When told by a man posing as a pimp that he needs help with girls he manages as young as 14-15 years old, a Bronx New York Planned Parenthood Staffer is unphased and offers to go one better: "We see people as young as 13....everything is totally confidential."
New undercover Live Action footage from inside a Bronx, NY Planned Parenthood clinic for the first time shows a Planned Parenthood Supervisor/Practitioner willing to assist a man posing as a pimp, even offering guidance on how the pimp's underage girls can get insurance through tax payer funded programs to pay for abortions and other services even if the underage girls that are not U.S. citizens..
Click here for the video.
Planned Parenthood Supervisor/Practitioner: I'm one of the practitioners here.
Pimp: Oh, ok. I was wondering, uh, do you have a moment?
Planned Parenthood Supervisor/Practitioner: Mhm
Pimp: I was wondering, um, so like is this still confidential?
Planned Parenthood Supervisor/Practitioner: Yeah.
Pimp: We're involved in sex work-
Planned Parenthood Supervisor/Practitioner: Mhm.
Pimp: We have some girls that are kind of young like, 14, 15, that they might need an abortion-
Planned Parenthood Supervisor/Practitioner: Mhm.
Pimp: And, how is the best way should they could go about it?
Planned Parenthood Supervisor/Practitioner: They just show up, and set up an appointment. Do they have insurance?
Pimp: They don't have insurance, some don't even speak that good of English 'cause you know, they just got here.
Planned Parenthood Supervisor/Practitioner: Right. So we have an interpretation phone, so if they don't speak Spanish that's not a problem. I mean if they don't speak English that's not a problem cause we can have an interpreter -
This is the sixth set of full footage released from Live Action's current ongoing investigation into Planned Parenthood. This latest reel of footage uncovers what organization President, Lila Rose, calls an "institutional crisis in which Planned Parenthood is willing to assist sex trafficking and exploitation of minors and young women."
Live Action has released numerous videos over the past three years offering compounding evidence that Rose says, "unequivocally shows that Planned Parenthood is unsafe and puts underage girls and young women in harm's way."
"Planned Parenthood has shown repeatedly for the past three years of our investigation that they are willing to aid and abet the sexual exploitation of minors and young girls, even girls as young as 13 and here illegally, all under a sick code of 'confidentiality.' For Planned Parenthood, this 'confidentiality' supersedes a zero tolerance for sex trafficking and exploitation of minors and young women," Rose said.
Last week, Live Action released raw footage of five Planned Parenthood clinics, one in New Jersey and four in Virginia, all revealing employees willing to counsel a self-identified sex-trafficker on how to obtain STD testing, birth control and abortions for underage girls that he "manages" in "sex work."
"Today, we are making full footage and transcripts available to New York law enforcement officials and we are calling upon New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to launch a formal investigation as has been done in New Jersey by Attorney General Paula Dow. This footage shows that underage girls and young women are at potentially grave risk when they walk into Planned Parenthood clinics," Rose said.
Additional Findings from the footage:
Prostitute: They just came over, they're workin' with us, and we're helpin' them out -
Planned Parenthood Staffer: Mhm
Prostitute: Just keeping them safe.
Pimp: Could we even sign off as guardians? Could we even sign off as a guardian, is that even possible?
Planned Parenthood Staffer: If you were writing the support letter, yeah, you could say -
Prostitute: Oh good
Planned Parenthood Staffer: that you take care of them, you support them.
Pimp: Cool!
Planned Parenthood Staffer: But nothing here, like, our patients, we don't ask for guardian's signature. Everything is the patient. Like a thirteen-year-old could come in and get the services she needed, by herself.
Pimp: So, how would you recommend for them best to do it? Cause we don't want them getting confused or what not, and it's kind of a sensitive subject, so we don't want you know, them saying the wrong thing, you know getting refused or turned away, so how would you suggest they go about you know being able to get the access even in spite of what they do, you know?
Planned Parenthood Staffer: Yeah, like, like I said everything's confidential, they don't have to tell anybody what it is that they do when they make the an appointment, it's just gonna be between them and the Physician they see.
Live Action has previously released more than a dozen hidden camera videos from ten states. This body of visual evidence shows several alarming patterns of illegal Planned Parenthood activities including cover-up of sexual abuse of minors, the skirting of parental consent laws, citing unscientific and fabricated medical information to manipulate women to have abortions, and Planned Parenthood's willingness to accept donations earmarked to abort African-American babies.
Source: ProLifeBlogs
February 18, 2011
Planned Parenthood Staffer Tells "Pimp" He Can Pose As Guardian To Get Tax Payer Funded Services For Underage Sex Workers
Personhood Abortion Bans Sweep Iowa, North Dakota, Montana, Texas, and Oklahoma
Personhood measures have been introduced in three states, passed the House in North Dakota, and passed the Iowa House subcommittee.
The subcommittee of the Iowa House approved the personhood bill at a 2:1 vote, sending it to the full committee for the next vote in the near future. The Iowa personhood bill, like all personhood efforts, will recognize the value and dignity of every single human being, protecting every child by law.
In North Dakota, The Defense of Human Life Act, HB 1450, passed in the North Dakota House with an overwhelming majority of 68 - 25. Introduced by Representative Dan Ruby, the text defines: "Human being" as "an individual member of the species homo sapiens at every stage of development."
"The Personhood movement is growing rapidly, and we expect victory in every state. Personhood USA is in it to end it, and as we continue to see new personhood amendments and legislation, we are witnessing a historical movement to finally end the destruction of human lives and to protect women and children at all stages of life," stated Keith Mason, cofounder of Personhood USA.
Montana introduced a personhood amendment, recognizing the personhood rights of all human beings, seeking to make Montana safer for women and children. Introduced by Representative Wendy Warburton, the Montana legislature heard moving testimony from Rebecca Kiessling, a woman conceived in rape. Rebecca's testimony includes, "I may not look the same as I did when I was four years old or four days old yet unborn in my mother's womb, but that was still undeniably me and I would have been killed through a brutal abortion."
Texas has introduced HB 1109, which amends the Texas Health and Safety Code by recognizing that preborn children have "the rights, protections, and privileges accorded to any other person in this state."
Oklahoma has also introduced a Personhood Amendment, introduced by Representative Blackwell and Representative Vaughan. "Protecting everyone, including the preborn, is consistent with the vision of our Founding Fathers," stated Representative Blackwell.
Click here for the Chicago Tribune article.
Click here for the story from KULR8 (NBC Affiliate in Billings, Montana).
Contact: Keith Mason
Source: Personhood USA
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
2600 State Street, Suite E
Alton, IL 62002
Phone: 618-466-4122
Fax: 618-466-4134
Web: www.ifrl.org
E-mail: mail@ifrl.org
URGENT: House votes Friday morning on Planned Parenthood cutoff!
On the morning of Friday, February 18, 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on an amendment that has been offered by Congressman Mike Pence (R-In.), which would deny all federal funds, through September 30, for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., and 102 PPFA affiliates, which are named in the text of the amendment. The House debated the amendment, but did not vote, on February 17.
On February 14, NRLC sent House members a letter urging them to support the Pence Amendment, saying, "PPFA is the nation's largest abortion provider, reporting 324,008 abortions in 2008. It appears that abortion accounts for roughly one-third of the aggregate income generated by PPFA-affiliated clinics. According to press reports, PPFA has recently mandated that all of its regional affiliates must provide abortions by the end of 2013. Recent media reports regarding abuses associated with PPFA-affiliated clinics in multiple states provide an additional justification for the amendment." To read the entire NRLC letter, click here.
