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

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

The Ambitions of Bill and Melinda Gates: Controlling Population and Public Education

Continuing their commitment to controlling global population growth through artificial contraception, sterilization, and abortion initiatives, Microsoft founder and philanthropist, Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda, a self-described “practicing” Catholic, are now attempting to control the curriculum of the nation’s public schools. Subsidizing the Common Core State Standards in English language arts and mathematics, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has committed more than $76 million to support teachers in implementing the Common Core—a standardized national curriculum.   This, on top of the tens of millions they have already awarded to the National Governor’s Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers to develop the Common Core in the first place.

Working collaboratively with the Obama administration, the Gates Foundation subsidized the creation of a national curriculum for English and mathematics that has now been adopted by 46 states, and the District of Columbia—despite the fact that the General Education Provisions Act, the Department of Education Organization Act, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act all protect states against such an intrusion by the United States Department of Education.

The Common Core Standards were developed by an organization called Achieve, and the National Governors Association—both of which were funded by the Gates Foundation.  The standards have been imposed on the states without any field testing, and little or no input from those involved in implementing the standards.  In a post entitled “Why I Cannot Support the Common Core Standards,” educational policy analyst and New York University Research Professor, Diane Ravitch, wrote that the standards “are being imposed on the children of this nation despite the fact that no one has any idea how they will affect students, teachers or schools…Their creation was neither grassroots nor did it emanate from the states.”

Ravitch is especially concerned about the content of the curriculum—what she called the “flap over fiction vs. informational text.”  Rather than giving English teachers the freedom to teach literature, the Common Core mandates that a far greater percentage of classroom time be spent on “fact-based” learning.  Ravitch’s concerns are shared by others.  For example, one teacher claimed that she had to give up having her students read Shakespeare in favor of Malcolm Gladwell’s Tipping Point because it was “fact-based” and Shakespeare was not. Of course, Tipping Point has a political agenda.  Parents may be concerned if they were to learn that Gladwell suggests such “facts” as the belief that parents should stop worrying about their children’s “experimentation with drugs,” including cocaine because “it seldom leads to hardcore use.”
“Fact-based” books on climate change are also replacing classic works of literature because they are viewed as offering students an opportunity to learn “science.” Freakonomics—a book that has already been a favorite of public school teachers—is preferable to Poe because students will learn about the positive effects of abortion on reducing crime rates by reducing the population of those more likely to commit crime.

While the adoption of the Common Core was “voluntary” by the 46 states that adopted it, it was well understood by these states that they would not be eligible for Race to the Top funding ($4.35 billion) unless they adopted the Common Core standards.  The Gates Foundation was very much a part of this.  According to Lyndsey Layton of the Washington Post (December 2, 2012), “the Gates Foundation invested tens of millions of dollars in the effort…The Obama administration kicked the notion into high gear when it required states to adopt the common core—or an equivalent—in order to compete for Race to the Top grant funds.”

Valerie Strauss of the Washington Post recently reported (February 26, 2013) that there is growing resistance. Alabama, for example, withdrew from the two consortia that are working on creating standardized tests aligned with the standards. Indiana, which adopted the Common Core in 2010 under the state education superintendent Tony Bennett, is now talking about a “pause” in the implementation of the curriculum.  Bennett was defeated in the November elections by an educator who opposed Bennett’s support for the Common Core.

Now, there are concerns that the imposition of the Common Core within the public schools could threaten the autonomy of private schools, religious schools and home schools.  An op-ed published in the Orange County Register by Robert Holland, claims that the Common Core could “morph into a national curriculum that will stifle the family-centered creativity that has fostered high rates of achievement and growth for home education…Many private and parochial schools—including those of the 100 Roman Catholic dioceses across the nation, already are adopting the CCSS prescriptions for math and English classes…Their debatable reasoning is that the rush of most state governments to embrace the national standards means publishers of textbooks and tests will fall in line, thereby leaving private schools with no practical alternatives for instructional materials.  According to October 8, 2012 article in Education Week by Erik Robelin, it is not just Catholic schools that are adopting the Common Core, some Lutheran and other denominations of Christian schools are shifting to the common core, including Grand Rapids Christian in Michigan and the Christian Academy School System in Louisville, KY.  According to Robelin, parochial school leaders claim that they must “remain competitive” with public schools and now feel pressured to adopt the Core.  These are real concerns.  As Diane Ravitch points out, “Now that David Coleman, the primary architect of the Common Core standards has become president of the College Board, we can expect that SAT will be aligned to the standards.  No one will escape their reach, whether they attend public or private school.”

