New powerful adoption campaign launched during National Adoption Month

The Radiance Foundation, known nationally for its bold TooManyAborted.com abortion awareness campaigns, has always promoted the beautiful life-affirming option of adoption. November is National Adoption Month and the nonprofit educational organization has now launched a new initiative focused on adoptees' experience of being adopted and loved. Phase one of the social media campaign, www.AdoptedandLoved.com, is comprised of new video ads and other shareable content that illuminates the beauty of adoption.

Ryan Bomberger, Chief Creative Officer of The Radiance Foundation, is an adoptee and adoptive father. Like George Washington Carver, Faith Hill, the late Dave Thomas (Wendy's Founder) and Steve Jobs (Apple founder), Bomberger emphasizes the positive impact adoption has on adoptees and on the world around them.

"AdoptedandLoved.com celebrates beautiful possibility. We're often told that life that is unplanned will be unwanted and unloved. That myth is disproven every day by adoptees who change the communities they live in and impact the world around them," says Bomberger. "Sometimes, the best things in life are unplanned."

The Radiance Foundation partnered initially with RealOptions pregnancy medical clinics in California and Bethany Christian Services (the world's largest adoption agency) to create a series of new :30 TV ads. That grew into much more and The Radiance Foundation wanted to tell these powerful stories and pull together adoption resources all on one site to help promote this act of justice, hope and love.

"We celebrate birthmoms. We stand with them and support them. It's not easy making a plan for adoption. We wanted to create content that would speak to expectant mothers and fathers who may not be ready for parenting," says Bethany Bomberger, Executive Director of The Radiance Foundation. "Through this website, the powerful videos created and the resources listed we want to encourage young women to turn the unplanned into a loving plan."

Children in single female-led homes are 5 times more likely grow up in poverty. Adoption can be part of the solution in fighting poverty and fatherlessness. Expectant birthparents have an option.

"So many out there are talking about social justice. Few work toward it. This is true social justice," says Ryan Bomberger, creator of the campaign. "Adoption is a means by which birthparents, adopted children and adoptive families can join in a journey that affirms the lives of all involved. It's a win-win situation."

And the majority of adoptees and birthmoms across the nation, according to extensive research, agree.

Source: The Radiance Foundation

Pro-abortion Coalition Unveils Sweeping New National Abortion-on-Demand Legislation in Congress

Mary Spaudling Balch, JD, director, NRLC Department of State Legislation

A large group of pro-abortion members of Congress have introduced sweeping new legislation that is intended to nullify virtually all state and federal limitations on abortion, at any point in pregnancy.

Major pro-abortion groups, including the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), NARAL Pro-choice America, and the Center for Reproductive Rights, immediately began promoting the bill in communications to pro-abortion activists and in their fundraising appeals.

The bill reflects the alarm in pro-abortion activist ranks at the legislative successes of the pro-life movement in many state legislatures in recent years – including, for example, enactment of the NRLC-crafted Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act in 10 states.

The new 15-page proposal is formally titled the "Women's Health Protection Act." It was introduced on November 13 in the Senate as S. 1696 by Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Ct.) and 30 cosponsors, all Democrats. Identical companion legislation (H.R. 3471) was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Judy Chu (D-Ca.) and 59 cosponsors, all Democrats.

Blumenthal called it "a clear and certain response to" a "cascading wave of restrictions" on abortion enacted by state legislatures over the past several years.

In a letter promoting the bill released November 13, PPFA, NARAL, and numerous other pro-abortion groups asserted that "states enacted a recordbreaking 92 restrictions on abortion in 2011, and over 100 additional dangerous and unnecessary measures have passed into law since then."

Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

In a November 19 fundraising solicitation on the bill, Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said "it's become crystal clear that we need to go on the offensive."

NRLC State Legislation Director Mary Spaulding Balch commented, "As early as 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court, including three justices who supported Roe v. Wade, wrote, 'Abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures, because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life.' But this bill would impose the extreme doctrine that there is nothing at all different about abortion – the unborn child is an absolute non-entity, a zero, under this bill. The bill would also effectively leave women at the unregulated mercy of the most incompetent, mercenary, or biased abortion practitioners – and this is the real 'war on women.'"

NRLC Federal Legislative Director Douglas Johnson commented, "The new bill is labeled the 'Women's Health Protection Act,' but it would more accurately be titled the 'Abortion on Demand Until Birth Protection Act.' Under this bill, the unborn child has no more rights, from conception until birth, than a malignant tumor. This is an extreme pro-abortion ideology far removed from the views of the majority of Americans."

Much Like FOCA

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Ct.)

In its basic thrust, the new bill is similar to the "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA), which was a major pro-abortion priority during the Clinton Administration, and which Barack Obama endorsed during his 2008 run for president.

President Obama has not yet taken a position on S. 1696/H.R. 3471. Nor is it yet clear whether the groups and senators promoting the bill will urge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) to allow a vote on the measure any time soon, or what Reid's response will be if they do press such a request.

However, in an interview with the newspaper Roll Call, Blumenthal said, "As the election approaches, I think the voters are going to want to know where legislators stand on these issues," referring to the 2014 mid-term congressional elections, in which control of both houses of Congress will be up for grabs.

NRLC's Johnson commented, "I certainly agree with Senator Blumenthal on this much: Voters should learn where their federal representatives stand on this legislation."

Sweeping protections for abortion

The bill, if enacted and upheld by the federal courts, would generally prohibit any level of government – federal, state, or local – from applying any regulations that "single out" abortion and that do not apply to "medically comparable procedures." Blumenthal told a reporter for The Weekly Standard that it's "for doctors to decide" what "medically comparable" means.

In addition, any law would be nullified if it would "make abortions services more difficult to access and does not significantly advance women's health or the safety of abortion services." The bill directs courts to regard any law that might delay an abortion, that would "directly or indirectly increase the cost of providing abortion services," or that "is reasonably likely to result in a decrease in the availability of abortion services in the State," as being a violation of the proposed federal standards.

