Number of born-alive abortion babies goes underreported

 

Contact: Charlie Butts   Source: OneNewsNow.com

 

An estimated 1,200 babies are born alive during abortions each year -- but one pro-lifer says that may be a conservative figure.

 

Bradley Mattes of the Life Issues Institute suggests the number is likely higher, because live births during abortions are typically not reported, as abortionists will make sure the baby dies. That is, after all, the business they are in.

 

If the newborn baby does not die on his or her own, "then the abortionist or his staff will take it upon themselves to kill them directly, which has been done in a number of gruesome ways," Mattes tells OneNewsNow.

 

He suggests Americans should be outraged enough to "demand accountability and demand justice." But if the public remains silent, he predicts "an explosion" of brutal deaths late in pregnancy.

 

"The abortion industry is going to feel like they've got carte blanche to go ahead and kill as many babies as they want to," Mattes predicts.

 

He believes, however, the one accomplishment of the Kermit Gosnell murder convictions is that it has galvanized the pro-life movement and those who were sitting on the sidelines to support legislation to end late-term abortions.

 

Life Issues Institute describes itself as a non-profit international organization "dedicated to changing hearts and minds of millions of people through pro-life education."

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

by Anna Higgins
May 28, 2013

The horrific practice of late-term abortion was brought to the forefront of the abortion debate due in part to the murder trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell. The reality is that late-term abortion perpetrates the violent death on an unborn child who is fully capable of feeling pain.

The sad truth is the difference between the murders committed by Gosnell and legal abortion is not a matter of clinic conditions or even surgical form. It's a matter of a few inches and a few minutes.

Gosnell's murderous actions would have been perfectly legal in many states had they been done before the child was actually born. As we work to correct Roe and establish a society in which all people, no matter their stage of development, are protected, we can take steps to eliminate inhumane procedures like late-term abortion.

Several states have passed legislation making abortion illegal past the point that an unborn child is capable of feeling pain. Studies show that unborn children feel pain by at least 20 weeks gestation. These 20-week bans serve to protect the innocent child, capable of feeling pain and to protect the mother, who often suffers physical and mental harm from abortion. Additionally, Americans overwhelmingly oppose late-term abortion. A recent Gallup poll shows that 64% of Americans oppose second trimester abortion and 80% oppose third trimester abortion.

In response to the obvious need to protect children and women from late-term abortion, Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) has introduced a bill on the federal level that would effectively ban abortion past 20 weeks gestation. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, H.R. 1797, was presented last week along with several poignant testimonies in support of the legislation.

One testimony from a former abortionist who supports the bill described the grisly procedure of late-term abortion. Another testimony from a neurobiologist emphasized scientific facts that support the conclusion that unborn children experience pain and noted that in light of the evidence, the government has a compelling interest in and an ethical responsibility to protect the unborn child who is capable of experiencing pain. The importance of this bill cannot be overstated, and Rep. Franks should be commended for taking a very bold, public step to protect the unborn.

In his press release before introducing the bill, Rep. Franks highlighted the inhumanity of late-term abortion and the importance of banning it. He said, "Knowingly subjecting our innocent unborn children to dismemberment in the womb, particularly when they have developed to the point that they can feel excruciating pain every terrible moment leading up to their undeserved deaths, belies everything America was called to be. This is not who we are."

As Americans, dedicated to the cause of life and liberty for all, we can and must do better. Also, as believers dedicated to the cause of Christ, we know that protecting the most innocent among us - those made in the image of God - is of the utmost importance. Passing legislation banning late-term abortion is a start along the road to protecting life at all stages. We urge you to contact your representatives and voice your support for H.R. 1797.

U.S. House Judiciary Panel Holds Hearing on Legislation to Protect Pain-Capable Unborn Children

 

A panel of the House Judiciary Committee will begin action on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 1797), legislation to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain by generally prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks fetal age, with a public hearing on Thursday, May 23, 2013.

 

The bill is sponsored by Congressman Trent Franks (R-Az.), who also chairs the subcommittee that will consider the bill. It is based on a model bill developed by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of state right-to-life organizations, which has already been enacted in nine states.

 

In the form introduced on April 26, H.R. 1797 would have applied the policy solely to the District of Columbia, but on May 17 Rep. Franks announced that he would amend the bill in committee to apply nationwide, a plan immediately strongly endorsed by NRLC. "National Right to Life strongly concurs in Congressman Franks' decision that the time is ripe to seek protection for pain-capable unborn children nationwide," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. "Because of publicity surrounding the trial of Kermit Gosnell and subsequent revelations about other abortionists, many Americans are becoming aware for the first time that abortions are frequently performed late in pregnancy on babies who are capable of being born alive, and on babies who will experience great pain while being killed."

 

In a nationwide poll of 1,003 registered voters in March, The Polling Company found that 64% would support a law such as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks -- when an unborn baby can feel pain -- unless the life of the mother was in danger. Only 30% opposed such legislation.

 

The legislation contains findings of fact regarding the medical evidence that unborn children experience pain at least by 20 weeks after fertilization (which is 22 weeks in the widely employed "LMP" system, or about the start of the sixth month), and prohibits abortion after

that point, except when an acute physical condition endangers the life of the mother. Some of the extensive evidence that unborn children have the capacity to experience pain, at least by 20 weeks fetal age, is available on the NRLC website at  http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/Fetal_Pain/index.html 

and also here:  http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/

 

The science behind the findings in the bill will be further explored at the May 23 congressional hearing.

 

A medical illustration of a common method of late abortion ("D&E") is posted here:  http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/DEabortiongraphic.html

 

ACTION ON STATE LAWS

 

The nine states that have enacted bills based on the NRLC model are (in order of enactment) Nebraska, Kansas, Idaho, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, and North Dakota.