On February 14, 2013, Missouri legislator Kurt Bahr filed HB616 that prohibits the State Board of Education from implementing the Common Core for public schools developed by the Common Core Initiative or any other statewide education standards without the approval of the General Assembly. An increasing number of parents are voicing their concerns.  For example, Tiffany Mouritsen, a Utah mother, blogged that the American Institutes for Research (AIR), the primary source for Common Core testing is a major concern for her:  “AIR markets its values which includes promoting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual agenda for teens, and publicizes its client list (including George Soros and Bill and Melinda Gates).”  In a column published in January, political commentator Michelle Malkin calls the Common Core a “stealthy federal takeover of school curriculum and standards across the country.” And, she maintains that the Common Core’s “dubious college and career read standards undermine local control of education, usurp state autonomy over curricular materials, and foist untested, mediocre and incoherent pedagogical theories on America’s schoolchildren.
The Gates Foundation: Buying Control

The promise of federal funds to states in order to “encourage” them to adopt the Common Core is nothing new.  Our government has been doing this both nationally and internationally for decades.  In a 2008 book entitled Fatal Misconception, author Matthew Connelly writes that in the 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson leveraged food aid for family planning during crop failures in India, thus creating an incentive for the sterilization program.  India’s Ministry of Health and Family Planning admitted that, “The large number of sterilizations and IUD insertions during 1967-68 was due to drought conditions.”  Eventually, more sophisticated incentives such as bicycles and radios were used to encourage women to accept sterilization.  Connelly writes that under Indira Gandhi in the mid-1970s sterilization became a condition not just for land allotments, but for irrigation water, electricity, ration cards, rickshaw licenses, medical care, pay raises and promotions.  There were sterilization quotas—especially for the Dalits (the untouchable caste) who were targeted for family planning.

While the Gates Foundation has not been involved in anything this coercive, they have indeed been very much involved in giving aid to those countries willing to participate in family planning initiatives.   For nearly two decades, the Gates Foundation has been generous in providing aid to more than 100 countries—often coupled with family planning opportunities.  Such aid is often framed as a way to foster economic growth.  In an article in American Thinker, Andressen Blom and James Bell wrote that Melinda Gates made that connection explicit in a speech at a population gathering that “government leaders are now beginning to understand that providing access to contraceptives is a cost effective way to foster economic growth.”

Bill Gates revealed his own population goals in February, 2010, at the invitation-only Technology, Entertainment and Design Conference in Long Beach, California, when he gave his keynote speech on global warming: “Innovating to Zero!” In a youtube video available here,  Gates stated that CO2 emissions must be reduced to zero by 2050 and advised those in attendance that population had much to do with the increase in CO2.  Claiming that each individual on the planet puts out an average of about five tons of CO2 per year, Gates stated that “Somehow we have to make changes that will bring that down to zero…It has been constantly going up. It’s only various economic changes that have even flattened it at all.”  To illustrate, Gates presented the following equation: CO2 (total population emitted CO2 per year) = P (people) x S (services per person) x E (average energy per service) x C (average CO2 emitted per unit of energy).  Gates told the audience that “probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty near to zero.  That’s a fact from high school algebra.”  For Gates, the P (population) portion of the equation is the most important: “If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

Gates maintains that improvements in health care—including an expansion of the administration of vaccinations—will encourage families to reduce the number of children they desire to have.  And, in an ongoing attempt to expand the types of birth control, Gates has spent millions of dollars on research and development.  According to Christian Voice, a few years ago the Gates Foundation awarded a grant of $100,000 to researchers at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, to develop a new type of ultrasound described as a “non-invasive form of birth control for men” which would make a man infertile for up to six months.