The bill would nullify even specific types of abortion-related laws that have been held by the U.S. Supreme Court not to violate any constitutional right – indeed, the prohibitions in the bill would apply even if the U.S. Supreme Court entirely repudiates Roe v. Wade and the other rulings that were built on Roe. The bill authorizes lawsuits by both federal officials and private parties to enforce its provisions.

NRLC's Johnson, recalling the multiple criminal convictions of Pennsylvania abortionist Kermit Gosnell earlier this year, commented, "This bill would provide a federal legal shield for gangster abortionists like Dr. Kermit Gosnell. It would nullify some of the laws that Gosnell was convicted under, such as the Pennsylvania law limiting the circumstances under which abortion can be performed after 24 weeks of pregnancy. The pro-abortion groups and lawmakers also wish to nullify the tighter oversight of abortion providers that have been put in place in Pennsylvania and various other states since the Gosnell scandal."

Late Abortions Protected

The bill explicitly prohibits any ban on abortion before "viability" (the point at which the child can survive independently of the mother), and dictates that only "the treating health care professional" (the abortionist) may determine whether "viability" exists in any given case. This provision, among others, would invalidate the laws enacted by 10 states since 2010, which declare that unborn children are capable of experiencing pain at least by 20 weeks fetal age, and that generally prohibit abortion after that point.

The bill would also require every state to allow abortion even after viability if "the treating physician" (the abortionist) asserts that it will avoid "risk" to the "health" of the pregnant woman. At a November 13 press conference, in response to a question from a reporter for The Weekly Standard, Blumenthal acknowledged that "health" includes a doctor's personal assessment of psychological health.

"It doesn't distinguish," Blumenthal said flatly.

"This bill would provide a federal statutory empowerment for any abortionist to perform an abortion at any point before birth, based merely on his assertion that this will avoid some 'risk' to the mother's emotional 'health,'" Johnson commented.

However the bill exempts the federal ban on the partial-birth abortion method that was enacted in 2003 – apparently a political concession on the part of the drafters.

The bill also states that it "shall not apply to laws regulating . . . requirements for parental consent or notification before a minor may obtain an abortion" or to laws regulating "insurance coverage for abortion."

Johnson said that it was doubtful that the "insurance coverage" exception would be interpreted to apply to government-run entitlement programs such as Medicaid, so the likely result would be that government health programs would be required to fund abortion on demand, even though private insurance plans would not be required to cover abortion.

Federal and state "conscience" laws, which provide some protection for the right of health care professionals to refuse to participate in providing abortions, would be invalidated by the proposed bill, since they would be regarded as reducing access to abortion.

Laws that allow only licensed physicians to perform abortions – so-called "doctor-only laws" – would also be invalidated under the bill, for the same reason. Several states, most recently California, have legalized the performance of abortions by some nurse practitioners, certified nurse-midwives and physicians' assistants, but most states still enforce "doctor-only" laws.

All laws requiring waiting periods before an abortion, and state "right to know" laws requiring provision of information on the unborn child (including, in some states, access to ultrasound images) and alternatives to abortion, would be invalidated.

Also prohibited would be laws that restrict the reasons for which abortions may be performed – for example, bans on abortions performed purely as a method of selecting the sex of a child to be born.

To view an always-current list of co-sponsors of either S. 1696 or H.R. 3471, arranged by state, go to the National Right to Life Legislative Action Center (http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/home/) and click on the tab "Issues and Legislation."

Contact: Douglas Johnson, National Right to Life

Supreme Court refuses to stay enforcement of Texas law requiring abortionists to have hospital admitting privileges

Justice Antonin Scalia

The Supreme Court Tuesday rejected an appeal by pro-abortion plaintiffs for a stay, allowing Texas to implement a part of a new abortion law that requires abortionists to get admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic.

The vote to reject the stay was 5-4.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in support of the ruling and was joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. "Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy did not write separately or join any opinion yesterday, but because it takes five votes to overturn the appellate ruling, it is clear that they voted with their conservative colleagues," The Associated Press's Mark Sherman wrote.

"This is good news both for the unborn and for the women of Texas, who are now better protected from shoddy abortion providers operating in dangerous conditions," said Pro-Life Gov. Rick Perry. "As always, Texas will continue doing everything we can to protect the culture of life in our state."

Added pro-life Texas Attorney General Gregory Abbott, "These are commonsense– and perfectly constitutional–regulations that further the state's interest in protecting the health and safety of Texas women."

The admitting privileges requirement was part of HB 2, a bill passed in July by the Texas Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Perry. The overall bill is best known for pro-abortion state Senator Wendy Davis's filibuster which temporarily foiled the will of the legislature and the people of Texas. Davis subsequently used the enormous media attention she received as a springboard to announce that she was running for governor.

However, just days before the provision was to go into effect, federal judge Lee Yeakel blocked the provision, concluding that it "places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus and is thus an undue burden to her." (See nrlc.cc/19Hdsdx.)

However a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit disagreed. In a 20-page opinion, Judges Priscilla R. Owen, Jennifer Walker Elrod, and Catharina Haynes wrote, "[T]here is a substantial likelihood that the state will prevail in its argument that Planned Parenthood failed to establish an undue burden on women seeking abortions or that the hospital-admitting-privileges requirement creates a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion." (See nrlc.cc/1iuZmDM.)

The abortionists and abortion clinics filed an emergency petition with the Supreme Court asking that the law be stopped while challenges went forward. Justice Antonin Scalia called for a response from the state of Texas by November 12 and shared it with his colleagues.

Justice Scalia's four-page opinion was stinging in its rebuke of the four dissenters.

"In sum, the dissent would vacate the Court of Appeals' stay without expressly rejecting that court's analysis of any of the governing factors. And it would flout core principles of federalism by mandating postponement of a state law without asserting that the law is even probably unconstitutional."

Scalia noted that the Court of Appeals' panel had concluded that it had to consider four factors when deciding whether to issue a stay and that the first two are "the most critical": "whether the State made a strong showing that it was likely to succeed on the merits"; and "whether the State would have been irreparably injured absent a stay."

