What is the Unborn? A Case for Biological Humanity from Fertilization

Aside from the sourced quotations and arguments in this article, it has been heavily influenced by Justice for All.

Before you can even answer the question of whether or not abortion is moral, you must first decide what the unborn is. For as Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason observes, if the unborn is not human, then no justification for elective abortion is necessary. It would be no different from having a mole removed or a tooth pulled. But if the unborn is human, then no justification for elective abortion is adequate.

If it's true that no one can tell when human life begins, then the benefit of the doubt should go to life. We should not be aborting the unborn because there's a chance we could be aborting living human entities. If a hunter hears a rustling in the woods, does he shoot right away or does he make sure the rustling wasn't caused by another human? Or if you're driving down a road in the dark and you see the outline of something that may be a child or may simply be the shadow of a tree, do you drive into it or do you slow down? Or if you're about to blow up a condemned building and you're not sure if someone's inside, do you blow it up anyway or send someone in to make sure?

However, it's not true that no one can tell when human life begins.

The unborn from fertilization are alive because they exhibit the properties of living things. They grow through cellular reproduction and division, they metabolize food for energy, and they respond to stimuli. In fact, the only things the unborn need to survive are adequate nutrition, a proper environment, and an absence of fatal threats. That's all any of us need. There is no point in human development at which the developing entity goes from non-life to living.

The unborn are also human from fertilization. We know that everything reproduces after its own kind; dogs have dogs, cats have cats, and humans have humans. They have separate human DNA from, and often a different blood type than, the mother. A white human embryo can be created in a petri dish, implanted into a black mother, and be born white. In fact, if the unborn organism were simply a "part of the mother's body," then following the law of transitive property (if A is a part of B, and B is a part of C, then A is a part of C), every pregnant woman would have four arms, four legs, two heads, four eyes, two noses, and roughly half the time male genitalia. But this is absurd. At no time during human development does the unborn ever go from non-human to human.

Finally, the unborn from fertilization are organisms. They are living human entities separate from the mother, with their own functional parts that work together for the good of the whole, developing themselves from within into a more mature version of itself, along the path of human development. Zygote, embryo, and fetus are not non-human entities, they are early stages of development in human life.

Philosopher Richard Stith once made a valuable observation. He discovered that the reason pro-choice people tend to think pro-life people are absurd is that they tend to think of the unborn entity as being constructed in utero, like a car on an assembly line. When does a car become a car? Is it when the frame resembles a car, or when the tires are attached, or when it drives off the lot? It requires an outside builder to put all the pieces together into what we understand is a car. A car is not present from the beginning, because the parts that make a car can be used in the construction of something else (such as a boat or a plane).

However, the unborn's development is different. He or she directs his or her own development from within. He or she does not have an outside builder, he or she directs his or her own internal growth and maturation, and this entails continuity of being. Professor Richard Stith illustrates the difference with the following analogy:

"Suppose we are back in the pre-digital photo days, and you have a Polaroid camera and you have taken a picture that you think is unique and valuable — let's say a picture of a jaguar darting out from a Mexican jungle. The jaguar has now disappeared, so you are never going to get that picture again in your life, and you really care about it. (I am trying to make this example comparable to a human being, for we say that every human being is uniquely valuable.) You pull the tab out and as you are waiting for it to develop, I grab it away from you and rip it open, thus destroying it. When you get really angry at me, I say blithely, 'You're crazy. That was just a brown smudge. I cannot fathom why anyone would care about brown smudges.' Wouldn't you think that I were the insane one? Your photo was already there. We just couldn't see it yet." (Richard Stith, "Does Making Babies Make Sense? Why So Many People Find it Difficult to See Humanity in a Developing Foetus," Mercatornet, September 2, 2008.)

As pro-life philosopher Scott Klusendorf notes, "The science of embryology is clear. From the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. Therefore, every 'successful' abortion ends the life of a living human being." (Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life, Crossway Books, 2009, p. 35.)

Embryologists, who are the experts in the field on human embryos, consistently agree that the unborn are alive and human from fertilization. Consider the following from the most-used textbooks on the issue:

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte." (Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Muller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd ed., New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001, p.8.)

"A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)." (Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th ed., Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003, p.2.)