Such strategies have been effective.   In fact, the Gates Foundation has been so successful in their family planning initiatives that the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) awarded their annual Population Award in 2010 to the Foundation.  According to a June 15, 2010 article in Mercator.net, at the awards ceremony, UNFPA executive director Thoraya Obaid cited the Gates Foundation as a “leader in the fields of global health and global development, particularly in promoting excellence in population assistance, including through the design of innovative, integrated solutions in the areas of reproductive health, family planning, and maternal and neonatal health.”  The International Planned Parenthood Federation is a previous winner of the United Nations Population Fund’s Annual Award.

It is easy to understand why the United Nations Population Fund—a fund which Steven Mosher, the President of the Population Research Institute has exposed as being a direct participant in China’s coercive one-child policy—honored Gates with their prestigious Population Fund award since the Gates Foundation has donated more than one billion dollars to “family-planning” groups including the United Nations Population Fund itself; CARE International—an organization which is lobbying for legalized abortion in several African nations; Save the Children—a major promoter of the population control agenda, the World Health Organization—an organization that forcibly sterilized thousands of women in the 1990s under the pretence of providing tetanus vaccination services in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines; and of course, the major abortion provider, International Planned Parenthood Federation.

Bill and Melinda Gates truly believe that population control is key to the future.  Plans are already in place to track births and vaccinations through cell phone technology to register every birth on the planet.  Gates claims that the GPS technology would enable officials to track and “remind” parents who do not bring their children in for vaccines.   Maintaining that vaccination is key to reducing population growth, Gates predicts that if child mortality can be reduced, parents will have fewer children, following the example of the urbanized West where birth rates have dropped to below replacement levels: “The fact is that within a decade of improving health outcomes, parents decide to have fewer children.”   For Gates, “there is no such thing as a healthy, high population growth country.  If you’re healthy, you’re low-population growth… As the world grows from 6 billion to 9 billion, all of that population growth is in urban slums…It’s a very interesting problem.”

More than a decade ago, on May 17, 2002, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation had purchased shares in nine of the largest pharmaceutical companies valued at nearly $205 million.  Acquiring shares in Merck, Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson Wyeth, Abbott Labs, and others, the Gates Foundation continues a financial interest in common with the makers of AIDS drugs, diagnostic tools, vaccines, and contraceptives.  But, the commitment to global population control goes well beyond financial interests.  It is likely that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will continue its commitment to global population control, and now, curriculum creation in the nation’s schools because they truly believe that they know better than anyone else how we all should live.

A Product of Poor Catholic Education

It is difficult to believe the claims of Bill and Melinda Gates that they are not involved in the abortion industry when you look at the relationships they have with organizations like the International Planned Parenthood Federation—the largest abortion provider in the world.  According to the National Catholic Register, Melinda Gates represents herself in the media as a practicing Catholic who has a great uncle who was a Jesuit priest and a great aunt who was an Ursuline nun who taught her to read.  She graduated from Ursuline Academy in Dallas, where she claims to have learned “incredible social justice.”  And, this may indeed be where the problem begins.  For so many Catholics, social justice has been so broadly defined that it now includes giving women access to reproductive rights—including the right to abortion—so that they can play an equal role in contributing to the workplace and the economy.  In an article entitled “Why Birth Control is Still a Big Idea” published in Foreign Policy in December, 2012, Melinda Gates writes:

    Contraceptives unlock one of the most dormant but potentially powerful assets in development:  women as decision makers.  When women have the power to make choices about their families, they tend to decide precisely what demographers, economists, and development experts recommend.

Most recently, in a January 2, 2013 article published on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation website entitled “Profiles in Courage: Philippines Passes Reproductive Health Bill,” the article congratulates all of those who helped bring expanded access to “reproductive health” through the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012—recently signed by President Aquino. This bill states that women and men—living in the most Catholic of Catholic countries—can now “decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children.”   What the Gates Foundation website omits is information about the provision within the bill involving “population management” through mandatory counseling of couples seeking marriage licenses.  In this case, social justice involves a demand that couples learn about the government’s views on an ideal family size of two children—coming one step closer to China in its government’s one-child policy.

