Chicago Tribune Publishes Major Story on Abortion Clinic That Refuses to Pay $36,000 Fine Following Woman’s Death

The Pro-Life Action League has been following the story of the Women’s Aid Clinic abortion facility closely for the past three years, and we’re pleased that it’s finally receiving thorough treatment from a major media outlet.

Today’s Chicago Tribune has a major front-page article on the Women’s Aid facility, whose owner, Larisa Rozansky, still has not paid the $36,000 fine assessed by the State of Illinois in 2011.

Abortion clinic moves, changes name, claims it doesn’t exist

The massive fine was assessed in response to a host of serious violations discovered by state inspectors, including failure to perform CPR on 18-year old Antonesha Ross, who died following an abortion performed there in 2009.

Since that time, Rozansky closed out the Women’s Aid Clinic bank account, dissolved the company, changed its name to Women’s Aid Center and moved to a different location — although the “Center” continued to use the same website and phone number, and for a period of time, even processed credit cards via the same Merchant Services account number as the “Clinic.”

When the state reminded Rozansky that in March 2012 that paying the $36,000 fine wasn’t optional, her response was that Women’s Aid Clinic “does not exist,” and so the state was out of luck.

In a January 2014 court hearing—which I attended—Rozansky’s attorney, Scott Skaletsky, argued that Women’s Aid Clinic and Women’s Aid Center were two “totally different businesses,” and that when Women’s Aid Clinic closed in March 2012, it had a mere $77 in its bank account. Skaletsky then told Cook County Judge Alexander White that Rozansky would be willing to write a check to the state for $77 to “make this go away.”

Unbelievably, Judge White actually bought that argument. In response, the Pro-Life Action League asked Illinois residents to take action by calling the office of State Attorney General Lisa Madigan and urging her to appeal the judge’s ruling. Her office did ultimately appeal the ruling, and the case is currently in the Illinois Appellate Court, where both parties are filing brief for oral arguments (the date for which has yet to be determined).

“For them not to pay the fine…it’s not right.”

Today’s Chicago Tribune article by reporter Nara Schoenberg—totaling over 2,200 words—is one of the most comprehensive articles I’ve read about an abortion clinic in a major news outlet in some time. Particularly noteworthy is the detailed account Schoenberg gives regarding the negligent treatment Antonesha Ross received on the day she died.

The abortion took about five minutes, after which Ross had difficulty breathing and began coughing up fluid and blood, although clinic employees didn’t call an ambulance until 40 minutes later. Then, Schoenberg notes, they merely “[offered] her a bag to breathe into” but didn’t bother performing CPR.

Schoenberg also includes some very emotional remarks from one of Ross’s close relatives:

“At the end of the day, there is a young lady that is gone, and she cannot see her children grow up, and her family misses her,” said Ross’ cousin Janell Austin Tuft of College Park, Ga. “And for us to not get justice — for them not to pay the fine — it’s not right. It’s just not right.”

Horrific conditions found by state inspectors

Schoenberg also goes into detail on what Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) officials found when they paid a visit to Women’s Aid in 2011:

In an operating room that hadn’t been used for two days, five insulin syringes were found outside of their protective packaging. The anesthesia cart contained about 28 vials of expired medication, including about 20 vials that had expired more than a year earlier. 

The inspector found medications and frozen dinners stored in a biohazard refrigerator that also contained fetal or placental tissue, according to the report, and a recovery room technician was observed taking a paper towel from the garbage and using it to cover a tray used to serve food to patients. … 

After the inspection, the state suspended the clinic’s license on an emergency basis, citing conditions that were “directly threatening to the public interest, health, safety and welfare,” and fined the clinic $36,000. [emphasis added]

It’s also worth noting that this was the first time Women’s Aid had been inspected in 15 years.

Abortion clinic owner claims she is the victim

Rozansky herself is quoted in the article on a couple of occasions, and makes no bones about claiming that she is the one who’s the victim. Here’s one example:

“I tried to help women to get legal abortions,” Rozansky said. “If someone wants to work against that, there’s nothing I can do.”

Here’s another (referring to the January 2014 Cook County court hearing):

At one point, Rozansky blamed the fine on the age of her medical equipment — a relatively small factor, inspection records show, compared with the lack of proper nursing personnel and the lapse in Ross’ care.
“That’s why I was fined: because the equipment was old,” Rozansky told the judge. “So I gave it away.”

