Planned Parenthood Uses God to Boost Abortion Sales

Contact: Hannah Solem, FRC Blog

All of my public relations classes have taught me the key to reaching a specific market: know your target audience. Strike a chord that resonates in their spirit. When you've built that credibility with them, make your sales pitch.

In attempts to reach their target audience and boost sales, Planned Parenthood has introduced a new emotional sales ploy. This time, they've used God's Name in that appeal.

Recent news reports reveal a "pastoral letter" written by Planned Parenthood's far-left clergy which used God as a new sales prop to reach their clients. The letter was drafted for Planned Parenthood clients and future clients who are religiously inclined, proclaiming the message that Scripture does not say anything for or against abortion and that many clergy believe abortion to be permissible.

The letter states: "Many people wrongly assume that all religious leaders disapprove of abortion. The truth is that abortion is not even mentioned in the Scriptures -- Jewish or Christian -- and there are clergy and people of faith from all denominations who support women making this complex decision."

The Planned Parenthood Clergy Advocacy Board is composed of fifteen members, including one Muslim-affiliated member. The board does not include any Catholic priests.

Their letter states: "God loves you and is with you no matter what you decide."

Planned Parenthood's letter ignores Scripture that equates the killing of an unborn child with murder (Exodus 22:21). And it belittles the name and character of God. God does love people. Liberation comes from the truth that God loves all people, regardless of age or size. He loves that innocent child that He wonderfully created in His image (Psalm 139:14).

Planned Parenthood may think that this letter will help mask the devastation of abortion but in reality its overreaching and deceptive sales pitch doesn't make abortion any less immoral nor does it help the many suffering post-abortive women who have experienced the destructive effects of abortion.

True relief is found in resting in the promise that God is a very present help in time of need. He is the One who grants the peace that surpasses all understanding and He promises to be with and to save all who call upon His name. Christ's target audience includes all people, regardless of size. Do not be deceived He came that His all-inclusive audience might have life and have it to the full (John 10:10).

Planned Parenthood Closings in Southwest Iowa Answer to Pro-Life Prayers

Thomas More Society Defends Pro-Life Advocates' First Amendment Rights Prior to Closure

Contact: Tom Ciesielka, TC Public Relations

As far as the peaceful pro-life advocates in Red Oak and Creston, Iowa, are concerned, their prayers have been answered. The Planned Parenthood facilities in both southwest Iowa towns are shutting down. Thomas More Society-Omaha confirmed that a sign hanging on the door at the Red Oak abortion facility declares that the facility will be "consolidated" with another Iowa Planned Parenthood, effective June 18, 2014. The notice of these closings comes after months of prayer outside of these abortion clinics by dedicated pro-life advocates.

"The closing of two Planned Parenthood abortion facilities in Iowa is a great victory for life," said Thomas More Society-Omaha attorney Martin Cannon. "Credit goes to the prayerful people of Red Oak and our listening God, but Thomas More Society also had the honor of assisting these men and women. By clarifying the existence of public property in front of the clinic, we were able to work with the police of Red Oak to ensure that the people's First Amendment rights to assemble on public property were respected."

The pro-life prayer vigil and sidewalk counseling efforts at the Red Oak facility were jeopardized during the Spring 2014 40 Days for Life campaign, when Planned Parenthood challenged the right of pro-life advocates to stand on the grass parkway. The abortion provider tried to have the praying crowd arrested and charged with criminal trespassing, claiming that those praying were on private property.

Initially, the police concurred with Planned Parenthood, but after intervention by Cannon and the Thomas More Society-Omaha, the Red Oak city administrator verified the public right of way. Legally equivalent to a public sidewalk, this is a "traditional public forum" in the eyes of the law and constitutes a place where people have a First Amendment right to assemble.

Many in the area believe that the Planned Parenthood sites fell victim to the unrelenting presence of those peacefully offering life-saving alternatives to abortion. Regardless, the fact is that the Red Oak abortion facility and its sister clinic in Creston, 40 miles down the same highway, are closing.

Black, Franks Lead Bipartisan Effort to Call on Harry Reid to Bring the 'Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act' to a Vote

Bipartisan, House passed legislation would protect unborn children at twenty weeks of age -- with exceptions provided for instances of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is endangered.