Please call the office of your U.S. House member and urge him or her to support the Pence Amendment to H.R. 1. (The Pence Amendment is amendment no. 11.) If you already called, please call again.
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
2600 State Street, Suite E
Alton, IL 62002
Phone: 618-466-4122
Fax: 618-466-4134
Web: www.ifrl.org
E-mail: mail@ifrl.org
February 15, 2011
Alert: House votes this week on de-funding Planned Parenthood!
| ||||||||||
February 14, 2011
Pro-Life Legislative Reception
| The Pro-Life Legislative Reception previously scheduled for April 12, 2011, from 5:00 to 8:00 has been cancelled. Please stay in close touch with your senators and representatives in both Springfield and Washington. Action alerts will be posted at www.ifrl.org. Thank you. |
January 28, 2011
HR 3 the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act"
Your immediate help is needed to make sure a bill not only passes but is sent to the Senate with all the force possible behind it.
The bill is HR 3, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act."
HR 3 will establish a government-wide prohibition on abortion funding and ensure that no program or agency will be exempt, so the abortion lobby can't sneak it in through loopholes.
HR 3 -- only the third piece of legislation called in this session of Congress. This is a great sign that pro-life is a high priority for the new leadership.
The bill is sponsored by NJ Rep. Chris Smith -- our greatest pro-life champion on "The Hill" -- and Speaker Boehner is on board, too. So far 175 Reps have signed on as co-sponsors.
That's a lot of co-sponsors, but it's not enough for THIS bill. The Senate -- controlled by pro-abortion Democrats -- will not pass this bill unless it comes with HUGE support in the House.
That means we need MORE pro-life Congressmen to sign on as co-sponsors of the bill.
You can find out if YOUR Congressman is a sponsor -- and get contact info -- right here:
http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/issues/bills/?bill=23294546
If your Congressman has NOT yet signed on as a co-sponsor, call them TODAY and ask them to "Please sign on as a co-sponsor of HR 3, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act."
--
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
2600 State Street, Suite E
Alton, IL 62002
Phone: 618-466-4122
Fax: 618-466-4134
Web: www.ifrl.org
E-mail: mail@ifrl.org
Dutch Suicide Advocates Set Up Clinic of Death
The Netherlands is a lovely country where many people have eschewed true compassion–the root meaning of which is to "suffer with"–to promote suicide as the answer to human difficulty. Euthanasia is available via lethal injection for the terminally ill, the chronically ill, people with serious disabilities, and the despairing who are not physically sick. Infanticide is illegal, but allowed. Non voluntary mercy killing by doctors is a routine event, with several a day according to studies. The Dutch Supreme Court approved assisted suicide for a woman who wanted to be buried between her two dead children.
One would think that would at last be enough "compassionate" killing, thank you very much. Nope. Once a culture embraces this brand of nihilism, the appetite for suicide-as-the-answer is never satiated. Now, some Dutch suicide activists–can you imagine?–are setting up a clinic for those whose doctors won't make them dead. From Bioedge:
The Dutch voluntary euthanasia society (NVVE) is planning to open an eight-person clinic in 2012 where people can go to end their lives. It estimates that about 1,000 people a year would take advantage of its facilities. It would cater for people whose doctors have refused to euthanase them. Not only people with an incurable illness, but also people with chronic psychiatric conditions and dementia would be welcome.
Some Dutch doctors are already in the business, compassionately giving their suicidal patients a how to do it yourself guide if they won't do the deed themselves. They even gave it a name: Autoeuthanasia.
The Dutch like to think of themselves as enlightened leaders of society into modern ways. I worry they are right. Culture of death, Wesley? What culture of death?
Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
--
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
2600 State Street, Suite E
Alton, IL 62002
Phone: 618-466-4122
Fax: 618-466-4134
Web: www.ifrl.org
E-mail: mail@ifrl.org
Sign the Save the Life Centers petition
Save the Life Centers, is promoting a petition to combat the latest assault on pregnancy resource centers in NYC:
The NYC City Council Intro Bill #371-2010 is an outrage, which targets PRC's with onerous, one-sided, unconstitutional speech regulations, and whopping, cruel and unusually harsh penalties.
These centers primarily provide free options counseling, clothing and material support, and in many cases free ultrasound and prenatal care, which no abortion facility in New York City provides.
This proposed bill would force the centers to advertise… that they do not perform abortions or provide referrals, distribute FDA-approved contraceptives or provide referrals, and post when a physician is not in house.
The penalties for failure to comply include being shut down for 5 days after 3 violations, stiff fines, and jail for up to 6 months for those who do not comply with the shut-down order….
At the only public hearing on this bill, November 16, 2010, hypocritically, abortion advocates accused alternative centers of targeting in minority areas. They complained of these centers opening near their longstanding abortion clinics in NY's neighborhoods of color, which were opened long before alternative-to-abortion centers arrived.
Nationally, Planned Parenthood operates 78% of their clinics in inner-city neighborhoods. According to New York Vital Statistics data, in the last 10-yr period (1999-2008), of the 922,272 abortions performed, 726,845 (79%) were Black and Hispanic babies.
Watch this video about the EMC pregnancy centers:
Sign the petition here.
A Child’s Own Adult Stem Cells for Heart Repair
A collaborative team of researchers has shown that cardiac adult stem cells could be used to treat children with heart problems. The group found that they could isolate cardiac stem cells from children that were one day old up to 13 years old, and that these adult stem cells could be grown extensively in the lab and induced to form various types of cardiac cells. They also showed that when these adult stem cells were injected into damaged rat hearts, the human adult stem cells could repair heart damage, showing "robust regenerative ability".
Dr. Sunjay Kaushal from Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, the senior author, said:
"This project has generated important pre-clinical laboratory data showing that we may be able to use their own heart stem cells to rebuild their hearts, allowing these children to live longer and have more productive lives. The potential of cardiac stem cell therapy for children is truly exciting."
Previous heart stem cell studies have addressed the adult diseased heart; this is the first systematic study to focus on cardiac adult stem cells from children. Dr. Kaushal hopes to begin clinical trials with children in the fall, pending FDA approval.
The new study is published in the American Heart Association journal Circulation.
Contact: David Prentice
Source: FRC Blog
Abortion and Mental Health
And the beat goes on. Another "study" purporting to show that having an abortion does not increase the chances of subsequent mental health problems. In fact, the latest, which appears in today's New England Journal of Medicine, allows reporters such as the Associated Press's Alicia Chang to write, "Having an abortion does not increase the risk of mental health problems, but having a baby does, one of the largest studies to compare the aftermath of both decisions suggests. The research by Danish scientists further debunks the notion that terminating a pregnancy can trigger mental illness and shows postpartum depression to be much more of a factor."
Over at Part Three, Professor Priscilla Coleman debunks the conclusions reached by researchers Munk-Olsen, Laursen, Pedersen, and colleagues in a study titled, "Induced First-Trimester Abortion and Risk of Mental Disorder." You'd never know it from either the study itself or news accounts, but there has been "a tidal wave of sound published data on the emotional consequences of abortion," as Dr. Coleman wrote last year. "Over 30 studies have been published in just the last five years and they add to a body of literature comprised of hundreds of studies published in major medicine and psychology journals throughout the world."
Just three points to keep in mind.
First, research was partially funded by the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, which supports pro-abortion organizations and their "projects." As Prof. Michael New noted today, "[T]his summer, an article in The New York Times Magazine indicated that two new programs designed to train and encourage young physicians to perform abortions were funded, in part, by the Susan Thompson Buffet Foundation" [www.nationalreview.com/corner/258205/more-misleading-research-about-mental-health-consequences-abortion-michael-j-new].
