Take Action: Urge the U.S. Senate to Ban Abortions After 20 Weeks

by Bethany Monk (CitizenLink)

Pro-life leaders and lawmakers joined forces today to urge the U.S. Senate to pass legislation that would ban abortions after 20 weeks, when pre-born babies begin to feel pain.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, introduced the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act last year. This afternoon, Graham asked his fellow senators to consider the bill. Majority Leader Harry Reid rejected his request.

Contact your U.S. senators. Ask them to encourage Reid to bring the legislation to the floor for a vote.

"A federal law is long overdue," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony (SBA) List. "The United States is only one of seven countries to allow abortion on-demand at such a late stage of pregnancy."

The U.S. House passed companion legislation last summer, 228-196.

This also happens to mark the one-year anniversary of the conviction of abortionist Kermit Gosnell. His heinous crimes are what spurred the advancement of such bills. To date, 13 states have enacted laws prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks.

Video at: http://youtu.be/GMs-_yYq8HU

A jury found Gosnell guilty of three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of babies who were born alive. He was also found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of a pregnant woman.

Jeanneane Maxon, Americans United for Life vice president for external affairs and corporate counsel, calls the Pain-Capable act "common-sense legislation." She also underscored the dangers of late-term abortions.

"A woman seeking an abortion at 20 weeks — five months of pregnancy — is 35 times more likely to die from abortionthan she was in the first trimester," she explained. "At 21 weeks or more, she is 91 times more likely to die from abortion than she was in the first trimester."

The U.S. is among 4 out of 195 nations that allow abortions through all nine months for any reason. The other countries are North Korea, China and Canada.

"Americans United for Life strongly supports efforts to limit dangerous, late-term abortion procedures, given the health risks to mother and child," Maxon said. "We urge Congress to also protect taxpayers whose First Amendment Conscience Rights would be violated should they be forced to pay for abortions."

Take Action for Life

Ask your U.S. Senators to encourage Majority Leader Harry Reid to bring the Pain- Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to the floor for a vote.

ACTION ALERT - SB3076, [POLST] Bill on House Floor for Vote

SB3076, The Illinois Physician's Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment [POLST] bill and amendment passed the Health Care Licenses Committee and are on the House floor for a vote.

 

What can I do?

 

(1) Please contact your state representative today to urge them to vote NO on SB 3076.  You can find contact information for your state legislators at (217) 782-2000 or visit: http://www.elections.il.gov/DistrictLocator/DistrictOfficialSearchByAddress.aspx

 

(2) Please pass this on to others and encourage them to contact their state legislators too.

 

Here is why we oppose this bill...

 

The Illinois Physician's Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment or "POLST" form, which gives no distinctions for terminal and non-terminal conditions, is more for removing "life-sustaining" treatment than for protecting patients with "life-sustaining" treatment.  SB 3076 would change the long-standing relationship of doctor and patient in matters of end-of-life decisions by having nurses and even less qualified physician's assistants talk to patients about these decisions and authorize "actionable medical orders" including "do-no-resuscitate" orders even in non-terminal situations.

 

A patient who signs a POLST form can check a box "do-not-attempt-resuscitation" if he/she stops breathing and the pulse stops.  This is an "actionable medical order" to do nothing even if CPR would clearly be called for in a medical situation.  For example, an allergic reaction to a medication can stop the breathing and pulse, but most patients would want to have CPR.  The POLST form says NO.

 

Also, many elderly and frail patients may not understand the various options available to them with a POLST form, and so should have better education and options that the POLST form does not give.

 

Pro-Life has broad concerns with the POLST forms.  One clear concern is that private foundations that have put their money into promoting POLST have also given large amounts of money to the Euthanasia organizations.

 

How POLST Works

 

You may be approached by a doctor, social worker, nurse or chaplain about refusing medical treatments at the end of your life.

 

Next, a brightly colored one page medical order with boxes checked, called the Physician's Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST), will be put in your medical record. You might get to see it and sign it; or, you may not. (The patient's signature is optional on forms used in Wisconsin. Even where it is required, others are signing for patients without telling them.)

 

A California study found doctors often signed POLST forms without meeting with patients. In the study: 57% of POLST forms were completed by non-health care professionals such as admissions coordinators or business managers of nursing homes; another 15% were completed by nurses and nurses' aids, bringing the total prepared by non-physicians to 72%.

 

"Facilitators" who may have no medical training are often the only ones who present a POLST to patients according to Rita Marker of the Patients Rights Council. She says these facilitators are "basically taught to follow a script;" they might say things such as "We find that most people would not want to continue to live in a vegetative state." They "focus on what you wouldn't want" done. (A typical POLST can refuse resuscitation, hospitalization, intensive care, medical interventions, IVs for delivering drugs and fluids, antibiotics, and feeding tubes.)

 

The POLST goes into effect as soon as a doctor or physician's assistant signs it. It says, "When the need occurs, first follow these orders, then contact physician." It must be obeyed instantly and without regard to judgments of the medical team on the scene or decisions by your family. Your Power of Attorney for Health Care is overridden by the medical team as they follow the POLST, cutting your selected decision-maker out of the process.

 

Not What Most People Want

 

Dying when you could have recovered probably is not what you thought would happen when you talked about your end of life wishes. If we can recover, almost all of us want medical treatment.

 

You probably will be assured you can always change your mind, but that is unlikely. Up to 76% of us are unable to express our wishes when we need end of life care. So, if you are unable to express your wishes and you could recover, but the POLST refuses medical treatment, nothing will be done except to ease you through the dying process.

 

Even if you could recover, without medical treatment per the POLST you probably will die. In the unlikely event that you survive, you might be disabled due to lack of prompt medical treatment. Of course, if you agree to no IV or no feeding tube, you will definitely die of dehydration. No one will know if you could have recovered unless your family has your body autopsied.

 

Another problem is that you're trying to make decisions today that may not come into effect for five or ten years," according to Dr. John Brehany Ph.D., Executive Director of the Catholic Medical Association. "You don't know what your condition will be and what medical advances will have been made by then. You're 60 and healthy, and you're asked 'Do you want to be hooked up to a lot of machines?' But when the same person is 70 and might be going through a temporary rough patch, nothing will be done because of the POLST signed a decade earlier."