Scalia examined the dissenter's opinion and wrote that "it thus fails to allege any errors, let alone obvious errors, in the Court of Appeals' determination that the two 'most critical' factors weighted in favor of the stay." (He also wrote that the dissenters fared no better in rebutting the panel's conclusion that the other two factors weighed in favor of the state of Texas.)

The full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to hear arguments in January, and the law will remain in effect at least until then.

Contact: Dave Andrusko, National Right to Life

The State of Abortion Law in the U.S.

This week, voters in Albuquerque (ABQ) voted no on a local ordinance proposal that would have banned abortions past 20 weeks gestation, the age at which we know preborn children can feel pain. If passed, the ordinance would have protected countless women and children from the barbaric practice of late-term abortion in what many have called the late term capitol of the United States. The United States is one of only four countries in the world that permit the brutal practice for any reason.

This measure, although defeated, served an inestimably important educational function. The hard work that was put into the measure was not in vain. Due to efforts such as these, people are waking up to the fact that abortion necessarily involves two lives and that late term abortion is an unnecessary evil. In fact, 64% of Americans support banning the practice of late-term abortion. We must build on this effort in ABQ and begin to introduce similar legislation in cities across the country. These efforts go a long way towards exposing the truth about abortion. They also force those who support the heinous practice to defend themselves in light of the reality that abortion causes excruciating pain to the preborn child and is dangerous for the mother.

Also this week, the U.S. Supreme Court denied an emergency stay of the Texas law that requires abortionists to obtain admitting privileges in local hospitals. The denial of stay indicates that the Fifth Circuit's refusal to enjoin the law pending a decision on the merits is not clearly erroneous. Thus, the Texas law will remain in effect until the Fifth Circuit has decided the case on its merits. As Ken Klukowski noted, the dissent in this decision indicated that it is likely that the Court will take up this case eventually. If it does, this will be the first abortion case taken up by the Court since 2007.

Meanwhile, the federal Unborn Child Pain Capable Protection Act, which handily passed the House in June, was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.). The bill is expected to generate a spirited debate if permitted to come to a vote. Introduction of such bills and public debate is essential to a robust Republic. The American people deserve to know the truth about abortion and must be allowed to express their will through their representatives. The will of the people was suppressed by the Court in 1973 with the decision in Roe v. Wade, but recent legislative movements to restrict abortion across the country show that even 40 years later, the people are still fighting for their right to be heard on the issue.

Contact: Anna Higgins , FRC Blog

Loss on Albuquerque Late-term Abortion Ban No Defeat -- We'll Be Back

The Albuquerque Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Ordinance lost tonight by 10.5% of the vote. The final tally was 44.74-55.26%.

"Pro-life supporters may have suffered a political loss, but we are far from defeated. We'll be back," said Cheryl Sullenger, Senior Policy Advisor, who assisted the ABQ Voters Against Late Term Abortion Ban campaign and was in Albuquerque for the vote. "It is clear that the people are uncomfortable with late-term abortions and would like to see them end. We learned a lot from this campaign, and we look forward to another try that will better reflect the true feeling of the voters on this subject."

Voter confusion was widespread over the ballot measure, which was lengthy and technical.

"We understand that some supporters of the ordinance actually voted against it because they thought they were voting against abortion. That is an issue that can be easily corrected next time around," said Sullenger. "Now the local activists in Albuquerque have been seasoned and things just might turn out differently if we can get another bite of this apple."

The opposition to the ordinance, which would have been the first-ever municipal ballot measure to ban abortions after 20 weeks when babies are known to feel pain, outspent the pro-life campaigns by a margin of 4 to 1. In addition, Organizing for Action, which was heavily involved in Albuquerque, is essentially President Obama's presidential campaign, which continues to advance a radical leftist agenda. Their experience helped turn out "against" votes in early voting that made the difference in the outcome of the race.

But the daring pro-life campaign to protect unborn babies after twenty weeks from death from barbaric and dangerous abortion practices succeeded in focusing the attention of the world on the matter of late-term abortions and created a template for activists in other communities to use to affect change in abortion laws in their communities, shifting their focus away from politicians in Washington, D.C. who are reticent to engage in legislation on abortion.

"I am so very proud of the work done by Albuquerque activists, especially Bud and Tara Shaver, who poured three years of their lives into exposing abuses at the largest late-term abortion abortion clinic in the nation," said Sullenger, who worked with the Shavers for a year at Operation Rescue Headquarters in Wichita, Kansas. "They are the best and it was my honor to work with them on this campaign. We can only expect more exciting things in the future from them as their work to end abortion in New Mexico continues."

Contact: Tara Shaver, Chairperson, ABQ Voters For Late-Term Abortion Ban, Cheryl Sullenger, Senior Policy Advisor, Operation Rescue

Doctors save Lake Annabelle Hall‘s life by operating on her before she was born

It is, of course, every expectant mother's worst nightmare. She goes in for a routine ultrasound and doctors find a life-threatening problem.

Such is what happened to Savannah Perry of Lafayette, Colorado. Perry's doctors at Children's Hospital of Colorado found an abnormality in her unborn baby's at 20 weeks.

"We didn't even know if she was going to survive," Perry told WTAJ-TV. "They did another ultrasound probably about a week later and at that time they said it looked like there was a cyst inside of her lung." (Fortunately it proved to be non-malignant.)

"I think there was a significant risk once she delivered," Dr. Timothy Crombleholme told WTAJ.

"She was happy as a clam in utero. It's just that when you make that transition we're now asking the lungs to support the baby–that wouldn't work. So, we knew we had to come up with a separate strategy," according to Dr. Crombleholme.

Put another way, "You could push air in, but it wouldn't come out," Dr. Crombleholme said. Lake "wouldn't make it out of the delivery room."

View the video at: http://www.clipsyndicate.com/video/play/4605526

The strategy was to take baby Lake out of her mother's womb and—while she was still attached to the placenta—doctors would remove the cyst before the delivery.

The surgery was hugely complicated and involved "teams of doctors and nurses with specialized roles –a team for Perry who would undergo a cesarean operation, a team for Lake while still inside the womb, a team for Lake while Crombleholme operated on her outside the womb, and a team for Lake after her birth," Fox News reported.