If NRLC funded a study, do you think it would be trumpeted as unbiased and even-handed?
Second, the go-to guy for comments was Robert Blum, "an expert on reproductive health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health." Oh, by the way, he just happens to be the former president of the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute.
Blume told NPR that "This is an extremely, extremely well done study," and that "There is no evidence that abortion predisposes a woman to psychiatric and mental health problems." Reporter Nancy Shute tells us that Blum "would like to say goodbye to the political buzz words." Blum adds definitively, "There is no post-abortion trauma, post-abortion syndrome, or anything of the like."
No way, no how. What a surprise.
Third, there are and will be recurrent waves of research, alleging there is no emotional aftermath to abortion. But resistance to this pretend consensus is growing and is not limited to pro-lifers. Let me offer the conclusion of an analysis Dr. Coleman wrote last year (http://www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/Nov10/nv111210part2.html)
"The evidence is accumulating despite socio-political agendas to keep the truth out of the academic journals and ultimately from women to insure that the big business of abortion continues unimpeded. …And I am not alone in my opinion that abortion has a devastating aftermath for women. These conclusions have been voiced by prominent researchers in Great Britain, Norway, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, the U.S., and elsewhere. As a group of researchers, who in 2008 had published nearly 50 peer-reviewed articles indicating abortion is associated with negative psychological outcomes, six colleagues and I sent a petition letter to the American Psychological Association (APA) criticizing their methods and conclusions as described in their Task Force Report on Abortion and Mental Health. It is noteworthy that Dr. Major chaired the task force.
"Any interpretation of the available research that does not acknowledge the strong evidence now available in the professional literature represents a conscious choice to ignore basic principles of scientific integrity. The human fallout to such a choice by the APA and like-minded colleagues is misinformed professionals, millions of women struggling in isolation to make sense of a past abortion, thousands who will seek an abortion today without the benefit of known risks, and millions who will make this often life altering decision tomorrow without the basic right of informed consent, which is routinely extended for all other elective surgeries in the U.S."
Danish researchers Munk-Olsen, Laursen, Pedersen, and colleagues will publish a study tomorrow in the New England Journal of Medicine, addressing the risk of mental health disorders in women who have a first-trimester abortion and those who experience a first childbirth.
The researchers focus on the fact that there is not a statistically significant difference in first-time inpatient admissions and outpatient psychiatric visits before and after an abortion, concluding that it is unlikely that the abortion procedure causes mental health problems. However there are some major problems with this conclusion.
First, the measure of pre-abortion mental health is likely high (more than 3 times greater than prior to birth, 14.6% vs. 3.9%), because many of the women were probably in the midst of abortion decision-making when they experienced their first psychiatric visit. This high rate of pre-abortion mental health problems is construed to indicate that women who choose abortion will often experience mental health problems based on factors other than the procedure.
In fact, the women in the sample are quite unlikely to fall into this "vulnerable" category since none of the women included in the study had any history of psychological diagnoses prior to 9 months before the abortion. These researchers used a window of 0-9 months to measure pre-abortion mental health; however, the assessment should instead have been before the pregnancies were detected. The data do indicate that rates of mental health problems are significantly higher after abortion compared to after childbirth (15.2% vs. 6.7%) and compared to not having been pregnant (8.2%).
The bottom line is the fact that they found comparable rates before and after abortion does not negate a possible causal link between abortion and mental health. This is true because many women were likely disturbed to the point of seeking help, because they were pregnant and contemplating an abortion or had already chosen one and were awaiting the procedure. There are numerous published studies indicating high levels of stress among women facing an unplanned pregnancy and considering an abortion.
Second, the authors note in the beginning of their article that previous studies lack controls for third variables, but the only third variables they consider are age and parity. There are no controls for pregnancy wantedness, coercion by others to abort, marital status, income, education, exposure to violence and other traumas, etc. Many studies have been deemed inadequate based on only one of these variables not being accounted for (see APA Task Force Report, 2008), yet the study design was considered adequate to merit publication in the NEJM.
Third, all women who had psychiatric histories more than 9 months prior to the abortion were not included in the study. There are many studies showing that these women are at heightened risk for post-abortion mental health problems. In this study, the researchers have narrowed the participant pool to only the healthiest of women and there are high rates before and after abortion…imagine if all women had been included! Women who experience repeat abortions are likewise not considered at all and they are more likely to be at risk for mental health problems post-dating the procedure.
Fourth, the results follow women for only one year post-abortion or childbirth and there is plenty of evidence suggesting that the negative effects of abortion may not surface for several years. There is also data indicating that women are most likely to experience postpartum psychological problems soon after birth with the benefits of motherhood often manifesting later than the first year wherein many life-style adjustments are necessary.
A more appropriate analytic strategy would have been to include all women experiencing an abortion, a birth, or no pregnancy and then compare pre and post-pregnancy mental health visits with statistic al controls for all psychiatric visits pre-dating conception and all other relevant third variables described above. I am confident that the data would then be quite consistent with the dozens of studies published in recent years in high impact journals indicating that abortion increases risk for a variety of mental health problems.
Even without appropriate improvements to the design, the data reported does indicate increased rates of particular diagnoses at specific points in the first year. Relative risk for psychiatrics visits involving neurotic, stress-related, or somatoform disorders was 47% and 37% higher post-abortion compared to pre-abortion at 2 and 3 months respectively. In addition, psychiatric contact for personality or behavioral disorders was 56%, 45%, 31%, and 55% higher at 3, 4-6, 7-9, and 10-12 months respectively.
Contact: Dave Andrusko, Priscilla Coleman, Ph.D.
Source: National Right to Life
Abortion, Psychiatric Hospitals and Wisdom Teeth
If you think the cultural debate over abortion is limited to the public policy arena, consider the latest study to claim that abortion poses no threat to women. This Los Angeles Times headline, Scientists: No link between abortion, mental health, might lead one to believe that having an abortion is akin to having your wisdom teeth pulled: A purely physical procedure with no impact on your mental health or psychological well-being.
The study examined the mental disorder history of Danish women who had a first-trimester abortion or a first live birth during a 12 year period. The measure for "mental disorder" was a "first-time psychiatric contact" with one of Denmark's public inpatient or outpatient psychiatric facilities. The study found "no overall increased risk of mental disorders after first-trimester induced abortion."
Now, Danish women may be more inclined to access government-run psychiatric services than those in other countries, making the measure of "first-time psychiatric contact" an appropriate one for that population. Nonetheless, there are a number of other studies finding emotional and psychological complications after abortion – short of going to a psychiatric hospital. These include depression, substance abuse and thoughts of suicide.
If pulling your wisdom teeth carried with it even a chance of psychological risk, the dental patient should know that risk. Why does abortion continue to get a pass when it comes to informing women of the risks they face? The political protection of abortion is so important that it trumps informed consent, and the risks to women continue to get lost in the spin.
Contact: Carrie Gordon Earll
Source: Citizenlink
Factsheet has New Abortion Totals & Analysis: Over 53 Million Abortions since Roe
Click image to enlarge.
With the latest numbers released from the Guttmacher Institute earlier this month, National Right to Life now estimates that there have been 53,310,822 abortions in the United States since 1973.
The details as to how this number was obtained can be found on the Trust Fund's new factsheet at http://www.nrlc.org/Factsheets/FS03_AbortionInTheUS.pdf.
That double-sided factsheet lists the number of abortions by year going back to 1973. It includes numbers provided by Guttmacher, the former special research affiliate of abortion giant Planned Parenthood, and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the federal health agency which compiles abortion data from annual reports from state health departments. Guttmacher provides more accurate totals, while the CDC provides a more regular, consistent demographic breakdown.
