examiner 8/3/94).

Despite initial expressions of interest, however, once government approval came, few doctors ordered and offered the pills when they found out what was involved.  Costs of the pills ($90 a pill for the recommended three pill dose of RU-486) were an issue, as were the three expected visits over a two week period.  Few wanted to be responsible for answering the phone should a woman call in the middle of the night with an emergency.

Some of these were addressed by the abortion industry which pushed an alternative off label protocol (see Reason 4 below).

But where growth took off was not so much at the offices of private practice Ob-Gyns, general practitioners, or pediatricians, but at smaller "family planning" clinics which previously were neither equipped nor staffed to offer surgical abortion.

For example, by 2010, Planned Parenthood, the nation's biggest abortion chain, had added chemical abortion to more than a third of its clinics, including 122 which offered only chemical and not surgical.

Planned Parenthood giant Midwest affiliate, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, took the expansion to its horrible, but logical extreme. PP of the Heartland offered "web-cam" abortions at sixteen of its smaller, often rural Iowa affiliates.

Women teleconference with an abortionist back in Des Moines via the internet, who looks at the woman's records and conducts an "interview."  If satisfied, he clicks his mouse, triggering the release of a drawer at the woman's location, in which the abortion drugs are found.  She is never actually physically examined by the doctor and simply calls a hotline – or maybe travels miles to the closest ER – if she has problems.

It is a situation fraught with risk, but others in the industry have expressed interest in trying something similar with their own affiliate networks.

So while the medical profession hasn't welcomed chemical abortion with open arms, the new product has enabled the abortion industry to expand its reach into many new communities.

Reason 4: Increase Income

For all the talk about "choice" and women's health care, never forget that those who are peddling these abortion pills are operating a business. It is a fact that explains why a business that was losing customers was anxious to come up with a new product; it explains why they have promoted a different protocol than the one approved by the FDA; and it explains why they are pushing web-cam abortions.

After abortions peaked in the U.S. in 1990 with 1.6 million, the number has dropped as low as 1.2 million.  Abortion rates among younger customers had been in decline for some time and women were being more and more turned off by surgical abortion.  Prices for abortions had not kept up with inflation and more and more doctors were getting out of the business.

A "new and improved" product  offered the industry a chance to attract new customers or win back older ones (somewhere around 45% of all abortions are repeat abortions) who were intimidated by the risks and indignities of surgical abortion or upset about aborting unborn babies medical technology was clearly showing them to be both human and alive.

The FDA approved protocol called for women no more than 49 days past their last menstrual period to receive three pills of RU-486 after being screened and being counseled about the process (which they take there in the doctor's office) which is to shut down the baby's support system and cause the child's demise.  Under the protocol, the woman is to return to the doctor two days later to receive two pills of misoprostol, taken by mouth, to stimulate powerful uterine contractions to expel the tiny corpse.   She is to return on day 14 to confirm whether or not her abortion is complete.

It was under this protocol that the FDA declared the drug "safe" and "effective."

There were several things the industry did not like about this protocol, however, and it was arguing for alternate protocols even before the FDA gave final marketing approval.

RU-486 (or mifepristone) is a complex drug to manufacture and is imported from China, so it is expensive, about $90 a pill.  With three of those pills running $270, the cost of three office visits, the personnel to screen and counsel the patients, this left a slim profit margin, if any.   And if priced significantly higher than the surgical method, they might have difficulty selling the new product.

In the name of increasing effectiveness and decreasing side effects, the industry offered several modifications to the protocol, modifications dubiously offering improvements in either safety or effectiveness, but clearly increasing the abortionist's profit margin and decreasing requirements for office time, space, or personnel.