This commitment to a distorted definition of social justice by Melinda and Bill Gates will likely continue because they have been lead to believe that such control is what is best for people.  The Core Curriculum is really just another component of population control—it is used to help teach children the “facts” about climate change and problems of over-population.  Indeed, the population agenda is a trap that many wealthy, highly intelligent people have fallen into in the past. From the wealthy eugenics supporters of Planned Parenthood’s Founder Margaret Sanger, to the Rockefeller family and their population control initiatives, this work continues today through their heirs—heirs like David Rockefeller—an ally of Bill and Melinda Gates.  And some influential Catholics have been complicit in this.  At one time, Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, President Emeritus of the University of Notre Dame served as a trustee, and later, Chairman of the Board of the Rockefeller Foundation, a funder of population causes counter to the teachings of the Church.

The population control initiatives promoted by the Gates Foundation will continue to grow nationally and internationally because they have convinced others and themselves that they are saving lives. On their website, they ask: “what is more life affirming than saving one third of mothers from dying in childbirth?”   What they do not seem to acknowledge is how many unborn children have died from their initiatives.

By Anne Hendershott
Source: Crisis Magazine

Math Teacher Escorted Out by Police, Set to Be Fired for Opposing Planned Parenthood in the Classroom

Portland Math Teacher Escorted Out by Police, Set to Be Fired for Anti Abortion Views, Opposing Planned Parenthood in Classroom

Bill Diss says his opposition to Planned Parenthood and abortion led to his removal from the classroom.

An Oregon public school teacher says he’s on the verge of being fired because of his outspoken views against Planned Parenthood and abortion.

Bill Diss, who taught at Benson High School in Portland for 11 years, was placed on paid leave March 19 and recommended for dismissal, the Oregonian reported. That day, the math teacher said he was given a few minutes to collect his things and was escorted from school premises by police, according to the Christian News Network.

Diss is a staunch Roman Catholic and blocked two Planned Parenthood workers from entering his classroom in September because, he said, they lacked proper identification.

Planned Parenthood is a partner in the Portland school district’s Teen Outreach Program, aimed at preventing teen pregnancy, and funded by a federal Department of Health and Human Services grant, according to the Oregonian.

“I think, deep down, it’s because of my views,” Diss told the newspaper. “And that it’s much more important for them to have Planned Parenthood in the schools than to have a really dedicated teacher who really teaches math well and goes the extra mile and does a whole bunch with the kids.”

Administrators removed a teacher from Portland’s Benson High on Tuesday. Bill Diss is on paid leave and said he is in danger of being fired. view full article

He was reprimanded for the incident and the workers were eventually allowed in to give a presentation aimed at preventing teenage pregnancy — though school district officials said Diss interrupted them.

In December, Diss helped organized a protest at a school board meeting against Planned Parenthood’s presence in the district, calling it “a chance to get healed so that filth doesn’t have to be handed to other people.”

Former students told KGW-TV Diss is known for sharing his anti-abortion views at school.

“He doesn’t do it a lot, but students do make fun of him for being against it and everything,” junior Ty’sha Harrell said. “When he does talk about it, he does have really good views and everything, sometimes he goes too deep into it. He brings religion into it.”

In one suspension letter provided to the Oregonian, school officials accused him of trying to block students from attending the Planned Parenthood program because of his religious beliefs and told them to “shut (their) mouths.”

“(Students) also quoted you as saying, ‘they would end up on 82nd (Avenue) and that they kill over a million babies every three years,’” the letter, addressed from school principal Carol Campbell and the human resources director, stated.

Diss told the newspaper there was a misunderstanding in the reference to 82nd Avenue, a known hub for prostitution, but admitted to talking about Planned Parenthood and his religious beliefs in class.

In a statement to KGW, the school district said it does not “discuss the nature of personnel issues and actions out of respect for the individual.”

“But I can tell you that we respect the rights of all employees to their own political, religious, social and other beliefs and affiliations and expect all employees to conduct themselves professionally in their work, most especially with students,” the statement said.