Also on the back page of that factsheet is a new analysis of the factors that cause abortion rates to rise, go down, or to stagnate. Explanations such as population shifts and attitudinal shifts are put in perspective. They show that pro-life legislation, education, and outreach have been effective, but at the same time making clear that the promotion of new abortion products such RU486 by the abortion industry can also have an impact.
Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: National Right to Life
January 27, 2011
A Message to Pro-Life Advocates in Light of Gosnell's Shop of Horrors
This guest post is provided by Josh Brahm. Josh is the Director of Education at Right to Life of Central California's Fresno/Madera office, and host of the vodcast "Life Report: Pro-Life Talk | Real World Answers."
This has been a really bad publicity week for abortion providers. First the national controversy over the horrors that went on behind the scenes at "Doctor" Gosnell's abortion facility. Now an Associated Press story is implying that Live Action is getting ready to release videos exposing several Planned Parenthood employees of covering up sex trafficking with various PP health services. All of this while Abby Johnson's tell-all book "Unplanned" has been on Amazon.com's Top 100 Bestselling Books List for two weeks. Abby's book is hardly the first book to be written that exposes what goes on at many abortion facilities (see here, here, and here), though it will probably forever be the most notable.
As atrocious as Gosnell's barbaric acts were, and as bad as covering up sex trafficking is…those things are not what make abortion wrong.
Abortion is wrong because it unjustifiably takes the life of a human being.
The shocking nature of these stories is precisely the reason that pro-life advocates must be especially careful in the next few months to consider what they will say if their friend asks, "so, why are you pro-life?"
The lazy way out would be to reply with something like, "have you heard about the freaky abortionists in those places? They keep fetal body parts in jars! How could I not be pro-life?"
This strategy is dangerous even though it may sometimes work.
It is not news to the regular readers of this blog that many people in the postmodern world are more quickly moved by emotional stories and pictures than by logic and good arguments. Thus, you may make some impact on the person you're talking to with just the above statement about yucky abortionists. You say your piece, they react emotionally to Gosnell's disgustingness, and you go your separate ways.
"But, why would that be bad, Josh? The whole point is to make the person rethink their pro-abortion-choice views, right?"
Yes, and this is where wisdom comes in. It's not necessarily a choice between bad and good. It's a choice between good, better and best.
While you may make a marginal impact on that person, if he later considers the issue more carefully, he will realize that Gosnell's checkered past does not make or break the case for abortion rights. It just proves that some people do really sick things when they're not kept accountable.
(Gee, I thought Christians already knew that…)
Instead, if you had made a stronger case for life, (I like to start with Steve Wagner's 10-second soundbyte,) that person would have left, put the same amount of thought into the issue later, and would have been unable to dismiss your argument so easily.
An important clarification: this does not mean stories about Gosnell and the Live Action investigations have no significance. It takes stories like this to awaken the moral sensibilities of people in the mushy middle.
I believe there are minimally-committed pro-abortion-choice people that will read the Grand Jury Report on Gosnell, and learn that the reason he was left alone by the state authorities that already knew about the conditions of his clinic was because they didn't want to put any "barriers up to women seeking abortions." The pro-abortion-choice person may be shocked to see the effect legal abortion has on well-meaning people, and then (here's the key) look closer at the abortion debate. Ideally they will compare the best arguments the pro-life side has to offer, and the best arguments the pro-abortion-choice side has to offer, and then change their thinking.
I make a similar argument when defending pro-lifers that utilize graphic pictures in their pro-life presentations. Abortion is not wrong because pictures of it are gross and bloody. But the pictures are true and they awaken our sensibilities, restoring meaning to the word "abortion." This is important, because many people hear the word "abortion" and think of a benign medical procedure that makes a woman "unpregnant."
However, we must remember the most effective way to use graphic pictures. It's not just taping a huge graphic sign to the front side of your house and waiting for people to become pro-life. It's using them in an environment where you can also offer a scientific and philosophic case for life. I do this regularly with pro-life presentations and while participating in a Justice For All or GAP exhibit. (Warning: links include graphic images.)
That's my point. Stories about current events are some of the most effective ways for pro-life advocates to start conversations with their pro-abortion-choice friends in a way that is neither awkward nor forced. If using a story like Gosnell's will get a non-weird conversation started on abortion that wouldn't have happened otherwise, by all means use it!
But don't stop there.
Make sure you get a chance to make a strong philosophical case for life before the conversation ends.
What I am recommending to my fellow pro-life advocates is to not get lazy and primarily use gruesome stories like Gosnell's when making a case for life. Your argument will fall short every time.
Abortion is not wrong because many men and women regret their abortion later. Abortion is wrong because it unjustifiably takes the life of a human being.
Abortion is not wrong because one of the babies killed may have eventually cured cancer or written the next great Broadway musical. Abortion is wrong because it unjustifiably takes the life of a human being.
Abortion is not wrong because it may have a negative effect on our economy or may have helped cripple the Social Security program. Abortion is wrong because it unjustifiably takes the life of a human being.
Abortion is not wrong because the nation's leading abortion provider Planned Parenthood does many other icky things, including promoting promiscuity in teens, promoting violence against pro-lifers and selling fetal body parts. Abortion is wrong because it unjustifiably takes the life of a human being.
Abortion is not wrong if some of the people working for Planned Parenthood help to cover up statutory rape or alleged sex trafficking, or if they lie about the facts of fetal development. Abortion is wrong because it unjustifiably takes the life of a human being.
And abortion is not even wrong because some of the people who perform abortions commit horrific acts only paralleled by the scariest of horror movies.
Abortion is wrong because it unjustifiably takes the life of a human being.
Contact: Josh Brahm
Source: Life Training Institute Blog
This has been a really bad publicity week for abortion providers. First the national controversy over the horrors that went on behind the scenes at "Doctor" Gosnell's abortion facility. Now an Associated Press story is implying that Live Action is getting ready to release videos exposing several Planned Parenthood employees of covering up sex trafficking with various PP health services. All of this while Abby Johnson's tell-all book "Unplanned" has been on Amazon.com's Top 100 Bestselling Books List for two weeks. Abby's book is hardly the first book to be written that exposes what goes on at many abortion facilities (see here, here, and here), though it will probably forever be the most notable.
As atrocious as Gosnell's barbaric acts were, and as bad as covering up sex trafficking is…those things are not what make abortion wrong.
Abortion is wrong because it unjustifiably takes the life of a human being.
The shocking nature of these stories is precisely the reason that pro-life advocates must be especially careful in the next few months to consider what they will say if their friend asks, "so, why are you pro-life?"
The lazy way out would be to reply with something like, "have you heard about the freaky abortionists in those places? They keep fetal body parts in jars! How could I not be pro-life?"
This strategy is dangerous even though it may sometimes work.
It is not news to the regular readers of this blog that many people in the postmodern world are more quickly moved by emotional stories and pictures than by logic and good arguments. Thus, you may make some impact on the person you're talking to with just the above statement about yucky abortionists. You say your piece, they react emotionally to Gosnell's disgustingness, and you go your separate ways.
"But, why would that be bad, Josh? The whole point is to make the person rethink their pro-abortion-choice views, right?"
Yes, and this is where wisdom comes in. It's not necessarily a choice between bad and good. It's a choice between good, better and best.
While you may make a marginal impact on that person, if he later considers the issue more carefully, he will realize that Gosnell's checkered past does not make or break the case for abortion rights. It just proves that some people do really sick things when they're not kept accountable.
