November 1, 2013

Pro-Life National 'Judicial Petition' Initiated

 
A national Petition effort aimed at the Judicial Branch of the U.S. Government was initiated this month by a Spokane, Washington Pro-life group. This is the first known petitioning of the Federal Judiciary in two hundred years. It seeks to have any Federal Court define the word "person," which has never been done legally -- either for the born or the unborn.
 
This "JUDICIAL PETITION," a legal action that is a right under the First Amendment, is a single sheet, two-pages long and takes about ten minutes to read. It may be read and signed electronically by anyone, including students, 14 years of age and older. The Petition is available at the Spokane group's website: http://www.spokaneprolife.com
 
Petitions will be delivered to individual Federal District Courts once 10,000 petitions have been signed per Federal Court. There are 90 Federal District Courts in the United States. The goal is for one-million signed Petitions by January 22, 2015, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, 1973.
 
This effort comes about as a result of four years of effort on the part of the Spokane group, including a legal case which made its way from Spokane, Washington to the U.S. Supreme Court in March of this year. The Spokane group's intent is to make this Petition as public as is humanly possible, to rationally convince the Courts that they have a legal duty under their Oath of Office as Federal Judges to "say what the law is," therefore, to define "person," which appears 50 times in our greatest law, the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. Cranch 137, 176-180, (1803).
 
The Spokane Pro-life group may be contacted at their website: http://www.spokaneprolife.com or by e-mail: JUDICIALPETITION@gmail.com.
 
Contact: Lawrence Cronin, Spokane Pro-life

Author of "The Exorcist" says abortion is "demonic"

 
Forty years after his book "The Exorcist" rocked America, author William Peter Blatty is upset by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and her obsession with promoting abortion. To him, abortion is "demonic." He's someone who would know.
 
In an interview with the Washington Post, Blatty explains his concern about his college alma mater Georgetown University, and its embrace of Sebelius last year. He's so concerned that he signed onto an effort expressing disgust with the Catholic-rooted school, and urges them to reverse their current speaker policies, saying:
 
"If you truly love someone that you think needs to be in rehab, you'll do everything you possibly can to get them into rehab," Blatty says. The last straw, he says, was Georgetown's invitation of Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services,to be a commencement speaker in May of last year. Sebelius has a record of supporting abortion rights, and abortion is the issue that really sets Blatty's nerves on fire.
 
He describes, his voice trembling, a particular abortion procedure in graphic detail.
 
He pauses. His voice is nearly a whisper.
 
"That's demonic."
 
Source: Illinois Review

October 24, 2013

ObamaCare: Advancing the Abortion Industry

Pro-abortion President Barack Obama
 
On a Friday night back in December 2009, Senate Majority Leader Reid was in tense negotiations with then-Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, as Reid desperately needed Nelson's vote to secure Senate passage of ObamaCare. Finally, Nelson had what Politico described as a "breakthrough" that lead to a deal, as Politico reported a few days later. Part of the deal, Politico wrote, was that "people who receive federal subsidies would need to write two separate checks as a way to ensure that none of the federal dollars went toward the abortion premium."
 
Six days later, Senator Nelson took to the Senate floor to explain in detail the deal he had negotiated. With respect to the two check requirement, Senator Nelson said: "In the Senate bill, if you are receiving Federal assistance to buy insurance, and if that plan has any abortion coverage, the insurance company must bill you separately, and you must pay separately from your own personal funds–perhaps a credit card transaction, your separate personal check, or automatic withdrawal from your bank account– for that abortion coverage. Now, let me say that again. You have to write two checks: one for the basic policy and one for the additional coverage for abortion. The latter has to be entirely from personal funds." [155 Cong. Rec. S14134 (Dec. 24, 2009)].
 
At the time, the Washington Post quoted Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America as saying, "The absurdity of requiring these two separate checks doesn't accomplish anything toward the supposed goal of segregating federal funds. . . . It just creates additional hoops for insurance companies . . . and more administrative burdens and obstacles for women to get the coverage they need." Likewise, a NARAL factsheet bemoaned the Nelson language: "Requiring individuals to write two checks in order to purchase coverage that includes a benefit–abortion services . . . is a new, unnecessary hassle. . . . these burdens could severely limit women's ability to obtain abortion coverage within the exchange." (Note, an Exchange is a marketplace for the purchase of health insurance. ObamaCare requires an Exchange to be established in every state by 2014).
 
The ObamaCare statute specifically requires the issuers of Exchange plans that cover abortion to "collect from each enrollee in the plan" a "separate payment" for the type of abortions for which funding is prohibited under the Hyde Amendment (which is all abortions other than in cases of life of the mother, rape, or incest) and a separate payment for all other services. [42 U.S.C. 18023(b)]. These separate payments are then to be deposited into separate accounts.
 
During the regulatory process, commenters questioned HHS on how this was to be implemented, and according to HHS, the commenters "recommended that HHS clarify . . . whether [Exchange plan] issuers may satisfy the separate payment provision by providing each enrollee with an itemized bill, and whether an enrollee's coverage would be terminated for failure to comply with the separate payment provision." Rather than doing so, HHS merely said that the comments would be taken into consideration in any future guidance. [77 Fed. Reg. 18430 (March 27, 2012)].
 
Now, despite the clear language of the ObamaCare statute, it appears that the separate check requirement is not going to be enforced by the Obama Administration. Gretchen Borchelt, director of state reproductive health policy at the National Women's Law Center, told the Huffington Post that "we used to talk about it as being two checks that the consumer would have to write because of the segregation requirements, but that's not the way it's being implemented." (Huffington Post, Sept. 3, 2013).
 
Likewise, a spokeswoman for Rhode Island's Exchange told PolitiFact Rhode Island that "the customer is not billed a separate fee." (Politifact, Oct. 2, 2013. The Rhode Island Exchange will handle the billing, not the plan issuers). As PolitiFact notes, "it turns out to be a hidden fee."
 
From a pro-life perspective, the most important fact is that massive federal premium subsidies will go to Exchange plans that cover elective abortion (a sharp departure from the longstanding policy of the Hyde Amendment), and every enrollee in the plan will have a portion of the enrollee's premium placed into a separate account for elective abortions (dubbed the "abortion surcharge"). But this is just one example of how the Obama administration is implementing ObamaCare in a way so as to advance the abortion industry.
 
Essential Community Providers. ObamaCare regulations require health insurance issuers in an Exchange to ensure "reasonable and timely access" to a "broad range" of Essential Community Providers for low-income individuals in the plan's service area. Among these Essential Community Providers are clinics that receive Title X family planning funds, such as Planned Parenthood clinics. (Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions in America today). A search of the non-exhaustive list of Essential Community Providers maintained on an HHS' website reveals 589 Planned Parenthood clinics among the Essential Community Providers.
 
Not to leave a stone unturned, in October 2011, Planned Parenthood and other abortion advocacy groups, wrote HHS asserting that "we believe that the final rulemaking should include language that clarifies that health plans, Exchanges, and states cannot exclude or discriminate against providers because they provide or refer for comprehensive women's health services." Apparently, these groups were concerned that a state might choose to direct women to health care providers that don't perform abortions. Of course, the Obama Administration addressed their concern. When the Final Rule was issued, it included a new provision that explicitly states that a health plan issuer in an Exchange "may not be prohibited from contracting with any essential community provider." (45 CFR 155.1050).
 
Abortion Coverage for Congress. A provision within ObamaCare requires that Members of Congress and certain congressional staff purchase their health plans on the Exchanges, starting January 1, 2014. The Obama Administration writes the regulations implementing this statutory language and in doing so, they propose allowing the government to purchase abortion-covering plans for Members of Congress and their staffs, which is something that no other federal employee is allowed to do.
 