Source: OneNewsNow

New Investigation Shows that the Heart of Abortion Clinics Is Not “Healthcare”

An undercover investigation of the Southwest's largest so-called "women's clinic" has revealed that the purpose of this clinic is not to provide women's healthcare at all, but to sell women one product – abortion. In fact, abortion, is the only option given to women at the misnamed Southwestern Women's Options in Albuquerque, New Mexico, is abortion. Period.

So many times people criticize pro-life activists for focusing attention on local abortion clinics, citing the many other services such clinics provide. However, at Southwestern Women's Options, a clinic that specializes in lucrative third trimester abortions, there are no other services.

Here in Albuquerque, as we reach out to abortion-bound women outside of this late-term abortion clinic, women give us all kinds of reason as to why they are going inside. "I'm having an ectopic pregnancy removed," "I'm here for an IUD," "I'm getting birth control," "I'm here for a mammogram," "I'm here for a well woman exam," or "I am here for STD (sexually transmitted disease) testing" are the excuses we hear from women entering the clinic on an almost daily basis. Very few women actually admit to going in for an abortion to kill their child.

The heart of the abortion industry is ABORTION, not women's healthcare. Abortion clinics are businesses and many of them like SWO only offer abortions because that's where the money is. With all of the talk recently about protecting women's healthcare, we must ask ourselves, "What 'healthcare' services are we talking about?"

Project Defending Life and Operation Rescue, recently conducted an undercover investigation to find out exactly what services Southwestern Women's Options (SWO) actually provides women. When an undercover caller asked SWO if birth control could be obtained at the clinic the reply was, "Birth control is only available to our (abortion) patients."

When asked whether or not annual well women's exams like pap smears are offered, the answer again was, "No." When asked if they screen for sexually transmitted diseases, the answer once again was no.

Most disturbingly when asked if an ectopic pregnancy can be seen on ultrasound at SWO, the answer was, "No." This fact alone is troublesome because these types of pregnancies can be life threatening.

In fact, the employee of SWO that we conversed with indicated that her ultrasound machine was so outdated that it was incapable of diagnosing an ectopic pregnancy. If a woman was experiencing an ectopic pregnancy, she told us that their facility wasn't equipped to handle that kind of thing.

"That requires a surgical site to do that," she admitted, even though the abortions done at the clinic where she works do surgical abortions all day long. Was she admitting that her facility wasn't properly equipped to properly handle surgeries and the complications that might develop from them?

We think so, and have documentation to support it.

Project Defending Life has documented 14 abortion injuries since 2008 at SWO. The most recent abortion related injury occurred on March 1, 2013. Life-threatening complications suffered by these women range from hemorrhage, to incomplete abortions where baby body parts were not completely removed, to a ruptured uterus during a 35-week abortion.

To further show that money is a motivating factor behind the abortion industry, a previous undercover investigation of SWO revealed that late-term abortions on perfectly healthy babies and babies diagnosed with Down syndrome cost anywhere from 8-16 THOUSAND DOLLARS. In fact, the taxpayers of New Mexico foot the bill 100% for these abortions via Medicaid. In 2011 alone, New Mexico Medicaid paid for 1,786 abortions at a whopping cost of $1,127,557.26 to New Mexico taxpayers.

Healthcare is defined as "the field concerned with the maintenance or restoration of the health of the body or mind," however, abortion does neither. Abortion doesn't restore the health of the woman's body nor in our vast experience with post-abortive women, does abortion restore the mind.

In fact, the procedures employed during an abortion do just the opposite. For instance, the suction within the uterus during a first trimester aspiration abortion can be damaging to the uterine wall. The second trimester procedure requires that the pre-born child be pulled apart piece by piece with grasping instruments, which sometimes results in an internal organ being grabbed instead of the child. The third trimester procedure is essentially an early induced labor, after the pre-born child has been euthanized via a fetal heart attack. The drug combination and other aspects of this horrific practice bears many risks to the woman.

Abortion certainly doesn't heal the minds of women either; in fact many post abortive women testify that mentally they are in turmoil after their abortions for many years.