Dr. Crombleholme, who is Fetal Surgeon, Surgeon-In-Chief, at Children's Hospital, "decided to wait until after 30 weeks of pregnancy to attempt the surgery to remove the cyst and clear Lake's airway right before birth," Fox News reported. "Once Lake was out of Perry's womb it took Crombleholme nine minutes to remove the cyst and close the gaping incision on her right side. It took another 10 minutes to run a tube down Lake's tiny windpipe to make sure it was clear. Then doctors cut the umbilical cord, marking Lake's official birth.

Baby Lake is now a year old and "is a normal, healthy, young baby girl just like any other baby born without any issues," said Lake's father, Erik Hall.

"She is doing amazing," Savannah Perry, Lake's mother told WTAJ. "She is learning to walk. She walks around furniture now. She loves anywhere she is not supposed to be," Savannah said.

Her left lung, which was so large (because of fluid build-up) that it was touching her right chest wall at birth, is close to normal size.

Referring to Lake's parents, the reporter for WTAJ closed her report, saying

"They believe one thing for certain. She is supposed to be here."

Contact: Dave Andrusko, National Right to Life

Premature baby ‘comes back from the dead’ more than 10 hours after being sent to morgue

Jenny Hurtado was just 27 weeks pregnant, when she delivered her baby girl at 2:45 am at San Francisco de Asis hospital in Quibdo in the Pacific state of Choco.

Just 35 minutes after her baby was delivered by C-section on November 13, she was pronounced dead and transferred to the hospital morgue. Her body was placed inside a box as staff waited for her fisherman father to come for her, The Daily Mail reported.

But as the attendant handed the baby over to her father—more than ten hours later– "they recognized signs of life and heard a soft cry," Lee Moran reported. "Realizing the infant was still alive, workers rushed her on board a plane to the Santa Teresita del Niño Jesus clinic in the capital Bogota.'

The baby's name is Milagros –"Miracles—which only seems appropriate. How did the misdiagnosis happen?

Specialist doctor Javier Zagarra told Semana.com that, "'In some cases the heart movements are not perceptible even though the newborn is alive, they can declare it dead," adding, " When they wrap the baby in a sheet, upon receiving warmth, the baby can then revitalize."

Milagros, accompanied by her aunt Reyes Hinestroza, remains in intensive care, receiving treatment for her underdeveloped lungs.

Contact: Dave Andrusko, National Right to Life

Two stories from New York Magazine unintentionally reinforce the pro-life case against abortion

I try always to give credit where credit is due. In the space of less than a week New York magazine (by no means in our corner) has published two hugely revealing stories about abortion.

The first we talked about yesterday. The title of the piece is "One in three women has an abortion by the age of 45. How many ever talk about it? New laws, old stigmas. 26 stories." Our take on the story—"The abortion accounts of 26 women weep pain and regret and remorse" can be read here.  (I will talk about another of the stories below.)

The second, "Why the Abortion Pill Didn't Change Everything," was written by Ann Friedman.

The former could have been put together by someone intending to prove how abortion is no answer to anything, indeed creates a multiple of new and worse problems. Yet the goal was to "destigmatize" abortion. In that objective, it failed…miserably.

The latter, by Friedman, begins by quoting from two over-hyped articles, which posited that clearly RU-486 would "change everything" (TIME magazine, 1993) and constituted a "little white bombshell" (The New York Times, 1999).

Friedman's thesis is, "By 2013, though, it's become clear that the pill hasn't revolutionized the way most women get abortions; it's become just another front in the legislative and legal battles over reproductive rights, one more method pro-choice activists must fight to defend."

Let's dig into that a bit. We should not overlook that according to Friedman "one quarter of abortions prior to nine weeks " were chemical abortions (or "medication abortions," as pro-abortionists like to call them). Nor should we miss something we will write about tomorrow.

Whereas the FDA wanted use of chemical abortions confined to the first seven weeks, abortionists are already using the two-drug RU-486 regimen through the ninth week—and are agitating to use these powerful combination into the second trimester! Never mind that at least 14 women have died after having ingested RU-486.

So where is Friedman correct–and why—and what should she be credited with acknowledging? We'll alternate that with misstatements.

*Surely there was and is and will be immense opposition to "webcam" abortions in which the abortionist is not even on site when by remote control he opens a drawer from which the woman extracts the two drugs. This is such a profit center for the abortion industry—one abortionist can (once removed) abort dozens of women in a single day, women who may be hundreds of miles away—that they will fight like the dickens.

*Where Friedman misleads the reader is in assuring them that at "some veterans of the abortion wars" never bought into the hype. "It wouldn't be a panacea for women and for abortion rights, nor would it be as easy as popping a pill. It was so hard to get that across," former Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt told Friedman several years ago. "Because people just want the abortion debate just to go away."

I'm sure there must be "some [pro-abortion] veterans of the abortion wars" who didn't swallow the company line. But in fact, if you go back to NRL News's coverage, you'll find pro-abortion leader after pro-abortion leader singing hosannas to the wonderfulness of chemical abortions. They really did see a new day dawning.

*Where Friedman is most to be commended is for her brutally honest assessment of how much more complicated chemical [medication] abortions are in reality. Here's a long paragraph worth quoting in full:

Then there's a general false perception among women that medication abortion will be quicker and easier than a surgical procedure. "The majority think, 'Hey, I'm gonna pop a pill and that'll be it,'" the receptionist at an abortion clinic in Nebraska told me. With an early surgical abortion, a woman goes into a clinic and is sure she's no longer pregnant when she comes out a few hours later. With medication abortion, the process can take up to 48 hours. Even after counseling at a clinic, many women are unprepared for the experience. "I took one pill at home, and I remember at one point actually feeling my cervix open. It was a terrifying feeling," says Katie, who had a medication abortion in 2004. Another woman described pain that was "so intense that it's hard to really remember. You sort of feel like you're tripping or something." A nurse at an abortion clinic once told me, "Women who have done both will go back to surgical. I've never had anyone who's done both go back to medical.