(Gee, I thought Christians already knew that…)
Instead, if you had made a stronger case for life, (I like to start with Steve Wagner's 10-second soundbyte,) that person would have left, put the same amount of thought into the issue later, and would have been unable to dismiss your argument so easily.
An important clarification: this does not mean stories about Gosnell and the Live Action investigations have no significance. It takes stories like this to awaken the moral sensibilities of people in the mushy middle.
I believe there are minimally-committed pro-abortion-choice people that will read the Grand Jury Report on Gosnell, and learn that the reason he was left alone by the state authorities that already knew about the conditions of his clinic was because they didn't want to put any "barriers up to women seeking abortions." The pro-abortion-choice person may be shocked to see the effect legal abortion has on well-meaning people, and then (here's the key) look closer at the abortion debate. Ideally they will compare the best arguments the pro-life side has to offer, and the best arguments the pro-abortion-choice side has to offer, and then change their thinking.
I make a similar argument when defending pro-lifers that utilize graphic pictures in their pro-life presentations. Abortion is not wrong because pictures of it are gross and bloody. But the pictures are true and they awaken our sensibilities, restoring meaning to the word "abortion." This is important, because many people hear the word "abortion" and think of a benign medical procedure that makes a woman "unpregnant."
However, we must remember the most effective way to use graphic pictures. It's not just taping a huge graphic sign to the front side of your house and waiting for people to become pro-life. It's using them in an environment where you can also offer a scientific and philosophic case for life. I do this regularly with pro-life presentations and while participating in a Justice For All or GAP exhibit. (Warning: links include graphic images.)
That's my point. Stories about current events are some of the most effective ways for pro-life advocates to start conversations with their pro-abortion-choice friends in a way that is neither awkward nor forced. If using a story like Gosnell's will get a non-weird conversation started on abortion that wouldn't have happened otherwise, by all means use it!
But don't stop there.
Make sure you get a chance to make a strong philosophical case for life before the conversation ends.
What I am recommending to my fellow pro-life advocates is to not get lazy and primarily use gruesome stories like Gosnell's when making a case for life. Your argument will fall short every time.
Abortion is not wrong because many men and women regret their abortion later. Abortion is wrong because it unjustifiably takes the life of a human being.
Abortion is not wrong because one of the babies killed may have eventually cured cancer or written the next great Broadway musical. Abortion is wrong because it unjustifiably takes the life of a human being.
Abortion is not wrong because it may have a negative effect on our economy or may have helped cripple the Social Security program. Abortion is wrong because it unjustifiably takes the life of a human being.
Abortion is not wrong because the nation's leading abortion provider Planned Parenthood does many other icky things, including promoting promiscuity in teens, promoting violence against pro-lifers and selling fetal body parts. Abortion is wrong because it unjustifiably takes the life of a human being.
Abortion is not wrong if some of the people working for Planned Parenthood help to cover up statutory rape or alleged sex trafficking, or if they lie about the facts of fetal development. Abortion is wrong because it unjustifiably takes the life of a human being.
And abortion is not even wrong because some of the people who perform abortions commit horrific acts only paralleled by the scariest of horror movies.
Abortion is wrong because it unjustifiably takes the life of a human being.
Contact: Josh Brahm
Source: Life Training Institute Blog
Kermit Gosnell: Killing For No Good Reason
Kermit Gosnell
David Harsanyi of the Denver Post said that if the pro-life movement is going to win the hearts and minds of the rest of the nation, it's not going to need more God. It's going to need more reason. He appears to be generally against abortion, but he is concerned that other irreligious people like himself might be turned off by anti-abortion signs that say Baptists for Life, Catholics for Life, Lutherans for Life. He did not take a stand on the practice of showing gruesome pictures of cut-up little babies, but I suspect he thinks those turn off people, too.
His article was spurred on by two events in the news: The March for Life in Washington, DC, and the arrest of Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell for violating the sensibilities of the Philadelphia prosecutor, Seth Williams, who charged him with waiting two minutes too long to kill seven of his victims. You see, some of the pesky babies in late-term abortions manage to outwit their assailants and survive. That is bad form and gives assassins a bad reputation, so it was necessary for Gosnell to finish the job with a sharp pair of scissors to the back of the neck. It is similar to the old adage about making sure you don't miss when you shoot at the king. No one wants a living baby out there testifying against you in a wrongful life suit.
In his 1980s book, Time for Anger: The Myth of Neutrality, Frank (Franky) Schaeffer once wrestled with the insanity of a culture charging one person with murder for being two minutes too late, while applauding the same brutality committed a few minutes earlier. He referred to laws requiring hospitals to affirmatively try to save babies they just tried to kill. Barack Obama is at least consistent on this, so look for him to issue a pardon to Gosnell. Some in the pro-choice crowd bemoan the squalid conditions of the "doctor's" office, others focus almost solely on the women.
Schaeffer has since recanted most of his arguments because he thinks his own rhetoric was too strong and may have led to the killing of George Tiller the Killer. Schaeffer makes the same error that Harsanyi makes: Thinking that the voice of reason will prevail[1].
The invention of ultrasound and pictures of little infants sucking thumbs at age 8 weeks have only had the affect of hardening the populace against rationality. All of our reasons for abandoning abortion, albeit good ones, have had little impact on abortion rates and attitudes, all hoopla from the pro-life community and politicians to the contrary. Harsanyi cites few examples of reason that he thinks will overcome the day, only citing former presidential candidate, Ron Paul:
"People ask an expectant mother how her baby is doing. They do not ask how her fetus is doing, or her blob of tissue, or her parasite."
Another question. Why are 14-year old mothers called "babies having babies", but those who choose to kill their babies are "women" exercising their rights and control over their own bodies. Abortion itself is irrational, on a hundred levels, and a few babies are rescued with these arguments or by the offer of adoption options. But millions of fathers and mothers (and grandmothers and grandfathers, too), ignore these offers by sidewalk counselors or crisis pregnancy centers and head right into the killing centers. Godless reasoning is NOT ENOUGH!
I will grant that signs that say "Thou Shalt Not Kill" do not always work either. But it is the truth. The moment we stray from the truth, ignore the truth, or fear offending people with the truth, we move further away from overcoming evil with good.
Rick Santorum has taken some heat for comparing the killing of unborn children with the institution of slavery, which ended in the civil war. He is right to do so. Note what Abraham Lincoln said about God, slavery, and bloodshed in his Second Inaugural Address.
Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other….The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?…. Yet, if God wills that it continue until …every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
Oh! that we could see a less bloody end to this evil than more bloodshed! Much better than civil war would be if God would raise up Christian statesmen like William Wilberforce who in England faithfully spoke the truth and overcame the evil of slavery with good, he warned against vain human reasonings and advocated use of the Word of God:
Policy, Sir, is not my principle, and I am not ashamed to say it. There is a principle above everything that is political. And when I reflect on the command that says, 'Thou shalt do no murder,' believing the authority to be divine, how can I dare set up any reasonings of my own against it? And, Sir, when we think of eternity, and of the future consequences of all human conduct, what is here in this life which should make any man contradict the principles of his own conscience, the principles of justice, the laws of religion and of God?
Contact: David Shedlock
Source: Caffinated Thoughts
State of the Union: Honeyed Words Herald Worse Rationing Ahead
Suppose a government official announced a plan to limit the automobiles you were allowed to buy, so that only the smallest and cheapest would be available.
It is likely most Americans would oppose it. Announce a plan limiting what automobile manufacturers can charge you for cars, however, and it would sound appealing to many people. Yet both proposals would amount to the same plan.