There are many more examples I could give. In short, you didn't come from an embryo, you once were an embryo. Sophisticated pro-choice philosophers also know that human life begins at fertilization:

"It is possible to give 'human being' a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to 'member of the species Homo sapiens.' Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being." (Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp.85-86.)

"Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: All are living members of the same species, Homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development." (David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003, p. 20.)

In fact, Alan Guttmacher, former president of Planned Parenthood, in 1933 (a full forty years before Roe v. Wade was passed), wrote:

"This all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn't part of the common knowledge." (Alan Guttmacher, Life in the Making: The Story of Human Procreation, New York: Viking Press, 1933, p. 3.)

Additionally, a Planned Parenthood brochure from 1964, when answering a question about whether or not abortion is birth control, states: "Absolutely not. An abortion ends the life of a baby after it has begun."

In my next article, I will address objections to biological humanity from fertilization. But the facts of science are clear: human life begins at fertilization.

Editor's note. This appeared at blog.secularprolife.org.

Contact: Clinton Wilcox, NRL News

Polls Show Most Americans Oppose HHS Mandate

Two polls show that most Americans oppose the government mandate requiring most business and nonprofit employers to offer potential abortion-inducing drugs in their employee health plans.

WPA Opinion Research found that 59 percent of likely American voters do not support the Health and Human Services mandate.  A Rasmussen survey shows that 51 percent disagree with it.

The Obama administration required most for-profit businesses to comply by August of last year. Nonprofits — many of which are faith-based — have a "safe-harbor" until January.

"Public opposition to the HHS mandate regarding contraception and drugs that can destroy human embryos, like opposition to the law overall, is significant," WPA concludes. "Obamacare has seen its public support drop as the unadvertised consequences of the law have become clear. Drugs that can destroy a human embryo are just another instance of this."

More than 80 lawsuits are in play.

"Although the Supreme Court has agreed to hear (two of) these cases, Congress should listen to the American people and act to protect the livelihoods of Americans that are now at risk," said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. "Congress must fulfill its constitutional duty to protect employers and individuals who do not want to be punished for standing up for their rights."

Contact: Bethany Monk, CitizenLink

Doctor’s explanation of disability risks in unborn children can be misleading, author says

In an article I wrote back in March, I spoke about the pressure that doctors often put on the parents of disabled unborn babies to abort.

One study cited in that article found that:

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

I was reading a book called All God's Mistakes: Genetic Counseling in a Pediatric Hospital by Charles L Bosk.

Bosk interviewed counselors who met with pregnant women and their partners and talked to them about the risks of having a disabled child. The author also attended some of these counseling sessions. Sometimes the counselors would meet with the parents after amniocentesis had determined that the baby had a health problem. Other times they met after the test was inconclusive.

Then there were cases where the parents carried a gene for a genetic illness, but there was no test available to detect whether the baby was affected. In these cases, the counselors were supposed to give the parents information about the risks to the child and let them decide whether or not to abort. There was the possibility that if they chose to abort, they would be killing a healthy child.

The author notes how counselors explained the risks to couples:

… the very fact that risks can be expressed in numeric form allows counselors, if they choose, to merely pass information on to clients in an objective fashion; for example, "The normal population risk is 3%. Your risk is 6%."… Such risk statements without elaboration are rare… For example, consider the difference between the following statements, each of which is correct: "Your risk is 3% greater than that of the general population" and "Your risk is double that of the general population." Risk statements of the latter form are more common than bare, unelaborated numbers, despite the counselors' commitment to not intruding on the privacy of patient decision-making.

This quote shows that the way statistics are stated has a huge impact on the message conveyed. Saying. "The risk is two times greater" vs. "The risk is 3% more" puts two completely different spins on the data. It could have a profound impact on couples' perception of risk and, therefore, their decision whether or not to abort. It is disturbing to read that the counselors used the "2x greater" phrasing much of the time. One wonders how many couples choose to abort thinking that the risk of having a disabled child is much greater than it actually is.

Why do the counselors phrase risk this way? One possibility is that they are biased towards abortion because of "wrongful life" suits sometimes aimed at medical facilities and doctors after the births of disabled children.

It is unknown as to whether this way of stating risk is common among medical personnel, but parents should be aware that what doctors say can be misleading, and, if faced with a baby who has a possible genetic disability, it is important to do more research.

Contact:  Sarah Terzo, a pro-life author and creator of the clinicquotes.com website. She is a member of Secular Pro-Life and PLAGAL.