The newly promoted protocol reduced the number of expensive mifepristone pills from three to one, but doubled the dose of the misoprostol, which ran only a dollar or so a pill.  The National Abortion Federation (NAF) protocol allowed the woman to take the prostaglandin (misoprostol) at home, rather than returning to the office, eliminating at least one office visit.  That industry protocol also extended the cutoff date by two weeks, from 49 days LMP to 63 days LMP, thereby opening the doors to a whole new group of customers.  Reports indicate that many are performed even past this limit.

Web-cam abortions present an even greater potential for revenues.  Rather than wasting time and gas traveling between multiple small clinic offices, an abortionist can sit at a computer at a central administrative office and, with the click of a mouse, dispense pills to different women in dozens of remote location around the state.  Any place with an Internet connection can be set up as an abortion clinic.

As a consequence of such changes, chemical abortions now account for 199,000 abortions a year, or at least 16.4% of all abortions performed in the U.S. (as of 2008).  How many of these women would have gotten surgical abortions had chemical ones not been available is unknown, but chemical abortion has certainly expanded the reach of the industry into whole new communities.

Reason 5: Taking Abortion to the Developing World

Though America was indeed a large market that the abortion industry wanted to tap into with chemical abortions, from the beginning the abortion pill's promoters had a much bigger plan in mind.  Early on, Etienne Emile Baulieu, the so-called "father of the abortion pill," talked about the need for something to deal with the "demographic" problem in the world.

Supporters were happy to see RU-486 sold in France, Britain, and China, but they knew that clearing the hurdle of American approval was the key to worldwide use.  A handful of European countries approved the pill in 1999, when it was on the cusp of approval in the U.S., but approvals in Africa and Asia came after that approval in 2000.  Today, RU-486 is approved for use in over 40 countries around the world.

Ominously enough, however, the spread of the concept may be more deadly than government approvals.  What promoters of these pills want most of all is for women to get the idea that there are drugs that they can buy and use to put an end to their pregnancies, whether their governments have approved the pills or not.

This is why there is a website, www.womenonweb.org, where women from countries where abortion is not legal can go, click "I need an abortion," go through a short cursory medical interview, promise not to hold the organization liable, and order abortion pills to be sent to their home with instructions.  There is no specific charge, but a minimal donation of 90 euros is requested (about $118).

Women with Internet access or a mobile phone can access and order from the website in twelve different languages.

Though cell phones today are found in some of the remotest sections of the planet, promoters of the abortion pill are not depending on their customers being technologically savvy or even literate.  Abortion and family planning groups are promoting a special prepackaged blister pack of RU-486 and prostaglandin developed by an Indian pharmaceutical firm and marketed as "Medabon."

What is remarkable about this packet is that it comes with step-by-step cartoon graphics illustrating not just how and when to take the pills, but also expected side effects.

Instead of the expensive RU-486 pills that may be harder to bring into some countries, several groups are promoting the use of the considerably cheaper prostaglandin (PG) misoprostol, which is normally used in the second step of a RU-486/PG abortion, as a stand alone abortifacient.

Because misoprostol has other non-abortifacient uses (e.g., as an anti-ulcer drug), it is much more widely approved and available around the world. Even where it cannot be officially prescribed for abortion, women can either get it on the black market or obtain a prescription for other purposes.

Groups like Women on Waves have set up hotlines where women in such countries can call and find out how to get it. Other groups like Gynuity are marketing "Instructions for Use: Abortion Induction with Misoprostol in Pregnancies up to 9 Weeks LMP," a pamphlet very similar in outline and structure to the official labels or lengthy package inserts that come with most medications.

If women are in a country where abortion is illegal, they are told not to worry about their abortion attempt being discovered.  If they have to go to the hospital, the Women on Waves website tells women "You could say that you think you had a miscarriage… it is not necessary to tell the medical staff that you tried to induce an abortion, you can also say you had a spontaneous miscarriage. The doctor CANNOT see the difference" (www.womenonwaves.org/en/page/702/how-to-do-an-abortion-with-pills-misoprostol-cytotec, accessed 4/10/13).