For most of the past 30 years the "Smith Amendment" has banned the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) from paying any administrative expenses for any plan that includes elective abortion coverage. OPM does not dispute the application of the Smith Amendment to the purchase of Exchange plans by Members of Congress and certain congressional staff. Rather, OPM erroneously asserts that the Smith Amendment prohibits OPM from using appropriated funds to "administer" Exchange plans by administering "the terms of the health benefits plans offered on an Exchange." This deceptive assertion ignores the plain wording of the Smith Amendment which explicitly prohibits the use of any appropriated federal funds "to pay for . . . the administrative expenses in connection with any health plan . . . which provides any benefits or coverage for abortions." (emphasis added). It is undeniable that OPM will incur "administrative expenses in connection with" the purchase of Exchange health plans that cover abortion. The Constitution does not grant the President the authority to retroactively rewrite the laws.
 
Application Assisters. Planned Parenthood affiliates are being enlisted in various capacities to help consumers select an Exchange health care plan and complete their applications. On August 15, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that Planned Parenthood affiliates in Iowa, Montana, and New Hampshire will be funded as ObamaCare "Navigators." Their combined funding will total over $655,000. On August 13, the Washington, D.C. health insurance Exchange awarded a $375,000 grant to Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, D.C. to be an In-Person Assister. It is sadly ironic that some consumers may end up going to affiliates of America's largest abortion provider for help in purchasing insurance to cover life-preserving treatments.
 
This is just the beginning. The Obama Administration has three more years to implement ObamaCare.
 
Contact: Susan T. Muskett, J.D., Senior Legislative Counsel, National Right to Life

European Parliament: Abortion is Not a Human Right

 
The European Parliament this week rejected a measure that would force EU nations to declare abortion a human right.
 
Wendy Wright, with the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), said it would have been a "back door way" of forcing abortion on other countries.
 
"And it not only would have told countries in Europe that they must have abortion, but even would have told them that they must implement sex education — giving a reference to a certain curricula that was promoted by the World Health Organization," said Wright, C-Fam's vice president for government relations.
 
WHO is a pro-abortion organization that guides the UN on "global health matters."
 
Some members of the Parliament voted to send the pro-abortion report back to committee, while others wanted it removed entirely.
 
"It was expected just to sail through because only five minutes was allowed for debate — and it was only because pro-life and pro-family activists in Europe really geared up," Wright explained. "And to the surprise, I think, of the woman who introduced this measure, it did not pass."
 
There are plenty of activists in the U.S. pushing for late-term abortion.
 
"It's a teaching moment so that we can point out to people that there are, in fact, some in high positions who believe that a certain class of human beings should be killed indiscriminately — that mothers should not be protected from the abortion industry that wants no limits, no restrictions on what they do to women."
 
Contact: Bethany Monk, CitizenLink

Pro-choice woman describes RU-486 abortion ordeal

 
RU-486, the abortion pill, is offered to women who are less than nine weeks pregnant. When it first became available in the United States, pro-choice activists rejoiced. They believed that it would make abortion more readily available to women.
 
Abortion providers say that RU-486 is safe and effective. According to abortion provider Dr. David Grimes:
 
"I just don't see any downsides. For those women who don't like the invasiveness of surgery, it gives them a very important option."
 
In an article in Marie Claire titled "Betrayed by a Pill," a pro-choice woman named Norine Dworkin-McDaniel gives another perspective when she describes her RU-486 abortion.
 
She starts out by talking about how happy she was when RU-486 became an option for women.
 
"From the moment it was approved in 2000, I believed in the abortion pill. Finally! Abortion would finally become what it always should have been: a private medical matter between a woman and her doctor. It held the promise of swift, at home termination. There would be no more gauntlets of protesters at clinics, because who would know which physicians were dispensing the pills? Even better, the pill would keep abortion accessible at a time when fewer gynecologists were willing to perform them out of fear of attacks."
 
Dworkin – McDaniel eventually was faced an unplanned pregnancy. According to her, when she became pregnant, she was using cocaine and would "work all day, and party, party, party all night."
 
She worried that her drug use would cause medical problems for the baby:
 
"No matter what I did from this point on, there would always be a chance that the baby would have problems – maybe physical ones, maybe psychological issues. I wasn't willing to roll the dice with another life."
 
So Dworkin – McDaniel decided to end that life instead.
 
She describes how she decided not to have a surgical abortion:
 
"There was the surgical option of course. I'd had one in college (so you think I would've learned this lesson already) and I dreaded the needle that would be used to numb my cervix."
 
The abortion would be done by RU-486, (mifepristone) which would kill the baby. Then a second drug (misoprostol) would cause her to expel the embryo and placenta.
 
She says:
 
"The Mifeprex literature described some cramping and bleeding, "similar to or greater than a normal, heavy period." This sounded far more appealing than surgical abortion. A few pills, a couple of cramps, and it would all be over. We could move on with our lives."
 
But it didn't work out as she had planned.
 
She took the mispristone and then, two days later, prepared to administer the misoprostol:
 
Clinic staffers had directed me to insert the tablets into my vagina in the morning so I'd have the day to recover. I envisioned recuperating on the couch with some uncomfortable but bearable cramps and soothing myself with bad daytime TV."
I never made it to the couch."
 
She describes in detail what happened:
 
"Nothing – not the drug literature, the clinic doctor, not even my own gyno – had prepared me for the searing, gripping, squeezing pain that ripped through my belly 30 minutes later. I couldn't even form words when Stewart [her boyfriend] called to check on me. It was all I could do to gasp, "Come home! Now!" For 90 minutes, I was disoriented, nauseated, and, between crushing waves of contractions, that I imagine were close to what labor feels like, racing from the bed to the bathroom with diarrhea."
 
Then, just as quickly, it was over. The next night, I started bleeding. I bled for 14 days. A follow-up ultrasound confirmed that I'd aborted. And that's when the problems really began.
 
I had been prepared for the possibility that the pill wouldn't work and I'd still need a surgical abortion – that happens in about 5 to 8 percent of cases. I also knew that I might bleed so heavily I'd need surgery to stop it… [But] what blindsided me, apart from being battered by the mifepristone, with a huge, cystic boils that soon covered my neck, shoulders, and back. I was also overcome by fatigue – an utter lack of ability to do anything more strenuous than sleep or lie on the couch. My brain felt so fuzzy – English seemed like a 2nd language, and I couldn't work. On top of all that came depression; I sobbed constantly. I wouldn't leave the house. I stopped showering.
 
It was only when I described my symptoms to my gynecologist that I discovered my experience wasn't all that unusual. (The Mifeprex literature didn't even mention it) "I think it's underreported, but probably one in 3 women have dramatic side effects," he told me. My body was in total chaos – pregnancy hormones clashing with anti-pregnancy hormones clashing with stress hormones. "I've seen a lot of women go through it – I don't want to call it postpartum, but post event melancholy that's more dramatic than people want to admit." He prescribed antidepressants. "One day, you'll feel just like your old self." It took 9 months."
 
Dworkin – McDaniel describes going back to the clinic and talking to one of the clinic workers:
 
"We could have told you it wasn't going to be easy," a clinic staffer noted when I rattled off my complaints during my follow-up.
 
Why didn't she speak up sooner?"
 
Dworkin – McDaniel's story is similar to that of Abby Johnson. Johnson was the director of a Planned Parenthood clinic when she had an RU-486 abortion. She too was unprepared for the ordeal. You can read her story here.
 