“So I gave it away.”  Think about that for a second.

It doesn’t take much common sense to know what should be done with old—and, more to the point, unsafe—medical equipment: It should be disposed of.  But instead, abortion clinic owner Larisa Rozansky gave it away, presumably to be used again.

Expired medications, frozen dinners in biohazard freezers, giving a dying woman a paper bag instead of performing CPR, failing to dispose of unsafe medical equipment…and Larisa Rozansky claims that she and her abortion clinic are the ones being victimized.

Such complete and total disregard for basic health and safety and utter contempt for the law illustrate how incredible it is that Illinois does not require regular inspections of abortion facilities, to say nothing of the fact that several other abortion facilities in the state—including all of those run by Planned Parenthood—are not subject to inspection at all.

“Safe and legal”? You be the judge.

By  John Jansen, Pro-Life Action League

“Starve Alzheimer’s Patients” Pushed Again

The principle that all patients must always receive humane care is under pronounced assault in bioethics, Indeed, some bioethicists now argue that nursing homes should be required to starve Alzheimer’s patients to death–even if they willingly eat, and presumably even if the patient begs for food–if so instructed in an advance medical directive.

To show you how the culture of death corrupts, spoon feeding isn’t a medical treatment. It is basic humane care–akin to keeping clean, warm, or turning to prevent bed sores. Just as the latter three would never be withheld regardless of an advance directive, neither should food and water!

But suicide pushers now teach people how to kill themselves by starvation, called “voluntary stop eating and drinking” (VSED) in the culture of death trade. So, these bioethicists say that those who aren’t competent to commit VSED, should have the right to have others kill them slowly by refusing to provide them food and water when they are capable of eating and drinking by mouth.

“VSED-by-proxy” is supported increasingly in high places. For the second time (that I know of), a supportive article was published in the prestigious Hastings Center Report. From, “Controlling the End Game of Dementia,” by Paul T. Menzel and M. Colette Chandler-Cramer:

Advance directives to withhold food and water by mouth add an important option not contingent on happening to need life-sustaining treatment. Existing U.S. law does not provide such directives a bright green light, but it provides considerable logical support.

Competent patients already have the legal right to die by stopping eating and drinking, as well as the legal right to direct refusal of treatment in advance, including treatments absolutely necessary for continued life. So if becoming incompetent doesn’t cause someone to lose her rights but only means the rights have to be invoked by a proxy, why should becoming incompetent cause someone to lose the right to die by refusing to eat and drink?

Understand: This is not refusing a feeding tube–which is deemed medical treatment and can be refused by advance directive. Ditto, antibiotics, etc…

Rather, to repeat myself so that the point is sure to sink in–it would force nursing homes and care facilities to starve patients to death who willingly eat and drink!

The advocacy strategy here, of course, is to allow lethal injecting Alzheimer’s patients, e.g., “Why should we be forced to starve these people when we could easily inject them?” The answer is: We shouldn’t starve them! 

The way things are going, the only people allowed in medicine will be those willing to kill. How scary is that?

By: Wesley J. Smith Human Exceptionalism Life and dignity

Iowa Supreme Court to hear challenge to Iowa law banning webcam abortions next month

(Photo: Christopher Gannon/The Des Moines Register)

If there is a “face” of webcam abortions, clearly it is the massive Planned Parenthood of the Heartland (home headquarters, Des Moines, Iowa). More than 6,800 women have had abortions using the system since PPH began webcam abortions in 2008. When a woman has a webcam abortion, she never sees the abortionist in person, a condition the Iowa Board of Medicine found unacceptable.

In its September 2013 decision, the Board of Medicine required abortionists to see the women in person and perform physical examinations before dispensing abortifacients. Women were also required to do in-person follow-up visits.

That decision was upheld last August by a district judge, and PPH appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court. Yesterday the Des Moines Register reported that the court will hear the case next month.
Oral arguments are set for March 11, according to the Register’s Tony Leys.

However the system is still operational, because last September the Iowa Supreme Court put a stay on Polk County District Court Judge Jeffrey Farrell’s decision.

Webcam abortions are an integral part of the long-term strategy of the Abortion Industry. As NRLC’s Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon explained to NRL News Today, web-cam abortions are built around a system which makes it possible for the abortionist and the pregnant woman never to be in the same room.