Whether their ultimate aim was more revenues or more abortions, there is no question that chemical abortion has opened up a whole new market in the U.S. and around the world.  Also, sadly, there is little doubt that, whatever the new sales pitch or packaging, the result will be the same: more dead babies, more mothers' lives in danger.

Source: National Right to Life

Kermit Gosnell Grand Jury Excerpts: “Gosnell and his staff tried to cover up what drugs were administered, who administered them, when, and how”




Today ends the fourth week of the murder trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell. In today's post we complete excerpts from the Grand Jury report that alleged horrific neglect on the part of Gosnell and his untrained staff resulting in the death of a 41-year old woman in 2009–and then tried to cover it up. The following comes from Section V which is titled, "The Death of Karnamaya Mongar."

Gosnell and his staff tried to cover up what drugs were administered, who administered them, when, and how.

The evidence indicates that Sherry West made false entries on Mrs. Mongar's file before handing it over to the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. Ashley Baldwin testified that the paramedics asked for Mrs. Mongar's file so they could take it with them.

Williams, West, and Gosnell all contradicted themselves and each other about how much medication Mrs. Mongar received, who gave it to her, when, and even how. The file notations indicated that Mrs. Mongar received 10 mg. Demerol, 0.6 cc (cubic centimeters) promethazine, and 1 cc. diazepam at 8:14 p.m., followed by another dose of 10 mg. Demerol, 0.6 cc promethazine, and 2 cc diazepam at 10:45 p.m. An entry made by West in the clinic logbook, however, indicated that Mrs. Mongar was given a much larger dose: 75 mg. Demerol, 12.5 mg. promethazine, and 10 mg. diazepam.

Lynda Williams was interviewed by law enforcement on the night of the February 2010 raid. At first, she told her interviewers that she did not put IVs in patients, that Gosnell administered the medication, and that she thought he gave a "heavy" dose (50 mg. Demerol, 12.5 mg. promethazine, and 5mg. diazepam). When pressed to tell the truth, Williams changed her story, admitting that she had administered the anesthesia. She insisted, however, that she had called Gosnell before administering 10 mg. Demerol and 12.5 mg. promethazine at 6:00 p.m., and an additional "custom" dose (75 mg. Demerol, 12.5 mg. promethazine, and 10 mg. diazepam) when the "local anesthesia" wore off. She said that she injected these medications into the patient's arm.

Dr. Herlich, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center anesthesiologist, testified that the first dose of Demerol described by Williams made no sense –that there is no such thing as a 10 mg. dose of Demerol. He further explained that a 10 mg. dose of Demerol, if it existed, "would be barely noticeable in terms of pain control" in the average adult. The dosage Williams claimed had been administered would not, in any case, have had the effect witnessed by Mrs. Mongar's daughter. She said that her mother had been in a lot of pain in the recovery room before the procedure, but that the medicine administered intravenously by Williams and West put her mother "to sleep."

It is notable that Williams's story was different from the one given by Gosnell when he was interviewed by Detective James Wood, the FBI, and the DEA on the night of the raid. According to Detective Woods's notes, Gosnell first told his interviewers that medication was given by "one of his nurses or by a medical assistant, he wasn't sure who …" –even though no nurses were employed in the clinic. He then said that during the "evening," before the procedure, "one of the nursing staff" administered an unspecified dose of Demerol and diazepam (not promethazine) intramuscularly (meaning an injection into a muscle rather than a vein – which would be intravenous). He said that he then administered a dose of Demerol intravenously when he did the abortion procedure.

He also told the DEA that he had performed a "successful and uneventful . .. suction and curette procedure"–even though Mrs. Mongar's 19-week-old fetus was found in the clinic's freezer completely intact. Gosnell's statements to law enforcement contradicted what he had earlier reported to the Department of Health shortly after Mrs. Mongar's death. On November 26, 2009, Gosnell wrote a letter to health department officials advising them of his patient's death.