 

Johnson dismissed as inconsequential a May 21 ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, blocking enforcement of an Arizona law that sought to restrict abortions at 18 weeks fetal age. "The Arizona law is primarily based on a very different legal justification and bears little similarity to the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act -- and in any event, no court of appeals in the nation is reversed as often as the Ninth Circuit," Johnson said. "The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was ruled invalid by six lower federal courts before the U.S. Supreme Court upheld it in 2007. Clearly, some judges on the lower federal courts still want to ignore the significance of the 2007 Supreme Court ruling upholding the national ban on the partial-birth abortion method."

 

HOW MANY LATE ABORTIONS AND ABORTIONISTS ARE THERE?

 

In 1995-96, many mainstream media outlets reported as unvarnished fact the claims of pro-abortion advocacy groups that partial-birth abortions were very "rare" and performed only in acute medical circumstances. These claims were later proven false by congressional investigators and investigative journalists, and were even ultimately repudiated by the head of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (NCAP), who described the claims as a concocted "party line." NCAP Executive Director Ron Fitzsimmons admitted to the New York Times that the partial-birth abortion method was used 3,000-5,000 times annually, and "in the vast majority of cases" on "a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along" (New York Times, Feb. 26, 1997).

 

However, the same pattern of eagerness to minimize painful late abortions is found in some recent media coverage surrounding the Gosnell trial and revelations regarding other late-abortion practitioners. News stories often assert that late abortions are "rare" and sometimes assert that late abortions usually involve serious medical problems of the mother or fetus. Yet these "facts" are not supported by hard data, and indeed run contrary to much of the evidence that is available.

 

The phrase "late-term abortion" has no fixed legal or medical meaning. Its use in news stories, without specific definitions, can be misleading and distort the debate. This distortion is in part deliberately engendered by pro-abortion groups, who use the phrase "late-term" as code for "third-trimester," meaning after 27 weeks LMP (about the seventh month and later).

 

However, most Americans probably would agree that any abortion performed after the point that a live birth might occur (about 18 weeks in the LMP system, or the beginning of the fifth month) is a "late abortion," and would surely agree that any abortion in the second half of pregnancy (after 20 weeks LMP) is a "late abortion." The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection applies protection beginning at 22 weeks LMP (20 weeks fetal age), about the beginning of the sixth month. Beginning just one week later, one-fourth to one-third of premature babies survive long-term with good neonatal care.

 

So, how many abortions are performed in the U.S. on pain-capable unborn children, after 22 weeks LMP (20 weeks fetal age)? NRLC's Johnson said: "Nobody has a good handle on how many late abortions are really occurring, but there is growing evidence that they are far more common than most people want to think. The Gosnell case and recent hidden-camera videos issued by the organization Live Action provide further evidence that a great deal of the late abortion iceberg is below the water. Some of the jurisdictions with the most liberal abortion policies have no reporting requirements -- for example, California, Maryland, and D.C. -- or do not collect data on stage of pregnancy (Florida, for example). Other jurisdictions have reporting requirements but don't enforce them -- the Grand Jury report on Gosnell said (page 171) that between 2000 and 2010, Gosnell reported only one second-trimester abortion to the state. Yet it appears (pp. 26-27, 88) that Gosnell probably performed thousands of second-trimester and third-trimester abortions during that decade. Multiple other practitioners who perform large volumes of late abortions have also failed to report or not been required to report.

 

A 2008 study, "Abortion in the United States: Incidence and Access to Services, 2005," released by the Guttmacher Institute (which was originally founded as a special affiliate of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, currently the nation's largest abortion provider) found that, in 2005, there were at least 1,787 abortion providers in the United States. Of the 1,787 providers, the study found that "[t]wenty percent of providers offered abortions after 20 weeks [LMP], and only 8% at 24 weeks [LMP]…" This translates to at least 300 abortion providers who will perform abortions after 20 weeks LMP and around 140 willing to perform abortions at 24 weeks LMP.

 

The 140 or more abortion providers who perform abortions at 22 weeks LMP and later would be the providers directly affected by H.R. 1797.

The case for life grows by leaps and bounds

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

 

Paul Greenberg is the Pulitzer Prize editorial page editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. He has spoken several times at the National Right to Life Convention to the delight of his audiences and anything he writes about is worth reading. But Mr. Greenberg is at his finest when he tackles abortion as he did once again this week in "The Growing Case for Life."

 

He takes as his starting point a series of comments by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. On several occasions she has criticized Roe not because she has a pro-life bone in her body but because Ginsburg concludes it stirred up a hornet's nest of opposition. Where she goes wrong is in assuming that support for abortion would have raced, like water downhill, from one state to another to another until abortion proponents would have secured what they were given by seven justices of the Supreme Court but without all the hassle of dealing with people like you and me.

 

Greenberg reminds readers that one of Ginsburg's first forays into critiquing Roe was in the summer of 2009. She said

 

"Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice any more. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that changed their abortion laws before Roe are not going to change back. So we have a policy that only affects poor women, and it can never be otherwise. … Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."

 

She has since had another apologist "clarify" what she meant, but what she meant was clear at the time: she didn't want "those people" growing in large numbers.

 

More recently Ginsburg refined her argument. As part of a discussion with Harvard Law School Dean Martha Minow, Ginsburg responded to a question from the audience about "backlash" created by judicial decisions. Ginsburg began by making it clear she wasn't, as she is often described, "against" Roe v. Wade. She said she was very much for the "judgment," then pivoted to gently critique not the "what" but the "how."

 

And then just a few days ago, speaking at the University of Chicago, Ginsburg ratcheted up her critique a bit. "For Ginsburg, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman's right to an abortion was too far-reaching and too sweeping, and it gave anti-abortion rights activists a very tangible target to rally against in the four decades since," wrote Meredith Heagney.