But even that understates how ghastly the experience can often be. From the 26 accounts we talked about yesterday there is this from "Abby, 28." After she took the first drug (mifepristone) she tells us that she vomited and emptied her bowels. She then writes

"After the contractions started, my hands turned into claws. I was dehydrated. I had this underlying feeling that I was being made to suffer, to repent for my situation. I called my boss. He took me to the ER. It cost $2,000. When I stood up, the bed was covered in blood. … When I went home, I got up to pee, and this gray golf-ball thing came out. I thought, So I just flush the toilet?"

*Back to the less-than-accurate observations: Contra Friedman, there are not eight women who've died after taking the two-drug regimen but (at least) 14—and that's data from several years back. "The anti-choice movement has been quick to publicize them — most recently, an anti-abortion site carried an exhaustive report of a British woman who died after taking mifepristone." The implication here is that somehow it's not good form to point out that women die. And then "And every few years, a woman makes headlines after she orders abortion pills illegally and administers them herself at home." We've covered that case in great detail. If what happened doesn't enrage you, you must be working for a pro-abortion outlet.

*Friedman ends with this:

"For those of us who are pro-choice, it can be easy to forget that our task isn't just to push back against abortion restrictions and, as the classic stickers say, keep abortion legal. It's to be educated about abortion options — after all, one in four women American under age 30 has already had one — and talk fearlessly about the pros and the cons. It means knowing the statistics about how safe early abortions are, but also acknowledging the possibility that something could go awry. It means telling women frankly that the price of a private, non-surgical, at-home abortion is that it may take longer and be more painful. Open, fact-based dialogue — not a little white pill — is what has a real chance of moving the abortion debate forward."

As important as it is to tell women these truths—for example, that chemical abortions can be unbelievably painful and "take longer"—there is much more, as we have outline above, that she overlooks. Women do die after taking the abortifacients. It will expand—perhaps greatly—the number of abortions, which only PPFA and its ilk could applaud. And the siren call of chemical abortions—it's not really like a surgical abortion—can and has enticed doctors who should know better into abortion's web.

Contact: Dave Andrusko, National Right to Life

A simple drug-store test: Can a teen buy cold medicine and abortion pill?

Students for Life conducted an undercover video probe about sales of Plan B, the morning-after pill, to minors. 

The drug is now sold over the counter to anyone regardless of age after the FDA followed through on a federal court order earlier this year. Even a 6-year old-can purchase Plan B if they can pay for it.  

Kristan Hawkins, who heads Students for Life, says Plan B One-Step is more powerful than a birth-control pill.

"What a lot of people don't realize is this drug is 10 times more powerful than a normal birth control pill, which requires a doctor's examination and prescription, but this drug doesn't require any of that," Hawkins says.

"You can walk in and buy it multiple times during the month, misuse the drug, and no one would be any the wiser," she adds. "There's no parental involvement."

So Students for Life sent a 15-year-old volunteer into pharmacies to buy Plan B and also buy a common cold drug, Sudafed, to see what would happen.

To view the video, visit: http://youtu.be/6-mDs_CPIKo

"Could she get the cold medicine as well as this drug, which is potentially cancer-causing, potentially life-ending and abortion-inducing?" Hawkins asks. "And what we found was every place she could buy the Plan B but she wasn't allowed to buy the Sudafed."

There are legal restrictions on Sudafed in some states because it is an ingredient in making meth.

Hawkins says what their undercover investigation found didn't border on the absurd. "It is the absurd," she says.

Hawkins is asking people to go to website exposeplanb.com to sign a petition asking pharmacies not to sell Plan B because they don't have to.

Students for Life found that Walmart does not. 

Contact: Charlie Butts , OneNewsNow.com

World Premiere of New Film Featuring Pro-Life Leaders and Youth Who Stand Up for Life Opens in Park Ridge, Illinois

The Most Important Human Rights Issue of Our Time

To coincide with and the upcoming 40th March for Life and  the recent 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Pro-Life Champions, Spirit Juice Studios and Movie to Movement are honored to announce the world premiere of a new powerful pro-life documentary 40.  The film which began production at the 2012 March for Life in Washington D.C., presents abortion as the most important human rights issue of our time. 

Directed by the producer of the award winning film Champions of Faith: Baseball Edition, John E. Morales, and from Executive Producer and Movie to Movement Founder, Jason Jones, 40 will feature inspiring stories and deeply personal interviews with champions of the pro-life movement. The film will also address some of the strongest arguments for the pro-choice position such as when life begins and "it's my body, my choice" countered by pro-life answers from a wide array of pro-life activists, leaders and youth. Twenty-eight year-old actress Jennifer Cadena, who stared in The Roomate, Crescendo, and the upcoming film, Little Boy, narrates the 40 film.

 

40 features over 40 of the biggest names in the pro-life movement such as Joe Scheidler, founder of the Pro-Life Action League, Investigative journalist Lila Rose, the President of Live Action, Star Parker, Founder and President of CURE, Rebecca Kiessling, Pro-life Speaker and Conceived in rape, Serrin Foster, President of Feminists for Life, Ryan Bomberger, Founder of Radiance Foundation, Abby Johnson, Former Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinic Director and Founder of And Then There Were None, Keith Mason, Co-founder of Personhood USA, Dr. Monica Miller, Director of Citizen for a Pro-Life Society, David Bereit, National Director of 40 Days for Life, Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, Dr. Alveda King, Director of African-American Outreach-Priests for Life, Jeanne Monahan, President of March for Life Education and Defense Fund, Dr. Day Gardner, President of the National Black Pro-Life Union, Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue,  Kelsey Hazzard, President of Secular Pro-Life, and many more!

What: 

World Premiere of 40 

When: 

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

7p.m. - Exclusive Premiere featuring numerous Pro-Life Leaders and special guests.

 

Where: 

Pickwick Theatre

5 S. Prospect Ave. Park Ridge, IL 60068

Visit www.the40film.com or call 847-803-4003 

Facebook: www.facebook.com/events/1408031636096869

Contact: Cindy Morales, the40film.com

Tiny number of people have enrolled through Healthcare.gov

It was like pulling teeth, only harder, but the Obama Administration today reported on the number of people who enrolled in the new health-insurance plans that are offered through the Healthcare.gov website.