 

Abuse and Misuse of POLST

 

A survey of California nursing home Ombudsman "revealed a very disturbing level of misrepresentation and misuse of POLST." Almost three-fourths (73%) reported nursing home residents were told they had to have a POLST, even though the law says it is voluntary. They were also told it was harder to revoke than the law allows. Handouts supplied with the POLST were characterized as manipulative. As mentioned earlier, the California study revealed doctors frequently signed POLST without talking to patients. The same study said 58% of doctors had signed "advisory" POLSTs without patients' consent and presumably knowledge.

 

Patient advocate, Julie Grimstad, L.P.N. says "POLST leaves the patient wide-open for abuse. POLST sets the stage for neglect, substandard medical treatment, and cost-saving at the expense of patients' lives. Although POLST promoters steer clear of mentioning the money motive, it is undoubtedly a factor in efforts to limit treatment. " She's right. Death is always cheaper.

 

Please contact your state representative today to urge them to vote NO on SB 3076.  You can find contact information for your state legislators at (217) 782-2000 or visit: http://www.elections.il.gov/DistrictLocator/DistrictOfficialSearchByAddress.aspx

Zoning Violations by Aurora Mega-Abortion Facility Require Shutdown

Thomas More Society Appeal Calls for Planned Parenthood to be Bound by Law

Contact: Tom Ciesielka, tc@tcpr.net 

AURORA, Ill., Last week, the Thomas More Society, a Chicago-based public interest law firm, appealed the dismissal of the lawsuit it brought in 2008 for "Fox Valley Families Against Planned Parenthood" against Planned Parenthood of Illinois, filing with the Clerk of the Illinois Appellate Court, Second Judicial District, a 50 page brief and also an appendix packed with over 200 pages of evidence detailing Planned Parenthood's massive zoning fraud.

The lawsuit was brought by residents neighboring the Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Aurora and by "Fox Valley Families Against Planned Parenthood," a voluntary association formed to oppose Planned Parenthood's new Aurora, Illinois mega-clinic, which contains 12 surgical recovery rooms. The suit alleges that Planned Parenthood misled and lied to Aurora zoning and building officials in 2006 and 2007 to get permits to build its facility. Since then, Planned Parenthood has operated as a non-profit at a site explicitly zoned and reserved for a commercial, for-profit medical office building.

To obtain the permits to build its facility, Planned Parenthood hid behind an entity cynically named Gemini Office Development, LLC, "G.O.D.," which filed an application to build a for-profit, commercial medical office building that would rent space to physicians, dentists, and other medical professionals. But Planned Parenthood had obtained an $8 million loan from the Illinois Finance Authority on condition that its new Aurora facility be operated as a tax-free, not for profit entity.

"Aurora officials and citizens have both the duty and the right to evaluate the lawfulness and desirability of new businesses in the community, including any abortion business," said Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society. "Planned Parenthood, however, deceived the people of Aurora and prevented them from any real evaluation of the facility before it opened. Planned Parenthood compounded its fraud by applying for and receiving (as a non-profit) $8 million from tax-free bonds from the Illinois Finance Authority, to build its facility. Thus, not only did Planned Parenthood slap Aurora citizens in the face with its fraud, but worse, it did so at the citizens' own expense."

Under the Aurora zoning ordinance, Planned Parenthood's proposed non-profit land use would have required special notice to neighbors and then a public hearing, which Planned Parenthood avoided by covering up its real identity. Only when the Chicago Tribune broke the story about Planned Parenthood's involvement in July, 2007, did the truth become widely known. A great public outcry ensued, with over 1,000 demonstrators protesting at the site, and hundreds of opponents lining up to testify at late night City Council meetings.

But Aurora's Mayor intervened before the City Council took any action, calling on supposed "experts" who rendered reports that grossly misstated the applicable zoning and related laws. Based on their flawed reports, the Mayor directed that permits be issued -- despite the clear violations of law. Planned Parenthood opened, and Thomas More Society immediately filed suit.

Despite Planned Parenthood's illegal behavior, DuPage County Judge Paul Fullerton dismissed the lawsuit on August 29, 2013, deferring, he said, to legislative action, although the Mayor, not the City Council, had ordered issuance of the requisite permits. Judicial review in such a case should not have been deferential, but substantial and exhaustive. As Planned Parenthood has been operating in violation of the law, the facility must be dismantled or sold to a legitimate, for-profit medical office facility. Plaintiffs fully anticipate that their appeal will succeed, and that justice will finally prevail.

The evidence is clear: the winning position is pro-life

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

Pro-abortion Texas state Senator Wendy Davis

Let me be clear at the outset, I'm not entirely clear I understand what Shelley Abrams is saying. Writing for the pro-abortion site RhRealityCheck.org, her post is titled, "Maybe the United States Is Ready for an Unabashedly Pro-Choice Candidate."

She can't be saying there is no place where a pro-abortion to the bone candidate can't win. There are clearly places in the United States where they can. But it is also true that in most jurisdictions in most states, anti-life candidates tip-toe around the abortion issue.

Why? Because as we have demonstrated through an examination of almost limitless polls, a majority of the public is much closer to our position than it is to the pro-abortionist's. The wind of public opinion blows in our opponents' faces

Pro-abortion Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe

But what Abrams does clearly assert is that candidates such as Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis (now running for governor) and Terry McAuliffe (who won the governorship in Virginia last November) are backsliding from their staunch pro-abortion positions. And, Abrams argues, this is foolish and, in fact, counter-productive.

"Has the pro-choice left been so brainwashed by anti-choicers that our own side, perhaps subconsciously, began to perpetuate the stigma around abortion by refusing to accept the obvious?" The "obvious" being to win they should hold fast to high-profile abortion advocacy.

Let's deal with McAuliffe first. Reading Abrams, you'd think that the tiger had changed his stripes, that he'd become Mr. Moderate since he moved into the governor's mansion. He has not changed a whit, which irritates the likes of the Washington Post.

They knew his reputation as a principle-free, wheeler and dealer with no executive experience, best known for his association with Bill and Hillary Clinton. But they endorsed him anyway and in the process used the news pages to demonize his pro-life Republican opponent.

And McAuliffe in office is exactly the same McAuliffe he was before winning election.

Davis is more interesting and is a clearer illustration of Abrams' point. She believes that Davis is behind her pro-life Republican opponent not because she is rightly being saddled with her high-visibility support for abortion (aka her famous filibuster of pro-life Texas legislation) but because she has walked away from it.