 

"'My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,' Ginsburg said. She would've preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women's rights.

 

"'Roe isn't really about the woman's choice, is it?' Ginsburg said. 'It's about the doctor's freedom to practice…it wasn't woman-centered, it was physician-centered.'"

 

Greenberg agrees that the popular consensus at the time was captured in the headline that appeared in the New York Times the next day: "Supreme Court settles abortion issue." But instead, Greenberg writes,

 

"Is there any great issue in American law that is less settled, or more unsettling, than Roe v. Wade? If so, it would be hard to think of one.

 

"Even the most fervent fans of abortion admit that today their cause is on the wane, that they've lost the moral initiative in this struggle to win the minds and hearts of the American people. And are losing more of us every day."

 

Why the dramatic shift? In Greenberg's view, it's the impact of science. Roe has proven to be

 

"unviable. With every scientific advance — sonograms, neonatal medicine, centers for fetal diagnosis and treatment — Roe grows less and less tenable. And the euphemisms used to dehumanize the unborn child — zygote, blastocyst, fetus, 'an undifferentiated mass of tissue' — grow less and less convincing. How long before the Supreme Court of the United States wakes up?"

 

Indeed, we can hope that the same High Court, but with a more discerning set of justices, will awaken to the brutality it unleashed more than 40 years ago.

 

By Dave Andrusko  (NRLC)

Time may be right for pain-capable pro-life law

 

Congress is being asked to pass a bill that would ban abortions if the baby is capable of feeling pain. It has been introduced in the House by Congressman Trent Franks (R-Arizona).

 

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act would ban abortions after 20 weeks. Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee tells OneNewsNow it is an important bill.

 

"It's a more ambitious piece of legislation than Mr. Franks' original bill," he notes. "But we think that this is the time to push forward with this because of the public outrage and the revelations coming out of the trial of Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia and other revelations about other abortionists that seem to be coming to light."

 

For years, alternative media such as OneNewsNew have reported on what abortion does to babies and on a slew of atrocities from various practitioners.

 

"Some of these abortion practitioners have had their licenses suspended multiple times, and yet they keep getting them back," Johnson says. "Others have had criminal convictions, and yet they keep performing abortions. There are a lot of Gosnells out there, and I think that as the public becomes aware of this and the violence and the brutality of what they do to unborn children, the support for this legislation will continue to grow."

 

A national survey done by the Polling Company in March showed 64 percent favor and 30 percent oppose the legislation.

 

Charlie Butts   (OneNewsNow.com)

Illinois' Stanek testifies before Congress to ban abortions after 20 weeks

 

 

 

 
WASHINGTON DC - Thursday, prolife leader Jill Stanek of Mokena, Illinois testified (see photo right) before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee on H.R. 1797, the "District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" that would enact a national ban on aborting babies after 20 weeks. Her testimony was as follows:
 
When I testified before this committee in 2000 and 2001, it was to tell of my experience as a registered nurse in the Labor and Delivery Department at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, where I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in the department's soiled utility closet.
 
Among other familiar faces I see today is Congressman Nadler, who was a member of the committee then. He said he was "appalled" by the incidents I described and found them "heart-wrenching."
 
Indeed, I was traumatized and changed forever by my experience of holding a little abortion survivor for 45 minutes until he died, a 21/22-week-old baby who had been aborted because he had Down syndrome.
Since then, other appalling stories of abortion survivors being either abandoned or killed have trickled out.
 
In 2005, a mother delivered her 23-week-old baby in the toilet at EPOC Clinic in Orlando, Florida, and was shocked to see him move1. Abortion staff not only refused to help but turned away paramedics, who her friend had notified by calling 9112. Angele could do no more than helplessly sit on the floor rocking and singing to her baby for 11 minutes until he died.
In 2006, Sycloria Williams delivered her 23-week-old baby boy on a recliner at A Gyn Diagnostic Center in Hialeah, Florida. When he began breathing and moving, abortion clinic owner Belkis Gonzalez cut the umbilical cord and zipped him into a biohazard bag, still alive3.
The Kermit Gosnell case provides further evidence that the lines between illegal infanticide and legal feticide, both via abortion, have become blurred. This abortionist was convicted only last week of three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of three born babies whose spinal cords were "snipped."4
 
Also last week came the revelation and photos from three former employees who allege that abortionist Douglas Karpen in Houston, Texas, routinely kills babies after they are born by puncturing the fontanel (the soft spot at the top of the head), or impaling the stomach with a sharp instrument, twisting the head off, or puncturing the throat with his finger5.
 
It is easy to be horrified by heart-wrenching stories such as these, and to imagine the torture abortion survivors endure as they are being killed.
 
But it is somehow not so easy for some to envision preborn babies the same age being tortured as they are killed by similar methods.
 
Today, premature babies are routinely given pain relief who are born at the same age as babies who are torn limb from limb or injected in the heart during abortions. The World Health Organization goes so far as to recommend analgesia for preemies getting simple heel pricks for a couple drops of blood6.
 
Likewise, prenatal surgery is becoming commonplace, and along with it anesthesia for babies being operated on, even in the "middle of pregnancy"7. Meanwhile, babies of an identical age are torn apart during abortions with no pain relief.
 
It must be that some people inexplicably think the uterus provides a firewall against fetal pain, or that babies marked for abortion are somehow numb, while their wanted counterparts aren't.
 
This thinking is better suited for the Middle Ages than for modern medicine.
Yet, while NARAL Pro-Choice America eventually expressed neutrality8 on the Born- Alive Infants Protection Act, which provides legal protection to born babies no matter what their gestational age or circumstance of birth, NARAL opposes legislation protecting babies of the same age from barbaric abortions after the point they are known to feel pain.
 