Johnson describes the agonizing pain and heavy bleeding she experienced. At one point she says:
 
"I knew I had to get up and wash the blood off of me. I stood up slowly and straightened out my body. As soon as I was completely upright, I felt a pain worse than any other I had experienced. I began to sweat again and felt faint. I grabbed on to the side of the shower wall to steady myself. Then I felt a release…and a splash in the water that was draining beneath me. A blood clot the size of a lemon had fallen into my bath water. Was that my baby? I knew this huge clot was not going to go down the drain, so I reached down to pick it up. I was able to grasp the large clot with both hands and move it to the toilet. I stood in the warm shower for a few minutes…feeling a little relief from the cramping. Then came the excruciating pain again. I jumped out of the shower and sat on the toilet. Another lemon sized blood clot. Then another. And another. I thought I was dying. This couldn't be normal. Planned Parenthood didn't ever tell me this could happen. This must be atypical. I decided that I would call them in the morning…if I didn't die before then. It was around midnight and I had been in the bathroom for a good 12 hours. I knew I couldn't leave yet. I didn't want to lay in the bed…the bleeding was too heavy. And the clots were still coming; not as often, but they were still coming. So, I decided to sleep on the bathroom floor that night…right by the toilet. The cold floor felt good on my face. I was physically depleted, but I could not sleep."
 
In the morning, she called the clinic:
 
"The next morning, I called Planned Parenthood as soon as they opened and asked to speak to the nurse. I was told she would call me back soon. She did. I told her about my previous day. She told me, "That is not abnormal." WHAT?? She could not be serious. All of the bleeding, the clotting, the pain…that was NORMAL??? "Yes," she said. "Use heating pads, soak in a warm tub, and take Ibuprofen." I was angry. How could they not tell me the side effects? I felt betrayed."
 
She goes on to say:
 
"At a management meeting, I voiced my concerns. Why weren't we talking about the risks? Why hadn't anyone told me? "Well, we don't want to scare them," my supervisor said. "Oh, like they are scared when they think they are dying from the amount of blood they are losing because we choose not to tell them that is supposedly normal," I responded. That didn't go over too well. That was their answer? They didn't want women to be scared?? The night of my medication abortion, lying on the cold bathroom floor, I had never been so scared."
 
It's true that not every woman who uses RU-486 has such a terrible experience. But these bad experiences are more common than many abortion providers would have us believe. Abortion clinics present RU-486 as an easy option. Often, it is anything but.
 
Contact: Sarah Terzo, LiveAction News, and Norine Dworkin-McDaniel "BETRAYED BY A PILL" Marie Claire (US), Jul2007, Vol. 14 7, p184-186
 
 

LA doctors perform heart surgery on unborn baby after practicing with Jello and grapes

Dr. Ramen Chmait, assistant professor
at Keck School of Medicine of USC and
director of Los Angeles Fetal Therapy
 
Earlier this month, the L.A. Times reported on a rare cardiac surgery which was performed on a 25-week-old fetus in utero. The procedure — a first in southern California — was necessitated by poor blood flow through the baby's left ventricle. Because the baby's heart was not pumping blood properly, it was likely that he or she would have been born with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, which is a life-threatening condition.
 
This video shows a clip of the ultrasound used during the surgery, during which doctors inserted a tiny tube and inflated a balloon into the baby's heart to open up the poorly-functioning valve. To prepare for the highly specialized surgery, doctors practiced on a grape (representing the baby's heart, which is about the size of a walnut at 25 weeks gestation) inside of Jello, which represented the baby's body surrounding the heart.
 
Although the surgery was performed just late last month (making long-term effects hard to predict at this time), doctors reported that the baby and mother are doing well and that it was evident immediately after the surgery that blood flow had increased and that the surgery was likely to have prevented life-threatening problem's for the future. One of the physicians told the LA Times:
 
"It's only been a week or two, but even initially after the procedure, we could see increased blood flow across the valve, and the heart was squeezing a bit better than before."
 
In a scholarly article posted by the American Heart Association (AHA), the fetal aortic valvuloplasty procedure (which was performed on the baby in this story) is listed as the most common type of closed fetal cardiac intervention. Interestingly, the AHA points out that the performance fetal cardiac intervention in utero is helpful to the baby because it occurs during a period of intrauterine gestation that is especially helpful to the baby's recovery process:
 
"Prenatal intervention may also allow the fetus to recover in the supportive in utero environment, during a developmental period when there is enhanced wound healing and the capacity for myocyte proliferation."
 
Editor's note. Lauren Enriquez has worked for great organizations such as Texas Right to Life and Students for Life of America. This appeared at liveactionnews.org
 
Contact: Lauren Enriquez, National Right to Life

Hobby Lobby joins Obama Administration in asking Supreme Court to Take Its Appeal

Hobby Lobby's David and Barbara Green
 
Last month the Obama Administration asked the United States Supreme Court to take up the case of Hobby Lobby, a chain of more than 500 arts and crafts stores. Today Hobby Lobby asked the court to review the case as well.
 
Back in July, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton granted a preliminary injunction against the HHS mandate which force employers to purchase health insurance for their employees that includes coverage for items and procedures to which they have moral or religious objections.
 
Subsequently the full 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, which employs more than 13,000 full-time workers.
 
However, since then courts in other parts of the country have ruled differently. Such conflicting circuit court decisions often are resolved by the High Court.
 
The Administration's position is that corporations, like Hobby Lobby (but many other challenger as well), cannot claim a religious exemption to this part of the healthcare law. (As David Savage of the Los Angeles Times has explained, the cases "involving corporate employers are separate from suits involving schools and hospitals that have religious affiliations.")
 
On Monday Hobby Lobby asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review its case and decide whether the Green family will be required to provide and pay for the coverage it finds morally and religiously objectionable.
 
"Hobby Lobby's case raises important questions about who can enjoy religious freedom," said Kyle Duncan, general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and lead lawyer for Hobby Lobby. "Right now, some courts recognize the rights of business owners like the Green family, and others do not. Religious freedom is too important to be left to chance. The Supreme Court should take this case and protect religious freedom for the Green family and Hobby Lobby."
 
The Court will consider the government's petition and Hobby Lobby's response next month, Duncan explained. If the petition is granted, the case would be argued and decided before the end of the Court's term in June.
 
There are two primary reasons the High Court is likely take the case. "The justices rarely turns down requests from the White House," according to POLITICO's Jennifer Haberkorn. "Plus, three circuits [the third, sixth, and tenth] have now decided this issue in different ways, creating a circuit split."
 
Editor's note. The above includes information sent out in a release by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
 
Source: National Right to Life News

Yale Hosts Inaugural Pro-Life Conference

 
It's not something you see every day: A student-led pro-life conference at one of the nation's Ivy League universities. But with the success of the inaugural event, members of Choose Life at Yale (CLAY) are hoping to see others like it.
 
"Vita et Veritas: Promoting a Culture of Life and Truth" ran from Thursday through Sunday. Some of the speakers included Sally Winn, vice president of Feminists for Life and Clarke Forsythe and Bill Saunders of Americans United for Life.
 
"In an institution that is so pro-choice, it's important to have that alternative view," said CLAY member Courtney McEachon, the organization's out-going president. She described Yale as "hostile" to the pro-life view.
 
Event speakers, she said, helped attendees see how varying philosophical or religious views could eventually all lead to the pro-life stance.
 
Former abortionist Dr. Haywood Robinson gave a talk Saturday called "The Secret Agenda."
 
"The title drew a lot of people — they wanted to hear what he had to say," McEachon told CitizenLink. Robinson focused on abortion sellers and their economic goals.
 
"Both sides sometimes assume that Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice groups are looking out for the best interests of women, but they do have alternative motives," McEachon explained. "Abortion is a huge moneymaker."
 
In just 2009, Planned Parenthood's estimated revenue from abortions was $191 million, according to Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director of Public Policy for Focus on the Family.
 
Although CLAY was formed in 2003, this is its first conference.
 
"There are students here who want to support life," she said.
 
Tim Goeglein, vice president for external relations at Focus on the Family, said Yale's conference underscores a dedication to the pro-life movement.
 