It is designed to expand the number of abortions by reaching “underserved” populations, largely in rural areas. Here’s how webcam abortions works.

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.

In its lawsuit PPH contended, “The rule was promulgated solely for the purpose of preventing access to early abortion, and for no legitimate purpose relating to the health and well-being of Iowa women.” Not so, said the Board of Medicine in papers filed with Judge Farrell.

Lawyers for the Board noted that only physicians may provide abortions under Iowa law. “The board said providing abortion pills falls under that requirement,” Leys reported last year.

“Abortion-inducing drugs are not over the counter medications,” the state lawyers wrote. “Unless and until such a time when abortion-inducing drugs are no longer required to be dispensed by physicians, physicians must do so within the confines of the standard of care. The Board of Medicine determined the standard of care requires a physical examination prior to dispensing abortion-inducing drugs.”

The case is potentially hugely important for the Abortion Industry. Using a video-conferencing system (which PPH likes to call “telemedicine”), a single abortionist could “supervise” many, many times the number of women he could actually abort, were he to be required to be in her presence. The added revenue is staggering.

Responding to public concerns expressed in an Iowa Right to Life petition signed by 20,000 Iowans, and a formal petition presented by 14 Iowa medical professionals challenging the safety of web-cam abortions, the Iowa Board of Medicine met June 28, 2013, to consider new rules to govern the practice. The August 28 meeting, which lasted 3 ½ hours, was to give the public the opportunity to comment on the proposed new rules. The new rules were adopted a few days later on an 8-2 vote.

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News Today

Baby girl survives cancer detected before birth

After suffering the loss of a child through miscarriage, Lisa and Anthony Smith were elated to know they were expecting a baby girl. That is, until “joy soon turned to terror” when doctors detected a tennis ball sized tumor on the baby’s neck at 32 weeks.

Lisa expressed how they “were terrified. I couldn’t bear to think of her having cancer as an adult, let alone ­before she was born.”

As a mom, she “just had to pray that she [Jenna] would be able to survive.”

Before the umbilical cord was even cut, a tracheotomy was performed to allow baby Jenna to breath. She underwent chemotherapy and recently celebrated Christmas with a small neck tube as the only visible sign of the fight she has won at such a young age.

Doctors expect treatment to end this month and to start working toward removing the tube next month.

Recovering from the unexpected events of the last year, Anthony is “so incredibly proud. Jenna’s the strongest one of all of us. She’s been the one carrying us.”

By Laura Peredo via NRL News Today

Editor’s note. This appeared at http://liveactionnews.org/baby-girl-survives-cancer-detected-before-birth/#more-59477

Hold the presses, pro-abortionist discovers pro-lifers help pregnant women

The site is called “Creative Loafing Charlotte,” and I know nothing about it other than I ran across it when an article popped up titled “Pro-lifers have a new weapon: Tenderness.”

Much—most–of Emiene Wright’s column is just the usual filler. Pro-life legislation is out of whack—never mind that every demographic, including young people and women, support the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

Pro-lifers who are out front legislatively and at rallies are grumpy old geezers comfortable with fire and brimstone rhetoric—never mind that this is a reassuring stereotype that pro-abortionists cling to regardless of all evidence to the contrary.

But the story is interesting because Wright, who describes herself as a “staunch believer in the right for safe and legal access to abortion,” did a “little reconnaissance on ‘the enemy’s’ doings” and found, to her surprise, that not all pro-lifers have horns protruding from their foreheads.

Lo and behold, she discovered (much to her surprise) was that there are pro-life organizations that help women through crisis pregnancies and beyond. Now you and I know that women-helping centers are as old as the Pro-Life Movement itself, but lots of other people don’t.

Wright also discovered a “pregnancy ultrasound bus” (which has been borrowed from Help Crisis Ministry) that offers ultrasounds and counseling to women considering an abortion.

Even as she devotes 3/4ths of her piece to lambasting “junior pastors,” Wright can’t evade the truth that “there a secondary cadre” that “passed out pamphlets and drew people into more personal conversations, answering theoretical and often very personal questions as to what they believed and why.”

Two quick concluding thoughts. First, a seed was planted in Wright’s brain. It is unlikely to flourish because chances are that it will not be watered by Wright looking further into what CPCs and Women-Helping Centers do for young girls and women facing crisis pregnancy.