Contact: Tom Flanagin (Rep. Black) 202-225-4231; Ben Carnes (Rep. Franks) 202-225-4576

Today, Reps. Diane Black (R-TN-06) and Trent Franks (R-AZ-08) led a bipartisan effort of 105 Members of the House to send a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) urging him to allow for a vote in the Senate on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

"More than a year after the conviction of the abortionist Kermit Gosnell, it is long past time that the Senate move forward and pass this bipartisan legislation to help protect the health of women and children," said Congressman Black. "Sadly, the United States lags far behind most of the world when it comes to protections for unborn children. There is clear evidence that these babies can feel the pain of dismemberment in the womb -- it's time we acknowledge the science and take action to protect our unborn children. I thank Congressman Franks for his leadership in this effort, and I hope Senator Reid will heed this call and move forward without delay."

"One year ago, the case of Kermit Gosnell shocked the sensibilities of millions of Americans," said Congressman Franks. "However, the crushing fact is that abortions on babies just like the ones killed by Kermit Gosnell have been happening in America every single day for the past 41 years -- including the year that has passed since America first learned of Kermit Gosnell. Had Kermit Gosnell agonizingly dismembered these babies before they had traveled down the birth canal only moments earlier, he would have, in many places nationwide, been performing an entirely legal procedure. If America truly understands that horrifying reality, hearts and laws will change.

"To that end, the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which passed out of the House last year, marked the first time in history, in either chamber of the U.S. Congress, that affirmative protection has been extended to unborn children. I applaud Senator Lindsey Graham's boldness in championing the Senate companion bill (S. 1670), I thank my colleague Diane Black for her work on behalf of this vital cause, and I urge Harry Reid to finally allow the bill to come to the floor for a vote. America is one of only seven countries that allows elective, late-term abortions after the beginning of the sixth month. It is time that America finally opens her eyes to the humanity of these little victims and the inhumanity of what is being done to them."

As the Congressmen wrote in their letter, on May 13, Senator Lindsey Graham's request for floor consideration of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act was blocked. Click here for a digital copy of the Members' letter to Senator Reid.

The real anti-choicers: RH Reality Check argues pro-life doctors should be forced to perform abortions

By Cassy Fiano

Abortion advocates like to call themselves "pro-choice" because, as they say, all they want is for a woman to be able to make her own choice regarding her own body. Don't dare call them pro-abortion, oh no — they're just big fans of choice.

Interesting, then, that they so frequently fight against anything that would give anyone choices beyond abortion. The most recent example is at RH Reality Check, where Joyce Arthur and Christian Fiala write a post arguing against conscientious objection, or in favor of forcing doctors who don't want to perform abortions to perform them anyway. [The following is a long quote from the Arthur/Fiala post.]

Do health-care professionals have the right to refuse to provide abortions or contraception based on their "conscientious objection" to these services? Many pro-choice activists would retort, "No way! If you can't do your job, quit and find another career!" We agree with them, and have detailed why in our new paper, "'Dishonourable Disobedience': Why Refusal to Treat In Reproductive Healthcare Is Not Conscientious Objection."

Reproductive health care is the only field in medicine where freedom of conscience is accepted as an argument to limit a patient's right to a legal medical treatment. It is the only example where the otherwise accepted standard of evidence-based medicine is overruled by faith-based actions. We argue in our paper that the exercise of conscientious objection (CO) is a violation of medical ethics because it allows health-care professionals to abuse their position of trust and authority by imposing their personal beliefs on patients. Physicians have a monopoly on the practice of medicine, with patients completely reliant on them for essential health care. Moreover, doctors have chosen a profession that fulfills a public trust, making them duty-bound to provide care without discrimination. This makes CO an arrogant paternalism, with doctors exerting power over their dependent patients—a throwback to the obsolete era of "doctor knows best."

Denial of care inevitably creates at least some degree of harm to patients, ranging from inconvenience, humiliation, and psychological stress to delays in care, unwanted pregnancy, increased medical risks, and death. Since reproductive health care is largely delivered to women, CO rises to the level of discrimination, undermining women's self-determination and liberty. CO against providing abortions, in particular, is based on a denial of the overwhelming evidence and historical experience that have proven the harms of legal and other restrictions, a rejection of the human rights ethic that justifies the provision of safe and legal abortion to women, and a refusal to respect democratically decided laws. Allowing CO for abortion also ignores the global realities of poor access to services, pervasive stigma, and restrictive laws. It just restricts access even further, adding to the already serious abrogation of patients' rights.

CO in reproductive health care should be dealt with like any other negligent failure to perform one's professional duty: through enforcement and disciplinary measures, including possible dismissal or loss of license, as well as liability for costs and any negative consequences to victims. Because abortion and contraception are integral elements of women's reproductive health care, those who would refuse to provide those services because of a personal or religious objection should not be allowed to enter disciplines that deliver that care, including family medicine and the obstetrics-gynecology specialty.