I'm sure there is nothing that anyone could say, any poll they could offer to Abrams that could convince her that Davis would have no chance to win UNLESS she talked about anything but abortion. But to the rest of us…

Davis' ascendency was fueled by opposition to a measure that, among other things, required the abortion industry in Texas to clean up its act, have access to a local hospital when there are the inevitable complications, and would not allow abortionists to kill unborn babies capable of experiencing pain. Once the adrenalin subsided and the public learned exactly what it was the Davis was championing, her numbers dropped.

By way of passing, I should note that Abrams writes a lot about what she calls "abortion bizarro world" where "one plus one never equals two." She then lists her litany of "truths" that are excluded from the conversation in the "abortion bizarre world"—the absence of which means that 1+1 can never equal 2.

But the real truth is, if you read the Establishment Media, you know that the conventional wisdom about abortion—the "story line"—is hermetically sealed. Counter-information—whether that is the terrible aftermath of abortion for many women, what polls really tell you about the public's feelings about abortion, or how the pro-life "increment" helps the pro-life candidate to win—is not allowed in.

So, it is true that pro-abortion candidates can win, even extreme pro-abortion candidates in some locales. But there is a reason in most cases they do everything they can to blur their positions: it hurts them.

Post-abortive mother: Listen to the voice of your child

By Nancy Flanders

Photo credit: CNSNews.com

Abortion hurts women. No matter how much effort abortion supporters put into denying this, it's true. You just have to visit Abort73's website to read the testimonies from women who have experienced abortion. These women share their abortion stories for the purpose of helping other women to choose life for their children. On April 25, one woman shared her heartbreaking plea for mothers to turn away from abortion.

This woman is 33 years old, and she writes about her abortion five years ago. She had a two-year-old child and was married to an abusive man. She was holding onto a great deal of pain, and because of that, she let the lie that abortion fixes things creep in to her mind. She writes that Planned Parenthood offered zero counseling. The only people who told her to "think twice" were the anti-abortion advocates outside the clinic. She says about abortion:

"It's like a nightmare you never get up from. It is daily mental torture because eventually you realize it was wrong – but too late to take it back."

But what is most striking about her thoughts on abortion is what she says about the baby-and-mother relationship. She writes:

"My advice to any female considering abortion is to please think about that life inside of you because it has a voice that only you can hear. […] Listen to that little voice, please, it is louder than you think, and it gets louder and louder afterwards. [I] remain tortured by the voice of my unborn child."

That bond is there, right from day one. Yet so many women ignore it, mostly because they are being told by others or by self-doubts that there are reasons to abort their children. None of those reasons can ever trump the one main reason not to have an abortion. This woman begs other women to realize this.

While anti-abortion activists can tell expectant mothers that the choice to abort is wrong, each mother is the one who is most connected to her child while she is safe in her womb. She is the one who literally holds her baby's heartbeat, who holds her baby's life. No matter what anyone else says about what she is or isn't capable of, that mother considering abortion needs to focus on her baby's voice – on her baby's spirit – and what that child's future could be if given a chance.

Editor's note. Nancy is a work at home mom who writes about parenting, special needs children, and the right to life. She is the lucky mother of three spirited little girls, one who has cystic fibrosis, and she spends any free moment she can find fundraising for a cure for CF. This appeared at liveactionnews.org

World’s Best Mom

By Matt Wessel

Editor's note. Mr. Wessel posted this lovely tribute to his wife on April 19. This morning he graciously gave me permission to share "World's Best Mom" with our NRL News Today readers.

That's a lofty title, I know. And believe it or not, I know her. Even more amazing (to me) is that I'm married to her.

The world's best mom holding her firstborn son.

One might think the world's best mom would be someone with years of motherly experience and a number of kids — someone who has been doing it for a long time. My wife, Katie, doesn't come close to qualifying under those terms. You see, we're new parents. Our first son, Randol Thomas, was born on Thursday at 12:56 a.m. at the incredibly young gestational age of 25 weeks and 4 days. That happy moment had a sad ending when our baby boy lost his life later that morning at 5:20 a.m. after struggling for hours to try and breathe with what we knew were severely underdeveloped lungs — something we knew would be an issue after my wife's water broke at just 18 weeks.

So how could she possibly be crowned 'world's best mom' when she has only had one child, who only lived for a few hours? Allow me to explain…

When Katie's water ruptured at 18 weeks, she was told that she would likely go into labor within the next three days. Her odds of lasting to viability (24 weeks) and giving birth to a child that would live long term was at best 5% and probably less than 1%. She was told that many women in her situation choose to terminate. Not one to judge, that comment simply went in one ear and out the other. It wasn't an option for her and never would be. Because when you're the world's best mom, you never give up on your child, no matter the odds.

When she went into labor two days later, she spent a frantic few hours at the hospital and prepped for the delivery of a 19-week old baby. As scared and panicked as she was, Katie managed to ask questions about what would happen to her baby after birth, including a baptism and funeral arrangements. Because when you're the world's best mom, you want the best for your child.

When her body then shut down labor a few hours later, she was ultimately sent home and told to stay on strict bed rest. It was then that she became incredibly germ conscientious. She knew that if she developed an infection, she would lose the baby. She had me cleaning the house all the time. If friends or family had even a hint of a cold, she asked them not to visit. When I brought her cups of water, if I accidentally touched the lip of the glass, she made me empty, wash and refill it. She even banned me from kissing her. None of this surprised me. Because when you're the world's best mom, you do whatever you have to for the health and well-being of your child.

When her body started to deteriorate as the bed rest turned from days into weeks, she constantly told me and those around her that it was worth it. It was worth the back pain and the leg pain and the neck pain and the shoulder pain and the ankle pain. It was worth the muscle atrophy. It was worth night after night of terrible sleep. It was worth being physically uncomfortable 24-7. Because when you're the world's best mom, personal comfort takes a back seat to what's best for your child.

When she reached 23 weeks and was admitted to the hospital for the rest of her pregnancy, Katie did so with a smile. She brought comforts of home with her and planned for a long, long stay. She put a day-by-day countdown on the wall and rejoiced when each evening turned into a new day. Even though each passing day meant another day of bed rest, agonizing muscle atrophy and stir-crazy boredom, it also meant another day that the baby had grown within her. It meant one more day closer to the magic preemie window of 28 weeks. And when you're the world's best mom, you cherish all of your child's accomplishments, even if that's as simple as one more day in the womb.