"The Yale gathering is a pro-life tribute to the growing numbers of young Americans who agree with the late Father Richard John Neuhaus, that babies should be welcomed into the world and protected in law," he explained. "This Ivy League gathering is a sign of vitality and renewal."
 
Contact: Bethany Monk, CitizenLink

HPV ,Gardasil and Death

Japan withdraws support of controversial HPV vaccine over safety concerns
 
 
While jurisdictions throughout the Western world continue to promote the HPV vaccine, the Japanese government has pulled its support of the controversial drug and sent formal notifications to local health officials saying that it should not be administered until safety concerns are investigated.
 
The vaccines in question, Gardasil and Cervarix, are meant to combat Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), thought to be the most common sexually transmitted infection in the world. HPV is known to cause multiple types of cancers, including cervical, anal, penile, and throat cancer.
 
The vaccines do not prevent cancer cells from forming in the body but purport to prevent the four most common strains of HPV, out of an estimated 150 strains.
 
Japan acted on a report by Japanese internist and cardiologist, Dr. Sataro Sato, who revealed that since the vaccine was introduced in 2010, almost 2,000 adverse events were reported to the country's Vaccine Adverse Reactions Review Committee, including 358 cases that were evaluated as serious.
 
Dr. Sato wrote that the manufacturers of Gardasil and Cervarix state in their own documentation that their vaccines may cause seizures and/or brain damage.
 
"Much the same as in the US, UK, Australia and other countries, Japanese obstetricians and gynecologists advocated HPV vaccines as a highly effective method of preventing uterine cervical cancer," Dr. Sato stated. "HPV vaccination programs began in 2010 under a recommendation made by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (JMHLW) to administer HPV vaccines to girls from 11 to 14 years old."
 
Dr. Sato's report notes that parents of vaccine victims began calling the country's health minister and furnishing videos in which girls who had received the HPV vaccine suffered from walking disturbances, body tics and seizures. In other cases girls injected with the vaccine lost consciousness and fell to the floor, suffering head or face injuries.
 
"In the early period of the HPV vaccination program, many girls who were injected with the vaccine fell down to the floor within several minutes injuring their heads or faces. Some girls fractured their jaws and teeth," Dr. Sato wrote.
 
As evidence of serious adverse reactions to the drugs – such as seizures, blindness, paralysis, speech problems, pancreatitis, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, and death – began to mount, a national organization, the Nationwide Liaison Association of Cervical Cancer Vaccine Victims and Parents was formed to stop the distribution of the drugs to the children of unsuspecting families.
 
One of the case reports that Dr. Sato attributes to reaction to the HPV vaccine was that of a junior high school girl who, on the 6th day after injection, suffered cardiac and pulmonary arrest after running a relay in training for a sports festival at school. The girl had no record of previous illness.
 
"CPR was successful by ambulance team at school and by doctors in a hospital. But severe brain damage occurred. She went on to an artificial respirator for one week," Dr. Sato reported.
 
Dr. Sato concluded that the negative health effects of Gardasil and Cervarix are serious and that long-term consequences are not well understood, noting that, "vaccine manufacturers have an obligation of post-licensure vigilance."
 
In 2008, the Washington-based public interest group Judicial Watch reported that it obtained more than 8,000 reports from the US Food and Drug Administration, under the US Freedom of Information law, of adverse events in girls and young women after they were injected with Gardasil.
 
The reports reveal everything from massive wart outbreaks to seizures, paralysis and deaths, with 28 deaths associated with Gardasil in 2008 alone.
 
"The FDA is supposed to be a guardian of public health, and yet the agency continues to turn a blind eye to what seems to be an extremely serious public health problem. The public relations push for Gardasil by Merck, politicians and public health officials needs to pause so that these adverse reactions can be further studied," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The already serious problems associated with Gardasil seem to be getting worse. No one should require this vaccine for young children."
 
Gwen Landolt, national vice-president of REAL Women of Canada, commented on the lack of proper testing before Gardasil was pushed through the approval process in Canada.
 
"The long-term consequences of Gardasil are not known," Landolt said. "The manufacturer admits this and agrees it does not know its effect on young girls' cancer risk, on their immune system, on their reproductive system, or its genetic effects.  In due course, we will know this, possibly in twenty or thirty years from now when these young girls, the innocent subjects of the Gardasil experiment, have become grown women and then report the consequences of their having taken the medication in their childhood on medical advice."
 
"It could well be that the vaccine may not do a thing to protect anyone from cervical cancer, regardless of the claims being made by Merck Pharmaceutical," Judicial Watch concluded. "What the vaccine is causing is death and immense suffering among those who have been vaccinated."
 
Contact: Thaddeus Baklinski, LifeSiteNews.com

U.S. doctors now arbiters of life and death?

 
As Canada's Supreme Court has told doctors that families do have a say in critical medical decisions, an opponent of euthanasia warns that Americans will face similar battles under ObamaCare.
 
The case involves an Ontario man who became comatose after minor brain surgery. Doctors wanted to remove life support for Hassan Rasouli, but his physician wife disagreed and took the case through the court system.
 
Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition tells OneNewsNow about the Canadian Supreme Court decision.
 
"Doctors were arguing before the Supreme Court of Canada that they had a unilateral right to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from patients; they do not need consent or request," Schadenberg reports. "The Supreme Court of Canada upheld that doctors must obtain consent before they withdraw life-sustaining treatment."
 
Doctors could have become the arbiters of life and death, but the Rasouli ruling says if there is a disagreement between physicians and family, cases can be taken to a Consent and Capacity Board.
 
"The courts have respected the values of all Canadians," the Coalition spokesman notes. "And in the United States, you should be concerned, because certain measures within Obamacare actually would lead to similar decisions that the Rasouli case ... dealt with."
 
The ObamaCare death panels could determine what, if any, treatment is provided or if treatment is denied.
 
Contact: Charlie Butts, OneNewsNow.com

October 18, 2013

Pro-abortion site tells post-abortive women: Be true to your feelings, unless you feel shame

Brittany DeJesus
 
Tuesday night's episode of the hit MTV show 16 and Pregnant features the testimony of a young post-abortive mom whose sister found herself in an unplanned pregnancy around the same time but chose life for her daughter. Brittany DeJesus suffered the traumatic consequences of an abortion over a year ago and still has difficulty dealing with her experience. Her younger sister Brianna tries to console Brittany by telling her to remember "why she did it," but Brittany seems to find little consolation in the memory.
 
Ironically, the abortion rights website RH Reality Check notes Brittany's openness about her abortion experience as a boon to the pro-abortion movement, citing the belief that openness about abortion will eliminate the stigma:
 
"Sometimes those of us who find ourselves facing one really do want an abortion. [Editor's note. Presumably the RH Reality Check writer meant to write something like '"Sometimes we do find ourselves facing someone who really does want an abortion."]  Winning the moral, cultural, and political debate surrounding abortion rights means that we must not give the other side the upper hand on any aspect. Suggesting that nobody wants an abortion or that nobody should be willing and happy to talk about her experience reinforces the idea that it is shameful – and it gives the other side the moral advantage."
 
Both the pro-life and, more recently, pro-abortion camps recommend speaking out about the effect that abortion has had on individual women who have experienced it; however, each side has a very different reason for promoting this openness.
 
As the RH Reality Check writer Katie Stack explains, abortion advocates should speak out about their abortion experiences in a certain way, so that their testimonies might make a political impact. Women should be true to their feelings regarding the abortion — unless those feelings include shame (which happens to be a common emotion that post-abortive women experience, as evidenced by an arsenal of testimonies collected by the Silent No More Awareness Campaign). Stack said:
 
"On the one hand, I have urged women to remain true to their own feelings. On the other, I have understood that the tone of our narratives could hold political consequences. For so long the rhetoric of the pro-choice Democrat's position has focused on 'safe, legal and rare' – with the 'rare' reinforcing the idea that abortion, though permissible, should be shameful and undesirable."
 