At that time, he reported that Mrs. Mongar had been given two doses of sedation intravenously, each containing 50 mg. of Demerol and 5 mg. of diazepam. He did not say who had administered this mix of drugs, which he called "customary." All the evidence is to the contrary: This combination of drugs was nowhere listed on the clinic's medication chart, and every other staff member stated that the final dose given to every second trimester patient was 75 mg. Demerol, 12.5 mg. promethazine, and 10 mg. diazepam.

Kareema Cross explained to the Grand Jury why it was significant that Williams, as opposed to the doctor, had given Mrs. Mongar the lethal drugs. Cross said that Williams had confided in her that Gosnell was willing to say that he had administered the drugs. Cross testified that "Dr. Gosnell told her that she's not going to be in trouble. He's going to say that he gave the patient the medication." Asked why this mattered, Cross said:

A. Because she's not certified, none of us are certified to do it.

* * *

Q. But if he gave the medicine, was it your understanding that no one would get in any trouble because he's a doctor?

A. Right.

Q. And it would just be malpractice; is that right?

A. Yes

Q. And not criminal; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that how it was told to you?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that how Lynda [Williams] explained it to you?

A. Yes

In fact, according to Cross, Gosnell rarely gave medication; he almost always left this task to his untrained and uncertified workers.

The toxicology expert's testimony flatly contradicted these self-serving statements. Dr. Rohrig, the toxicology expert, explained to the Grand Jury that all of Gosnell's, Williams's, and West's shifting accounts of the drugs given to Mrs. Mongar were inconsistent with the levels of medications found in Mrs. Mongar's blood post mortem. Those levels were consistent, however, with what Kareema Cross said was the clinic's standard practice – to give multiple doses of 75 mg. Demerol, along with promethazine and diazepam, throughout the afternoon and evening before the procedure.

The expert explained that Demerol has a "half-life" of about three hours, meaning that it takes about that long for the concentration of the drug in the body to be reduced by half. It then takes another three hours for the remaining concentration to be reduced by 50 percent, and this pattern continues until all of the drug has dissipated. Demerol is thus "fairly quickly removed from the body." At least 18 hours after the drugs were administered, Mrs. Mongar still had a Demerol concentration of 750 micrograms per liter in her blood.

While Dr. Rohrig was unable to determine precisely how much Demerol Mrs. Mongar had been given, he testified that, based on the high concentration still in her blood, it was far more than Gosnell, Williams, and West claimed. The expert explained that if Mrs. Mongar had been given 100 mg. of Demerol (as Gosnell told the Department of Health), the peak drug concentration would have been about 300 micrograms per liter. Mrs. Mongar's level – over 700 micrograms a day later – was totally inconsistent with  Gosnell's, Williams's, and West's stories. "You just can't have that high concentration 135 18 hours later… That's enough [time] to cause the normal therapeutic doses to go to zero." Mrs. Mongar had to have been given multiple 75-mg. doses of Demerol, or the doses she was given had to have contained well over 75 mg. of Demerol.

What Gosnell and others reported to the hospital, to the Health Department, and to law enforcement about the amount of medication they gave to Mrs. Mongar was demonstrably false.

Predictably, Gosnell and his staff also tried to avoid responsibility by blaming the victim. The day after Mrs. Mongar died, West said to Ashley Baldwin that one of the family members had told her that Mrs. Mongar "took some pills, because she was trying to get rid of it at home." Similarly, Liz Hampton in her testimony before the Grand Jury claimed that she had had a discussion with Mrs. Mongar's "husband and two daughters" upstairs at the clinic. Hampton insisted, under oath, that they had said to her: "we told her not to take the drugs." But the only family members to enter the clinic were Mrs. Mongar's daughter and the daughter's mother-in-law, and neither of them spoke English.