When her nurses would come in to check on Katie during her stay in the hospital, she rarely let them leave without engaging them in a 15-minute Q&A on every topic you could imagine relating to her situation. She relished every opportunity she had to absorb information — what to expect, what the nurses had seen in their careers and what she could do to improve her outcomes. Because when you're the world's best mom, you want to know all you can when it involves the life of your child.

When Katie went into labor again – this time for good – and the attempt for a vaginal delivery had to be abandoned due to our baby's crashing heart rate, Katie gave her doctors the go-ahead to proceed with an emergency C-section, a procedure that would mean waiting longer to try for our next kid and one that would potentially limit the number of pregnancies we could have long term. It wasn't a decision she made lightly, but it also wasn't a very hard one to make. Because when you're the world's best mom, you're willing to make sacrifices for your child.

When our baby was fighting for his life in the NICU and the neonatologist came up to discuss possible next steps, Katie asked her about nitric oxide. It wasn't even a treatment option that was presented to us, but Katie knew about it. She had read that it helped other babies in our situation. The doctor said it was an option and they'd be happy to try it. All because Katie knew to ask for it. Because when you're the world's best mom, you do your research and become your child's best advocate.

When the doctors told us that Randol Thomas wasn't going to make it, Katie asked her nurses what it would take to get her from her delivery room down to the NICU to see her son while he was still alive. When her extraordinary nurses (seriously, they were amazing) understandably questioned whether that was even possible given that she had just undergone a major operation, Katie rephrased her question into a statement that was more like, "I need to see him. Please. Just tell me what I need to do." >From there, the nurses came up with an improvised game plan that included a heavy dose of medication just to get her out of bed and into a wheelchair. During the transport, my determined wife uttered no cries of pain. She was wheeled down to the NICU and was able to hold our son's living hand while singing to him — just a couple hours after her C-section. Because when you're the world's best mom, nothing can stand in the way of you being there for your child.

When she was in the NICU, she realized no one had called a priest to have Randol Thomas baptized. We quickly called the on-call chaplain and asked him to come in. He arrived just in time to baptize our little boy. Our son took his last attempted breath during the baptism and his heart stopped beating just seconds after it had ended. It was the perfect ending to his perfect life, and all because of Katie. Because when you're the world's best mom, you remember things that no one else does, even in moments of pure chaos.

And when our precious child passed away and the amazing NICU staff brought him up to our room for Katie and I to hold him for the first and last time, Katie invited all of our family members who were at the hospital to share in that moment with us — to take their own turns holding our little guy. Because when you're the world's best mom, you want nothing more than to share the joy of your child with those around you.

I am devastated at having lost my son. And I'm devastated that he won't enjoy what would have been an amazing life with loving parents, including a particularly incredible mother. Watching Katie over these past several weeks has been an absolute inspiration. Her love for our son during his 25+ weeks in the womb and his few hours after birth is a testament to who she is as a person and, now, as a mom. I share this story with all of you in the hopes that it will inspire current and future moms to be as committed and passionate to their own children as she was to our little boy.

Next month, on May 11, I plan to hold Katie close, smile and say, "Happy Mother's Day." Even though our son won't physically be with us anymore, it doesn't change the fact that my wife is now a mother. And a mother she'll always be.

In fact, she's the world's best.

The need to challenge the “story line” that distorts the reality of abortion and pro-life people

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

Well, here's a first and—no doubt—a last: I actually agree with a complaint former President Bill Clinton voiced at a recent lecture he delivered at Georgetown, even though I disagree thoroughly with the examples he cited as illustrations.

He said (according to a column written by Charlie Cook of the National Journal)

"If a policymaker is a political leader and is covered primarily by the political press, there is a craving that borders on addictive to have a story line," Clinton said. "And then once people settle on the story line, there is a craving that borders on blindness to shoehorn every fact, every development, everything that happens into the story line, even if it's not the story."

From there Cook goes off in a different direction. The temptation in today's hyperlink-saturated writing universe is to juice up the story with material that doesn't really belong in hopes that more people will "click" on the stories. "Too often," Cook writes, "shortcuts are made to make a story sexier than the reality actually is."

But a "story line" can mean many things–and can be more (or less) in accordance with reality. It can be, for example, a variation of what we used to call the "convention wisdom." If you KNOW "x" is true, then you are tempted to shoehorn every development into that narrative, regardless of whether a fair look would tell you it clearly does not belong there.

This can happen, Cook argues, when reporters "cherry-pick facts and arguments that support their story line," even though "there are plenty of other facts and circumstances that contradict it." By binding themselves to a " story line or ideological point of view, " it can result in "ignoring other things that support an alternative conclusion," Cook writes. Fair enough.

But Cook then takes an interesting turn. He admonishes his fellow reporters and columnists to remember that there are parameters to the mid-term elections that ought not be ignored just because reporters want to write something "fresh."

To which, there is an abundance of evidence that November 2014 will be awful for Democrats. Cook warns that in this case the "story line" shouldn't be ignored just to make their stories "sexier"–that is different from all the other stories drawing the same conclusions.

The fact is that 2014 does shape up that bad for Democrats, a reflection, Cook writes, of the two basics: "the [electoral] map and the mood" of the country (hint: not positive).

Let's keep that in mind as we return to something Cook mentions along the way, something which he unfairly attributes largely to cable news and blogs: the "ideological point of view."

The simple fact is when it comes to pro-lifers and the cause that we champion, the "story line" across most media outlets (and surely the Big Three Networks) is drenched in an "ideological point of view."

The habit that Cook warns reporters to avoid—to "cherry-pick facts and arguments that support their story line"—is deeply engrained and always works to our disadvantage. This runs the gamut from still being told 41 years after Roe v. Wade that the decision only legalized abortion in the first trimester to the insistence that unborn babies at 20 weeks can't feel pain as they are torn apart.

The former gross distortion is a product of laziness and a desire to minimize how radical Roe was. The latter unwillingness to consider the evidence is a product of laziness and a desire to minimize the damage the Abortion Industry would suffer if the public were to realize that babies can experience almost unimaginable pain as they are torn limb from limb.

Always check for "story lines" in stories about our issue and, of course, about us. Often times you will barely recognize the portrait they paint of pro-lifers.