Abortion isn't healthcare. It provides no benefit to anyone, woman or child, except for the abortionists and their bank accounts. The New York Times recently published an article "The Holocaust Just Got More Shocking," that described the Nazi "care" centers that committed unspeakable atrocities on women, including abortions, which sound eerily similar to our modern day American women's health "care" clinics.

Should these types of clinics receive public money when they do not offer basic healthcare and in fact, have the potential of harming the health of unsuspecting women? We think not.

The lack of basic medical care provided to women at clinics like Southwestern Women's Options and the staggering number of documented abortion injuries, not just in Albuquerque, but nationwide, should motivate all of us to be even more diligent to offer help to abortion-vulnerable women, especially at the abortion clinics themselves, because it seems that the only ones who truly care about the health of women — body, mind, and soul – are those of us outside the walls of American abortion clinics.

By Tara Shaver
Source: Project Defending Life

Parents of unborn babies with disabilities often experience great pressure to abort

Now that prenatal testing can so easily detect babies with physical and mental disabilities, more and more women are choosing to abort their children if something is wrong with them. For example, up to 92% of women whose tests show that they are carrying babies with Down syndrome abort.

Some women have successfully sued doctors for the “wrongful life” of babies who were born handicapped, claiming that their doctors should have detected the anomaly so they could abort. Perhaps this is one reason why many doctors urge their pregnant patients to undergo amniocentesis, a test which is not without the risk of miscarriage. Along with the pressure to undergo amniocentesis comes the pressure to abort if the amniocentesis – or other recommended prenatal testing – shows a problem.

Parents are Subjected to Eugenicist Views and Urged to Choose Abortion

According to one pro-choice author:

“Through the gradual introduction of new forms of technology and testing, the medical establishment and the public health sector have been developing subtle quality-of-life standards and not-so-subtle ways of discouraging the birth of those who do not measure up.” (1)

Another researcher writes:

“The mere existence of a [genetic] technology contains an implicit coercion to use it[.] … Sometimes the coercion is more than implicit.” (2)

Some doctors oppose even allowing women to give birth to their handicapped children. Bob Edwards, the scientist who presided over Great Britain’s first in vitro fertilization delivery, gave a speech at a fertility convention where he said:

“Soon it will be a sin if parents to have a child that carries the heavy burden of genetic disease. We are entering a world where we have to consider the quality of our children.” (3)

While it is impossible to know how many OBGYNs share this eugenicist and elitist view, a number of women have experienced pressure from doctors to abort their handicapped children.

One women who found out she was pregnant with a baby with Down syndrome recounted her obstetrician saying, “It could just be hanging off you, drooling,” while encouraging her to abort. (4)

Another writer recounted the following:

“A woman I know was told by her obstetrician that her fetus had Down syndrome. The doctor ordered her to abort, she refused. … Another woman was similarly coerced. Her doctor told her that her baby would be more like a fish than a human and would only be as smart as a baboon.” (5)

The article this quote appears in talks about a study that found that 99% of individuals with Down syndrome report being happy with their lives.

Parents Are Pressured to Make Fast Decisions While Their Children Become Victims of Prejudice and Discrimination

Women who are pregnant with disabled babies are often pressured to make a decision quickly. This may be partly because some abortion providers believe that abortion becomes more dangerous the later in pregnancy it is performed. One abortionist claims that the risk of abortion complications increases 20% for each week of pregnancy that passes (6).

Abortions for reasons of fetal anomaly are usually late-term abortions because amniocentesis can be performed only in the second trimester, and most disabilities are not discerned until midway through pregnancy. This is why many women who are carrying disabled babies have abortions in the late second or third trimester. (This may change with the advent of blood testing that can detect some abnormalities.)