Get that? If an OB/GYN has an conscientious objection to performing abortions and as such, refuses to perform them, they should potentially lose their license to practice medicine. So now, not only should abortion be legal, apparently every obstetrician practicing should be performing them, whether they like it or not.

It's also interesting hearing ethics be brought up as an argument against conscientious objection, considering that ethics plays a rather large role in practicing medicine. Most doctors aren't big fans of abortionists, in all likelihood because of this very reason. People who take vows to "first, do no harm" aren't going to be giving any standing ovations to people who take lives for money. It's also not unethical for a doctor to refuse to perform an abortion, nor is it an abuse of power.

A patient could theoretically ask the doctor to perform the abortion; the doctor says no. It's really that simple, and the patient is free to find another doctor that is willing to kill their unborn baby. This is the situation that is being railed against, and therefore, the logic follows that the answer would be that every doctor must be forced to perform abortions whether they like it or not. Not doing so would, in this pro-abortion extremists' eyes, be unethical and an abuse of power. Have you ever read something so ridiculous?

News flash: not every OB/GYN performs abortions, and they shouldn't be required to. It isn't a negligent failure to perform one's professional duty to not perform an abortion.

But then, as Adam Peters pointed out, forcing people, including women, to do things they don't want to do is business as usual for the abortion industry.

Coercing women into getting abortions, and physicians into performing them, isn't a problem for them because they don't actually applaud choice. The mantra of being "pro-choice" is a lie, because to abortion advocates, there is only one choice available, and that choice is always abortion.

Editor's note. This appeared at liveactionnews.org

Teenager chooses life for her baby

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

"I know that this what I am supposed to be doing and I know He is in my life right now because he needs to be and God wanted him to be on this earth"

LifeCanada does some remarkable work. Today we're going to talk about "Darby" and her story that you can watch on YouTube.

In less than 3 minutes, Darby tells about the shock of learning, at age 16, that she was pregnant; how she considered her "options"; how she chose life; and how she can't imagine life without her son.

The video is the model of simplicity. Darby tells her story while holding her son, changing only her (and her baby's) position and the tone of her voice (hint: she cries).

Darby tells us, she "I really didn't believe it was real," and went to the doctor for a confirmation. And, yes, she is pregnant. "That's when the tears began flooding in." Her options? Become a parent, abort, or put the baby up for adoption.

In the video Darby explains that the doctor tells her that she has talked with many women (sitting in the same chair Darby was) who "regret their abortions," but "not once, have I ever met a single mother who has ever regretted having her baby."

Understandably, so many things are "whirling through my head," and after a month she asks/tells herself "maybe I'm not meant to have this baby." After all, they tell you the baby is just a blob of cells, wouldn't feel any pain, etc.

But then Darby suddenly walks us through the ABCs of fetal development. That by the time a woman knows she is pregnant, the baby has all these marvelous capacities. Somebody explained those realities to her and we can only speculate that they were pivotal.

The remainder of this 2:45 second video is one powerful testimony. As she rocks her baby, Darby says, "I know that is what I am supposed to be doing and I know He is in my life right now because he needs to be and God wanted him to be on this earth."

As she looks at her son, Darby half-laughingly says, "It's pretty amazing that you could just love someone so little so much." Then…tears….followed by a riveting moment:

"I just can't imagine not having him here with me today…and what I would doing if he wasn't in my life right now. I think I'd be very lost and wondering, this November, 'Where was my baby?'"

"Where's was my baby?" Wow!

Darby ends by reflecting on two central truths: "Life is a beautiful gift," she says. "I think that we can never take it for granted or put ourselves in a position where we can be controllers of life. Honestly, you know [looking deeply into her baby's eyes], look at how precious that is. You are just too cute for words."

Final words of advice?

"Choose life, you're never going to regret it."

Tip of the hat to lifenews.com

“Obvious Child”: a movie that scrapes the bottom of the barrel

Unless you believe (which I don't) that there is some depth to which pro-abortionists can sink that other pro-abortionists won't happily defend, you won't be surprised that Amanda Hess found "Obvious Child" to be "the most honest abortion movie I've ever seen. It's about time."

Before we tackle Ms. Hess's tacky, tasteless celebration of the death of a baby depicted as a punch line, a couple of preliminaries for those who may not have any particular feelings on the subject of abortion. (NRL News Today stories are carried by all the major sites that aggregate news stories, such as Google News.)