Mrs. Mongar's husband was in Virginia and Mr. Ghalley was waiting outside in the car. Mrs. Mongar's daughter flatly denied that anyone in her group ever said any such thing. Her mother, she testified with the help of a translator, had taken nothing other than the medication given to her at the clinic the night before. Ashley Baldwin testified that she did not believe West and Hampton's claims, because it seemed odd to be hearing about them only after the patient had to be transported to the hospital. In any event, expert testimony established that Mrs. Mongar died from an overdose of Demerol, the drug administered in Gosnell's clinic, and not some mystery pill.

Source: National Right to Life

Pro-lifers implore PP, 'Let Them Live'



Americans United for Life has launched a campaign to ensure that babies born alive during abortion are given medical treatment.

Kristi Hamrick, a spokesperson for Americans United for Life Action (AULA), tells American Family News what motivated the launch of the "Let Them Live" campaign.

"Recently in Florida, Planned Parenthood testified that it was acceptable to allow children to die when they are alive, living, struggling in an abortion clinic," she notes. "Basically, they endorsed infanticide, and that is where abortion law is today."



Alisa LaPolt Snow, the Planned Parenthood lobbyist testifying against Florida's Born Alive Infants Protection Act, told the state House panel the decision of whether or not a baby who survives abortion is allowed to live is between the mother and the doctor.

Rep. Jim Boyd (R) asked her at the hearing, "If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child who is struggling for life?"

"Well, we believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician," replied Snow, reportedly shocking the panel.

But Hamrick contends that once the baby emerges from the womb, moving and struggling to breathe, he or she is a patient -- not an aborted fetus.

"And that's what's interesting -- the Florida legislators confronted the Planned Parenthood lobbyist and said, Isn't there now another individual deserving care? And she was not willing to say that that was the case," the pro-lifer details.

Hamrick's organization is encouraging the public to sign a letter to Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards, demanding that she take a formal stand for providing medical care for babies who survive abortion.

Source: American Family News

Legal abortion has taken 400 women's lives



More than 400 women have died from legal abortions since 1973, according to new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control that also shows the number of abortions fell by 5 percent in 2009.

The CDC reported Nov. 21 there were 403 deaths related to legal abortions through 2008, the most recent year for which statistics are available, and the number of abortions in 2009 fell from 825,564 to 784,507, marking the biggest one-year decrease in at least a decade.

The Supreme Court legalized abortion effectively for any reason throughout pregnancy Jan. 22, 1973. The deaths related to legal abortions dwarfed those from illegal abortions during the same time period. A total of 56 women died from illegal abortions, according to the CDC.

The new report also showed 12 women died from legal abortions in 2008. That total doubled the number of deaths from legal abortion reported in 2007 and was the most since 1989, when 12 also were reported.

There likely were more deaths from abortions in both 2008 and during the years since the practice was legalized.

For one thing, the CDC statistics, which are based on reports from state health departments, do not include figures from some states. California and New Hampshire have not reported such information since 1998, according to the National Right to Life Committee. At least one other state typically does not provide statistics to the CDC, the NRLC reported.

In addition, both abortion clinics and families of women who die have interests in keeping the cause of such deaths unknown.

The much larger number of reported deaths from legal abortions in contrast to illegal ones runs counter to the arguments of abortion rights organizations, which contend the procedure needs to be legal in order to be safe and reduce mortality among women who want abortions.

The Guttmacher Institute, which compiles its data directly from abortion clinics instead of the states, has reported about 1.2 million abortions annually in recent years.

Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, applauded the five percent decrease in abortions in 2009 but said, "At the same time, we have to ask why the abortion-related deaths of 12 women are buried in the very last table of the [CDC] report and unremarked on in the news. The news from this report is that abortion harms women, as well as their babies."

The Associated Press attributed the decrease in abortions to more people using contraceptives and to the economy possibly making women more careful not to get pregnant, but World News Service pointed to the undeniable growth in the pro-life movement and to surveys which show public opinion on abortion is changing.