Abortionists in Indiana fail to report abortions as required that were performed on girls under 14

Abortionist Ulrich Klopfer

Hats off to Amanda Gray of the South Bend Tribune. She reports

"At least four Indiana doctors have waited weeks or even months to report abortions provided to girls under 14 despite a law requiring them to do so within three days, according to state records.

"The law, intended to speed up reporting of statutory rape and sexual abuse, is part of a larger requirement for all Indiana abortions to be reported every six months. The law requires doctors to report within three days any abortions provided to girls 13 and younger to both the Department of Child Services and the Indiana State Department of Health. Breaking the law is a Class B misdemeanor."

Gray explained that the reports (which the newspaper obtained from public record requests) came from five counties. The abortionist who ignored the requirement the most was Ulrich Klopfer, in St. Joseph County. According to Department of Health reports, in at least three abortions since 2011 Kloper's reports were "well past the three-day window," Gray reported.

On September 13, 2013, Allen County Right to Life Executive Director, Cathie Humbarger and sidewalk counselor Evelyn Witte filed complaints with the Indiana Attorney General's office and the Indiana Medical Licensing Board. According to Indiana Right to Life, Humbarger reviewed the publicly- available records which shows that Klopfer (of the Fort Wayne Women's Health Organization) performed an abortion on a 13-year-old girl on Februaray 7 but the Indiana Department of Health reported receiving the report on July 25.

In Gray's story, we learn that Klopfer is an Illinois-based abortionist who provides abortions in three Indiana counties. Sue Swayze, communications director with Indiana's Professional Licensing Agency, told Gray that Kloper's Indiana medical licenses is currently listed as "valid while under review." In addition, "Klopfer is scheduled to come before the medical licensing board Jan. 22 in Indianapolis because of public statements he made about having failed to report an abortion of a 13-year-old"—comments made to an online pro-abortion blog.

However, Klopfer is not the only abortionist who failed to adhere to state reporting requirements. In seven of the 12 abortions performed on girls under 14 since July 2011, abortionists "did not file reports until several weeks — in one incident, it was six months — after the procedure," Gray reported. "In two other cases, it was unclear when the reports were filed because state records are incomplete."

The law was approved overwhelmingly in 2011. In the Indiana House the vote was 83-11. In the Indiana Senate the vote was 48-0.

Timely reporting of young teen abortions is critical to the investigations of possible abuse, according to prosecutors and child safety advocates.

"What we know is that some sex offenders have more than one victim," Jennifer Pickering, spokeswoman for Prevent Child Abuse St. Joseph County, told Gray. "The sooner the opportunity arises to investigate, the sooner DCS [Department of Child Services], can get involved and the sooner you can assure that girl is safe and determine if there are any other victims."

When Humbarger and Witte filed their complaint against Klopfer back in September, Mike Fichter, President and CEO of Indiana Right to Life said

"Indiana law is very clear about what needs to be reported, to whom and when reporting must take place regarding abortions on girls under 14 years of age. The law, instructions for reporting and violation details are printed at the top of each terminated pregnancy report. Klopfer's failure to report this abortion raises serious red flags about his abortion business. If he fails to send in a one-page form when he does an abortion on a 13-year-old, how can anyone know if he is following state abortion law in other areas such as informed consent, facility standards and appropriately determining the age of the baby before he aborts him or her?"

Contact: Dave Andrusko, National Right to Life

There were more and better choices before abortion came along. And no one had to die.”

In the Guttmacher Institute's 2004 study on the reasons women have abortion,* researchers drew conclusions that haunt me to this day. On the basis of in depth interviews with 38 women that followed surveys of over 1,200 women, researchers said, "[T]he language women used suggests that abortion was not something they desired…They say not having a child as their best (and sometime only) option."

Really? Abortion was something aborting women do not really want? As their only option? What happened to abortion as a matter of "freedom of choice?"

Before going further, we must point out that whether this was a realistic or accurate assessment of woman's circumstances is questionable. As far as we can tell, Guttmacher never asked these women or identified what resources they had available, what churches or local pregnancy care centers had to offer, what government programs were accessible, whether there were relatives to help care for the child, etc.

Guttmacher also failed to inquire as to what women knew about local adoption services, though several women volunteered that they wouldn't consider or couldn't "give away" their baby because that would be wrong.