You have to have an appreciation (I guess that's the word) for bodily-humor jokes. As we wrote last month, the star is Jenny Slate, formerly a bit player on "Saturday Night Live," best remembered for dropping the ultimate four-letter obscenity her first night on SNL.

Clearly Slate and Director Gillian Robespierre were made for each other. Both have an affinity for vulgar, sub-adolescent humor, and bodily functions which Robespierre (told The Village Voice) is "obviously something that I need to go to therapy about. I can't not talk about it."

You also have to believe that this is "the subversive Rom Com you've been wanting." Evidence? How about the set up line? Slate's character, Donna Stern, a stand-up comic, is looking in the mirror, practicing what she is going "to lead with" when she tells the baby's father what she intends to do.

"I'm having your abortion. Do you want to share dessert?"

This is "subversive"?

Okay, so why is Ms. Hess so in love in "Obvious Child"?

For starters, it has a "happy ending" which is "long overdue." A death child and nobody gets all bent out of shape.

Which is an important breakthrough for Hess. She argues that even more modern movies "about modern women" that touch on abortion "fail to regard their hard-earned constitutional right as an unambiguously positive development."

Worse yet, "pregnancy decisions in movies are now less likely to result in abortions than ever, and that trend's become particularly pronounced in films produced since 2003. In other words, now that abortion's safe, women on screen don't choose it."

In other words, as many pro-abortionists have put it of late, they have the "wrong ending": birth. Perhaps what irritates Hess most of all is that too often women in these films clearly SHOULD have aborted but never even considered it! Talking about failing the Sisterhood.

In a back-handed way, Hess will kind of grant you that a film that teams up with NARAL and "features the most charmingly competent Planned Parenthood doctor that a young, sexually active woman has ever seen" perhaps stretches the boundaries of credibility.

But, of course, since this is a celebration of a movie for slaying imaginary dragons, Hess can't actually admit the obvious because that would undermine her entirely implausible, tiresome argument.

Instead (how's this for euphemisms?) "the film's satirical potential is somewhat limited by its unambiguous politics."

You think?

But after that ever-so-brief contact with reality, Hess concludes

"For too long, Hollywood has been offering up either the tragic abortion narrative or the implausible motherhood story without giving the abortion caper its due. Obvious Child makes this heretofore untold tale look like a piece of cake. The film manages to be revolutionary by treading the most traditional of rom-com territory: A girl meets a boy, and after navigating a series of miscommunications and obstacles, one of which happens to be an abortion, they live happily ever after. Or at least through a snuggly, post-abortive viewing of Gone With the Wind."

Two quick thoughts. The whole point of so much pro-abortion propaganda these days is to utterly undermine the "compromise" they have always loathed: the bogus pro-abortion assurance (made famous by Bill and Hillary Clinton) that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare."

Why should abortion be rare, they angrily retort? It's a rite of passage for many women, a decision that is completely theirs alone to make as often and as late in pregnancy as they wish. Anything that suggests the tiniest moral ambiguity or respect for the child is heresy and must be stamped out.

Second, by grungifying the context in which the child's death takes place, it all becomes part of one big joke, a kind of "Animal House" for the urban pro-abortion sophisticate.

You do have to ask yourself, who would make a joke out of the end of a child's life? Only those who are dead set on scraping the bottom of the barrel.

ERA not called for a vote!

 

ERA was not called for a vote in the House.  Thank you for all of your hard work in the past couple of weeks.  You raised your voices and reached out to many others to increase our voice, and it worked.  We have been greatly blessed!  Thank you for standing up so vigilantly for women, their families and our society.

We know that they will continue to try and push this harmful amendment.  They may even try to pass it in the veto session that begins November 19th. 

What is the ERA?

 

The ERA is a U.S. Constitutional Amendment that has not yet been fully ratified.  The supporters of the amendment claim that if they can get 3 more states to ratify it, it will become a binding US Constitutional Amendment.  The main wording of the amendment reads:  "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." 

 

The amendment originally sought to give women equal rights, but its vague, overly broad language would actually harm women, their families, and our society by removing important legal safeguards. The ERA would create a genderless society by nullifying all laws and government practices that make any distinction based on gender.  The broad language of the ERA will empower the federal government to regulate every aspect of our lives.  An immediate example includes abortion.

 

More information about the ERA:

 

There was an attempt to pass the original federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in Illinois in an effort to have three more states ratify the amendment.  The supporters of the ERA have a complex legal argument in which they claim that the time deadline of 1979 can be extended.  If three more states ratify the ERA, it could become a binding national constitutional amendment.  The Illinois House passed it in 2003, but it was blocked in the Illinois Senate.   The Equal Rights Amendment will not help women; instead it will harm women, their families, and our society.