Predictably the numbers were a mess, as was the assurance—qualified under questioning—that the snafu-ridden website would be smoothly running by December 1.

First, the overall total, according to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, was 106,000 for the first month. But only 27,000 came from the 36 states where the federal government is running the exchange. (The remaining 79,000 came from the 15 states and the District of Columbia which have their own marketplaces.)

As the blogger Allahpundit wrote,

"To put that another way, over the 31 days of October, each of the 36 states served by Healthcare.gov managed to enroll … 24 people per day. …

"The target for total ObamaCare enrollments in October (not including Medicaid) was just shy of 500,000. They got slightly more than 20 percent of the way there."

Second, The Washington Post reported that "Software problems with the federal online health insurance marketplace, especially in handling high volumes, are proving so stubborn that the system is unlikely to work fully by the end of the month as the White House has promised, according to an official with knowledge of the project."

But it gets worse because the "solution" is crippled by the same fundamental problem:

"Government workers and tech­nical contractors racing to repair the Web site have concluded, the official said, that the only way for large numbers of Americans to enroll in the health-care plans soon is by using other means so that the online system isn't overburdened."

Which, as I asked my wife this morning, are what? According to the Post story, written by Amy Goldstein, Juliet Eilperin, and Lena H. Sun, they "include federal call centers and insurance companies that sell policies directly to customers." The problem here is that these are "paths that are hobbled for now by some of the same technical problems affecting the federal Web site."

Getting back to the promise/vow/assurance [fill in the blank] made by President Obama in Dallas last week that the "Web site is already better than it was at the beginning of October, and by the end of this month, we anticipate that it is going to be working the way it is supposed to, all right?"

Actually, no. Todd Park is the chief U.S. technology officer in the executive office of the president. According to Goldstein, Eilperin, and Sun,

"Under questioning later in the hearing from Rep. Blake Fahrenthold (R-Tex.), Park would not guarantee that the Web site would be completely fixed by the end of November.

"Park said the goal is to have HealthCare.gov working 'smoothly for the vast majority of Americans,' but he indicated that it would not necessarily work for everyone.

"When asked directly if the site would be ready, Park said, 'The team is working really hard to meet that goal."

Contact: Dave Andrusko, National Right to Life

ObamaCare Key to Planned Parenthood Expansion

Pro-abortion President Barack Obama

They were in on it from the beginning, so it is hardly surprising to see Planned Parenthood now not just promoting, but standing poised to reap the financial benefits of ObamaCare.

After working and spending a great deal to get Obama elected, Planned Parenthood was one of the privileged groups invited to the President's "health care summit" at the White House early in Obama's first term in March of 2009. Though it was unknown what final shape the healthcare plan would take at the time, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards offered her organization as a model of what the Planned Parenthood website termed "a safety-net health care provider and entry point into the health care system for millions of men and women."

Planned Parenthood fought for and defended the health plan, pushing to get it passed in March of 2010, and then helping to keep in office the politicians needed to keep it from being modified in any significant way that would threaten either the plan or their abortion empire. Obama and his Senate allies responded in kind, defending and promoting the abortion giant and making federal funding of Planned Parenthood the one non-negotiable in high stakes budget talks.

It has been a very profitable relationship for Planned Parenthood.

Today, as ObamaCare begins it rollout, Planned Parenthood stands poised to bring in hordes of new customers, rake in even more money, and further expand its already massive abortion empire.

Lest anyone forget, Planned Parenthood is already America's largest abortion chain and is flush with cash, much of it taken from the pockets of taxpayers, performing 333,964 abortions in 2011, more than a quarter of all abortions done in the U.S., and bringing in nearly $1.2 billion in revenues for the fiscal year ending 6/30/12.

Planned Parenthood is, of course, doing the standard thing that political groups do, issuing press releases, sending spokespeople out to talk to the press, penning op-ed pieces, but as someone who stands to gain from new legislation, has gone much further.

Go to the website today and you'll see a box in the main graphic on the front page declaring "OBAMACARE + PLANNED PARENTHOOD HEALTH CENTERS A perfect match!" You can click a link to "GET THE FACTS." Before leaving the front page, though, just below the place where you can enter information to "Find a Health Center" in your area, there is a box where you are offered the opportunity to "Find a HEALTH PLAN in the marketplace that includes Planned Parenthood." All you need to do is type in your Zip Code.

Both links on the health plans appear to go to section of the website which will talk up what visitors to Planned Parenthood's website might identify as popular benefits of the law, such as kids staying on parents' health care plans until age 26, coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, and subsidies for health insurance.

Some explanation of the new bureaucracy with "exchanges," "navigators," different categories of plans, etc. is given, but little to nothing about problems with the ObamaCare website, or the possible cancellation of current policies. There is a cost calculator on at least one of Planned Parenthood's pages on the health plans connected to a group called "Get Covered America" which is part of "Enroll America," but it is unclear how the numbers are generated or how reliable they may be.

Over and over, of course, there are links to "find a Planned Parenthood health center near you" or to find plans that include Planned Parenthood.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. As NRL News Today reported on September 5, 2013, three Planned Parenthood affiliates have qualified to serve as "Navigators" under the new health plan, receiving federal funding to the tune of over $655,000 (www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2013/09/obamacare-takes-planned-parenthood-to-a-whole-new-level/#.UoOflfnrzf4).

Navigators are employees paid to help people pick a health plan and complete their applications. In the process, they will help consumers figure out if they qualify for subsidies to cover their insurance premium costs or for other government assistance such as Medicaid.

Though Navigators are supposed to "[p]rovide information and services in a fair, accurate, and impartial manner," that they work through Planned Parenthood will be hard for applicants to miss and it seems difficult to imagine that those Navigators won't share about all the "wonderful" services that Planned Parenthood offers.

States that operate their own exchanges may fund "in-person assisters" that perform many of the functions done by Navigators. Minnesota is one such state and gave the regional Planned Parenthood affiliate a grant to help enroll residents in the exchange.