Abortion proponents attempt to portray abortionists who commit abortions past 20 weeks as rare9. This is a myth. The National Right to Life Committee analyzed10 data11 published in 2008 by the Guttmacher Institute, which is an arm of the abortion industry, and found there were "at least 300 abortion providers who will perform abortions after 20 weeks LMP (last menstrual period)," and that of these, "at least 140 abortion providers willing to abort pain-capable unborn children at 22 weeks LMP (20 weeks post-fertilization)."
 
As for the number of late abortions committed in this country, no one knows. There are no standardized nationwide mandatory abortion-reporting requirements, and some of the most liberal jurisdictions, such as California, Maryland, and Washington, D.C., don't. Beyond that, it is questionable how many late abortionists comply with these requirements, and how much enforcement there is of these laws.
 
For instance, when the Elkton, Maryland, office of abortionist Stephen Brigham was raided in 2010, investigators found 35 fetuses in his freezer12, but there were no medical records documenting 33 of those abortions, much less state reporting.
 
The Gosnell Grand Jury Report13 states that from 2000 to 2010 Gosnell reported a total of one second-trimester abortion to the state. Yet he may have performed thousands during that decade.
 
No one knows how many abortions are committed after 20 weeks, so it is false for anyone to assert they are "rare."
 
It is also a myth that late abortions are mostly committed on babies with handicaps, although being handicapped is certainly no excuse for torture.
 
Dr. LeRoy Carhart, who commits late abortions at Germantown Reproductive Health Services only 30 miles from here, was just caught on tape by Live Action stating he routinely commits elective abortions at 26 weeks: "Saw four this week," Carhart quipped to Live Action's pregnant investigator, also joking that he uses a "pickaxe" and "drill bit" to kill older babies14.
 
Only two blocks from the White House, late-term abortionist Cesare Santangelo told a pregnant Live Action investigator he would kill her healthy 24-week-old preborn baby by snipping the umbilical cord15, which is akin to cutting the hose of a scuba diver, causing death by slow asphyxiation. The website for his Washington Surgi- Clinic openly advertises dilatation and evacuation abortions up to 26 weeks16.
 
Having actually held a little abortion survivor, I cannot imagine standing there in the soiled utility room and tearing him apart to kill him. I expect the thought horrifies all of you as well.
But this is what is done to others like him on a daily basis, their excruciating fate determined simply by geography.
 
Our nation makes progress when we put an end to senselessly disparate treatment of anyone, and certainly of the most vulnerable in our midst. It is time we apply this standard to babies on the threshold of life as well.

Illinois Senate Passes Sex Ed Bill

 

The Illinois Senate voted 37 to 21 to pass HB 2675 - the sex ed bill - after a one-hour heated debate. See the roll call HERE.

 

Several senators spoke in opposition to the bill, including State Senators Dale Righter (R-Mattoon), David Luechtefeld (R-Okawville), Kyle McCarter (R-Vandalia), Jim Oberweis (R-North Aurora), Sue Rezin (R-Morris), Mike Connelly (R-Wheaton), Chapin Rose (R-Champaign), and Republican Minority Leader Christine Radongno (R-Lemont). Democratic Senators Gary Forby (Benton) and Bill Haine (Alton) joined all 19 Senate Republicans who voted against this proposal.

Urgent Prayer Request - UPDATE

  UPDATE:
Sadly - the bill passed the Senate.  However, you will be glad to know that Senator Althoff voted against the bill.   HB 2675 would expose children to sexually inappropriate material in the name of sex education. The bill could be called for a vote as early as this afternoon or anytime during the next ten days in the Senate. It appears the votes are there for passage. This is very serious.

 

Please join us in calling out to God, asking for His mercy and protection for children. 

Our children's innocence is truly at stake here. Exposing young children to sexually explicit material and assuming they already are or will be sexually active, will only encourage early sexual experimentation ultimately changing the course of their lives. The bill targets children starting at age 11. 

 

Please join us in praying that God would stop this bill. 

Pray:

• God would hold this bill back between now and when the General Assembly adjourns on Friday, May 31^st. 
• God would convict those "undecided" that this is not in the best interest of children.
• Lawmakers would realize that schools already have the option of choosing this type of sex ed curriculum and do not need another mandate.
• Lawmakers would realize this very sensitive issue is best left to parents and local school officials.
• Lawmakers would realize that sexual purity should be desired, valued and encouraged in the schools. 

We are also asking God to forgive the corporate Church for its apathy towards this volatile issue and others that have contributed to the erosion of our culture. 

God gave us the solution to the insurmountable problems we face. 

 

…if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

 

Scripture indicates how important children are to Him and the penalty for causing them to sin. We firmly believe that God can stop and wants to stop this bill. But it's up to us as His people. 

 

…with God all things are possible. Matthew 19:26 

Pray also for these following senators who are uncommitted on HB 2675:

 

Pam Althoff (R-McHenry)

Bill Cunningham (D-Chicago)

Napoleon Harris (D-Harvey)

Michael Hastings (D-Matteson)

Mike Jacobs (D-Moline)

Patricia Van Pelt (D-Chicago)

Steve Stadelman (D-Rockford)

Jacqueline Collins (D-Chicago)

Can’t afford an abortion? Lie to a friend or family member to get their money or take on credit card debt

 

If you don't work in policy or the pro-life movement, or if you're not particularly passionate about the issue of abortion, you may never have heard of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions (with the usual exceptions of cases of rape or incest or where a mother's life is at risk).

Regardless of whether or not you're familiar with the ins and outs of this federal policy, you probably appreciate the logic behind it. Many of us consider abortion nothing less than taking the life of an innocent person. Not using federal tax dollars to fund it is a no-brainer.