 

The ERA will further entrench abortion in our society and legally mandate taxpayer funding for elective abortions. The New Mexico Supreme Court recently ruled under their state ERA that since only women undergo abortions, the denial of taxpayer funding is "sex discrimination" (N.M. Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 975 P.2d 841, 1998).

 

ERA could undermine working expectant mothers' rights

Source: Illinois Review

The Illinois House could vote once again on the four decade old Equal Rights Amendment. If the U.S. Constitution were to ratify the amendment, it would ban any federal law differences based on gender. 

Wednesday, the Illinois House agreed unanimously with Senate changes to legislation requiring Illinois employers to set up special working conditions for expectant mothers.

Rep. Mary Flowers (D-Chicago) House Bill 8, the “Pregnant Workers Fairness Act,” ensures that pregnant workers are not forced out of their jobs or denied job modifications to allow them to continue working. The legislation now heads for the governor's desk.

But would an implemented ERA strip away special rights the Illinois House gave pregnant working moms Wednesday, since it provides special rights for women only? 

Yes, it would, says Eagle Forum lobbyist and constitutional attorney Sharee Langenstein.

"The ERA would prevent states from making any distinction between men and women. WIC would be gone. Protections for pregnant and nursing women would be gone.” Langenstein said.

"Women already have 'equal protection' under the law. Why do we need to strip away our equality in favor of androgyny?"

SJR75 has already passed the Illinois Senate.

 

Doctors Told Her That Her Baby Had Died in the Womb, Then She Was Born Healthy

By Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com

Doctors told her mom that little Eliza Bellamy died in the womb. Ellen Bellamy, 31, was 8 months pregnant when doctors delivered the news. But then, Eliza was born healthy and, six months later, is doing fantastic.

These kinds of stories underscore the importance of understanding that doctors are not always right. Often time, they will tell a mother or prospective parents that their baby has some sort of severe physical or mental disability and suggest an abortion as a result. As LifeNews has chronicled countless times, parents have rejceted abortion in such scenarios and given birth to healthy babies or given birth to disabled babies they loved and were glad they had not aborted.

In this case, when mother Ellen was eight months pregnant, two doctors announced that her baby had died in the womb and would be stillborn. The news left her ‘simply devastated.’

From the London Daily Mail:

And while carrying what she thought was a dead baby, she and her husband Chris then had to think about funeral arrangements.

Not only that, but at one point Mr Bellamy feared his wife had died as well after he saw a crash team rush into the hospital theatre where she was giving birth.

In fact, the team were on standby because – against the doctors’ expectations – Eliza had been born alive.

Despite this joyous reversal of fortune, doctors then further upset Mrs Bellamy, 31, by blaming her ‘excess stomach weight’ for their misdiagnosis.

Wexham Park Hospital in Berkshire has since apologised to the couple. The blunder occurred on a Sunday and at a time when the sonographer, an expert in doing ultrasounds, was not working.

The couple, who are both teachers and have a four-year-old daughter, Ava, said their nightmare began in November when Mrs Bellamy was admitted to hospital with heavy bleeding at 35 weeks.

Two doctors carried out scans to check the baby.

‘When doctors told us our baby wasn’t moving and there was no heartbeat, Chris and I were simply devastated,’ said Mrs Bellamy.

The couple, from Langley, Berkshire, were then forced to wait four hours preparing for the arrival of their stillborn baby until an operating theatre became free.  Mrs Bellamy said: ‘I still wanted to be awake when she was born, and hold her in my arms, even if she wasn’t alive. So I opted for an epidural.

'This will be the best part of your life': New TV series 'Jane the Virgin' features pro-life message

Contact: Ben Johnson, LifeSiteNews.com

The trailer of the new TV series Jane the Virgin contains a heartfelt plea for a confused, expectant mother to keep her unborn child.

The CW network program's titular star, 23-year-old Jane Villanueva (Gina Rodriguez), has decided to save her virginity for her wedding night, because her own mother (Xiomara, played by Andrea Navedo), got pregnant at age 16. Her decision is reinforced by her grandmother, Alba (Ivonne Coll), a devout believer in Jesus Christ and Spanish soap operas.

Jane (Gina Rodriguez)

Despite Jane's virtuous efforts, she finds herself pregnant when a harried doctor mistakenly performs an artificial insemination.

The child belongs to billionaire Rafael (Justin Baldoni), who owns the hotel where she works while she's putting herself through college, and a former crush of Jane's. Her fiance, Michael (Brett Dier), who has expressed his respect for Jane's decision to preserve her chastity, wants no part of another man's baby. Rafael's two-faced wife, Petra (Yael Grobglas), further complicates the plot.