Shame, according to the pro-abortion movement, is a fabrication of pro-lifers who, according to Stack, wish to stigmatize abortion with their so-called "war on women," and a post-abortive woman who experiences shame is the victim of pro-life manipulation. The abortion rights community does not acknowledge the feeling of shame as a natural consequence of a mother choosing to end the life of a child entrusted to her protection. However, it is basic psychology to affirm whatever emotions a suffering individual is experiencing, regardless of how beneficial the sharing of those emotions will be towards a political agenda that seeks to enshrine abortion as a good and a right.
 
On the other hand, by and large, the pro-life community encourages an honest expression of post-abortive emotions –whatever those may be — as a path to healing and renewal after the tragedy of abortion. Shame is not thrust upon women who have suffered from abortion by any upstanding abortion healing organization. Lana Sanders, founder of the post-abortive healing organization Beauty for Ashes, encapsulates the Christian, pro-life view of shame in relation to abortion recovery, saying:
 
Just as when we first received Christ as our Savior, walking out from under the cloud of guilt and shame that had attached itself to us, reveals a new freedom. The ability to walk a new path, unhindered by past hurts and sin, allows us to embrace the love of God in a new way, perhaps never before experienced. The desire to serve Him and be obedient to His word takes on new meaning and new life within.
 
II Corinthians 5:17 – "therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old has gone, the new has come!"
 
Shame is not something attached to post-abortive women by the pro-life community; it is a natural response for many women to the effects of abortion on their psyche. The pro-life community invites women to face their shame and guilt as a means of relinquishing them, rather than being held in bondage to them. There is no political motivation behind the post-abortive healing ministries of the pro-life movement.
 
The same, clearly, cannot be said about abortion advocates who encourage women to openly discuss their abortion experiences.
 
Editor's note. Lauren Enriquez has worked for great organizations such as Texas Right to Life and Students for Life of America. This appeared at liveactionnews.org
 
By Lauren Enriquez, Source: NRLC News

More attention on the ObamaCare “train wreck”

 
Each day a few more pieces of the ObamaCare health insurance exchange puzzle are found in the box or underneath the couch or broken in half. A headline in a story appearing in the (very sympathetic) POLITICO catches the reader up: "Shutdown over, Congress turns to Obamacare 'train wreck.'"
 
Over the last two weeks, we already discussed some of the myriad of problems that go way beyond what was piously dismissed as "glitches": sticker shock (the same or lesser coverage will cost two or three times as much); the lowest price plans have gigantic deductibles; the obvious…misstatement… that people can keep their health plans, if they like them; the preposterous over-promising; and the simple fact that the meltdown was not primarily or even largely a function of demand—it was the system undergirding healthgov.org
 
Today we learn about not so much new flaws as an elaboration on some old ones and a few that are getting more attention. For example, as Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) told POLITICO, "The databases that store sensitive medical and financial information aren't secure. [Over the next couple of months, because the potential for fraud is virtually limitless, there likely will be a flood of stories about consumers being ripped off.] "Worse still, these same individuals will be slapped with a penalty tax for being uninsured."
 
Which doesn't change the basic dilemma: people are still finding it near impossible to sign on, much less navigate healthgov.org. The irony is that in order to keep the public from panicking, everything the Obama administration has done to date is to remind "visitors" that many/most people can obtain insurance subsidies. But as the Washington Post reported this morning, trying to determine eligibility for subsidies is a nightmare.
 
Borrowing from Jim Geraghty over at National Review Online, quoting from other publications…
 
"Vermont has had 631 people sign up for insurance through its state-run Obamacare exchange as of Tuesday morning."
 
"According to a Washington Post report Wednesday morning, 59-year-old Janice Baker officially became the first confirmed enrollee in the Delaware Obamacare exchange that opened."
 
"A Wisconsin Reporter review of the insurers in Wisconsin's federally controlled Health Insurance Marketplace seems to confirm what the state Office of the Commissioner of Insurance told the MacIver News Service earlier this week: There has been "minimal participation" in the exchange to date. OCI estimated the number of people signed up was fewer than 50."
 
And, as the Washington Post noted today, "Hawaii's health insurance marketplace under President Barack Obama's federal health care overhaul began offering plans for sale on Tuesday, more than two weeks after the start of open enrollment."
 
And, as reminder of what we wrote earlier in the week, there was an incredible 88% drop in visitors between October 1 and October 13! While that is stunning enough, in the first week less than half of 1% of the visitors successfully enrolled, according to the Washington Post's Juliet Eilperin.
 
By Dave Andrusko, National Right to Life

Told her baby would not be born alive, woman chemically aborts, but baby survives

Newly-born baby in an incubator and DISTRESSED … Rebeka Tjombe
 
WHAT a story out of the Namibian newspaper in Southwest Africa. Under the headline "Miracle baby survives abortion," we learn from Clemans Miyanicwe that doctors told Rebeka Vandueruru Tjombe that her unborn baby could not survive and "ordered the mother to take abortion pills." (What kind of pills is never described.)
 
The husband, Jephta Mooka Kaevara, told Miyanicwe that his wife texted him with the bad news and he went to the hospital where, he alleges, the doctor refused to tell him about his wife's condition.
 
"We were given a prescription to buy tablets to abort the pregnancy as the doctor had said there was no hope that the baby would be born alive," Kaevara told The Namibian Tuesday. Since the hospital pharmacy had run out, Kaevara bought the tablets from a pharmacy.
 
But after his wife took the pills, the baby was born alive, weighing about 3 1/3rd pounds. The baby is on a life-support system in the hospital maternity ward. "The mother will be discharged today because the hospital does not admit patients who have a place to stay in Windhoek [the capital city of Namibia]," according to reporter Miyanicwe.
 
"Why did the doctor tell me that there was no possibility of the baby surviving? Why did he make my wife try to abort the pregnancy?" Kaevara told The Namibian, adding the couple felt "betrayed" by the doctors.
 
"We trusted these people but look at what they have done," the mother said. "They made a wrong diagnosis. I did not receive any counseling from nurses or an apology from the doctor after what happened. I am suffering," Tjombe said.
 
There was evidently a lot more drama than the brief story details. It began with a sentence it does not elaborate on further:
 
"THE spirit of Florence Nightingale to save a life inspired a Windhoek nurse to run from one building to another with a baby on an oxygen mask meant for an adult on Tuesday."
 
By Dave Andrusko, National Right to Life

Appeal filed in Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Aurora, Illinois

 
The Thomas More Society, a Chicago-based public interest law firm, filed their notice of appeal with the Illinois Appellate Court, Second Judicial District, challenging the dismissal of its 2008 lawsuit against Planned Parenthood of Illinois, its affiliates or alter ego's, including an entity named, "Gemini Office Development, LLC" (whose acronym conveys a blasphemous insult to people of religious faith – "G.O.D.").
 
The lawsuit, brought on behalf of neighbors of the facility as well as an association of Fox Valley Families opposed to Planned Parenthood's disregard for Aurora's laws, alleges that the nation's largest abortion provider misled and lied to Aurora zoning and building officials in 2006 and 2007 to get permission to build its mega-clinic, and since then purports to operate a non-profit business at a site explicitly reserved for for-profit businesses – thereby also betraying its express representations and commitments to the Illinois Finance Authority, which provided some $8 million in financing at taxpayer expense on condition that the massive new building be operated exclusively for non-profit, charitable purposes.
 