So there are, in fact, alternatives to abortion, though it is unclear how much women are aware of or have access to them. It is obviously not something the abortion industry is keen on sharing with women.

But return to the original thought. Women (far more than the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute lets on) don't want abortion, but often feel like it is their only option. How is it that, in the name of "choice," women have ended up feeling like they have no choice at all?

The answer lies in understanding how the legal availability of abortion changes the dynamics of the situation.

Before abortion was legal in all 50 states and widely available, what did a pregnant woman do? What were her options? She might, in a ceremony celebrated and supported by the community, marry the father, bear the child, and go on to start a life as a family. If she chose not to get married, she might bear and raise the child on her own, but again probably with the help and support of her family and community.

There were, sometimes, in all honesty, prejudices and obstacles that had to be worked through, but most families eventually found ways to adjust and accommodate and actually welcome the new grandchild or niece or nephew when he or she arrived.

Adoption was a real and live option for women who needed it, as were homes for unwed mothers waiting to give birth. It may have been imperfect and creaky at times, but society had in place working solutions for women dealing with unplanned or crisis pregnancies.

The absence of ready access to abortion also meant that there was both a personal and societal expectation that men would bear some responsibility for the children they fathered. At a minimum, there was the expectation that they would offer (or be legally compelled to give) some financial support.

All that changed with Roe v. Wade.

States and communities no longer had to be as open to mothers, babies, or young families in difficult circumstances. Institutions like homes for unwed mothers, orphanages that, however imperfect, still provided critical services, were no longer necessities, and hence less easy to find. Expectations for churches, and local charities, which offered not only social services but mentorship, were lowered.

Men, and sadly, in some cases a woman's family, could point a woman to abortion as a solution to relieve everyone else's stress, to release them from expense and obligation, to make baby and problem disappear. Or they could not-so-subtly coerce them to abort.

And so, instead of having different life-affirming options–marriage, single motherhood, adoption, community support–abortion became for many of these women, not an option, but an obligation, the only "choice" they feel is really available or open to them in the particular community in which they live.

So, the legality of abortion forces an option on to the table that wasn't there before, with the implicit social message that it is an acceptable (if not preferred) option. Its availability and its promotion by the abortion industry and its popular media allies have crowded the other options off the table.

The legality/availability means that the father (or in many cases the state) will pay for the abortion, but may well adopt the attitude that if the woman decides to have the child, she is on her own.

Unless someone tells her different (that's one of the reasons for right to know laws), unless she encounters someone reaching out to her with personal support and practical assistance (the critical reason for pregnancy care centers), she may indeed feel that abortion is her only realistic option, and she may go do something that, in her heart of hearts, she does not want to do.

This is the legacy of "choice."

Not freedom, not liberation, but the sense of a whole culture, a whole community, all your circumstances conspiring against your carrying your child.

There were more and better choices before abortion came along. And no one had to die.

* Lawrence B. Finer, et al., "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives," Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, September 2005

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

The "Gosnell taught us nothing" Act

New Hampshire's senior Senator Jeanne Shaheen and 2nd District Congresswoman Ann Kuster are co-sponsors of legislation introduced in Washington earlier this month that would wipe out all abortion regulations in every state, including those recommending parental involvement and restricting late-term abortions.

The deceptively-named "Women's Health Protection Act" was introduced in the Senate by Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and in the House by Judy Chu (D-CA). The Senate bill, S.1696, currently has 32 co-sponsors. The House Bill, H.R. 3471, has 77. Details of this bill may be found at congress.gov.

A better name for the bill would be GTUN: Gosnell Taught Us Nothing.

Kelly Ayotte's name is not on the bill, which is no surprise. Neither is Carol Shea-Porter's, which frankly does surprise me.

"Findings" in the preface to the bill include the claim that abortion has been "hindered" by blockades (like people praying outside abortion facilities?), restrictions on insurance coverage (like the Hyde Amendment), restrictions on minors (like parental notification with judicial bypass), and restrictions on providers.

Think about that. The sponsors want no restrictions on providers. Sounds like back-alley days to me.

So what would the bill do?