Conflicted about whether she should abort an unwanted child who threatens to upend her carefully planned future, Jane turns to her grandmother.

“I told your mother to get an abortion,” Alba says mournfully, “but I carry that shame in my heart, because you have become the best part of my life. And this will be the best part of your life, too.”

The series gives no indication whether Jane decides to keep the child, but such pro-life sentiments are unusual in a network program that targets young women.

The CW's parent corporation, CBS, says the nation's fifth largest broadcast network specializes in “targeting young adult viewers, specifically young women 18-34” – also the largest demographic of women who have abortions.

Jane the Virgin is scheduled to air Mondays this fall at 9 p.m., following the successful series The Originals, which has averaged 3.3 million viewers this season.

 

Deeper look at latest Gallup numbers show pro-life responses just as large as ever

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

Last week we posted on Gallup’s newest numbers on various aspects of abortion, including self-identification (a slight shift: 47% self-identify as pro-choice to 46% pro-life) and how Lynda Saad interpreted a key set of numbers [http://nrlc.cc/1nBkLyf]. She wrote

“A second long-term Gallup trend, this one measuring Americans’ views on the extent to which abortion should be legal, finds 50% saying abortion should be “legal only under certain circumstances,” or in other words, favoring limited abortion rights. This stance has prevailed since 1975. However, a combined 49% of Americans takes a more hardline position, including 28% saying abortion should be legal in all circumstances and 21% believing it should be illegal in all circumstances.

I speculated this was much ado about nothing, and, it turns out, I was correct.

What Gallup failed to do was include a hyperlink to its methodology. So what? you might ask. By not providing that link, the reader could not know if, in fact, the results show much more support for “limited abortion rights” than the 50% figure suggested and whether the number of “hardliners” had actually increased.

Let me be more specific. Respondents are asked, “Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?”

What has made Gallup surveys much more useful in recent years is that they asked those who responded “legal only under certain circumstances” whether that meant “legal under most circumstances” or “legal only in a few circumstances.” That finer and more accurate explanation was not on the web page. Without the customary hyperlink to the methodology, we couldn’t even know if the question was asked.

When it was asked in May 2013, a total of 58% said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances (20%) or legal only in a few circumstances (38%).

According to Saad, the “hardline” position has increased. As I explained last week that was true, but very, very little. In 2013, 26% said abortion should be legal under any circumstances –versus 28% this year–while 20% said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances last year —as compared to 21% in 2014. 2+1=3 point change.

But it turns out in May 2014 that Gallup did inquire of those who responded “legal only under certain circumstances” (a friend found the results and forwarded them to me). Sure enough, the pro-life response was exactly what it had been one year before.

That is, 21% said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances (one point more than 2013) and 37% said abortion should be legal only in a few circumstances (one point less), the same exact 58% total.

I would like to reiterate what I wrote last week. Said concluded,

“Nineteen percent of U.S. registered voters currently say candidates for major offices must share their views on abortion to get their vote. This number slightly eclipses the 16% to 17% seen since 2004 and is significantly higher than the 13% to 14% that Gallup recorded between 1992 and 2000. Only once, in May 2001, was the figure higher, at 21%.” Okay, so which side has the advantage?

She continues, “Gallup finds more pro-life voters than pro-choice voters saying they will only back candidates who share their views, 24% vs. 16%. Thus, the pro-life side has more intensity on the issue.” So far, so good.

Saad then concludes, ”However, because there are more pro-choice than pro-life registered voters (50% to 44%), this equates to 11% of all registered voters saying they will only vote for pro-life candidates and 8% saying they will only vote for pro-choice candidates — not a great advantage or disadvantage for either side.” Two things about that.

First, it is true, generally, that registered voters are more likely to vote than those who wait until the last minute. But I’d love to know what evidence there is that in recent elections, there have been more pro-choice than pro-life registered voters (in this poll by 6 points, 50-44).

Second, many, many, many elections are nail-bitters. A net 3% advantage is potential pivotal. It should not be dismissed as “not a great advantage or disadvantage for either side.”

 

The rush to dehumanize the unborn reaches new speeds and new depths

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

Sarah Silverman appearing on “Real Time With Bill Maher”

What is the French phrase–the more things change, the more they stay the same?

This aphorism has been running through my mind of late as militant pro-abortionists say (and do) things that are even more bizarre than they are ugly.