Source: Baptist Press

New House bill targets abortion mandate



A House bill with 50 co-sponsors was introduced Tuesday (March 5) that would exempt organizations and businesses from the Obama administration's abortion/contraceptive mandate.

Sponsored by Republican Reps. Diane Black (Tenn.), Jeff Fortenberry (Neb.) and John Fleming (La.), the bill would provide a full exemption to any organization or business whose religious beliefs are violated by the mandate, which requires organizations and businesses to carry employee insurance covering abortion-causing drugs and contraceptives. The abortion-causing drugs come under brand names such as Plan B and ella.

The bill, Black said after introducing it, would protect First Amendment rights.

"Non-compliance to the administration's mandate is forcing many Americans to choose between respecting their religious convictions or following the law," Black said. "If they refuse to comply, many will be forced out of business, leaving thousands of Americans without jobs or health care coverage."

At least 218 votes are needed to pass a bill in the 435-member House. But even if it passes there, it faces an uphill climb in the Democrat-controlled Senate and a likely veto by President Obama. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said "we would have some Democratic senators who would support the bill if it got on the floor" of the Senate. He mentioned Democratic Sen. Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.) as a likely yes vote.

Land supports the bill.

"This is a question of conscience, not contraception. It's a question of religious freedom, not reproductive freedom," Land said during a press conference at the National Religious Broadcasters convention in Nashville March 5. "... Freedom of religion leaves citizens of faith free to bring their religious convictions to bear in every arena of life."

The bill -- the Health Care Conscience Rights Act -- also would provide conscience protection to individuals and health care entities that refuse to provide, pay for or refer patients to abortion doctors.

The mandate was announced by the Department of Health and Human Services in August 2011 as part of the new health care law. Although the Supreme Court upheld the health care law last June, the justices' ruling did not deal with the religious liberty issues surrounding the mandate.

A total of 48 lawsuits have been filed against the mandate, and so far, opponents of the mandate are winning. Of the 17 court rulings involving businesses, opponents have won 12 times and lost five. The latest victory by opponents of the mandate came Feb. 28 when a federal court granted a temporary injunction to a Missouri-based plumbing products manufacturer, protecting the business from the mandate. The judge, Ortrie Smith, was nominated by President Clinton. Smith's jurisdiction resides within the Eighth Circuit, where the court of appeals previously had issued an injunction against the mandate.

"Americans should be free to honor God and live according to their consciences whether they are at home, church, or work," said Alliance Defending Freedom-allied attorney Jonathan R. Whitehead, who defended in court the Missouri company, Sioux Chief Manufacturing. "The court was right to stop enforcement of this unconstitutional mandate against Sioux Chief and its owners. They, like all other family-run businesses, have the God-given freedom to live and lead their company according to the values of their faith. American entrepreneurs cannot be forced to surrender their First Amendment freedoms when they go to work."

Source: Baptist Press

ERLC to HHS: Mandate is 'religious persecution'



The Obama administration's continued refusal to provide conscience protections in its abortion/contraception mandate is "a form of religious persecution," according to the Southern Baptist Convention's ethics entity.

The critique by the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) came in a comment submitted Monday (April 8) to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The four-page letter from ERLC President Richard Land went to HHS on the final day of a comment period provided in response to the department's latest proposed rule change to address objections that the abortion/contraception mandate fails to protect religious freedom.

The mandate -- which is a part of HHS regulations implementing the 2010 health-care reform law -- requires employers to carry insurance plans that cover drugs defined by the Food and Drug Administration as contraceptives, even if they can cause chemical abortions.

The ERLC and many others submitted comments after HHS proposed Feb. 1 a change that religious liberty advocates acknowledge apparently protects churches and church ministries. They say, however, it will make other objecting employers -- including many religious organizations -- unwilling participants in underwriting both contraceptive and abortion-causing pills. Under the revision, dissenting employers would still have to be affiliated with an insurance plan connected to coverage of such pills and may end up absorbing increased costs for the drugs if the insurance companies pay for them and consequently increase rates.