The lawsuit, which the trial court dismissed late last August asserted that Planned Parenthood, having faced opposition from contractors and residents during construction of other abortion facilities around the U.S., decided to conceal its identity in construction of its new Aurora facility, which was built in 2007.  Thus Planned Parenthood hid behind "G.O.D." in seeking and securing its zoning and building permits.  Also, it claimed to be building a "medical office building," to be occupied by as yet unidentified tenants such as physicians' offices, dentists' offices, or pharmacy retailers, whose offices would be built out to suit these as yet unknown tenants' specifications. But the truth that this would be a massive abortion facility and political headquarters for Planned Parenthood in Illinois (with space for community organizing and education and lobbying efforts) was never disclosed – so far as the record shows – to Aurora's officials.  Only when the Chicago Tribune broke the story about Planned Parenthood's involvement in July, 2007, was the truth publicly known.  A great public outcry ensured, with over 1,000 demonstrators protesting at the site, and hundreds of opponents lining up to testify at late night City Council meetings. Under the Aurora zoning ordinance, Planned Parenthood's proposed true non-profit land use was classified as a "special" use, requiring special notice to neighbors and then a public hearing. Pursuant to a later zoning amendment, Planned Parenthood's non-profit use was "prohibited" at its chosen site, which was a "business development" zone wholly restricted to for-profit businesses.
 
But Aurora's Mayor intervened before the City Council took any action, calling on supposed "experts" who rendered reports that grossly misstated the applicable zoning and related laws, on the basis of which the Mayor directed that permits be issued – despite the clear violations of law.
 
Planned Parenthood's non-profit abortion facility and political headquarters for pushing the Illinois "reproductive rights" agenda was anything but a proper, permitted, cookie-cutter "medical office building" for doctors and dentist tenants.  No hearing was ever held, either before Aurora officials or in court.  Plaintiffs were denied the right to take depositions of Aurora officials, some of whom had even admitted years ago (before the Mayor imposed a "gag order" on city workers) that the zoning law actually prohibited Planned Parenthood's land use.
 
Nevertheless, the plaintiffs' lawsuit, litigated for many years on a variety of legal issues, was dismissed on August 29, 2013, on a narrow legal ground.  Judge Fullerton ruled that Aurora's decision to allow Planned Parenthood to operate was a "legislative" decision and thus largely insulated from judicial review. But the City's decisions to let the facility open for business were all made by executive officials (Zoning & Building Commissioners and the Mayor), whereas the city's legislative body – the Aurora City Council – never took any action on the matter except to hear objections voiced by thousands of Aurora citizens at late night hearings in late summer and autumn, 2007.  According to settled Illinois law, judicial review in such a case should have been substantial and extensive, not de minimis or rubber-stamped.  Thus the plaintiffs fully anticipate that their appeal will prove successful, and that justice – albeit delayed – will not be denied!  Planned Parenthood's facility has been operating in blatant violation of law, making it a legal nuisance, the remedy for which is "abatement." That means that the facility must be dismantled or sold as a legitimate for-profit medical office facility.
 
The plaintiffs believe the issues in the case are significant because Planned Parenthood's alleged deceptions prevented anyone in the City of Aurora (officials or residents) from participating meaningfully in the zoning process required by Aurora ordinance.  The zoning ordinance gives Aurora officials and citizens the duty and right, respectively, to evaluate the lawfulness and desirability of new businesses in the community, including any abortion business.  Planned Parenthood's deceitful behavior prevented that evaluation from taking place. Planned Parenthood's conduct was especially obnoxious because, at the same time it was engaging in a prolonged campaign of lying to the Aurora community, it applied for and received (in its own name since such benefits are available only to non-profits) $8 million in proceeds from tax free bonds from the Illinois Finance Authority, to build its facility.  Thus, the plaintiffs argue, not only did Planned Parenthood slap Aurora residents in the face with its deceptions, it did so at their expense!  It is to rectify such injustices that the lawsuit was filed, and now will be appealed.
 
Source: Illinois Review

ObamaCare is unclear regarding the unborn

 
A pro-life expert has found irony on the life issue in Obamacare.
 
Some of the Obamacare exchanges actually recognize an unborn baby as a human being, which is contrary to the philosophy of the Obama administration.
 
Susan Muskett of the National Right to Life Committee sums it up.
 
"It's ironic that some exchanges are counting unborn children for certain purposes when the entire Obamacare law is structured to increase access to abortion," she says.
 
In fact, as OneNewsNow has previously reported, there is a hidden charge in many of the exchanges, which will help finance abortions. Most people don't know that, although the administration promised consumers would get a clear indication of what is covered and what is not.
 
"Twenty-three states have passed laws restricting abortion coverage in exchange plans, but 27 states have not done so," Muskett explains. "And consumers are finding that when they go to some of these exchanges, they're having a very difficult time determining what plans cover abortion and which don't, and we know that is so important to the American people."
 
Abortion is the issue that almost stopped Obamacare from being enacted. Congressman Chris Smith has introduced the Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act that would require the exchanges to specify whether they do or do not cover abortion, and Muskett is encouraging people to lobby their members of Congress to get it passed.
 
Contact: Charlie Butts, OneNewsNow.com

October 15, 2013

Pro-lifers to Speaker Boehner: Protect Conscience Rights

 
Pro-life leaders from across the country sent a letter Friday to House Speaker John Boehner urging him to take a stand for the conscience rights of all Americans.
 
Signed into law in March 2010, the so-called Affordable Care Act requires larger companies to offer health insurance to those who work 30 or more hours a week. The law's implementation will also mean taxpayers will be forced to contribute to an "abortion surcharge."
 
Mallory Quigley, communications director for Susan B. Anthony List, said Obamacare is the largest expansion of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade.
 
"From the beginning of this health care debate, pro-lifers have had great cause for concern," Quigley explained. "Not only does Obamacare force taxpayers to subsidize health care plans that cover abortion on demand, there are not sufficient provisions to protect the rights of employers, health care workers, and other individuals."
 
Life advocates, representing more than 40 groups, asked the lawmaker to protect people from being forced pay for abortions — specifically, in any deals he makes with the White House regarding funding the government. They urge Boehner to include provisions of the Health Care Conscience Rights Act (HCCRA). Rep. Diane Black of Tennessee spearheaded the introduction of H.R. 940 in March.
 
Without the provisions in H.R. 940, the letter states, millions of Americans will be "unknowingly enrolled in health care plans that include elective abortion coverage"; these plans with charge enrollees an "abortion surcharge" of at least $1 a month.
 
"Regulations further contain a 'secrecy clause' to conceal the existence of the 'abortion surcharge' until the moment of enrollment," the letter continues. "This surcharge is only disclosed in the fine print, without itemization in the monthly premium, and is never disclosed again."
 
Advocates also mention the dangers of the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate, a provision of the health care law. The mandate requires most businesses and nonprofits to offer potential abortion-inducing drugs in their employee health plans.
 
"Without relief," the letter continues, "these organizations will face up to millions of dollars in fines for conscientiously refusing to pay for coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization."
 
More than 70 lawsuits against the mandate are in play.
 
HCCRA will protect Americans' most basic rights, said Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, a Nebraska lawmaker, who introduced the bill with Black and Rep. John Fleming, M.D., of Louisiana.
 
"The bill simply restores the basic rights in health care that were widely accepted before the new health care law."
 
Contact: Bethany Monk, CitizenLink

October 10, 2013

New Research shows unborn child can anticipate own movements in the womb

 
Using remarkable technology to eavesdrop on the unborn child, it seems as if every day in every way we find that he or she is a remarkable human being. One study builds on another on another, and so forth, showing ever-greater complexity.
 
Using 4-dimensional ultrasound, a few months ago researchers from Durham and Lancaster Universities published a study of 15 healthy unborn babies that showed how the child's facial expressions develop and become more complex as the baby grows. On the scans you can see recognizable facial expressions including what can only be described as a smile, followed by even more complex multi-dimensional expressions.
 