It’s like being caught in a time warp where the zanies who (figuratively and literally) roamed the streets in the 1960s and 1970s have paid us a return visit.

We’ve talked about some examples—but by no means all—of their recent behavior, including a woman videotaping her own abortion and beaming her child’s death to the world through YouTube, cutesy invite cards to come have an abortion (presumably just after having ones nails manicured), and a morally brain-dead movie that pokes fun at the death of an unborn child. (We’re supposed to think that when Jenny Slate tells her boyfriend what she is about to do to their unborn child, rather than “I’m having your baby,” it’s clever for her to say, “I’m having your abortion.”)

What I hadn’t written about is Sarah Silverman’s latest idiocy that is so outrageous that even some of her colleagues had to sort of, kind of distance themselves. Silverman, a “comic,” had appeared on “Real Time With Bill Maher.” Referring to whom it is that pro-lifers are concerned, Silverman insisted “It’s goo that they’re so worried about.“

Not even a clump of cells: the unborn are “goo.”

So a perfunctory, sort-of apology from Mary Elizabeth Williams, writing at Salon.com. Actually, on second thought, it’s more like putting Silverman’s remarks “in context” so as to come to the same conclusion the likes of Williams always arrive at.

Which starts with a faux concern about respecting the complexity of it all: “Sometimes I think that I’d love to be able to just think of what occurs inside of a pregnancy as plain old goo.” But she can’t. She even has written that life starts at conception!

But that, of course, doesn’t get in the way of offing the kid, ever and always. Williams informs us

“[W]e face the stigmatizing notion that if we yield to the idea that a fetus is a life, we’re baby killers. But a fetus is not an autonomous human being. And a fetus should not have equal – or maddeningly, infuriatingly — more rights than the woman in whose body it grows.”

So, as do all abortion advocates, Williams concludes that if you don’t kill the child, he or she has “more rights” than the mother. Indeed, “When we prioritize the idea of a baby over the reality of a woman, women suffer, and women die,” she tells us. Talk about putting your thumb on the moral scales.

The point of all this is, of course, is to trot out as many difficult scenarios as possible to come to the only conclusion: there can never be any “second-guessing” a woman—any woman’s—“reasons” for having an abortion. If she wants to abort, as did Emily Letts, so she can show solidarity with her abortion clinic clients and “prove” how safe abortions are, who is anyone to “second guess” her decision?

Let me conclude by doubling back to an observation Williams makes earlier:

“In the never-ending ideological battle over abortion, the great burning question perpetually boils down to whether what is growing in a woman’s body is a human life or not, and how much if any protection it is entitled to.”

She’s conceded that life starts at conception, but to acknowledge “any protection” to any child in any set of circumstances is to elevate the child’s rights over the mother’s.

And why should Williams? The unborn child is not “an autonomous human being.” Of course neither is the newborn, the toddler, the elderly sick, or any of us who suffer grossly debilitating injuries. Which is why having no respect for the unborn always opens the door to having no respect for other powerless groups of people.

So what do we have? A few words about how tacky it is to call the unborn “goo,” but abortion on demand or any reason or no reason, throughout pregnancy.

No matter what temporary detour pro-abortionists take, they always end up at the same destination: lethally inflicting their will on those unable to defend themselves.

 

Equal Rights Amendment SJRCA 75—ALERT !!!

 

We need your immediate help to phone and email your Illinois State Representative and urge a NO vote on the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) - which just passed the Illinois Senate and is on the House Floor!

 

(1) Call the Capitol switchboard at 217-782-2000, and ask to be connected with your own State Representative, or visit: http://www.elections.il.gov/districtlocator/addressfinder.aspx and urge a NO vote on ERA.  It is very easy!  Call and email today!

 

(2) Spread the word to every pro-lifer you know!

 

ERA will require taxpayer funding of abortions. Several states have ruled that ERA requires taxpayer funding of Medicaid abortions because, since only women undergo abortions, the denial of taxpayer funding is "sex discrimination." (N.M. Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, Nov. 25, 1998.) The same reasoning could extend to all insurance through Obamacare. We must NOT give courts the power to force us to pay for abortions!

 

Please call the Illinois Capitol office TODAY at 217-782-2000, ask to be connected with your State Representative, and urge a NO vote on ERA. (The operator will tell you who is your own Representative.) We must not let Illinois make the terrible mistake of voting for ERA.

 

 

What is the ERA?

 

The ERA is a U.S. Constitutional Amendment that has not yet been fully ratified.  The supporters of the amendment claim that if they can get 3 more states to ratify it, it will become a binding US Constitutional Amendment.  The main wording of the amendment reads:  "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." 