When the government imposes limits on what people can choose to spend for a product or service, it means that only those items that producers can afford to provide at or below the government limit will be available. Instead of letting consumers balance cost against benefit, and decide what they can afford to and want to spend their own money on, the government takes that choice away from them.
Now consider what President Obama said in his January 25, 2011 State of the Union speech about health care. He said his health care law "prevents the health insurance industry from exploiting patients." That certainly sounds good: who wants patients to be "exploited." But what does it mean? Obama considers it "exploiting" people when they are given the option of paying more to save the lives of their families, through the purchase of unrationed health insurance, than Obama thinks they should be allowed to choose to pay.
There is an old joke about a man being stopped by a thief who points a gun at him and says, "Your money or your life!" The man replies, "Take my life. I'm saving my money for my old age."
It's very foolish to pay less than you can afford for health insurance if that means you and your family will be stuck with a cheap "managed care" plan that will use "utilization review" and limited drug "formularies" to limit the treatment or drugs you may need to save your lives. It's foolish to look only at the price without also considering the quality you will get for that price.
Americans balance quality and price all the time. Of course we look for the "better deal" that will save us money, but we also keep in mind that sometimes paying bottom dollar for shoddy merchandise is no bargain.
In the State of the Union speech, President Obama said of what people are allowed to spend on health care, "The health insurance law we passed last year will slow these rising costs." And he called for "further reducing health care costs."
What he didn't mention was how the Obama health care law will "slow . . . rising costs." It will do so in large part by forcing doctors and other health care providers to limit care, through "quality and efficiency" standards imposed on them that will establish one uniform national standard of care for what treatment may – and may not – be offered patients.
Beginning in 2015, these "quality and efficiency" standards will be drawn from recommendations of an 18-member Independent Advisory Board, that is directed to come up with ways to limit what private citizens choose to pay, using their own funds and private insurance, so that they cannot keep up with the rate of medical inflation. (For details and documentation, see http://www.nrlc.org/HealthCareRationing/Index.html.)
If you're not allowed to keep up with medical inflation, what do you think will happen to the quantity and quality of the health care you can get? It will go into a steady decline.
Yet Obama is not only pledged to veto any repeal of the health care rationing law– he is now threatening to seek unspecified (so far) measures that will limit the resources Americans are allowed to use to save their own lives still further.
Honeyed words – but words that mean one thing: worse and worse health care rationing ahead.
Contact: Burke J. Balch, J.D.
Source: National Right to Life
 |
| President Obama State of the Union Address |
When the government imposes limits on what people can choose to spend for a product or service, it means that only those items that producers can afford to provide at or below the government limit will be available. Instead of letting consumers balance cost against benefit, and decide what they can afford to and want to spend their own money on, the government takes that choice away from them.
Now consider what President Obama said in his January 25, 2011 State of the Union speech about health care. He said his health care law "prevents the health insurance industry from exploiting patients." That certainly sounds good: who wants patients to be "exploited." But what does it mean? Obama considers it "exploiting" people when they are given the option of paying more to save the lives of their families, through the purchase of unrationed health insurance, than Obama thinks they should be allowed to choose to pay.
There is an old joke about a man being stopped by a thief who points a gun at him and says, "Your money or your life!" The man replies, "Take my life. I'm saving my money for my old age."
It's very foolish to pay less than you can afford for health insurance if that means you and your family will be stuck with a cheap "managed care" plan that will use "utilization review" and limited drug "formularies" to limit the treatment or drugs you may need to save your lives. It's foolish to look only at the price without also considering the quality you will get for that price.
Americans balance quality and price all the time. Of course we look for the "better deal" that will save us money, but we also keep in mind that sometimes paying bottom dollar for shoddy merchandise is no bargain.
In the State of the Union speech, President Obama said of what people are allowed to spend on health care, "The health insurance law we passed last year will slow these rising costs." And he called for "further reducing health care costs."
What he didn't mention was how the Obama health care law will "slow . . . rising costs." It will do so in large part by forcing doctors and other health care providers to limit care, through "quality and efficiency" standards imposed on them that will establish one uniform national standard of care for what treatment may – and may not – be offered patients.
Beginning in 2015, these "quality and efficiency" standards will be drawn from recommendations of an 18-member Independent Advisory Board, that is directed to come up with ways to limit what private citizens choose to pay, using their own funds and private insurance, so that they cannot keep up with the rate of medical inflation. (For details and documentation, see http://www.nrlc.org/HealthCareRationing/Index.html.)
If you're not allowed to keep up with medical inflation, what do you think will happen to the quantity and quality of the health care you can get? It will go into a steady decline.
Yet Obama is not only pledged to veto any repeal of the health care rationing law– he is now threatening to seek unspecified (so far) measures that will limit the resources Americans are allowed to use to save their own lives still further.
Honeyed words – but words that mean one thing: worse and worse health care rationing ahead.
Contact: Burke J. Balch, J.D.
Source: National Right to Life
Elections Matter, Laws Matter, You Matter!
Let's see if we can't determine what the following three news stories, taken together, may tell us.
First, from yesterday's Orange County Register, "Dr. Andrew Rutland, the Anaheim obstetrician-gynecologist accused by the California Medical Board of homicide in the death of an abortion patient, has agreed to surrender his medical license for a second time. Rutland, 67, will give up his license effective Feb. 11, rather than face disciplinary proceedings for allegations of gross negligence in the death of Ying Chen, who suffered a toxic reaction to anesthesia in 2009. Board documents allege that the storefront San Gabriel clinic was not equipped to handle emergencies, and that Rutland failed to recognize her reaction, adequately attempt resuscitation or promptly call 911."
Second, from the Associated Press, Kansas Health and Environment Secretary Robert Moser told AP Monday "that his office will require abortion providers to give the state more details about late-term procedures they perform."
Moser said while his Department's interpretation is "different than how the law has been enforced in the past," it is "in line with the intent of a 1998 law."
That law allows abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy (when the unborn "is viable, or capable of sustained survival outside the womb without extraordinary medical means") "only if the life of the pregnant woman or girl is in danger or if she faces a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."
In the past when the governors were pro-abortion, when abortionists filed a report on these post-21-week abortions, the Department of Health and Environment allowed them "to repeat the exact substantial and irreversible impairment phrase in the law in their reports, without a more detailed medical diagnosis, arguing it was the only thing legally required." In other words, for 13 years they were given a blank check under which 3,000 such abortion were performed. This despite the fact that not only does the law itself require that the abortionist state the basis for his determination that continuing the pregnancy would cause such an impairment, the Department of Health forms themselves provide a place for them.
Third, from a very critical editorial in today's New Jersey Star-Journal. "As a younger politician, [Gov. Chris] Christie favored abortion rights, but he says he changed his mind 14 years ago when his wife, Mary Pat, became pregnant with their daughter, Sarah. 'It was at that moment that it became clear to me that being on the sidelines of this issue was not something that I could live with,' he said. 'That child is a life which deserves protection.'"
The editorial went on to say, while "there are no grounds to doubt the governor's sincerity," what's "unsettling is that the governor would impose his spiritual conversion on the rest of us." The immediate impetus was Gov. Christie's appearance at a pro-life rally Monday commemorating the 38th anniversary of Roe, but the editorial page's anger stems from Christie's determination to keep funds for Planned Parenthood--the nation's largest abortion provider--and similar organizations out of the state budget.
Clearly, there are a couple of lessons. It is very, very difficult to put abortionists out of business, and even harder to keep them out of business.