And then there is the National Network of Abortion Funds.

Apart from repealing Hyde, the folks over at NNAF have lots of suggestions for women who cannot afford to procure an abortion. Here are a choice few:

• Do I have a credit card? Does a friend or family member have one? (If I have time, can I apply for a new card? Could I request a limit increase, which can often take effect on the next business day? I can put just a portion of the cost on a credit card if my limit isn't high enough.)
• Can I get a line of credit at my bank?
• Is there an emergency fund at my church?
• Can I use my cable bill money toward my abortion and then ask someone else for help with my cable bill?
• Are there people who might not help me cover the cost of an abortion, but would help me cover other costs? Am I comfortable lying to a friend or family member, telling them that I had an unexpectedly high electric bill or gas bill due to heating or A/C costs?
• Are there bills that I can pay late or skip this month? Can I talk to the electric company about changing the due date for my bill? (Note that it's illegal for utilities to shut off the heat source for non-payment during the coldest winter months.)

So: there you have it. Taking on credit card debt, not paying your bills in the knowledge that your utility company may still have to supply you with their service, dipping into the emergency fund at your church (which may or may not strongly oppose abortion), or lying to a friend or family member are all acceptable solutions if you are struggling to pay for an abortion.

P.S. If you have a moment, consider contacting the NNAF's board members and the organizations that these individuals represent to see if they're actually comfortable encouraging women to use all these strategies. See the list below:

Sarah Audelo, Senior Manager, Domestic Policy, Advocates for Youth; Washington, D.C.

Veronica Bayetti Flores, Assistant Director, Civil Liberties and Public Policy Program, Hampshire College; Member, New Leadership Networking Initiative; Amherst, MA

Margaret Chapman Pomponio, Executive Director, WV FREE; Charleston, WV

Carol Cohan, Consultant, Women's Emergency Network; Miami, FL

Marlene Gerber Fried, Senior Advisor to the President and Faculty Director of the Civil Liberties and Public Policy Program, Hampshire College; Abortion Rights Fund of Western Massachusetts; Amherst, MA

D. Lynn Jackson (President), Assistant Professor/Field Coordinator, University of North Texas; Network National Case Manager; Texas Equal Access Fund; Dallas, TX

Karen Law, Executive Director, Pro-Choice Resources; Minneapolis, MN

Shanelle Matthews, Communications Manager, Forward Together; Oakland, CA

Eesha Pandit, Executive Director, Men Stopping Violence; Member, New Leadership Networking Initiative; Atlanta, GA

Sue Steketee (Secretary/Treasurer), Director of Surgical Services and Operations, Planned Parenthood of New Mexico; Abortion Assistance Fund of Planned Parenthood New Mexico; Albuquerque, NM

By Anna Dorminey

Congress Receives Irrefutable Evidence of IRS Harassment of Pro-Life Organizations

Thomas More Society Calls Upon IRS Investigators to Question California Office and to Extend Investigation Back to 2009

 

 

Today, the Thomas More Society offered over 150 pages of analysis and evidence to the House Ways and Means Committee about repeated IRS harassment of pro-life organizations. At the request of Congressman Aaron Schock (R-IL), Thomas More Society President Thomas Brejcha, Executive Director Peter Breen, and Special Counsel Sally Wagenmaker, prepared the legal memorandum with solid evidence of IRS harassment of pro-life organizations dating back to 2009.

 

The memo details the history of IRS misconduct in the cases of three organizations represented by the Thomas More Society. The abuse dates back further than the now publicized 2010 complaints and extends beyond the IRS's recently exposed Cincinnati office to also include the tax agency's California operations in the charges of blatant bias.

 

The IRS office in El Monte, California, began harassing Christian Voices for Life of Fort Bend County, Texas in 2011. In a series of questions penned by Exempt Organization Specialist Tyrone Thomas from the California office, the IRS asked a series of unwarranted questions ordering Christian Voices for Life without any foundation, to explain its content, message, and prayers as if they were engaging in highly offensive or criminal behavior.

 

Coalition for Life of Iowa found itself in the IRS's crosshairs when the group applied for tax exempt status in October 2008. Nearly ten months of interrogation about the group's opposition to Planned Parenthood included a demand by a Ms. Richards from the IRS' Cincinnati office unlawfully insisted that all board members sign a sworn declaration promising not to picket/protest Planned Parenthood. Further questioning by the IRS requested detailed information about the content of the group's prayer meetings, educational seminars, and signs their members hold outside Planned Parenthood.

 

In yet a third matter, an IRS agent in their Chicago office repeatedly harassed Daniel and Angela Michael of Small Victories, a pro-life organization, with an intrusive investigation, calling the leaders every 2-3 weeks over the course of 2011, beginning in January of that year. The IRS officially closed its investigation in January 2012, having found no illegal activities.

 

Contact: Tom Ciesielka, 312-422-1333, tc@tcpr.net

The House just voted to repeal Obamacare in a 229-195 vote!!!

The House just voted to repeal Obamacare in a 229-195 vote!!!

IRS Harassed Pro-Life Leaders from Pharmacists For Life International

In the wake of the mushrooming IRS scandal, it was learned today that the widening circle of pro-life leadership hit with attempted harassment and intimidation by the IRS has included at least two members of the officers and board members of Pharmacists For Life International (PFLI).

PFLI disclosed today that at least two of its officers and board members have been subjected to ongoing harassment and intimidation attempts by the IRS through continued and costly nuisance audits and threatening letters over a period of months and years.

The two, who are not being identified at present, have generally come away with clean audits and demands for information by the IRS, often with ugly threats of reprisal, confiscation of money and property and inconvenient arrangements for audit reviews and meetings. At least one time, the harassing audit proved to yield a larger REFUND for one of the two individuals, much to the consternation of the IRS.