Planned Parenthood affiliates in Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, Illinois, Florida, Idaho, Nebraska, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Ohio have also been designated as "Certified Application Counselor" (CAC) organizations, meaning that, though they will not be paid by the exchanges, as the Navigators or in-person assisters may be, these affiliates can certify paid staff or volunteers as official counselors to help people through the process according to what the CACs see as the "best interest" of the applicant.

Even if one somehow believed, against all the evidence, that these new health insurance enrollment plans really did serve the "best interests" of the uninsured (and the previously insured now joining their ranks), and even put aside their radical abortion agenda, it would still be difficult to see Planned Parenthood's motives as pure here.

Let Paul Knepprath, vice president for policy and public affairs for Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California make some of Planned Parenthood's less well advertised motivations plain for you.

Speaking before a California Building Standards Commission meeting considering higher building standards for health care clinics (i.e., requirements stipulating that only union plumbers can do the work) on November 5, 2013, Knepprath said the following:

The Affordable Care Act is being implemented as we speak, on January 1, people getting coverage.

There's an expectation of expansion of facilities statewide to take in the new people who have insurance, but also those who will be in expanded Medi-cal program here in California.

Thus, there will be a redevelopment and building of new clinic facilities across the state.

At what pace I don't know but the issue of an exemption for some of the building standards is a very important one to Planned Parenthood.

The cost associated with meeting the higher standards are significant in some cases and they are important especially for organizations like ours that are serving the very poorest of Californians and trying to get them the health care that they need.

What Knepprath has done here is to explicitly connect the roll out of ObamaCare to the "redevelopment and building of new clinic facilities" to address the influx of new patients brought in by the expansion of insurance coverage.

The more people that Planned Parenthood signs up for ObamaCare, the more patients they expect to have coming to their clinics. And, in California alone, they anticipate such significant numbers that they are already thinking in terms of the "redevelopment and building of new clinic facilities across the state."

California, as regular readers of NRL News Today know, recently passed legislation to allow nurse practitioners (and other non-physicians) to perform abortions, thereby significantly expanding the pool of potential abortionists in that state.

Now, with a steady stream of new patients and new money flowing in from ObamaCare, one expects that Planned Parenthood is anticipating opening and staffing countless clinics, not only in California, but throughout the U.S.

And given that abortion has long been one of their biggest money-makers and a "service" that Planned Parenthood has been adding to so many of its "health centers" across the country, you can bet that a lot of those new centers will be abortion clinics, funded by dollars generated by the "Affordable Care Act."

Should you expect any different when you tag the largest abortion chain as a legitimate promoter and provider of "health care?"

Contact: Randall K. O'Bannon, Ph.D. NRL-ETF Director of Education & Research

Take Action Now! Demand that the U.S. Senate vote on protecting pain-capable unborn children!

Take Action Now! Demand that the U.S. Senate vote on protecting pain-capable unborn children!

WASHINGTON (November 12, 2013) — At a press conference on November 7, I joined U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) in announcing introduction of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (S. 1670) in the U.S. Senate.

This bill would protect unborn children from abortion, nationwide, beginning at 20 weeks fetal age, based on scientific evidence that by this stage of development (if not earlier), the baby will experience excruciating pain when subjected to typical late abortion procedures. This is the most important single pro-life bill to be proposed in Congress since the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was enacted ten years ago.

This new bill (S. 1670) is based directly on the model legislation crafted by National Right to Life, which has already been enacted in 10 states. With strong backing from National Right to Life, a virtually identical bill (H.R. 1797) has already passed the U.S. House of Representatives. Now, it is time to demand that the U.S. Senate vote on this landmark legislation. But that won't happen without your help.

Thirty-six (36) senators have already joined Senator Graham as co-sponsors of the new legislation. Please act today! Click here to go to the National Right to Life Legislative Action Center. There you will find tools that make it easy for you to send e-mail messages to your two U.S. senators in just a couple of minutes. You will be shown a suggested message, which you can modify or replace as you see fit.

If your senators have already cosponsored S. 1670, thank them. If they have not done so, urge them to sign on as cosponsors immediately. In either case, please express your strong support for S. 1670 — and ask them to urge Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) to allow an early Senate vote on S. 1670.

To view an up-to-date list of all of the co-sponsors of S. 1670, arranged by state, click here.

To see a video of National Right to Life Senior Legislative Counsel Susan T. Muskett go toe-to-toe with two critics of the bill on MSNBC's "Hardball With Chris Matthews" (November 8), click here.

The forces that are opposed to legal protections for unborn children have financial resources that are far greater than ours. Already, the radical pro-abortion group "NARAL Pro-Choice America" is running a TV ad against our bill! If you can possibly help us in our campaign to bring this issue before the American people and force the Senate to vote on it, please use the "Contribute now." button below — and I thank you.

Fighting with you to protect innocent human lives,

Carol Tobias
NRLC President

U.S. Supreme Court declines to review decision striking down Oklahoma Ultrasound Law

Without comment, the United States Supreme Court this morning declined to review a decision by the Oklahoma Supreme Court that declared the state's 2010 ultrasound law unconstitutional.

HB 2780 requires that the abortionist position the ultrasound screen at an angle so that the mother can view the images, if she chooses, and that as part of the informed-consent process the abortionist "provide[s] a medical description of the ultrasound images, which shall include the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, the presence of cardiac activity, if present and viewable, and the presence of external members and internal organs, if present and viewable."

"While it is true the U. S. Supreme Court most often doesn't grant a petition, we are disappointed that they failed to do so in this case," said Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D., NRLC director of state legislation. "We strongly believe the State's Supreme Court misconstrued the 'Casey' decision in striking down the Ultrasound law. Casey clearly upheld the right of the states to provide for informed consent before an abortion–and Oklahoma's Ultrasound law did just that."

The law, passed by the Oklahoma legislature in April 2010, was challenged by the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) on behalf of Nova Health Systems, operator of Reproductive Services of Tulsa, and Dr. Larry Burns, who provides abortions in Norman, Oklahoma. A temporary restraining order was issued against HB 2780 by a district court judge in May 2010 and the same judge permanently enjoined the law in March 2012.