Second, it is precisely these organizations that NARAL has in its crosshairs. NARAL will grind out phony baloney “studies” that “prove” CPCs are misleading pregnant women when, in fact, what they are doing is simply telling truths about abortion that are threatening to NARAL and its sister organizations.

To the Abortion Establishment, abortion is routine, therefore it is beyond good and evil (although they believe it is a good) simply because it is. Would that logic work if the topic were domestic abuse? Should we not condemn spousal abuse just because it is? Of course not.

The pro-life house has many rooms. Some are occupied by legislative activists, others by people who put their energies into electoral politics, still others by those whose mission it is to help women who are pregnant and do not know what to do.

Each does critically important work.

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News Today

Abortion Industry panicky over Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act

Carol Joffe is an old hand in the abortion advocacy business. We’ve written about her more than once [see nrlc.cc/16PnI9y and nrlc.cc/1KEUetU].

But, wow, what a quote she gave to Esme E. Deprez, writing about legislation to ban dismemberment abortions for Bloomberg News.

“Abortion care can be, in the abstract, deeply upsetting and the anti-abortion movement using the word ‘dismemberment’ is not an accident,” said Carole Joffe, a reproductive health sociologist at the University of California at San Francisco. “It puts the pro-choice movement on the defensive.”

Before unpacking that statement, let’s go back to 2012 and something Joffe said then about her pro-abortion colleagues. Here’s what I wrote:

Write at Slate.com Joffe said she had “considerable concerns about what calling [transvaginal] ultrasounds ‘rape’ and ‘unnecessary’ will mean for abortion patients and providers.” Joffe totally opposes these laws, but politely denounced the “wrongheaded” rhetoric that abortion rights supporters have been using to oppose ultrasound laws.

“In the short run, the labeling has sent pro-life legislators running,” Joffe said. “But in the long run, it risks turning a benign and routine part of the abortion procedure into cause for alarm.”

So, #1. Pro-abortionists routinely engage in fear-mongering, synthetic hysteria, and the creation of imaginary plots they attribute to pro-lifers.

#2. The question is not that dismemberment abortions put “the pro-choice movement on the defensive”— the “Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act” clearly has–but why? According to Deprez’s story, which ran today, it’s because (according to opponents) “the bills inaccurately describe what medical literature calls dilation and evacuation”; and because pro-lifers are “deploying grisly language.”

Of the former we need say next to nothing. It’s a rehash of the talk-about-anything-else strategy they deployed against a bill to ban partial-birth abortions. “D&E” abortions are described with accuracy in the bills introduced in Kansas and Oklahoma. We know it and so, too, does the Abortion Industry and its enablers in the “mainstream media.”

What do they mean by “accurate”? It’s when (and only when) a dismemberment abortion is described in antiseptic language, language that is as vague and meaningless as it is misleading and soothing.
To the pro-abortionist, “accurate” means avoiding at all costs what actually happens–pulling a living child apart body part by body part; arms, legs, torso, and head.

Rather to the likes of, say, Tara Culp-Ressler, a dismemberment abortion “involves dilating the cervix and using surgical instruments to remove the fetal and placental tissue.”

That’s right, “fetal and placental tissue.”

We can agree with Culp-Ressler on one thing: nobody would confuse that description with ‘grisly.’

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News Today

Gallup: Americans want stricter abortion laws; satisfaction with current policy plummets

Per Gallup, February 9:

In 2015, 34% of Americans say they are satisfied with current U.S. abortion policies. This is the lowest percentage since Gallup first asked the question in 2001.

Gallup determined Republicans were the most dissatisfied political group, and they want stricter rather than less strict laws:

One factor contributing to the drop in satisfaction with abortion policies is significantly lower satisfaction among Republicans since 2012. From January 2001 to January 2008, after the election of Republican George W. Bush… at least 39% of Republicans each year said they were satisfied with the nation’s abortion policies…. 

However, since 2012, with Democratic President Barack Obama in office, no more than 29% of Republicans have been satisfied with the nation’s abortion policies. And Republicans’ satisfaction is particularly low this year, at 21%, an 8% decline from a year ago. 

[O]f those who are dissatisfied, twice as many prefer stricter rather than less strict laws: 24% want stricter laws, while 12% want current abortion laws to be less strict….

At the same time, no meaningful changes have occurred in Democrats’ and political independents’ views on these questions since Obama became president.

Interestingly, this poll was taken before the 20-week abortion ban debacle in the House. I expect dissatisfaction now is even higher.