The cost alone of legal and accounting representation can run into the tens of thousands of dollars for a simple review.

PFLI is the only professional association of pharmacists, interns, technicians and the lay public which is exclusively and 100% totally pro-life. The group has been highly vocal for years over the approval of various abortifacients-- misnamed as so-called 'contraceptives' -- and the regime's attempt to eliminate all rights of conscience for pharmacists and allied health care providers.

PFLI was instrumental in having the illegal diktat by then-governor Rod Blagojevich of IL overturned in court after it was mandated in 2005, with the tacit approval of abortoholic then-Senator Obama. Two IL members of PFLI were in that lawsuit that prevailed over the now-imprisoned Blagojevich.

PFLI will continue to educate the profession and the public over the true mechanisms of action of abortifacients posing as so-called 'contraceptives' and in fighting for the unfettered rights of conscience of all pharmacists and allied health professionals to follow their sincerely held religious and moral beliefs to not be involved in ANY manner with the use of drugs to destroy human life via abortion, euthanasia and infanticide. PFLI has provided low cost vitamins and supplies to hundreds of crisis pregnancy help centers and their clients for almost 30 years.

Contact: Dr. Bogomir Kuhar, PharmD, Pharmacists For Life International, 740-881-5520

Ask Your U.S. Representative to Protect Conscience Rights

Organizations across the country are encouraging people to contact their U.S. representatives today asking them to support a bill that would protect conscience rights for nonprofit and faith-based institutions.

Lawmakers introduced the Health Care Conscience Rights Act (HCCRA) measure in March. The legislation would provide full exemption on religious or moral grounds from the Obama administration's Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate requiring most employers to offer potential abortion-induction drugs in their employee health plans. It would also ensure protection for individuals and health care organizations that choose not to offer, pay for, or refer patients to abortion sellers because of their religious convictions.

"If (HCCRA) passes this summer, it puts an end to the problems with the HHS mandate, which is one of the biggest crises of the First Amendment that the Obama administration has put the though," Connie Marshner, chair of 101 Meeting, told CitizenLink. The District of Columbia religious freedom group spearheaded today's mass email campaign urging organizations and individuals to contact their representatives.

The Obama administration required most for-profit employers to comply with the HHS mandate by August 2012. Faith-based organizations — including some hospitals and universities — have a "safe harbor" until August of this year.

Sixty lawsuits are in play with more than 190 parties. Thirty-one of those involve for-profit business. In 19 of those cases judges granted injunctions temporarily halting the mandate for those companies.

CitizenLink is among the organizations encouraging people to contact their representatives.

"It's easy to get discouraged by the decisions made by our elected officials.  Too many times they vote against the value of life, marriage and family," said Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director of Issues Analysis for CitizenLink.  "Yet, when we engage in making our voices heard, our first motivation should be to exercise our right to do just that — be a voice for the biblical values we care about.  It's important for all elected officials — regardless of party affiliation or past votes — to hear from their constituents. That's how our system of government works."  

Take Action to Protect Conscience Rights

Ask your Member of the U.S. House of Representatives to co-sponsor of H.R. 940, the Health Care Conscience Rights Act — and to make sure it comes to a vote before July 4. You can email through our action center or call the U.S. Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Learn more about H.R. 940.

Read "Conscience rights protect patients and health care professionals."

No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act Introduced in House, Senate

Pro-Life Congressman
Chris Smith

WASHINGTON, DC – Today U.S. Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), co-chairs of the Bipartisan Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, and U.S. Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS), announced the introduction of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.

The legislation, which has been introduced as H.R. 7 in the House and S. 946 in the Senate, has the support of 95 cosponsors in the House and 21 in the Senate. (Click here for the text of the bill).

Congressman Smith (R-NJ) said of the bills:

"More than 100 Members of Congress have joined us in introducing the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act—a government wide prohibition on taxpayer subsidization for abortion. With the recent murder convictions of Dr. Gosnell, we've got to encourage Americans to ask—how different really is Gosnell's House of Horrors from abortions that occur in clinics throughout the country? Not much, not much at all," said Smith. "There are Kermit Gosnells all over America. Some abortionists may have cleaner sheets than Gosnell, and better sterilized equipment and better trained accomplices, but what they do—what Gosnell did is the same—kill babies and hurt women. President Obama has said he wants abortion to be rare. To Mr. Obama I say, 'here is a bill for you.' Even the Guttmacher Institute, the former research arm of Planned Parenthood, confirms that taxpayer funding bans are a proven abortion reduction method. According to Guttmacher, studies show that when abortion is not publically funded, abortions in the covered population are reduced by roughly 25 percent."


Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-Il.)

Congressman Dan Lipinski (R-IL) said:

"The overwhelming view of Americans is their tax dollars should not be used to pay for abortions. Yet taxpayer dollars are poised to pay for abortions through the Affordable Care Act and we continue to rely on the dangerous practice of passing annual riders to carry out the desire of the American people that taxpayer-funded abortions should be prohibited," Rep. Lipinski said. "This legislation makes perfect sense by answering to the public's wishes, making longtime federal policy permanent law and protecting innocent life that deserves to be protected."


Senator Roger Wicker

Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) said:

"The sanctity of human life for all, including the unborn, is deeply rooted in my beliefs and reflected in American values. For more than 30 years, Congress has enacted annual provisions in appropriations bills to make certain American taxpayers are not funding abortions. It is past time for a single, government-wide prohibition on abortion funding. This legislation accomplishes that goal by establishing a comprehensive policy prohibiting public funding for abortion in all federal programs. This approach will reduce the need for separate abortion funding policies and ensure that no federal program is exempt from this prohibition."

The "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" will eliminate the need for numerous, separate, annual abortion funding prohibitions (called riders) and ensure that no other program or agency is exempt from this important safeguard.

