H.R. 1797, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

 

This bill, which has already passed the U.S. House, would ban late term abortion and save tens of thousands of babies every year.

 

Please call Senator Kirk at 202-224-2854 and tell him to vote YES on H.R. 1797, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

 

Let me explain why your call is so important.

 

Senator Kirk is "pro-choice," however he is not a lost cause.

 

It is URGENT that we push for this bill RIGHT NOW.

 

Here's why:

 

First, it raises awareness about the brutality of abortion AND the extremism of the "pro-choice" side. This will inspire more people to vote pro-life during this critical election year.

 

And second, it puts Senators on record supporting or opposing late term abortion -- which could be key in some tight Senate races.

 

So please be sure to call Senator Kirk at 202-224-285 right away and tell him to vote YES on H.R. 1797, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

Iowa clinic halts web-cam abortions

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

A Planned Parenthood clinic in Iowa has stopped doing web-cam abortions.  No one is sure why West Health Center of Urbandale (a suburb of Des Moines) has stopped, but it's clearly big news. It is part of a conglomerate that has "pioneered" the use of chemical abortions via web-cam and expanded all over the state and elsewhere.

Planned Parenthood of the Heartland (PPH), Planned Parenthood's large regional affiliate centered in Iowa, was one of the testing grounds for RU-486, and then later was in the forefront in utilizing web-cams to facilitate abortions using the abortion pill.

And no affiliate has been as aggressive as PPH. Over the  past several years it has gobbled up other affiliates in Iowa and in neighboring states. PPH has built a mega-clinic and has announced campaigns to open new clinics throughout the region. They are a major player in the abortion industry.

PPH introduced the web-cam abortion to Iowa in 2008, connecting 16 of its smaller offices to a larger clinic back in Des Moines.  Several of those clinics have since closed, and now we can subtract the West Health Center of Urbandale from the list of Planned Parenthood's web-cam abortion facilities.

Why has West Health Center of Urbandale ceased performing web-cam abortions? We don't know whether injuries to patients there prompted the closing.  Staffing might be a problem, as we know that, at least elsewhere in the state, PPH has been advertising to find part time workers for some of their web-cam abortion sites.

It should also be noted that Urbandale, a busy location for PPH, has been the site of an ongoing pro-life vigil since 2010.

And there is not a lot of popular support. A poll taken back in February showed widespread opposition to web-cam abortions in the state, with two-thirds (66%) of respondents to a Des Moines Register poll saying that they did not think telemedicine should be used "to prescribe and deliver abortion-inducing medication" in Iowa.  Even Democrats in the state tended to agree, 49% to 45% [www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2014/03/new-iowa-poll-shows-massive-opposition-to-use-of-web-cam-abortions/#.U20dtvldWn8] .

What exactly is a web-cam abortion?

An abortionist back at a hub clinic teleconferences with a patient at one of the smaller satellite offices, reviews her case, and asks a couple of questions. If satisfied, he clicks a mouse, remotely unlocking a drawer at her location.  In that drawer are the abortion pills which make up the two-drug abortion technique (RU-486 and a prostaglandin). She takes the RU-486 there and takes the rest of the pills home to administer to herself later.

If things go as planned, she will endure painful cramps and substantial bleeding and abort her child sometime in the next several days.

Notably, in the model employed by PPH, the abortionist is never in the same room as the woman, and thus never actually physically examines her. He is not there when she receives the abortion drugs and nowhere near if she encounters serious problems over the next several days.

Why is it important that the abortionist is in the same room? Women using RU-486 and a prostaglandin to abort their babies have hemorrhaged and required emergency surgery. They have had their fallopian tubes rupture from an undetected ectopic pregnancies, which these pills do not treat. They have contracted rare but deadly infections.

You would never know it by the PR coming from proponents, but thousands of women have been injured and over a dozen women have died after taking these abortifacient drugs.

While encouraged by the recent news from Urbandale, Jenifer Bowen, Executive Director of Iowa Right to Life, said that "This perversion of good tele-medicine technology is putting women in danger and must stop."