The ERLC's Land told HHS it "makes no difference if the administration does not hold the same conviction" as those who oppose underwriting contraception for others.

"Through its mandate, HHS is abusing the authority of the federal government by forcing believers to choose between either offending their God and violating their consciences or facing crushing fines and possible imprisonment for adhering to their deeply held moral convictions," Land said. "This is, by definition, a form of religious persecution."

The proposed rule also fails to protect the consciences of pro-life Americans who do not object to non-abortifacient contraceptives, Land said.

The mandate "is the first time the government has forced pro-life citizens to fund, directly or indirectly, insurance coverage for abortion-causing activities," he told HHS. "This is an egregious abuse of federal power."

The mandate not only continues to violate the beliefs of Americans who oppose abortions and/or contraceptives, it also "represents a fundamental breach of the freedoms of conscience and religion for all Americans in principle," Land said.

"In its most basic essence, the mandate is the federal government abusing its authority by forcing Citizen A, against his or her convictions, to purchase a product for Citizen B. This should trouble every American," Land told HHS. "If the federal government can force morally opposed Catholics, for example, to purchase contraception for a third party and force pro-life Americans to purchase abortion-causing drugs for a third party, what prevents this or future administrations from forcing other Americans to betray their deeply held convictions?"

He urged HHS to bring the mandate in line with the free exercise of religion clause in the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

"Anything short of protecting the freedoms of conscience and religious expression for all Americans -- not merely houses of worship and their integrated auxiliaries -- is unacceptable," Land said. "This necessarily means exemptions for all individuals, small businesses, and corporations that wish to direct their economic activities according to the dictates of their consciences."

The latest proposal joins HHS' original August 2011 abortion/contraception mandate and the March 2012 proposed version in failing to address the religious liberty concerns of the ERLC, Land said. The Roman Catholic Church and many organizations espousing pro-life and religious liberty beliefs have expressed similar concerns to HHS.

The proposal fails to provide relief not only to many religious organizations but to objecting, for-profit businesses such as Tyndale House Publishers and retail chain Hobby Lobby, which is owned by pro-life Christians.

Opponents of the mandate have fared well in federal court so far. Of the lawsuits filed by for-profits, the businesses have won injunctions preventing enforcement in 17 of 23 rulings, according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. No court has ruled so far on the merits of the 30 legal challenges from non-profits, the Becket Fund reported.

The ERLC has signed onto five briefs defending the religious freedom of entities challenging the mandate at the appeals court level.

Drugs considered contraceptives under the mandate include Plan B and other "morning-after" pills, which can prevent implantation of tiny embryos. Such a secondary, post-fertilization mechanism of the pill would cause an abortion. The mandate also covers "ella," which -- in a fashion similar to the abortion drug RU 486 -- can even act after implantation to end the life of the child.

More than 147,000 individuals and organizations have commented on the abortion/contraception mandate since the rule was first proposed, the Sunlight Foundation reported March 22. Foes of the rule have submitted most of those comments. The number of comments for the regulatory proposal that is the runner-up government-wide is only 4,600, according to the foundation.

Source: Baptist Press

March 28, 2013

Pro-Choice 'Mob Mentality' Culminates in Death Threats Against North Dakota Governor and North Dakota Legislators




Amidst multiple threats of lawsuits in North Dakota, new threats have emerged. According to "Stand up for Women ND," a Facebook group created to oppose the new abortion legislation and personhood amendment in North Dakota, Governor Dalrymple is receiving death threats from pro-abortion activists after signing three anti-abortion laws passed by the North Dakota House and Senate yesterday.

After posting several negative comments about Governor Dalrymple, Stand up for Women ND stated, "We have received word that Governor Dalrymple is receiving death threats." The post went on to plead with supporters of the anti-life cause to cease the criminal threats, closing with "We want stoic, respectful solidarity or we will not be taken seriously." At the time of this press release the page did not express any concern for the life and health of Governor Dalrymple.