The bill would make permanent the policies that currently rely on regular re-approval, including amendments like the well known Hyde Amendment, which prohibits funding for elective abortion coverage through any program funded through the annual Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Act. It also would make permanent other existing laws, such as: the Helms amendment (which prohibits funding for abortion as a method of family planning overseas); the Smith FEHBP amendment (which prohibits funding for elective abortion coverage for federal employees); the Dornan amendment, (which prohibits use of congressionally appropriated funds for abortion in the District of Columbia), and; other policies governing programs, such as federal prisons.

Vote 'NO' to Planned Parenthood's Comprehensive Sex Education proposal

ACTION ALERT! 

 

Call your Illinois Senator and ask him/her to vote 'NO' to Planned Parenthood's Comprehensive Sex Education proposal (HB 2675) !!

The Capitol switchboard number is (217) 782-2000. Please call today!

Click here for more on the Sex Education proposal bill.

Abortionist Gosnell sentenced to life in prison

Following his conviction for the murder of three babies born alive, abortionist Kermit Gosnell was sentenced Tuesday to two life sentences without parole for two of those murder charges.

By agreeing not to appeal his conviction, Gosnell was able to avoid the death penalty for two of the convictions of first-degree murder.

Gosnell "agreed to wait all of his appellate rights in exchange for life in prison...instead of the death penalty," the office of R. Seth Williams, Philadelphia's district attorney, said May 14.

He was "immediately sentenced."

On May 15, Gosnell will be sentenced for the death of the third child and for involuntary manslaughter of a patient at his facility, a mother who died of drug overdose, as well as many lesser charges.

Nine of Gosnell's employees have faced state and federal charges for their actions at the clinic. Eight have plead guilty to various charges in the case – three of them to third-degree murder.

Former employee Stephen Massof in courtroom testimony in early April said that he saw about 100 babies born alive. He said clinic workers then "snipped" the back of their neck to ensure their "demise."

Massof is in prison after having plead guilty to third-degree murder in the deaths of two newborns.

In a January 2011 Grand Jury report, Williams found that the Pennsylvania Department of Health had contact with Gosnell's clinic in 1979, when it first approved it. The department did not conduct another site review until 1989, finding "numerous violations." Two site reviews found more violations in 1992 and 1993, but failed to make corrections.

"With the change of administration from Governor Casey to Governor Ridge," the report said, "officials concluded that inspections would be 'putting a barrier up to women' seeking abortions. Better to leave clinics to do as they pleased, even though, as Gosnell proved, that meant both women and babies would pay."

Gosnell's name became a rallying cry for pro-life advocates, who lamented a lack of major media coverage of his trial. Their efforts on social media helped draw attention to the case.

Congress Scheduled to Vote on Obamacare Repeal Thursday

The House of Representatives is expected to decide Thursday whether to repeal the new federal health care law. This vote represents the 37th attempt to repeal all or part of the law.

Signed into law in March 2010, Obamacare requires businesses to offer government-approved health insurance to employees who work at least 30 hours per week. Not only does it increase health care costs for businesses, a provision of the law — the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate — requires most companies to offer coverage for possible abortion-inducing drugs.

"Obamacare represents a huge power grab by the government, regulating an industry that represents one-fifth of the nation's economy," said Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director of Issues Analysis for CitizenLink. "And it's loaded with taxes — the Heritage Foundation tallies it at more than $800 billion dollars extra coming out of Americans' paychecks and pockets in the coming couple of years."

The law includes taxpayer funding for abortion in the form of federally subsidized health care plans mandated to charge all customers at least $1 a month for abortion. The healthcare rule, PL 111-148, does not mention a maximum amount, meaning taxpayers could end up paying more. It also prohibits insurance companies from including information about the rule in any marketing or promotional materials.

"The health care law is the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade, and includes the unprecedented move to force cooperation with a life-ending agenda or face punitive action," said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life (AUL) and its legislative arm AUL Action (AULA).

Both have been tracking the Obama administration's pro-abortion agenda, and have found that the government has:

• Failed to prohibit use of federal tax dollars for abortion, abortion coverage and abortion-inducing drugs and devices;
• Allowed federally subsidized Qualified Health Plans (QHPs) to provide abortion coverage through state insurance exchanges required in all 50 states;
• Failed to provide comprehensive First Amendment conscience protections for individuals, employers and insurance companies that object to abortion for religious or moral reasons

The law is also expensive and will continue to harm employees and businesses. According to an ever increasing number of news reports, many more than a dozen companies are facing layoffs or the possibility of reducing workers' hours due to Obamacare.

"ObamaCare has proven to be a typical big-government attempt to 'do something' about a perceived problem by interfering with our free market system, which, predictably, ends up making the problem worse," said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for CitizenLink. "And if the government won't allow businesses to take the necessary steps to reduce their costs, then prices go up, inflation results, and the American economy suffers."

TAKE ACTION:

Urge your member of the U.S. House of Representative to repeal Obamacare. The new health care law not only increases health care costs for businesses, but contains a provision requiring most employers offer potential abortion-inducing drugs in their employee health care plan.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Learn more about H.R. 45, the bill to repeal Obamacare.

Learn more about PL 111-148, the abortion surge charge in Obamacare.

Read Alliance Defending Freedom's Obamacare fact sheet.

Gosnell conviction prompts call for abortion business scrutiny

As news of the guilty verdict of first degree murder for abortionist Kermit Gosnell broke, pro-life leaders welcomed his conviction while calling for a closer look at the abortion industry as a whole.

U.S. Congresswoman Diane Black, (R–Tenn.), said that while she applauds the grand jury's decision to convict the Philadelphia abortionist on at least three charges of first-degree murder, she said his crimes "stand as a stark reminder that there is no such thing as a safe abortion."