According to the Register's Andy Templeton , Rutland gave up his license in 2002 "after allegations of negligence in the death of two babies, scaring patients into unnecessary hysterectomies, botching surgeries, lying to patients, falsifying medical records, over-prescribing painkillers and having sex with a patient in his office." He also "admitted to negligence in the death of Jillian Broussard, a newborn whose spinal cord was torn during a forceps delivery."
So how did he get reinstated five years later? By "demonstrating rehabilitation and expressing remorse," Templeton writes. Ying Chen is now dead.
Second, it makes a huge difference who is governor, particularly because it can mean replacing people who are in the abortion lobby's pocket. Kansas' new governor is former Senator Sam Brownback. Mr. Moser told the AP he has not talked to Brownback about abortion, and that the Department of Health and Environment is not changing any state regulations but only enforcing existing reporting requirements.
Interestingly, before attributing Gov. Christie's actions to a "spiritual conversion," the Star-Ledger actually made a very important point: "This change of heart can happen to men and women when they become parents."
Yes! More to the point, this change of heart can come about even with an abortion-vulnerable woman, provided she is allowed to see her baby on an ultrasound. A very close friend of our family told me about exactly that kind of conversion just this week!
The light of truth matters, which is why pro-abortionists count on us remaining in the dark.
Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: National Right to Life
First, from yesterday's Orange County Register, "Dr. Andrew Rutland, the Anaheim obstetrician-gynecologist accused by the California Medical Board of homicide in the death of an abortion patient, has agreed to surrender his medical license for a second time. Rutland, 67, will give up his license effective Feb. 11, rather than face disciplinary proceedings for allegations of gross negligence in the death of Ying Chen, who suffered a toxic reaction to anesthesia in 2009. Board documents allege that the storefront San Gabriel clinic was not equipped to handle emergencies, and that Rutland failed to recognize her reaction, adequately attempt resuscitation or promptly call 911."
Second, from the Associated Press, Kansas Health and Environment Secretary Robert Moser told AP Monday "that his office will require abortion providers to give the state more details about late-term procedures they perform."
Moser said while his Department's interpretation is "different than how the law has been enforced in the past," it is "in line with the intent of a 1998 law."
That law allows abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy (when the unborn "is viable, or capable of sustained survival outside the womb without extraordinary medical means") "only if the life of the pregnant woman or girl is in danger or if she faces a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."
In the past when the governors were pro-abortion, when abortionists filed a report on these post-21-week abortions, the Department of Health and Environment allowed them "to repeat the exact substantial and irreversible impairment phrase in the law in their reports, without a more detailed medical diagnosis, arguing it was the only thing legally required." In other words, for 13 years they were given a blank check under which 3,000 such abortion were performed. This despite the fact that not only does the law itself require that the abortionist state the basis for his determination that continuing the pregnancy would cause such an impairment, the Department of Health forms themselves provide a place for them.
 |
| Gov. Chris Christie |
The editorial went on to say, while "there are no grounds to doubt the governor's sincerity," what's "unsettling is that the governor would impose his spiritual conversion on the rest of us." The immediate impetus was Gov. Christie's appearance at a pro-life rally Monday commemorating the 38th anniversary of Roe, but the editorial page's anger stems from Christie's determination to keep funds for Planned Parenthood--the nation's largest abortion provider--and similar organizations out of the state budget.
Clearly, there are a couple of lessons. It is very, very difficult to put abortionists out of business, and even harder to keep them out of business.
According to the Register's Andy Templeton , Rutland gave up his license in 2002 "after allegations of negligence in the death of two babies, scaring patients into unnecessary hysterectomies, botching surgeries, lying to patients, falsifying medical records, over-prescribing painkillers and having sex with a patient in his office." He also "admitted to negligence in the death of Jillian Broussard, a newborn whose spinal cord was torn during a forceps delivery."
So how did he get reinstated five years later? By "demonstrating rehabilitation and expressing remorse," Templeton writes. Ying Chen is now dead.
Second, it makes a huge difference who is governor, particularly because it can mean replacing people who are in the abortion lobby's pocket. Kansas' new governor is former Senator Sam Brownback. Mr. Moser told the AP he has not talked to Brownback about abortion, and that the Department of Health and Environment is not changing any state regulations but only enforcing existing reporting requirements.
Interestingly, before attributing Gov. Christie's actions to a "spiritual conversion," the Star-Ledger actually made a very important point: "This change of heart can happen to men and women when they become parents."
Yes! More to the point, this change of heart can come about even with an abortion-vulnerable woman, provided she is allowed to see her baby on an ultrasound. A very close friend of our family told me about exactly that kind of conversion just this week!
The light of truth matters, which is why pro-abortionists count on us remaining in the dark.
Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: National Right to Life
U.S. youth will help overturn Roe
Meanwhile, President Obama acknowledged the Jan. 22 observance by reaffirming his support for the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision but again failing to call for a reduction in the number of abortions.
Tens of thousands of pro-lifers rallied and marched Jan. 24 at the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C., after a weekend filled with pro-life events in the capital and around the country. Southern Baptist ethicist Richard Land spoke at one of those on Roe's anniversary -- the Louisiana Life March in Baton Rouge.
The president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission decried Roe's effect but said there is "good news." The Roe ruling struck down all state bans on abortion and, coupled with the Doe v. Bolton opinion issued the same day, effectively legalized abortion throughout pregnancy for virtually any reason.
"It is both a disgrace and a tragedy that we have killed somewhere between 50 and 55 million unborn Americans over the last 38 years," Land told Baptist Press Jan. 24. "We have killed more of our unborn citizens every year than all the deaths of all of our military in all of the wars we have ever fought from colonial times through the latest deaths in Afghanistan.
"The good news is that America is awakening like the prodigal son from her moral slumber and the pro-life movement is gaining new strength every day," Land said. He pointed to polls that show "pro-life is the new majority, the new normal."
"When one attends pro-life rallies, you cannot help but be struck by the youthfulness of the crowds," Land said. "That majority will grow and with it ever more protection for our unborn citizens until Roe v. Wade is justly put on the ash heap of history along with Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson."
The Supreme Court ruled in 1857 that Dred Scott, an African-American slave, was not a U.S. citizen and had no rights. In the 1896 Plessy opinion, the high court upheld racial segregation.
"Young pro-lifers proclaim at every rally both with their voices and with their hand-drawn signs, 'We survived Roe, Roe won't survive us.' The most pro-life segments of the country are those born since 1973, and they will restore America's moral compass sooner rather than later," Land said.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, said of Roe's 38th anniversary, "[W]e hold heavy in our hearts the 52 million lives lost and the countless mothers hurt by the horror of abortion.
"But with this great sadness comes great optimism," she said in a written statement. "Americans have shown in poll after poll, and especially in the last election, that they find 'pro-choice' rhetoric empty of meaning and find abortion-friendly policies a violation of their consciences. The new pro-life House leadership has shown it is dedicated to translating this public opinion into real public policy that saves lives and ends taxpayer funding of abortion."
Speaker of the House John Boehner has demonstrated in his first month in the position his support for legislation to ban federal money for abortion. He said in a Jan. 22 written statement the Roe opinion "tore asunder a right to life our Founding Fathers described so indelibly in our Declaration of Independence. The decision denigrated the respect we must have for life at all stages, especially the innocent unborn."
The Ohio Republican said, "The new House majority has listened to the people and pledged to end taxpayer funding of abortion. A ban is the will of the people and ought to be the law of the land.... This is critical, common-sense legislation that deserves the support of the people's representatives and the president."
As expected, Obama showed no evidence in his Jan. 22 written statement of joining an effort to prohibit -- or reduce -- federal funding of abortion.
He described Roe as the high court's ruling "that protects women's health and reproductive freedom, and affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters." Obama said he is "committed to protecting this constitutional right."