The death threats against the North Dakota Governor and pro-life North Dakota legislators come on the heels of threats of lawsuits in the state. A Tuesday article from RH Reality Check began by stating, "If the idea of long and expensive legal battles was supposed to dissuade North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple from signing into law some of the country's most restrictive abortion measures, it didn't work."

Prior to the signing of the three anti-abortion bills, and prior to the passage of SCR 4009, a personhood amendment that will appear on the 2014 ballot, threats of a Planned Parenthood / ACLU lawsuit were rampant. Referencing millions of dollars in legal fees paid to Planned Parenthood in other states, the Grand Forks Herald ran an article acknowledging that a Planned Parenthood lawsuit could cost millions of dollars to taxpayers.

"Abortion is an act of violence against women and children, so death threats from pro-choice enthusiasts are not surprising," stated Jennifer Mason, Personhood USA Spokesperson. "It seems that Planned Parenthood and the ACLU hope to deter any and all restrictions to abortion with the threat of multi-million dollar lawsuits -- despite the fact that they already receive millions of dollars in taxpayer money. Planned Parenthood exacts a terrible toll from women -- their health, the lives of their children, and more -- not to mention that if they file lawsuits in North Dakota they could be costing millions in additional taxpayer dollars. US citizens are fed up with paying Planned Parenthood. We should not be required to pay for abortions or frivolous lawsuits."

Personhood USA decries all violence -- in the womb or out of it. "When the threat of lawsuits isn't enough to force their agenda, it seems that pro-choice supporters think that death threats will accomplish their goals. These threats are deplorable," continued Mason. "North Dakota legislators should not have to fear outrageous lawsuits for voting pro-life, nor should they have to fear for their lives."

Contact: Jennifer Mason,
Source: Personhood USA

Pro-Lifers Mark Good Friday with Nationwide Prayer Vigils at Abortion Clinics

Pro-Life Action League's "Way of the Cross" Links Innocent Victims Across Centuries
 


Good Friday, March 29, 2013 will be marked by pro-life citizens across America as a day of mourning and prayer at abortion facilities. As Christians worldwide remember how Jesus Christ was put to death, these faithful will stop to grieve for the 3,500 innocent unborn children who will themselves be put to death through abortion 1980 years after the crucifixion. This nationwide event, called "The Way of the Cross for Abortion Victims," is coordinated by the Pro-Life Action League and emphasizes prayers for babies at risk of being aborted to be spared and for their mothers to choose life. Chicago, Saint Louis, Boston, Las Vegas, and Minneapolis are among the cities in which clergy will lead this solemn prayer service outside of abortion clinics.
 
Eric Scheidler, Executive Director of the Pro-Life Action League, explained the impetus behind the prayer vigils. "On Good Friday we remember the innocent suffering and death of Jesus Christ at Golgotha, which means 'the place of the skull,'" he said, "We have our own 'Golgotha' in every city where innocent unborn children, created in the image of God, are also violently put to death by abortion."
 
The Pro-Life Action League is a national organization dedicated to empowering Americans to put their pro-life convictions into effective action in their local communities. Christians of all denominations have been invited to participate in these solemn, ecumenical prayer services. At each site, prayers will be offered for all the victims of abortion—the children lost, the mothers wounded, the communities blighted—as well as for those responsible for perpetrating this injustice, including "pro-choice" elected officials and those working in the abortion industry.
 
"Through His Holy Passion, Our Lord united Himself with all the victims of suffering in this life," remarked Scheidler, adding that "None suffer more innocently than children in the womb whose lives are taken by abortion. None suffer more deeply than their mothers, carrying a heavy burden of guilt and shame."
 
More information is available at ProLifeAction.org/GoodFriday.

By Eric Scheidler
Source: Pro-Life Action League