This Act would make a number of recently-passed state-level abortion laws null and void, including bills passed in the nauseating wake of Kermit Gosnell's crimes in Philadelphia. Among laws that would be wiped out:

Limits on a provider's ability to delegate tasks. Recall that Gosnell delegated to his staff the task of administering and monitoring sedation for women undergoing abortions. Karnamaya Mongar is dead thanks to that.

Limits on ability to prescribe and dispense drugs. This would mean the end of any meaningful FDA protocols regarding the use of abortion-inducing drugs. PP affiliates already advertise such drugs for use up to 63 days into pregnancy, while the FDA draws the line at 49. This would also pose challenges to any state that tries to keep taxpayers from entering into public contracts with abortion providers. Remember how PPNNE claimed after losing its New Hampshire Title X contract in 2011 that it could no longer "dispense" birth control, which turned out to be nonsense? The very claim of inability-to-dispense would undermine taxpayer protection.

Limits on telemed abortions. This is a gift to the pharmaceutical companies that make & plan to make abortion-inducing drugs.

Requirements that abortion facilities have doorways and hallways that can accommodate gurneys, should a woman require emergency transport following an abortion.

Requirements that abortion providers have admitting privileges at local hospitals.

Any law that requires more than one trip to a provider before abortion could be performed. Goodbye, 24-hour waiting periods, where they're required (NH has no such law yet). Hello, drive-through abortions. The thank-you notes to Shaheen and Kuster from abusive partners and other people who coerce women into abortions are probably already addressed and ready to go.

There's more, but you get the idea. I see a lot in there to warm the heart of an abortion provider or a pharmaceutical rep, but nothing that protects women's health.

Would statistical collection of abortion information be banned under this bill? I don't see how such requirements would survive under the bill. God forbid the stats might show that women are being harmed by abortion providers. Might have a chilling effect on the industry.

And the preborn child? A cipher. Post-viability abortion would be fine under this bill. It has no requirement that a child born alive following attempted abortion be cared for. Gosnell-like snipping of babies' necks would be protected under this bill, as long as the abortionist uses her or his "best" medical judgment.

Contact: Ellen Kolb, Leaven for the Loaf Blog

Supreme Court agrees to hear to two lawsuits against Obama Mandate

As widely anticipated, the Supreme Court this morning agreed to hear two lawsuits challenging the HHS mandate which compels employers to provide health coverage for drugs and procedures to which they have moral or religious objections.

Plaintiffs had prevailed in one case—Hobby Lobby—and lost in a second– Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. There are other similar cases but the justices did not announce whether they will hear them at this time.

This represents the first legal challenge to ObamaCare to reach the Supreme Court since it upheld the law's "individual mandate" 17 months ago. Early speculation is that oral arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius will be held in March with a possible ruling by late June.

Because there was a split among circuit courts and because the Obama Administration in September asked the Justices to hear the Hobby Lobby case, it was widely assumed the justices would hear at least some of the lawsuits against the mandate. (The HHS mandate are regulations adopted by the Department of Health and Human Services under a provision of ObamaCare, formally known as the "Affordable Care Act.")

The core arguments raised are that the mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment's free exercise of religion clause.

"My family and I are encouraged that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide our case," said David Green, Hobby Lobby's founder and CEO. "This legal challenge has always remained about one thing and one thing only: the right of our family businesses to live out our sincere and deeply held religious convictions as guaranteed by the law and the Constitution. Business owners should not have to choose between violating their faith and violating the law."

"This is a major step for the Greens and their family businesses in an important fight for Americans' religious liberty," said Kyle Duncan, general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and lead lawyer for Hobby Lobby. "The cases will decide 'who gets to exercise religion — it's really that simple,' Duncan told POLITICO. 'The idea that the protection of religious liberty is confined to only certain pursuits … from our perspective, that's disturbing.'"

In July, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton granted the company a preliminary injunction against the HHS mandate. Prior to that 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.

As noted yesterday, Adam Liptak (writing for the New York Times) explained how the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals applied "the First Amendment logic of [the 2010 case of] Citizens United" in ruling for Hobby Lobby.

"'We see no reason the Supreme Court would recognize constitutional protection for a corporation's political expression but not its religious expression,' Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich wrote for the majority.

The potential penalties for non-compliance with the mandates are staggering. "[L]arger for-profit corporations must comply or face fines of $100 per day per employee, which could total $475 million a year in Hobby Lobby's case," CNN reported today. "An alternative — dropping employee health insurance altogether — would cost $26 million in annual penalties.