All we can do is what we can do. And that is to make sure everything we say and do adds the truth that our Movement is people by gracious, big-hearted women and men dedicated to finding win-win solutions for women and their unborn babies.

Wonderful news on Crisis Pregnancy Centers

A big win in court and the deception of NARAL and PPFA revealed

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

U.S. District Judge Deborah Chasenow

NRL News Today has covered the systematic attack on pregnancy care centers/CPCs going back decades, and, particularly, of late NARAL's all-out offensive. Let's catch up with the good news, of which there is plenty this last week.

Montgomery County (Maryland) has thrown in the towel in its assault on Centro Tepeyac, a Montgomery County pregnancy care center. The county chose not to appeal a decision by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland [which we reported on at nrlc.cc/1jAzess] that struck down the entirety of a 2010 law that forced pro-life pregnancy care centers to advise women against using their services

This particular victory is, of course, important in its own right. But there are other NARAL-inspired laws being challenged in the courts in Baltimore, New York City, San Francisco, and Austin, Texas. We can reasonably hope that the strength of Judge Chasanow's powerful reasoning will help shape subsequent decisions.

The Montgomery City Council passed Resolution No. 16-1252 on February 1, 2010. Among other things, the resolution required what they called "limited-service pregnancy centers" to post signage (in English and Spanish) stating that "the Center does not have a licensed medical professional on staff" and "the Montgomery County Health Officer encourages women who are or may be pregnant to consult with a licensed health care provider."

As Alliance Defending Freedom observed, "The county intentionally crafted the law so that it doesn't apply to pro-abortion centers, such as Planned Parenthood, even if counseling is offered there by non-medical persons."

The nub of the rationale for these ordinances is they are needed to "safeguard the health of pregnant women." But instead of relying on what pro-abortionists alleged to be going on, Judge Chasanow actually investigated. She found (according to her opinion) that

• Dr. Ulder Tillman, Montgomery County's Chief of Public Health since 2003, testified "in that time she has not received one complaint from someone who had sought service at either Centro Tepeyac or Birthright. She had not received any evidence that any actual pregnant women who went to an LSPR delayed seeking medical care."
• Mariana Vera, Executive Director of Centro Tepeyac, "submitted comments and stated that at least half of the women who come in for a pregnancy test are referred to them by the public clinics in Montgomery County." Judge Chasanow added, "Those referrals continued even after passage of the Resolution."
• Ms. Jacqueline Stippich, executive director of Shady Grove Pregnancy Center, "stated that they received forty-three percent (43%) of their clients from their advertisements where they are listed under 'Abortion Alternatives' in the telephone book. They opened in 1983 and have served over 30,000 women 'without ever receiving a formal complaint for giving inaccurate information or misrepresenting our services.' She stated that their website has four disclaimers, including one that states 'we are not an abortion provider.'"
• "Councilmember Phil Andrews opposed the Resolution, finding that it is unnecessary as he had not received a single complaint from anyone who went to an LSPRC in his eleven years as a Councilmember."

That's on the legal front. Along with other pro-life sites, we reported on the dustup created by NARAL's assertion that Google was taking down "deceptive" pro-life advertising. (The irony that pro-abortionists could accuse anyone of deception is too obvious to belabor.)

But from the beginning, reputable, well-established pro-life CPCs/Pregnancy Help Centers flatly denied deceiving anyone and noted that not one of their ads had been pulled, contrary to the impression of pro-life capitulation fostered by NARAL. (For example, see "When it comes to Google advertising, it is pro-abortion sources who are the real deceivers")

Subsequent investigations have shown that the lone ad NARAL offered as "proof" of deception proved not pro-life intent to deceive but was likely a product of the way Google's AdWords' real-time bidding engine works.

Many have pointed out (as noted above) that the real deceiver is the Abortion Industry. Although the following is incredible, I assure you I did not make it up.

I went to Google this morning, typed in Crisis Pregnancy Center and the FIRST link is to…Planned Parenthood. Specifically

Crisis Pregnancy Center – plannedparenthood.org‎
Ad www.plannedparenthood.org/ (877) 616-3351
Learn About Pregnancy Care and Your Options. Get Advice Today.

When I put quotation marks about "Crisis Pregnancy Center," the above came second. What came first?

Expert Abortion 4-24 weeks-americanwomensservices.com
Ad www.americanwomensservices.com
14 offices 25 doctors; 30 years exp call 1-888-ABORTION for immed appt

An abortion clinic that aborts up until almost the end of the second trimester listed under "Crisis Pregnancy Center." You can't make this stuff up, right?

Actually, if you are NARAL and Planned Parenthood, you can.

Teen abortion rate at lowest since Roe v. Wade

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

On Tuesday, after we have a chance to investigate more thoroughly, we will delve further into the conclusion of the Guttmacher Institute that teenage pregnancy, birth, and abortions are at "historic lows."

"U.S. Teenage Pregnancies, Births and Abortions, 2010: National and State Trends by Age, Race and Ethnicity," is written by Kathryn Kost and Stanley Henshaw. For purposes of this report, teenagers were defined as ages 15-19.

"The 2010 teenage abortion rate was 14.7 abortions per 1,000 women," they conclude. "This figure is the lowest since abortion was legalize and 66% lower than its peak in 1988 (43.5/1,000 women)."

Unfortunately, that decrease was not uniform across among ethnic groups. For Hispanic teenagers the abortion rate (15.3) is almost twice that of non-Hispanic whites (8.5), while the rate for black teenagers (34.5) is almost four times as high as non-Hispanic whites.

Incredibly, however, in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut more than half of teenage pregnancies ended in abortion.

What about those state who had experienced the most success? Writing for the National Journal, Sophie Novack put the worst possible interpretation on those states with the greatest decline in teen abortions.

"[T]he states with the lowest proportions of teen pregnancies ending in abortion tended to be states that now have the most restrictive anti-abortion legislation: South Dakota, Kansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Utah, Arkansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Texas. In each of these states, less than 15 percent of teen pregnancies ended in abortions."

Guttmacher, which is pro-abortion, offers the customary pro-abortion explanation: more contraceptive use.

But as the breakdown of the states above clearly demonstrates, those states with legislation that educates and informs women—and typically includes some form of parental involvement—lead the way in fewer and few teen abortions.