 

The amendment originally sought to give women equal rights, but its vague, overly broad language would actually harm women, their families, and our society by removing important legal safeguards. The ERA would create a genderless society by nullifying all laws and government practices that make any distinction based on gender.  The broad language of the ERA will empower the federal government to regulate every aspect of our lives.  An immediate example includes abortion.

 

Please call and email your state senator again and continue to encourage them to vote no on the ERA. Remind them that because the amendment is poorly worded, it will actually harm women by overturning many laws and practices that benefit women.  It will prohibit all restrictions on abortions.  Finally, the 3 state strategy being used to resurrect the legally dead ERA is in violation of the U.S. Constitution.  Encourage them to support women, their families, and our society by voting against the ERA (SJRCA 75).  If they want an amendment for women in the Constitution, encourage them to write a better amendment that doesn't bring about so much harm to women and our society.

 

What can I do?

 

(1) Please contact your State Representative today to urge them to vote NO on the Equal Rights Amendment.  You can find contact information for your state legislators at (217) 782-2000 or visit: http://www.elections.il.gov/districtlocator/addressfinder.aspx

 

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

 

If we all take action, our voices will be heard.  Thanks for all you are doing to protect our families, our society and our religious freedoms! 

 

 

More information about the ERA:

 

There is currently an attempt to pass the original federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in Illinois in an effort to have three more states ratify the amendment.  The supporters of the ERA have a complex legal argument in which they claim that the time deadline of 1979 can be extended.  If three more states ratify the ERA, it could become a binding national constitutional amendment.  The Illinois House passed it in 2003, but it was blocked in the Illinois Senate.   The Equal Rights Amendment will not help women; instead it will harm women, their families, and our society.

 

The ERA will further entrench abortion in our society and legally mandate taxpayer funding for elective abortions. The New Mexico Supreme Court recently ruled under their state ERA that since only women undergo abortions, the denial of taxpayer funding is "sex discrimination" (N.M. Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 975 P.2d 841, 1998).

 

Clearly the ERA will harm women, families, society, and the structure of our government.  Please contact your state senator and state representative today to urge them to vote NO on the Equal Rights Amendment.   You can find contact information for your state legislators at (217) 782-2000 or visit: http://www.elections.il.gov/districtlocator/addressfinder.aspx

 

After 42 years, ERA passes the Illinois Senate - ALERT!

ERA activist spill pigs blood on the floor of the Capitol rotunda in 1972

SPRINGFIELD - With not a vote to spare, the Equal Rights Amendment passed the Illinois Senate Thursday afternoon, just a day after it passed committee.

There were no ERA activists spelling legislators' names in pig blood on the Capitol rotunda floor as there were in 1972. Neither was conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly, soon to be 90 years old, on hand leading the charge in opposition.

And despite the Senate Democrats' super-majority, the 39 yes, 11 no, and 6 present votes were not along party lines. Two Republicans - Minority Leader Christine Radogno and State Senator Kirk Dillard provided the needed 39 votes.

Dillard's vote surprised observers, as he was endorsed in the 2014 Republican gubernatorial primary by Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly, who has fought the ERA since the early 1970s.

Three Republican women - Senators Karen McConnaughay, Pamela Althoff and Sue Rezin - voted "Present" on the bill, as did two Democrats - Haine and Landek - and one Republican male, Senator Dave Syverson.

The resolution will proceed to the Illinois House, where it may have a more difficult time gathering the needed three-fifths vote.

The Senate roll call is below:

ALERT – What can I do?

Liberal lawmakers showed their corruption and willingness to break Senate rules of procedure today by rushing the ERA to a Senate floor vote.  Normally the Senate rules require three separate days of 'reading a bill' during a Senate session before they bring it up for a vote.  Rather than follow the rules, they rushed the bill to the floor, held a brief debate for such a monumental issue.

The bill has already been sent to the House where they will also try to push it quickly.  Please contact your state representative immediately by both email and phone to urge them against this destructive amendment.  Then reach out to all you know to encourage them to speak up.  This bill will have tremendously destructive effects on women, their families and our society.

 

Please also take a moment to thank your state senator if they voted against the bill by voting "no" "present," or "not voting."  They deserve our thanks!

 

Please contact your state representative today to urge them to vote NO on the Equal Rights Amendment.  It is currently listed as SJRCA 75 in the Senate. You can find contact information for your state legislators at (217) 782-2000 or visit: http://www.elections.il.gov/DistrictLocator/DistrictOfficialSearchByAddress.aspx

 

Information from Illinois Review