One study found that parents of babies aborted due to disability or “fetal anomaly” suffer depression and loss. Those who conducted the study said:

“Despite the shock and grief they may experience upon hearing the news of a fetal anomaly, the pregnant woman and her partner are usually urged to make the decision to terminate quickly. Behind the urgency is the physician’s desire to avoid complications of ‘late’ terminations of pregnancy. Because of the delays involved in amniocentesis, abortions may occur in the second and even third trimester pregnancy. In health care settings, the issue of such late abortions has raised ethical and legal questions. In one early study, most of the terminations occurred within 72 hours of the woman receiving the news of the abnormality. This hardly allows time for the couple to become informed about parenting children born with that anomaly and thus considering carrying through with the pregnancy.” (7)

Rayna Rapp, who aborted a baby who was found to be handicapped, conducted interviews with women who aborted due to their children’s disabilities. She said of her research:

“New developments in reproductive technologies assist in the quest for the perfect baby not only by genetically creating ‘better’ children but also by detecting and eliminating fetuses deemed abnormal and defective. In a world where babies are bred for desired characteristics, having a healthy, normal baby becomes nothing less than a duty. While it may appear that medicine simply offers procedure such as diagnostic ultrasound, fetal electrocardiography, and amniocentesis as options for those who desire them, the fear of producing a child that falls outside the boundary of ‘normal’ compels many women to seek premonitory information regarding the status of the fetus. As one of [Rayna Rapp's] interviewees explained regarding her tests, ‘if he was gonna be slow, if he wasn’t gonna have a shot at being President, that’s not the baby we wanted.’“(8)

Rapp reveals that simple prejudice against the disabled is a factor in driving couples to abort their babies.

Parents Suffer from a Lack of Accurate Information

Along with prejudice against the disabled and pressure from doctors to abort, another factor driving these abortions is that couples who face a disabled baby are often given limited, one-sided information. Their doctors may overemphasize the suffering that handicapped children go through or present the worst-case scenario. This may be because the doctor fears being sued or because the doctor has his or her own prejudices towards disabled people. According to one woman who aborted her disabled baby and later regretted it:

“We had only one isolated piece of information, not a whole crystal ball. How were we to know what would be best? …

“A person reeling from shock, numbed by a sudden catastrophe, cannot think.” (9)

In pressuring couples to make a decision quickly, doctors deny them the opportunity to come to terms with the fact that their baby will most likely have a disability. When couples are given biased information and pressured to make a quick decision, they may not have the wherewithal or opportunity to do a great deal of research on their own. They may not have the opportunity, for example, to thoroughly research the disability and talk to parents of children with disabilities. Many times, these parents would encourage them to carry their pregnancy to term. In reality, many women who have their babies with disabilities are glad they did not abort.

The mother of a five-year-old girl with a cleft lip and palate wrote this letter to the editor:

“I was horrified to read that many couples now opt for abortion rather than risk having a baby with such a minor physical imperfection. My daughter is not some abnormal freak[.] … She can, and does, lead a happy, fulfilled life[.] … What sort of society do we live in when a minor facial deformity, correctable by surgery, is viewed as so abnormal as to merit abortion?” (10)

When radio show host Dr. Laura broadcast a call from a woman who aborted her baby with Down syndrome at 20 weeks, parents of handicapped children wrote her letters to express their disapproval. One man, the father of a baby with Down syndrome, said the following:

“Today, the 28th of March, I was listening to talk to one of your callers. She recently had terminated the life of her child in her 20th week of pregnancy and I believe the child’s 20th week of life.

“The child’s life was ended when it was diagnosed with Down Syndrome. This really struck a nerve and infuriated me, as I and my wife have the honor of being parents to our 22 month son, Conner, with Down Syndrome, that along with our other 2 children (a daughter 8 and a son 5) the joy and light of our life. This person that ended the child’s life has no idea of the joy or divine love that these special people possess. It is hard for me to understand the callousness that she had about thinking that the child was a mistake of nature and it was okay to terminate its life. I would almost dare say that it is our limited understanding of these special people that is the problem.

“I have often looked into Conner’s eyes and have felt a true divine, Godlike love shining forth. I will be honest and say that our life has not been changed by Conner. Unlike our other two children that walked before they were one and talked by two and developed in what we understand as ‘normal’. Conner has yet to walk on his own, but he does possess the ability to brighten the darkest days we have faced.

“I would hate to think of life without Conner, he is the light in our families’ lives. Our other children think the world of him and I feel are gaining a greater understanding and acceptance of ‘ALL’ people, unlike the caller today. She has missed a wonderful opportunity to learn and grow.”