Bowen added, "While Planned Parenthood in Urbandale and 15 other locations state-wide continue to promote or sell abortion to women, we will remain steadfast and work tirelessly for the day when all lives are welcomed into this world.  We will continue to work relentlessly for the protection of our women and unborn children from the devastation of abortion."

Here's hoping that the news from Urbandale is an indication that the web-cam abortion empire at Planned Parenthood of the Heartland is beginning to crumble.

Impact of abortion on women, relationships underpublicized

Editor's note. The following is excerpted from a release distributed by the by the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada.

A new report by the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada highlights "typically ignored" research showing that abortion has negative effects on women and their families.

Interconnected: How abortion impacts mothers, families and our society focuses on the various harms that have been revealed by academic studies and meta-analyses. Impacts on mental health, relationships, sexuality and society are considered.

The report challenges the myth that abortion has no negative ramifications.

Importantly, it also aims to challenge the pervasive idea that abortion is strictly about the one woman who has one.

The paper reflects on the research through the story of Lee, a pro-choice woman for whom abortion had unexpected effects.

Existing research on mental health:

· 42% of post-abortive women reported major depression by age 25

· 39% of post-abortive women suffered anxiety disorders

· 27% of post-abortive women experienced suicide ideation

· A meta-analysis published in the prestigious British Journal of Psychiatry showed an overall 81% greater risk of mental health problems for post-abortive women …

"There are many myths that remain unchallenged about abortion today," says author Andrea Mrozek. "One is that abortion is a neutral and normal part of life. The end result of this mentality is that when women experience negative reactions their grief is compounded. It was with these women in mind that I wrote this paper."

The report claims a body of research demonstrating harmful effects of abortion has been underpublicized by media and, at times, even professional associations such as the APA [American Psychological Association].

"Anyone but the most severe ideologue can see that these scientific studies are a legitimate cause for concern, and yet information about the effects of abortion doesn't reach women who could really use it," says Mrozek.

The report concludes that a better understanding of potential post-abortion outcomes helps women, men and families to make more informed choices.

The study can be found online at www.imfcanada.org.

RNC adopts resolution supporting Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection legislation

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus

Last month and again last week we wrote about the upcoming anniversary of the conviction of abortionist Kermit Gosnell on three counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of babies that were aborted alive and then had their spinal cords slit.

Although sparsely covered by the media, the news leading up to Gosnell's trial and the trial itself helped provide impetus for state legislation regulating abortion clinics and for passage of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, NRLC's #1 legislative priority.

Last Friday, in a show of solidarity, the Republican National Committee adopted a resolution that stated that "the Republican National Committee strongly supports federal, state, and local pain-capable unborn child legislation that bans abortions at 20 weeks of gestation and beyond."

Currently the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is law in ten states. Furthermore, it has passed the U.S. House of Representatives on a vote of 228-196 last June.

In a statement issued Friday resolution sponsor RNC Committeewoman Ellen Barrosse of Delaware said, "The Republican Party is proudly pro-life and this resolution shows our support for this straightforward, simple pro-life initiative." She added, "Children capable of feeling intense pain, as well as their mothers, should be protected from abortion at such a very late stage of gestation."

Thirty-three Senators have signed a letter urging Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) to bring up legislation sponsored by South Carolina Senator Sen. Lindsey Graham. (See nrlc.cc/1mOZCmb and nrlc.cc/1mPd7Co.)

"It is time that Congress acts to bring the United States out of the fringe when it comes to late term abortions," New Hampshire Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte, who circulated the Dear Colleague letter, said in a statement at the time. "I urge Majority Leader Harry Reid to allow a vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would bring us closer to international norms and the views of the American people."

NRLC and allies press for Senate action on key pro-life bill, but Senate Democrats block votes

Left right; NRLC Executive Director David N. O'Steen, Ph.D.; Darla St. Martin, NRLC Co-Executive Director; Sen. Lindsey Graham; NRLC President Carol Tobias; and Susan T. Muskett, NRLC Senior Legislative Counsel.

NRLC President Carol Tobias joined with pro-life leaders of the U.S. Senate in a public call for Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nv.) to allow a Senate vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (S. 1670), an NRLC-inspired bill that would prohibit abortions nationwide after 20 weeks, on grounds that the baby is capable of experiencing great pain by that point in development.