Woman videotapes own abortion “to show other people it doesn’t have to be scary”

By Dave Andrusko

At the very end of March, we ran a post written by Lauren Enriquez, which she aptly titled, "Clinic worker films her own abortion in bizarre video."  She—meaning Emily Letts—actually videotaped her own abortion. Lauren wrote

"The video opens with Emily explaining her feelings and justification for the abortion. Giggling, she says 'Yeah, I'm gonna be having an abortion tomorrow morning!' Emily's video includes (non-graphic) filming during the abortion. The experience was anomalous compared with the recorded testimonies of many post-abortive women. The doctor was extremely friendly, Emily was smiling the whole time, and two clinic workers were present on either side of Emily to hold her hands during her child's death."

Specifically, the Abortion Care Network sponsored a video contest–to "bust the stigma" associated with abortion—and Letts was one of those who contributed. I've been waiting for further, shall we say, explanation.

Leave it Tara Culp-Ressler to not only justify Letts' behavior, but (more helpfully) give us more context. (See "This Woman Filmed Her abortion to show other people it doesn't have to be scary.")

I learned that Letts had published on Cosmopolitan.com. Tomorrow I will offer my take on her post.

In a few words (according to Culp-Ressler), Letts (an "abortion counselor") first contemplated writing a blog to "help" women decide whether or not to "end a pregnancy." (Yah, sure.) So, in the Cosmo post,

"Letts explains that she decided to film her procedure after trying and failing to find a video of a surgical abortion online. There's at least one YouTube clip of a woman taking the abortion pill, which is the non-surgical option for ending an early pregnancy, but that's it. So Letts decided that she wanted to have a surgical procedure — the option that seems scarier to many women — to help educate people about what it's actually like.

"'We talk about abortion so much and yet no one really knows what it actually looks like,' Letts writes on Cosmo's site. 'A first trimester abortion takes three to five minutes. It is safer than giving birth. There is no cutting, and risk of infertility is less than one percent. Yet women come into the clinic all the time terrified that they are going to be cut open, convinced that they won't be able to have kids after the abortion.'"

Well, no wonder she giggled, right? Two quick thoughts, which I will expand on tomorrow.

First, the pain-free surgical abortion that Letts touts is simply not the experience of most women who have had abortions. And while chemical abortions may seem less "scary," that is only because women have not read the accounts of women who say they do not regret their abortions but tell you frankly that the pain was unbelievably intense–or know that women have died after taking this powerful two-drug combination.

Second, consider the (bitter) irony. Pro-abortionists insist that abortions are easy, safe, and virtually complication-free. And anyone who says otherwise is one of those hysterical pro-lifers making stuff up.

But what is counter-intuitive is to think that something (literally) this unnaturally would not have consequences, beyond a dead baby, that is. Why wouldn't you expect there to be damage to reproductive organs and thus an increase not only in lost subsequent pregnancies (future babies) but also more preterm babies with the associated problems that go with it?

As I say, more tomorrow. It's interesting, by the way, that the photo that accompanies Culp-Ressler's post is Letts at her finest. We don't see the photo taken from her video widely posted—and posted above.

Wonder why.

Dobson defends his 'abortion president' remark

During his address at the National Day of Prayer, Dr. James Dobson called Barack Obama the "abortion president," inciting Americans to fight against the political assault on preborn children. Part of the motivation behind Dobson's words that have sparked much media attention arises from a recent lawsuit.

After coming off a monumental legal victory against the Obama administration and the Affordable Care Act, which ordered Dr. James Dobson's Family Talk and other faith-based organizations to provide abortion pills under ObamaCare, America's most trusted pro-family voice has been quite vocal about the president's ties and unconditional endorsement of the abortion industry.

"Before Obama was elected, he made it very clear he wanted to be the abortion president," Dobson declared at the prayer event. "He didn't make any bones about it, that this was something he really [was] going to promote and support. And he has done that. He is the abortion president."

As Dobson spoke at the NDOP, Rep. Janice Hahn, D-Calif., stormed out of the event.

"He goes on about health care and ... providing abortions, and at that point, I stood up and I pointed my finger at Dr. Dobson and I said, 'This is inappropriate!' and walked out," Hahn told Huffington Post. The Democrat expressed that she was angered because she saw the event as "a nonpartisan day of unity," and therefore thought Dobson "behaved inappropriately by going after the president."

Does Dobson concur? "The people who were there were with me 100 percent," Dobson told Fox News in an interview with Megyn Kelly about Hahn's charge that he acted inappropriately.

Noting that there were 34,000 NDOP events across the country in addition to the main event he spoke at in Washington, DC, Dobson emphasizes that most media attention focuses on the one objection being made, as if there is a mass uproar over his stand to protect preborn children.

"One person chose to walk out, as far as we now, [but] that's what everyone feeds on," Dobson said.

Yet Hahn used her post-event comments to air her opinion about the pro-life stance.

"It was very disturbing to me ... and really a shame James Dobson hijacked the National Day of Prayer – this nonpartisan, nonpolitical National Day of Prayer – to promote his own distorted political agenda," Hahn expressed.

But Dobson was even more disturbed that under ObamaCare, Family Talk Radio – which he founded in 2010 – would have ceased to exist if he had not prevailed in the courtroom, where on April 18, he obtained an injunction keeping the Obama administration from enforcing its mandate that his employees' health insurance include providing abortion-inducing agents.

"The mandate requiring that we provide abortifacients, such as the morning-after pill, would have begun on May 1," said Dobson, who, along with more than 100 other religious ministries, organizations and individuals, filed lawsuits challenging the president's takeover of healthcare, alleging it violates Christians' religious rights. "After that, if we hadn't prevailed, fines amounting to $800,000 per year would have kicked in. We would have closed our doors."

Why wasn't Family Talk covered under a religious exemption? Government officials defined the exemption for religious employer so narrowly that when the Obama administration was asked for the protection, para-church ministries such as Dobson's weren't included. Also not included are Christian convalescent homes, soup kitchens and even colleges.

"According to the administration, Family Talk is not 'religious enough' for an exemption," attorney Martin Nussabaum of Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP stated, who is co-counsel in the suit. "Yet sanctity of life and protecting the unborn have long been core religious convictions for Dr. Dobson and Family Talk."

Dobson continued to warn Americans at the NDOP about the president's nationwide attack on preborn children that he was able to fight in the courtroom, keeping Family Talk from having to pay an annual fine of $36,500 per employee.