 
Researchers interpreted the behavior as babies "practicing" facial expressions. The article was published in the academic journal, PLOS ONE.
 
Just this past week, publishing in the journal "Developmental Psychobiology," researchers found that that babies get better at anticipating their own movements as they enter the later stages of gestation. Put another way, "For the first time, psychologists discovered that foetuses were able to predict, rather than react to, their own hand movements towards their mouths as they entered the later stages of gestation compared to earlier in a pregnancy," according to Carolyn Buchanan.
 
Here's how Buchanan summarized the way the way "psychologists at Durham and Lancaster Universities tracked movements in a total of 60 scans of 15 healthy fetuses (8 girls and 7 boys) at monthly intervals between 24 weeks and 36 weeks gestation."
 
"In the early stages of gestation, fetuses were more likely to touch the upper part and sides of their heads. But as the fetuses matured, they began to increasingly touch the lower, more sensitive, part of their faces including their mouths.
 
"And by 36 weeks a significantly higher proportion of fetuses were seen opening their mouths before touching them. Researchers say this suggests that in later stages of pregnancy, the babies were able to anticipate that their hands were about to touch their mouths, rather than just reacting to the touch."
 
By Dave Andrusko, National Right to Life

New data on why women have abortions is both illuminating and ambiguous

 
The reasons women have abortions are not simple and thus can be difficult to study and/or categorize. That's one reason why the two most recent previous studies on abortion reasons, from the Guttmacher Institute, date from 2005 and 1988.
 
Now, though, the same team from University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) that brought us the "Turnaway" study, has used the same data set to lay out the reasons the nearly one thousand women in their study had abortions. While their data set included more women with advanced pregnancies and reasons did not always fit into clear categories, the results are revealing nonetheless.
 
The article, "Understanding why women seek abortions in the U.S.," was published in the July 5, 2013, edition of BMC Women's Health and can be freely accessed.
 
As noted above the authors, M. Antonia Biggs, Heather Gould, and Diana Greene Foster, all participated in the "Turnaway" study. They are part of the Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIR) project at the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), the notorious abortion research center from the west coast.
 
Biggs and her fellow researchers began the "Turnaway" study in 2008. They were specifically looking to contrast the consequences of those who received abortions versus those who were "denied" abortions. Women were "denied" either because available abortionists were not trained or facilities were not equipped to handle those women presenting at those particular gestations, or because state law, for some reason, prohibited abortions at a particular stage.
 
We discussed this study in a five-part series National Right to Life News Today ran back in January. (Part Five, with links to four previous articles, can be found here.)
 
The UCSF team took data from the same set of 956 women, 273 who received first trimester abortions, 452 who obtained abortions just under the gestational limits, and 231 who sought but did not receive abortions. They asked them two open ended questions: the first about why they sought an abortion, and, second, what their main was reason behind the request. (Two women out of the 956 in the study did not answer questions on the reasons for their abortions.)
 
The findings are both illuminating and ambiguous. Women rarely gave a single reason and often gave additional, maybe even different reasons when pressed as to their main reason. Researchers attempted to gather these into basic themes or categories, but some of these were harder to categorize than others.
 
For example, one 19 year old gave the following list: "I already have one baby, money wise, my relationship with the father of my first baby, relationship with my mom, school." Another woman, 27 years old, said "My relationship is newer and we wanted to wait. I don't have a job, I have some debt, I want to finish school and I honestly am not in the physical shape that would want to be to start out a pregnancy."
 
These cover the gamut–financial, relationship, school, and, in the way that some count it, even maternal health.
 
Essentially, the study authors decided just to identify certain general themes and then count every time a woman gave a response in this category. The authors seem to have abandoned the effort to identify a woman's primary reason for abortion, as that data is not listed anywhere. Thus the best one can do with this data is to simply see how often women offered a particular rationale.
 
Researchers found 40% of these women mentioning something financial, 36% in some way discussing the bad "timing" of the pregnancy, 31% raising a partner issue, 29% speaking of "other children," 20% talking of the child somehow interfering with future opportunities.
 
Less than 20% mentioned something about not being emotionally or mentally prepared (19%), health related reasons (12%), wanting a better life than she could provide (12%), not being independent or mature enough (7%), influence of family or friends, and not wanting to have a baby or to place a baby up for adoption (4%). [1]
 
These do not add to 100%, of course, because women tended to give more than one reason. And some other important qualifications need to be made to give a proper analysis
 
Looking more carefully at the data
 
These responses reflect a women's self-reported subjective assessment, not some independent analysis of her situation. As such, it is a good guide to her perceptions (or at least to her beliefs about what others will consider an acceptable justification). But they do not necessarily tell us the facts about her circumstances.
 
For example, though we know from demographic data reported by the authors that 45% of women participating in the survey were receiving public assistance and that a considerable portion (40%) were not able to indicate that they had "enough money in the past month to meet basic needs," we do not know what these women's precise income was or what mix of public and private resources were available in their communities.
 
Would they have arrived at the same conclusion if someone had sat down with them, looked at the sort of resources available to them, and given them the sort of budget planning advice and assistance that is available at many local pregnancy care centers?
 
Finances are an issue for many a young couple starting out, and it is common to wonder or even worry as to exactly how one can "afford" a baby. Some circumstances are admittedly more dire than others, but it is remarkable how that year after year, decade after decade, century after century, people, some with larger families, find ways to give birth to all their children and care for them.
 
How much these women were aware of or considered taking advantage of these resources is unknown [2]
 
Twelve percent is a higher figure than we are accustomed to seeing citing "health" reasons, but a few caveats are needed here as well. To start with, this study group includes more women with advanced pregnancies than would be found in a general sample of aborting women. This could mean a slightly higher likelihood of physical issues (though researchers specifically excluded any women seeking abortions for "fetal anomaly" from their sample and concluded, in contrast to some other previous studies, that gestational age was not a factor here). But a bigger issue, again, is that these are subjective reports of concerns about possible health problems with the mother or the unborn child, not medical determinations of any particular risk.
 
Data and interviews bear this out. Almost half of the 12% reported were attributed to concerns that the woman had about the impact of her own tobacco, alcohol, or drug use on the health of her child or on her ability to care for the child. One woman said, "because I had been doing drinking and the medication I'm on for bipolar is known to cause birth defects and we decided it's akin to child abuse if you know you're bringing your child into the world with a higher risk for things." There is no indication that this mother or any of the other patients giving these answers had medical tests showing any problem with the child, or were told by a doctor that having a child posed any threat to the mother's health.
 
Other issues like "timing" are amorphous and hard to analyze. About 34 points of the 36% raising this issue said they simply weren't "ready," that it wasn't the "right time." Discussions involving timing often bled into other more tangible issues related to finances, school, or work schedules. Sometimes this was simply expressed in terms of emotional stress. Two percent expressed concerns about being "too old."
 
Women often mentioned concerns about already born children when talking about timing or finances and nearly one in three (29%) mentioned this concern about other children overall. Though the sample here in this study is somewhat different in composition, the percentage of women reporting already having or caring for at least one child (62%) is similar to national figures on abortion patients having previously given birth obtained by Guttmacher and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.
 
How much would change if partners were supportive and encouraging and women felt they would have help raising another child (women said 8% of partners were "not supportive," 6% of partners did not want baby, 3% were abusive). No indication, again, of whether women knew of or had access to other support in their wider communities.
 
Demographic correlations
 
One thing useful that the study does is to match reasons with demographics. Perhaps not surprisingly, younger women seeking abortion were more likely to report concerns about immaturity, a lack of independence, or the child interfering with future plans. Younger women also more frequently mentioned the influence of family or friends either in pressuring to have an abortion or as people from whom they trying to keep their pregnancies secret by aborting.
 