Contact: Dave Andrusko, National Right to Life

Pro-lifers release second shocking video: Statutory rapist goes to Walgreens

Students for Life has released its second undercover video of the sale of Plan B, the morning-after pill, and this time was more shocking than the last. 

The investigation called "Expose Plan B" sent a man posing as a 33-year-old with a youngish-looking woman posing as his 15-year-old girlfriend to three well-known pharmacy chain stores in several states to purchase Plan B.

In the video, the older man made it obvious he was trying to cover up statutory rape.

Kristan Hawkins, who heads Students for Life, says there were statutory rape laws in every state where the investigation took place.

"Sadly every CVS, Rite Aid and Walgreens we went into, he was sold the drug even when he went as far as to say he was planning to crush the drug into his girlfriend's drink because she was against abortion," Hawkins recalls.

According to a federal court order, and FDA regulations, the drug can be sold to anyone, male or female, of age or underage. That provides the perfect cover-up for child molesters.

"And there's no training being conducted of employees, of store clerks and pharmacists," says the Students for Life spokesperson. "No one knows if they have a right of conscience if they can refuse to sell in case some of these situations come up."

For the video, visit: http://youtu.be/sLHEWawsqPw

Students for Life has sample legislation on the Expose Plan B website which restores the pre-April FDA rule language to sell the drug to only those 17 years old or older. It also provides the right of conscience to employees to not sell the drug.

A petition can be signed on the same website. 

Contact: Charlie Butts, OneNewsNow.com

Eugenic Pre-Natal Cleansing Spreads to Autism

More boys than girls have autism, so now, an Australian IVF clinic will search out male embryos for destruction before implantation, e.g., sex selection.

A bioethicist thinks that accepting pre-natal autism cleansing needs to be respectfully debated. From, "Prenatal Screening and Autism," by Andrew Whitehouse:

The internet was ablaze last week with the news that health authorities in Western Australia (WA) have given approval for IVF clinics to 'screen' embryos to reduce the chances of a couple having a child with autism.

The Reproductive Technology Council will now allow certain women undergoing IVF treatment to be selectively implanted with female embryos only. The rationale for this practice is that autism is more likely to affect males than females (approximately 4 males for every 1 female), and by selecting female embryos, the chances of this child developing autism are reduced.

But there isn't a genetic test for autism, and females may be under-diagnosed. Not to worry, there soon will be, and so we have to discuss the issue.

Showing which side his head is on, he first pitches the junk biology:

PGD [pre-implantation genetic diagnosis] is not the abortion of a developing baby in the womb. It is the screening of fertilized eggs prior to being implanted in the womb.

There is no such thing as a fertilized egg. Once fertilization is complete, a new human organism exists, possessing his or her own genetic makeup and sex–hence, the advocacy for sex selection to stop autism. Hello! 

The distinction to abortion is one without a substantial difference. An early embryo is a human organism, a developing human being. Ditto a later-stage embryo or fetus gestating in a womb. True, destroying embryos before implantation isn't an abortion technically, but that is only because the woman's body is not involved. The effect is the same–destroying a developing human life.

Whitehouse admits that it would be painful for a person with autism to see advocacy for preventing people like them from being born. Tough toenails:

The flip-side of the debate is that autism sometimes associated with significant disability that can affect quality of life. It is without question that a person's life would be improved if they were free from intellectual disability, if they had the facility to communicate more freely, and if they had the capacity to live independently. To want a person to live without disability does not diminish in any way our love for people in these circumstances, nor their irreplaceable importance in our lives.

But, that isn't the argument. If someone can be treated medically to overcome the effects of autism, I don't know who would object. Whitehouse is saying that it is respectable to prevent them from ever being born.

And don't think that a genetic test wouldn't lead to calls for mandatory pre-natal testing and the promotion of eugenic abortion–just as now with Down syndrome and other gene-related disabilities.

Whitehouse says that debating autism cleansing is a "needs to be had." That is like saying allowing eugenic cleansing for racial features is a debate we need have: Both are invidiously discriminatory and have no place in an enlightened, equality-believing society.

P.S. The great animal welfare advocate, Temple Grandin, has mild autism. Our food animals have benefited tremendously because she wasn't selected out before birth.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith, National Review

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