In December 2012, the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling. This past March the Oklahoma Attorney General filed a petition asking the United States Supreme Court to review that decision—Pruitt v. Nova Health Systems–which the justices chose not to do this morning.

"The medical necessity of pre-abortion ultrasounds was not at issue in this case since both of the abortion-provider plaintiffs acknowledged that they require ultrasounds prior to performing abortions," Tony Lauinger, State Chairman, Oklahomans for Life, told NRL News Today. "The only question was whether Oklahoma could require that the results of these ultrasounds be shown and explained to women. The Court said no, and the losers are the mothers of Oklahoma who will be deprived of the ability to give truly informed consent before undertaking this irrevocable act, and their babies who will be killed."

Lauinger added, "In the long run, the ongoing debate over ultrasounds will benefit the pro-life cause in the same way that the protracted fight over partial-birth abortion did: more and more people will come to understand the humanity of the unborn child. That's why the abortion industry opposes sharing the ultrasound information with mothers: they know the power that truth conveys."

Contact: Dave Andrusko, National Right to Life

Protecting the unborn from pain

Editor's note. This op-ed appeared in Thursday's Washington Times.

Carol Tobias, President of National Right to Life, speaking at Thursday's press conference where pro-life Senator Lindsey Graham (left) introduced in the Senate the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, the law National Right to Life has helped pass in 10 states.  Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

In June, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 228-196 in favor of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. On Thursday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, announced that he would introduce the bill in the U.S. Senate. Appearing on "Fox News Sunday" last weekend, Mr. Graham noted that protecting pain-capable unborn children from the horror of abortion "is a debate worthy of a great democracy."

There is substantial medical evidence that unborn children are capable of experiencing pain by at least 20 weeks post-fertilization. Abortions performed at this stage of pregnancy use a variety of techniques, including a method in which the unborn child's arms and legs are twisted off by brute manual force, using a long stainless steel clamping tool.

While most of us can hardly imagine undergoing a dental procedure without the benefit of anesthesia, the law of the land under Roe v. Wade condones this violent dismemberment of unborn children without any regard for their rights or humanity. Common decency demands that this be changed and that these unborn babies be protected.

Based on a 2008 study from the Guttmacher Institute (which was originally founded as a special research affiliate of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, currently the nation's largest abortion provider), we estimate there are at least 140 abortionists in the United States who perform abortions on unborn children who are at least 20 weeks of fetal age.

When the Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade in 1973, our understanding of pain and the development of the unborn child was so primitive that even a newborn undergoing surgery did not receive anesthesia — only a paralytic to keep them still.

Medical advancements have changed the way we view unborn children. Today, unborn children undergo surgery in utero. Ultrasound technology has allowed a baby's first pictures to adorn the refrigerators of parents and grandparents long before they meet their newest family member face-to-face. Yet under current law, the same arms and legs seen in ultrasound images can be brutally torn apart during an abortion.

Just how many late abortions are performed in the United States on pain-capable unborn children? While we don't have a good handle on just how many late abortions are really occurring, there is growing evidence that they are far more common than most people want to think.

The case of Pennsylvania abortionist Kermit Gosnell and 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 the District of Columbia — or do not collect data on the stage of pregnancy (Florida, for example).

Other jurisdictions have reporting requirements, but don't enforce them. The grand jury report on Gosnell said that between 2000 and 2010, he reported only one second-trimester abortion to the state. Yet it appears 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 them or have not been required to report them.

Enough is enough. It's time to revisit Roe v. Wade's policy of allowing unrestricted abortion.

Ten states have already enacted laws protecting pain-capable unborn children based on National Right to Life's model bill. Just last week, language protecting pain-capable unborn children went into effect in Texas. The pain-capable unborn child language was written into a larger omnibus pro-life bill that brought on a pro-abortion media frenzy during Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis' filibuster in June. Late last Friday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cleared the way for the challenged provisions of the Texas law to take effect. The language protecting pain-capable unborn children went unchallenged by pro-abortion activists.

A nationwide poll conducted in March 2013 by The Polling Company found that an overwhelming majority of Americans — 64 percent — would support a law such as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act; only 30 percent opposed such legislation. Female voters split 63 percent to 31 percent in support of such a law, and among independents, it enjoyed 63 percent support as well.

Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Mr. Graham said, "The government has a legitimate interest to protect the child after the 20-week period of development because they can feel pain. That is what a rational, humane society should do — protect the child that can feel pain from an abortion."

One-fifth of the states, nearly two-thirds of Americans and the U.S. House of Representatives agree. Now it's time for the U.S. Senate to do its job and act to protect these vulnerable members of our human family.

Contact: Carol Tobias, President, National Right to Life

Adoption: the option everyone can live with

Editor's note. Melissa is the survivor of a "failed" saline abortion in 1977. She speaks all over the world including at the last three National Right to Life Conventions.

Melissa Ohden (right) and Lisa Andrusko, NRLC 

Yearbook Editor, at the 2013 National Right to Life 

Convention

November is Adoption Awareness Month. Adoption is the option that everyone can live with–the mother, the father, the extended families, and, literally, the child.

Over fifty-five million lives ended through abortion in our nation have left countless women, men, and their families wounded. Adoption, by contrast, brings a legacy of life and love into this world. Both create a ripple effect for generations to come, one for ill, one for good.

Yet we live in a world today that often talks about adoption in disparaging

terms: Adoption is a burden on women. No right person would ever "give up" their child.

I've had women state that because they could never 'give up' their baby, they would abort them, instead.

I've even been told that it's adoptees like me, who search for our biological

families that make adoption an unappealing option in the face of an unplanned pregnancy. I am certainly not buying that or any of the other

misconceptions about adoption in our world.

What I am going to do, though, is continue to fight for abortion to be abolished and adoption to be looked at as the positive choice that it is. I will do my best to encourage people to have conversations that encourage others to do likewise.

Take advantage of Adoption Awareness Month this November, and have the conversation, in person with people or via social media and the Internet.

Together we can change the lens through which adoption is looked at and talked about in our world.

Contact: Melissa Ohden, National Right to Life