These are the voices that parents considering aborting their children with handicaps need to hear. In pressuring these couples to abort quickly and giving them one-sided information, doctors encourage these parents to have abortions which they may later come to regret. The opportunity to bring a special and unique child into the world is taken away from these parents, and the ultimate gift of life is taken away from their children.

Sources:

1. Elizabeth Kristol. “Picture Perfect: the Politics of Prenatal Testing” First Things 32 (April 1993): 22 Quoted in Paige Comstock Cunningham, Esq. “The Supreme Court and the creation of the two-dimensional woman.” Erika Bachiochi. The Cost of “Choice”: Women Evaluate the Impact of Abortion” (San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books, 2004)

2. Lori Andrews, “Future Perfect: Confronting Decisions about Genetics” (New York: Columbia University press, 2001), 63

3. Sunday Times (London) July 4, 1999 as reported in American Feminist, winter 1999 – 2000

4. Jonathan Finer “Study: Negativity Often Tied to Down Syndrome Diagnoses” Washington Post, April 29, 2005 A3 Quoted in Ramesh Ponnuru  “The Party of Death” (Washington DC: Regnery Publishing, 2006)166

5. Rebecca Taylor “99% of Adults With Down Syndrome Report Being Happy in Life” LifeNews.com 10/6/11 (http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/06/99-of-adults-with-down-syndrome-report-being-happy-in-life/)

6. Dr. Henry Morgentaler, abortionist: press conference. Statement read at a joint press conference with the Manitoba Coalition for Reproductive Choice in Winnipeg, Friday, June 23, 2000

7. Donnai P, Charles N, Harris R. “Attitudes of Patients after ‘Genetic’ Termination of Pregnancy” British Medical Journal 1981; 282: 621 – 622, P622 in Elizabeth Ring-Cassidy and Ian Gentles. Women’s Health after Abortion: The Medical and Psychological Evidence Second Edition (Toronto, Canada: The deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research, 2003) 159

8. Rayna Rapp “Moral Pioneers: Women, Men, and Fetuses on a Frontier Of Reproductive Technology,” and Hoffman et al., Embryos, Ethics and Women’s Rights, 110, from Kathy Rudy. Beyond Pro-Life and Pro-Choice: Moral Diversity in the Abortion Debate (Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press, 1996) 11

9. “Brown, Judy” (pseudonym) The Choice. Journal of the American Medical Association 1989, 262:2735

10. Susan Kitching, London Sunday Times, February 11, 1990

Editor’s note. This first appeared at liveactionnews.org.

By Sarah Terzo
Source: NRL News

New WebMD mobile app helping to make pro-abortion arguments obsolete

I recently discovered a mobile app on my Smartphone created by the people at WebMD, a website run by doctors that gives medical and health information. It is still another example of how technology is rendering standard pro-abortion arguments utterly obsolete.

The app is called “WebMD Pregnancy,” and it is described as “a free pregnancy app…that delivers trusted health information to expectant moms as well as fun features and tools. Whenever. Wherever. Online or offline.”

The app provides information based on individual pregnancy schedules including doctor-reviewed articles, videos, informative slide shows, and a calendar to keep track of your baby’s development and upcoming doctor’s appropriates.

Being a WebMD product, it also comes with features to help keep mother and baby healthy. There are check lists of things to ask your doctor throughout the different stages of pregnancy, appointment reminders, and a space to record things your doctor said or suggested to you at your appointments.

There are even more personal features to the app including a journal to record the events of your pregnancy and social sharing apps to keep your close ones informed on you and your baby’s progress.

WebMD even features a follow-up app called WebMD Baby to help you continue keeping your little one healthy.

“WebMD Pregnancy” is built for an age where unborn babies can have their very own Facebook pages, and where being pregnant can mean remembering to incessantly email friends and family members with every new development.

As a mobile app that not only refers to the unborn from the first moments of its life as a “baby,” but also treats this baby as a patient as a living human being who requires care, I see this as yet another example of how technology threatens to leave the pro-abortion argument in the dust.

Source: NRL News