The president also affirmed his commitment to "policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption."
For the second year in a row, Obama did not say in his brief statement that Americans are united in "our determination" to "reduce the need for abortion" -- a comment he made in 2009 on the Roe anniversary.
The president's statement followed by only three days the news that Kermit Gosnell, a Philadelphia, Pa., abortion doctor, had been charged with murdering a woman and seven babies after their deliveries in a filthy clinic where he allegedly had harmed scores of women and killed thousands of late-term, unborn children over more than three decades. It also was released barely two weeks after it was reported that four in 10 pregnancies in New York City still end in abortion.
Obama's Jan. 22 statement shows how radically pro-abortion he is, said R. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
The president's statement included nothing "that indicated any recognition that abortion is in any case or in any sense a tragedy," Mohler wrote in a Jan. 24 blog post.
"How can any President of the United States fail to address this unspeakable tragedy? There was no hope expressed that abortion would be rare. ... The only words that even insinuate any hypothetical reduction in abortion were addressed to reducing 'unintended pregnancies' and promoting adoption," Mohler wrote. "But no goal of reducing abortion was stated or even obliquely suggested. No reference at all was made of the unborn child. There was no
Pro-life leaders expressed hope regarding the state of their cause upon the 38th anniversary of abortion's legalization in the United States.
Contact: Tom Strode
Source: Baptist Press
January 26, 2011
Obamacare: H.R. 3–Making Sure Feds Don’t Pay for Abortion
Obamacarians assure us that the new law prohibits coverage for abortion. That's not true. It was merely one of the many shell games played by its supporters. The law left to the bureaucracy to include abortion as an indirectly covered procedure in subsidized state exchange-authorized policies–which considering who is head of HHS–it almost certainly will.
That was why the "Stupack Amendment," introduced by the late (politically) pro life Congressman was fought so hard (costing him his job when he caved) by the pro choice crowd. They didn't want a permanent Hyde Amendment. (The president's executive order was a mere sop. It can be withdrawn at the stroke of a pen.)
To ensure that no federal money pays for any abortion (except in case of rape, incest, or physical threat to the mother), opponents of federally subsidized or paid for abortion introduced the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" (H.R. 3), with 178 co-sponsors at last count. From the legislation:
SEC. 301. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING FOR ABORTIONS.
No funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended for any abortion.
SEC. 302. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING FOR HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS THAT COVER ABORTION.
None of the funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.
SEC. 303. PROHIBITION ON TAX BENEFITS RELATING TO ABORTION.
(1) no credit shall be allowed under the internal revenue laws with respect to amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or with respect to amounts paid or incurred for a health benefits plan (including premium assistance) that includes coverage of abortion,
(2) for purposes of determining any deduction for expenses paid for medical care of the taxpayer or the taxpayer's spouse or dependents, amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or for a health benefits plan that includes coverage of abortion shall not be taken into account, and
(3) in the case of any tax-preferred trust or account the purpose of which is to pay medical expenses of the account beneficiary, any amount paid or distributed from such an account for an abortion shall be included in the gross income of such beneficiary.
The bill does not prevent private or state-only funded coverage (the latter being the law currently regarding assisted suicide), and specifically exempts the rape, incest, or physical health threat to the mother from its scope, so there actually could be funding in a few cases.
I support this bill. I believe that, legality aside, public policy should disfavor abortion–and funding restrictions clearly promote that goal. Thus, women or couples who want one of the nearly 1 million surgical abortions performed in this country each year, each of which stills a beating heart, can pay for it themselves. Maybe then sexually active couples would take more responsibility toward avoiding unwanted fecundity. It's not that difficult.
(I would also like to see Planned Parenthood subsidies ended, at least proportionate to the extent that its activities involve abortion. I am sure there are plenty of very wealthy pro choice supporters who could fund "scholarships" for pregnancy terminations.)
Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Soruce: Secondhand Smoke
Defending the Defenders
Liberals have a favorite slam on pro-lifers: "They believe life begins at conception and ends at birth." It is a base slander of people who give more time and money to Christian charities–and non-Christian charities–than many others in America.
It is indeed a lazy and despicable slander of pro-lifers. Helen Alvare and her co-authors are certainly right in their recent Christianity Today column. Theirs is a powerful defense of the defenders. They demonstrate pro-lifers' commitment to social justice and to lending helping hands.
But the liberals' slam raises another pertinent question: What's wrong with saving human lives? I served in the Coast Guard for nine years. I took part in rescues at sea. The Coast Guard recently claimed to have saved 1 million lives since its founding in 1790.
In 230 years, not one of those million persons whose lives were saved ever complained that the Coast Guard did not teach them to read, or help them obtain a job, or give them a breakfast. (Actually, we did give them breakfasts, but only until we got them safely on shore). In the Coast Guard, we did nothing about illiteracy. Or poverty.
Still, Americans honor the Coast Guard all the same.
The entire charge against pro-lifers is as offensive as it is absurd. When 3,000 unborn children are unjustly killed every day, there is an urgency that life alone can command.
Several years ago, I was writing a paper late on a Friday afternoon. We were then living at the U.S. Naval Academy. I was struggling to convey to the reader the enormity of 3,000 lives a day.
My wife, a Navy captain, pulled me away from my word processor to a ceremony on the Parade Field. With the band leading the parade, the Brigade of Midshipmen marched by the reviewing stands.
There were young men and women, from every state, marching by. They formed up nine abreast. It took eleven minutes for this company to pass the Superintendent and take the salute. And there were three thousand of them.
Watching these vital young Mids marching by, it struck me with a pang: we lose the equivalent of this wonderful brigade–a hopeful brigade of future Americans–every day.
For anyone to say that stopping the fatal parade of abortion is not urgently needed–or to slander those good Americans who are trying lawfully and lovingly to stop it–is cruel and unjust. It is as morally wrong as those who take innocent lives. God bless the pro-lifers. I'm still happy to throw them a line.
Contact: Robert Morrison
Source: FRC Blog
Texting poll aims to highlight media influence in abortion debate
The pro-life group Heroic Media launched a massive texting poll to hundreds of thousands of participants at the West Coast Walk for Life and the D.C. March for Life this past weekend, in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of media influence on the debate over abortion.
At the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. on Monday, mobile billboards and crowd volunteers encouraged participants to text their opinions about abortion as part of a new nationwide poll.
"We are trying to see how many people are aware of the role mainstream media and Planned Parenthood play in promoting abortion versus promoting a culture of life," spokesperson Kimberly Guidry Speirs said in a Jan. 25 e-mail.
Heroic Media – headquartered in Austin with offices nationwide – launched the national campaign this weekend at the Walk For Life West Coast in San Francisco, which was held on Jan. 22, and at the Jan. 24 March for Life 2011 in Washington D.C.
"These walks and marches celebrate life and stand in opposition to the violence of abortion," said Heroic Media President Brian Follett.
"The anniversary of Roe v. Wade encourages reflection on the deaths of 52 million unborn children and the millions of women who suffer emotional scars from the procedure."
Follett said that in his organization's work to provide educational resources on alternatives for women in crisis pregnancies, he has seen that "once women learn about hopeful alternatives, they usually choose life."
He said that the pro-life media organization helps assist pregnancy resource centers that do not have the funding to promote media that will let women know where they can find help. The group regularly uses television, radio, billboards, bus shelter ads and Internet messaging to spread its message.
Follett noted that in cities where Heroic MediaŹ¼s commercials have aired consistently, the abortion rates have decreased as much as 20 percent.
Source: CNA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)