"He has made it so that every American will have to pay toward support[ing] abortion," Dobson said, while reminding fellow prayer warriors that the world's largest abortion-provider, Planned Parenthood, already receives $250 million in taxpayer funding. "Keep fighting! We can win. And keep praying, because that's what really made a difference here."

Planned ParenthoodAnd just what kind of support does the Obama administration give the abortion industry? Here's what Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said in her 2013 keynote address: "President Obama has done more than any president in history for women's health and rights. He understands that access to birth control and preventative health care [abortion] are economic issues for women and their families."

Richards asserts that ObamaCare played a key role in forwarding the abortion agenda.

"We fought alongside him to ensure that women's health access was expanded in the landmark Affordable Care Act, and now we have to fight hard to ensure that the full promise of health care reform is realized for millions of women," the head of Planned Parenthood continued, corroborating Dobson's labeling of Obama as "the abortion president."

Because Dobson realizes that many Americans don't realize Obama's intimate ties with the abortion industry and how ObamaCare feeds into the agenda, he understood how some people can't comprehend the gravity of the issue.

"It is very difficult for those who aren't part of the sanctity of life movement to understand how intensely we feel about the issue of killing babies," Dobson told Fox's Kelly while dismissing (as inaccurate) her account of his NDOP address as a "scathing attack."

Dobson insisted that the real attack is coming from the other side – against innocent babies.

"The president has not only done everything he could to promote abortion, he let us know before he was elected and people elected him anyway," Dobson argued. "[Obama] determined that people of faith and people of conscience were going to have to go along and be part of it."

The pro-family leader then mentioned the ObamaCare proposal to have taxpayers outright fund abortions, noting that the issue is still being pressed and responding: "If you insist on us paying for abortion, we're not going to go there."

Dobson expressed his sentiments well in his commentary published on the issue.

"I believe in the rule of law, and it has been my practice since I was in college to respect and honor those in authority over us," the founder of Focus on the Family, with which he is no longer affiliated, declared. "It is my desire to do so now. However, this assault on the sanctity of human life takes me where I cannot go."

He stressed that price doesn't matter when it comes to human life.

"I WILL NOT pay the surcharge for abortion services," Dobson continued. "The amount of the surcharge is irrelevant. To pay one cent for the killing of babies is egregious to me, and I will do all I can to correct a government that lies to me about its intentions and then tries to coerce my acquiescence with extortion."

Dobson says making any concession is not an option.

"[It] would be a violation of my most deeply held convictions to disobey what I consider to be the principles of Scriptures," Dobson concluded. "The Creator will not hold us guiltless if we turn a deaf ear to the cries of His innocent babies. So come and get me if you must, Mr. President. I will not bow before your wicked regulation."

Michael F. Haverluck (OneNewsNow.com)

ACTION ALERT on SB 3076

UPDATE: SB3076 Illinois Physician's Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment [POLST] bill and amendment are now in the Health Care Licenses Committee and were not called on Wednesday but will be heard NEXT WEEK.  Now is the time to have your voice heard.  Follow this link to fill out an Electronic Witness Slip (no registration needed): http://my.ilga.gov/WitnessSlip/Create/79472?committeeHearingId=11952&LegislationId=79472&CommitteeHearings-page=1&_=1399323889924

For the "Firm/Business or Agency" field enter "Illinois Federation for Right to Life" and for the "Title" field enter "Concerned Citizen".

In the position section, under "Original Bill" select "Opponent" and for "HCA 1" select "No Position On Merits".

Here is why we oppose this bill...

The Illinois Physician's Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment or "POLST" form, which gives no distinctions for terminal and non-terminal conditions, is more for removing "life-sustaining" treatment than for protecting patients with "life-sustaining" treatment.  SB 3076 would change the long-standing relationship of doctor and patient in matters of end-of-life decisions by having nurses and even less qualified physician's assistants talk to patients about these decisions and authorize "actionable medical orders" including "do-no-resuscitate" orders even in non-terminal situations.

A patient who signs a POLST form can check a box "do-not-attempt-resuscitation" if he/she stops breathing and the pulse stops.  This is an "actionable medical order" to do nothing even if CPR would clearly be called for in a medical situation.  For example, an allergic reaction to a medication can stop the breathing and pulse, but most patients would want to have CPR.  The POLST form says NO.

Also, many elderly and frail patients may not understand the various options available to them with a POLST form, and so should have better education and options that the POLST form does not give.

Pro-Life has broad concerns with the POLST forms.  One clear concern is that private foundations that have put their money into promoting POLST have also given large amounts of money to the Euthanasia organizations.

Again, now is the time to have your voice heard, follow this link to fill out an Electronic Witness Slip: http://my.ilga.gov/WitnessSlip/Create/79472?committeeHearingId=11952&LegislationId=79472&CommitteeHearings-page=1&_=1399323889924

You Won’t Believe What a Twin Who Survived Abortion Says in a Letter to the Abortion Doctor

Claire Culwell knows what it's like to be a survivor. At the age of 13, her mother learned she was pregnant and decided to have an abortion, though she didn't know she was pregnant with twins.

After she had an abortion of Claire's brother, she returned to the abortion clinic after realizing she still had a growing and developing baby inside of her. Told she was too late to have a second abortion, she gave birth to Claire, who struggled on life support as she dealt with a myriad of medical issues following her birth.

Despite the obstacles she has had to overcome, Claire is actively sharing her story — urging people to choose life instead of abortion. And now, via the web site of pro-life activist Abby Johnson, Claire has written an incredible letter with an incredible message to the abortion doctor.

Here is that letter:

Dear Dr. Patel,

I am writing with a heavy heart. I recently discovered you in the news due to the violations your abortion clinic has made. I found that I have a closer connection to you than I thought.

In 1988, my 13-year-old birth mother placed herself in your care to perform her abortion…her 20-week abortion. She was assured that the abortion would fix her problem and that her life would return to normal but it didn't.

When she returned to see you, she was informed that the abortion had been successful, in part, but she was still pregnant as she had actually been pregnant with twins but had been misinformed. She was also told that during the abortion the amniotic sac had been ruptured, thus leaking fluid for weeks. This proposed many complications for my birth mother. Due to the botched abortion, I was born 2.5 months premature with many lifelong complications.