At a Capitol Hill press conference, Tobias stood side by side with Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the prime Senate sponsor of the legislation, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), exhorting Reid to allow a test vote on the measure. Also participating were leaders from the Susan B. Anthony List, Concerned Women for America, the Catholic Association, and others.

The timing of the event was pegged to the one-year anniversary of the conviction of Pennsylvania abortionist Kermit Gosnell on numerous charges, including murder.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act has already been approved by the U.S. House of Representatives, last June, by a vote of 228 to 196, despite a veto threat from the Obama White House. It has been cosponsored by 41 Republican senators. On May 7, 33 Republican senators, led by Senator Kelly Ayotte (NH), Graham, and McConnell, released a letter urging Reid to allow the Senate to vote on the measure,

The congressional legislation is based on model legislation developed by National Right to Life in 2010, initially enacted in Nebraska that year, and enacted in nine additional states since then. Recently, such legislation was also approved by the West Virginia legislature, but vetoed by the governor, with no opportunity for an override vote. It is also currently under active consideration in the South Carolina legislature.

At today's press conference, Graham said, "In the entire world, there are seven countries that allow elective abortions at the 20-week period and beyond. My goal is to make sure when this is over, there are six."

Tobias and other participants in the press conference pointed out that numerous polls have shown broad public support for this type of legislation – usually with women even more supportive than men. On May 12, the Washington Post noted, "A Washington Post-ABC News poll last year showed Americans approved of shortening the window for abortions from 24 weeks to 20 weeks – and by a margin of about two-to-one, 56 percent to 27 percent. Even 60 percent of women supported it."

Prior to today's press conference, Graham took the Senate floor to request unanimous consent for a deal under which the Senate would debate and then vote both on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and on a pro-abortion bill formally titled the "Women's Health Protection Act" (S. 1696), introduced last November by Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Ct.) with much fanfare from pro-abortion advocacy groups.

The Blumenthal legislation, if enacted and upheld by the federal courts, would invalidate nearly all state limitations on abortion, including waiting periods, women's right-to-know laws, and laws providing for meaningful monitoring of abortion-providing facilities, which in many states have long operated with virtually no regulatory oversight.

"Under the Blumenthal bill, the unborn child would have no more rights, from conception until birth, than a malignant tumor," Tobias said. "This is an extreme pro-abortion ideology far removed from the views of the majority of Americans. Yet, in the Congress this can hardly be dismissed as fringe legislation – 34 United States senators have already cosponsored the Blumenthal bill, and in the House of Representatives a companion bill (H.R. 3471) has 111 sponsors. NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the Center for Reproductive Rights have proclaimed that the Blumenthal legislation incorporates their public policy vision for the United States and is a top priority for their respective organizations."

Tobias noted that Blumenthal said, in an interview with the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, "As the election approaches, I think the voters are going to want to know where legislators stand on these issues."

"We agree" with that statement, Tobias said. "Senator Graham's and Senator Blumenthal's bills propose starkly different abortion policies for our nation. By all means, let's let voters see where every member of the Senate stands on both of these bills, by having side-by-side, clean up or down votes on each measure."

However, Blumenthal himself blocked Graham's request on the Senate floor, saying that the two bills "should be considered," but lamely arguing that the full Senate should not consider them without action first by a Senate committee. Tobias commented that this response constituted "clear evidence that the architects of the Blumenthal bill really intend it only to serve as fodder for fund-raising appeals to the gullible, and have no intention of allowing even a Democrat-controlled Senate to actually vote on it."

NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson said, "The Blumenthal bill is really just an updated version of the old 'Freedom of Choice Act,' which has been around for a quarter-century – but now they say it still needs work in a committee before it is fit for the Senate to vote on it? Blumenthal's refusal to agree to a prompt vote on his own bill is laughable."

Reid told a reporter that Graham's bill was merely evidence that Graham "keeps moving further to the right." In fact, Graham has maintained a strong pro-life record during his nearly two decades in Congress, and is the original author of one of the most important pro-life laws ever enacted at the federal level, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Link to Carol Tobias statement.

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.