"While Gosnell's horrific actions were especially egregious," she said in a May 13 statement, "we should remember that this is what happens each time an abortion is performed – a beating heart is stopped and an innocent human life is ended."

Gosnell faced over 250 charges, including racketeering, conspiracy and violations of Pennsylvania's late-term abortion ban. He faced more than 200 counts of breaking a state law that requires a 24-hour waiting period on abortion.

He was convicted for three of four first-degree murder charges and the one charge of involuntary manslaughter in the death of a patient who died of an overdose.

The gruesome testimony at the trial included reports that Gosnell and his staff snipped the necks of over 100 babies who survived abortions. One doctor at the clinic testified that the procedure was "literally a beheading."

Gosnell, 72, could face the death penalty for his crimes.

Rep. Chris Smith, (R–N.J.), Co-Chairman of the House Bipartisan Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, said that "not much" difference exists between Gosnell's "House of Horrors" and abortion clinics around the country.

"Some abortionists may have cleaner sheets than Gosnell, and better sterilized equipment and better trained accomplices, but what they do – what Gosnell did – kill babies and hurt women – is the same," he said in a May 13 statement.

Although some 55 million babies have been aborted in the 40 years since abortion has been legal in the United States, there is an "appalling lack of compassion" for the victims and their mothers who have been "physically, emotionally, psychologically" wounded, he said.

Lila Rose, president of pro-life investigative group, Live Action, said Gosnell's "gruesome and inhuman crimes" must not be seen as outliers in the abortion industry.

"We cannot allow these 'guilty' verdicts, welcome as they are, to make us complacent when it comes to the continuing abuses happening even now in abortion facilities throughout our nation," she said.

In her statement, Rose called on Congress "to investigate all those participating in or willing to participate in this kind of brutality" toward women and children.

Anna Higgins, director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, called the jury's verdict "a just conclusion to a horrific case."

However, she said, the case highlights the "callous disregard for the health and safety of women" as well as the "inhumanity of abortion."

Higgins called on Congress to work with states in requiring abortion clinics "to apply the same safety standards as those followed by other medical facilities, including veterinary offices."

Did Obama's IRS also harass pro-life groups?

With the revelation that the Obama Administration's Internal Revenue Service harassed and beleaguered groups seeking tax exemption status if their names included "Tea Party" or "Patriots," and then later admitting they targeted groups with purposes of promoting limited government and other conservative missions, questions are being raised about other targeted groups. 

Were pro-life groups also a target of the staunchly pro-abortion Obama Administration?

Chicago's Thomas More Society reported first dealing with IRS concerns from pro-life groups as early as 2009.

When the Coalition for Life of Iowa sought tax exemption status in 2009, the IRS sought details about the content of members' prayers at a Planned Parenthood facility. They also demanded that the group refrain both from activities that could be construed as protesting or picketing by police, and to cease activities that could be seen as confrontational or harassing by abortion-seeking clients.
 
Thomas More Society said the IRS insisted that "every member of the board of directors of the Coalition sign a statement, under penalty of perjury, that they will not picket or protest or organize others to picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood," 

Soon after the unprecedented demands were made, the Chicago-based public interest law firm made the legal challenge on behalf of the Cedar Rapids, Iowa-based group. Shortly thereafter, the IRS backed off and the group was granted 501(c)3 status.

"The IRS must operate within the constraints of law, and it cannot condition the grant of tax exempt status on the forfeiture or surrender of First Amendment rights on the part of any non-profit group or individual American citizens," Thomas More Society's attorney Thomas Brejcha commented in a 2009 press release.

But again two years later, Thomas More Society issued a letter to the IRS on behalf of a group called Christian Voices for Life. The IRS made repeated requests for information about the viewpoint and content of the group's communications, prayer vigils, and other activities, violating the group's First Amendment rights.

In its 2011 letters to Christian Voices for Life, the IRS demanded to know whether the group did "education on both sides of the issues," whether members of the group "try to block people to [sic] enter a … medical clinic" during "40 Days for Life" and "Life Chain" events, whether members of the group "attempt to talk to someone trying to enter a medical clinic," and to "please explain what you are [doing] during" 40 Days for Life and Life Chain vigils.

"The application of Christian Voices for Life clearly indicates that the organization qualifies as a charitable organization under section 501(c)(3)," stated Thomas More Society executive director and legal counsel Peter Breen two years ago.

"These requests suggest that the IRS may be denying or delaying tax-exempt status based upon the organization's pro-life message, rather than any legitimate exemption concern," Breen said.  "Moreover, the implication in these questions that Christian Voices for Life somehow intends to engage in illegal activity is insulting."

Using the IRS as a tool to squelch political enemies is an illegal tactic that mounted evidence against former President Richard M. Nixon and added to a call for congressional impeachment proceedings, which eventually subsided when Nixon resigned in disgrace.

Abortionist Gosnell found guilty on 3 murder counts

A Pennsylvania jury has convicted abortionist Kermit Gosnell on three counts of 1st-degree murder.

Gosnell, who had performed late-term abortions under appalling unsanitary conditions in a Philadelphia clinic, was found not guilty on a 4th murder charge, but guilty of involuntary manslaughter and a host of other lesser charges.

The grisly details of Gosnell's business had shocked and outraged those who heard of the case. But the abortionist's trial has received little attention from American's mainstream media outlets.

Gosnell was accused of brutally killing babies who survived late-term abortions, allowing unqualified personnel to perform medical procedures, dispensing inappropriate medication, improper storage of fetal remains, and other crimes. Government agents who inspected his clinic—originally looking for evidence of illegal prescriptions—were so appalled by the conditions there that they alerted local prosecutors. The clinic, which was patronized mostly by poor women, had not been inspected for years.