As I read your medical practice history, I found my testimony consistent with many of your other former patients. My birth mother was 13. She was young and naïve; she would be easy to manipulate and lie to. She didn't know any better. Due to the abortion that was botched, my birth mother has suffered 26 years of hardship and regret. I can only imagine the things that may have happened that she feels like she can't speak about…things that other women are confessing that you did to them while in your care.

However, she was not the only one affected by the failed abortion. My life, my family's life, and my children's lives would all eventually be effected by one "mistake" or one "botched abortion" that was performed so long ago. Not only was I born 2.5 months premature but I was born with complications including dislocated hips, club feet, and was on life support in the hospital. I went through multiple casts on my feet, a harness on my hips to prepare for surgery and body casts in order to correct what the abortion had done to my body. In fact, I still have hip and foot complications today due to the abortion. The unfortunate part is that I am not alone. Hundreds of other survivors of abortions are speaking up letting the world know that we ARE children, we DO deserve a chance at life and that abortion is, clearly, NOT SAFE.

I spent 21 years of my life wondering if I had a sibling that was missing. I felt it in my heart. My birth mother confirmed my questions when she told me about her abortion when I met her. Realizing that you have lived your entire life without your twin is a harsh reality.  However, the hardest part for me is realizing that you took my daddy's only son from him. His life would have been even more full and joyful had he had his son who would carry on his family name and do the things he loves with him—hunt and fish. Because of the selfishness that abortion has brought to us today, our family will remain incomplete and I mourn the amazing adventures my daddy is missing with my brother.

In February of 2013, another miracle happened… My daughter was born! I can't help but think about how she wouldn't be here if the abortion had been successful on my life. She has only been here for a short time but she has touched so many lives with her fun-loving personality. I can't help but wonder how many children are missing because their mothers were misinformed by you and told that the best decision, or even the only decision, was abortion.

Dr. Patel, I write to not only shed light on the reality of the severe aftermath that can happen when abortions are performed but to also express my forgiveness to you for what happened. I have lived a full life and been well loved in my 26 years of life despite my circumstances. I was adopted into an incredible home that gave more grace and forgiveness than I ever could have asked for. In the same way I have been forgiven by God for many things, I choose to forgive you. I forgive you for performing the abortion in 1988 and for the enormous impact it has had on my birth mother and me.

I also pray for you. I pray that you are able to see past the medicine, the money and your usual way of life… and that you will remember my face (and my daughter's who would not be here had the abortion been successful) as you go to perform abortions. I pray that as you remember my face that you will be moved in such a way to walk away from the abortion practice and use your gifts outside of the industry. I assure you that many of us, myself included, would help you leave the industry and be encouragers and supporters to you. I would welcome you with open arms because I fully believe your life and what you do with your life is just as valuable as every single unborn child that I advocate for. I will continue to pray for you and your past and current patients.

Sincerely,

Claire Culwell

By Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com

Pro-life leaders to mark National Day of Prayer with nationwide Prayer Meeting for the Unborn

Every year on May 1, millions of Christians across America come together under the banner of the National Day of Prayer. Although it's an event focused on praying for the general needs and challenges of our nation, this year one nonprofit organization is making plans to dedicate its prayers to bringing an end to our nation's greatest tragedy — abortion.

"Scripture clearly calls us to protect and defend the innocent, and that most certainly includes the unborn,"  said Brian Fisher, Founder and President of Online for Life. "While we should come together to pray for God's blessing on our country, we cannot expect God to bring revival when we allow an estimated 1.2 million babies to be aborted within our shores every year. Abortion is primarily a spiritual issue, and it is, bar none, the predominant challenge for the American Christian today." 

In an effort to bring this national tragedy into greater focus on the National Day of Prayer, Online for Life has scheduled a stream of the prayer meeting dedicated specifically to praying to end abortion in America. At 10:00 a.m. (CDT) on the National Day of Prayer, pro-life individuals from all across the country can join with Online for Life for the first-ever nationwide prayer meeting of its kind.

Led by Brian Fisher and his fellow Online for Life team members, the prayer meeting will see numerous pro-life leaders come together to pray for the most prominent challenges faced by the pro-life movement today. These include: Brian Fisher, Jim DeMint, Alveda King, Rev. Dean Nelson, Fr. Frank Pavone, Matt Chandler, Sen. Ted Cruz, and Johnny Hunt.

"With so many moving pieces working independently to bring an end to abortion in America," Fisher says, "this prayer time is designed to bring us all together with one purpose: To pray for every facet of our movement that we might see a culture of life restored in America."

According to Online for Life's WePrayForLife.com website, the prayer time will be divided into five separate segments:

1.     A time of prayer for organizations such as Online for Life, which seeks to reach abortion-determined women through online and offline marketing techniques. Participants will also lift up the staff at the nearly 50 participating life-affirming pregnancy centers in 23 states, who love and care for the abortion-determined people that OFL sends their way. 

2.     Prayers will be said for the doctors, nurses and staff who work in abortion clinics. Participants will pray specifically that God softens their hearts and removes the scales from their eyes so they may be set free from the bondage of the abortion industry. 

3.     Prayer meeting participants will then intercede on behalf of activists who participate in life marches across the country, and for those who consistently pray outside of abortion clinics. They will ask God to encourage and strengthen them so they may continue to boldly live out their mission. 

4.     Likewise, participants will spend time praying for those who work to end abortion through the legislative process. As pro-life activists have witnessed in recent years, many state legislatures and assemblies have taken up pivotal bills to protect the right to life in their states. The participants will pray this trend continues and these brave lawmakers will continue to find favor among men and with God.

5.     Finally, participants will lift up those in ministry positions who have served sacrificially in order to speak out for the unborn. They will pray that in the coming year, God will raise up more laborers to proclaim the truth about life during church services and stand as vanguards for Scriptural truth regarding abortion.

With the theme of this year's National Day of Prayer being "One Voice United in Prayer," Fisher cannot think of more appropriate words to usher in the first-ever Online for Life live prayer meeting. "Much like the body of Christ, the pro-life movement is made up of many parts. But on this day, at this prayer meeting, we'll bring all the parts together — united in prayer — to advance the cause of life."

To learn more about the National Prayer Call, please visit the WePrayForLife.com website, where you can also register to participate and then download a copy of the prayer call agenda.

Source: LifeSiteNews.com