African American women were more likely to report problems with their partner but less likely to report being emotionally or mentally unprepared to raise a child at the time. Women who were separated, divorced, or widowed were more also likely to report partner issues.
 
Women who were employed were half as likely to report a health related reason, while those who had a history of depression or an anxiety diagnosis were more than three times more likely to mention health.
 
It is not clear why, but women with more than a high school education were more likely to express concerns about not being financially prepared and to want to abort because they said they desired a better life for the child than the mother felt she could provide.
 
Some women (4%) simply admitted they wanted abortions because they didn't want a baby or didn't want any children and/or wouldn't consider adoption. More than two thirds (68%) of the women saying this had never born a child. A handful of women sought abortions because of legal issues they were going through (3 women) or because of fear of giving birth (2 women).
 
Some of what we learned
 
Though it is not brought out in any detailed analysis here, it is worth noting that despite what appears to be a general resolve to abort among women in the study, data on the same women in the turnaway study show that, even as little as one week later, more than a third of the women (35%) were no longer convinced that abortion was the outcome they wanted. How many more shared that view once the child was born is not addressed here or in that earlier paper.
 
Identifying one single approach that will address every woman's concerns and change her mind is difficult, given the multiplicity of the reasons and rationales given by women for seeking abortion. Some will be benefited by being connected to better support systems, while others need practical economic assistance. Anything making men more responsible for the children they father will go a long way towards helping many of these women care for their children.
 
Yet abortion's legality and the implied social sanction that comes with it is clearly a major part of the cultural machinery that forces these cruel choices on women, that lets men off the hook, that leaves women to care for households of children all alone, and that makes society less accommodating to the demands of motherhood. Collectively such factors may conspire to force many of these women to consider an option that goes totally against their nurturing natures and pit the needs of one or more of their children against another.
 
If we believe the survey, most of the women seeking to abort here did so, not because they were triumphantly exercising their "power to choose," but because they felt like–given the circumstances–they had no other realistic choice. Abortion forces on them a cruel, violent, destructive option that does little to solve their basic social or economic problems, problems, which may, in part, themselves be a consequence of Roe's forced cultural transformation.
 
Those women would find better options and more respect for their rights and responsibilities as women and mothers with abortion off the table.
 
[1] No mention is made or percentages given for abortions related to rape, incest, or any type of sexual assault. This could perhaps mean that occurrences were so few as to merit no specific mention or that these were excluded from the study for some reason not given.
 
[2] Although we do know those citing financial reasons included 0.6% who cited lack of insurance or inability to obtain government assistance as a factor in their decision to seek abortion, while, alternatively, another 0.4% sought abortions because they did not want to rely on government assistance.
 
By Randall K. O'Bannon, Ph.D. NRL ETF Director of Education & Research

“The Miraculous Journey”: 216 tons of beauty

 
Yesterday a friend of mine sent me a link to a set of photos on the New York Times webpage. The first of 7 photos showed a set of giant white balloons.
 
To be honest, I was busy, wasn't immediately interested, and didn't bother to investigate the remainder of the photos until today. Lo and behold, when I did, here's what I found.
 
The explanation (quoting from the story by Carol Vogel) was "For weeks, 14 giant balloons had been mysteriously parked in front of the Sidra Medical and Research Center, a hulking steel, glass and white ceramic building devoted to women's and children's health that is open on the outskirts of this city early next year." (The city is Doha, Qatar.)
 
As is suggested by the accompanying photo (© penny yi wan) what those balloons concealed for weeks was "The Miraculous Journey," 14 HUGE bronze sculptures that depict the unborn child's journey from conception to birth. The author is a very famous–and even more controversial artist–Damien Hirst.
 
And what a spectacular opening on Monday evening! To the "amplified sound of a beating heart, members of Qatar's royal family, government officials and local artists watched as each balloon, bathed in purple light, opened like a giant flower to reveal an unusually provocative public artwork," Vogel wrote.
 
Three years in the making, the sculptures conclude with a 46-foot-tall baby boy! Collectively they weigh 216 tons and costs $20 million.
 
Most of the work, "fraught with secrecy," was carried out in Hirst's studio in England. "The first meeting I had with the architects, I was not allowed to tell them what the sculptures were because they wanted it to be a surprise," Hirst told Vogel.
 
Vogel added drily, "There is nothing secret about them now: he positioned the sculptures so they can be seen both from the motorway and the desert."
 
Hirst traced his fascination with childbirth to having children of his own. "Everyone talks about our life's journey, but we have a whole journey before you're born," he explained.
 
Without getting into specifics, there was little or nothing in Hirst's previous work that was remotely life-affirming. That changed as of Monday.
 
But the life-affirming exhibit marks a change in course for Hirst, whose previous works have included a diamond-studded human skull, and a variety of animals, some dissected, preserved in formaldehyde.
 
"Ultimately, the journey a baby goes through before birth is bigger than anything it will experience in its human life," Hirst said. "I hope the sculpture will instill in the viewer a sense of awe and wonder at this extraordinary human process, which will soon be occurring in the Sidra Medical Center, as well as every second all across the globe."
 
By Dave Andrusko, National Right to Life

New pro-abortion tactic: demonize adoption

 
Andrea Grimes, writing at RH reality check, a pro-abortion blog, has issued a clarion call to forestall a Texas proposal that would require three hours of adoption counseling prior to any abortion. Her plan? Undermine pro-lifers' "hold" on the issue by "exposing" adoption as a corrupt, woman-coercing, money-making cartel!
 
But to come up with such a counter-factual, counter-intuitive slur, Grimes must set up several egregiously false claims:
 
that adoption "is not an alternative to abortion, but rather an alternative to parenting"; and
 
that adoption victimizes both the mother and child.
 
The first premise is artificial—that "pregnant people' [her absurd term] are either pro-death or pro-life, and, if the latter, are deciding between parenting and adoption. But those struggling with a "problematic" pregnancy are not so easily pegged, and can change course after reflection. Grimes gives no source for the "research" she claims that women open to adoption "never considered abortion as a viable option."
 
Then Grimes asserts that the proposal for pre-abortion adoption counseling "would serve predominantly to detain, and perhaps shame, pregnant people who are already in a time crunch." But far from "shaming" women, the great majority of women facing unanticipated or 'problematic' pregnancies would be empowered by facts, such as accurate information about support systems, maternity homes, and adoption options.
 
Grimes announces that adoption leaves parents and adoptees with "complicated and mixed emotions about their experience…[and] not unilaterally the joyful exploration of loving kindness.. heroism and bravery." Well, no duh.
 
She maliciously paints adoption facilitators and supporters as suppressing or denying such totally expected after-effects. Why? You guessed it–for the greater goal of profit and/or religious ideology.
 
This is untrue and unfair, but not unsurprising given that Grimes' target audience of "reproductive justice" advocates frame all issues as battles against patriarchy, capitalism, and Christian fanaticism.
 
The heart of Grimes' call-to-action is this very self-satisfying pronouncement:
 
"[A]ccusations leveled at the so-called abortion industry by anti-choice reproductive rights opponents—specifically, that coercive 'abortionists' are solely interested in creating and maintaining demand for their services for the singular purpose of making money off hoodwinked and/or ignorant clientele—could be aptly applied to the largely unregulated domestic and international adoption industry."
 
Whereas the self-serving, coercive claims against abortion are true, Grimes' allegations of a coercive adoption cartel remain just that—allegations without actual cases cited. And the tactic is stated—to attack pro-lifers by associating us with adoption agencies which she has demonized.
 
Let's not forget that adoption is not a "political weapon" for pro-lifers. It is a practical remedy for the situation of a child not born into a welcoming family who will otherwise be killed by abortion.
 
By Kathy Ostrowski, legislative director, Kansans for Life