Also interesting is that despite all the feminist hang-wringing, Democrats basically want the status quo, and Independents are leaning slightly toward wanting stricter laws.

How does the Democrat/feminist 2012-14 “war on women” meme fit in here? All that can be said is it certainly didn’t help them.

The post Gallup: Americans want stricter abortion laws; satisfaction with current policy plummets appeared first on Jill Stanek.

Measles outbreak draws attention to aborted fetal cells in vaccines

The issue of childhood vaccinations provides a rare meeting place for liberals and conservatives.

There is no shortage of progressives like Robert Kennedy, Jr. who champion the anti-vaccination movement.

But there is also a contingent of conservatives who oppose it as well. As noted by Vox:

They are by no means guided by a singular ideology. They may be the vaccine-hesistant Amish, vaccine-refusing Christian Scientists, Jenny McCarthy acolytes, granola crunchers who don’t want to put “unnatural” things in their kids’ bodies, or simply worried parents who delay immunizing their children.

And there are also pro-lifers.

Until now pro-life opposition to vaccinations hasn’t gotten much airplay.

But the recent measles outbreak has drawn attention to the “anti-vaccine movement,” of which the pro-life contingent opposes those derived from aborted fetal cells. A February 4 Washington Post story belittles that argument while nonetheless corroborating it:

The Internet rumors that claim vaccinations mean having tiny pieces of aborted fetuses injected into your body are flat-out wrong, yet there is a grain of truth in the assertion that vaccinations and abortions are linked. 

Many of the most common vaccines, for rubella and chicken pox for example, are grown in and then removed from cells descended from the cells of aborted fetuses.

Right to Life of Michigan provides a list of vaccines derived from aborted fetuses.

Objections by pro-lifers have historically been moral, although both Protestant and Catholic leaders have pronounced vaccinations permissible, as both RTLMI and WashPo point out.

But reading the “Top 10 Evil Human Experiments” jolts one back to the reality that the lure of health benefits for mankind can never excuse torturing and killing people. And murdered preborn babies obviously never gave permission to use their tissue for vaccinations.

On the other hand, is it moral to expose a pregnant mother to rubella, for instance, and risk either abortion or malformation of her baby by not vaccinating your child?

Obviously, the issue is complicated.

But now, another factor has been added to the mix: Autism.

Autism has been a fear since 1998, when a now retracted study in The Lancet pointed to the mercury-based additive thimerosal in the Measles/Mumps/Rubella (MMR) vaccine.

That fear is repeatedly tamped down as unfounded, but the fact remains, according to webmd.com, that autism has spiked at “an alarming rate” from one of every 2,000 children in the 1970s and 80s to one of every 150 today.

Now, one research group believes the spike can be traced to the addition of aborted fetal cells into vaccines.

Quoting one of my previous blog posts on a study published in September 2014 in the Journal of Public Health:

The implicated vaccines are MMR (measles/mumps/rubella), Varicella (chickenpox), and Hepatitis A. 

Using data from the U.S. government, United Kingdom, Denmark, and Western Australia, researchers found a spike in autism around the world after vaccines using animal cells were replaced by vaccines using aborted fetal cells: 

Autistic disorder birth year change points were identified as 1980.9, 1988.4 and 1996 for the US, 1987 for the UK, 1990.4 for Western Australia, and 1987.5 for Denmark. Change points in these countries corresponded to introduction of or increased doses of human fetal cell line-manufactured vaccines… 

This pattern was repeated in the US, UK, Western Australia and Denmark. Thus, rising autistic disorder prevalence is directly related to vaccines manufactured utilizing human fetal cells. Increased paternal age and DSM revisions were not related to rising autistic disorder prevalence.

Lead researcher Dr. Theresa Deisher noted something more alarming, “Not only are the human fetal contaminated vaccines associated with autistic disorder throughout the world, but also with epidemic childhood leukemia and lymphomas.”

Thanks to abortion, parents are being forced to pick their poison.

The post Measles outbreak draws attention to aborted fetal cells in vaccines appeared first on Jill Stanek.

By Jill Stanek

The suffering brothers and sisters of aborted children

The siblings of aborted children sometimes find it hard to deal with their trauma. (Photo credit: James Dennes on Flickr)

Abortion is anything but a simple choice. It affects not just the child who dies in an unimaginable way. It affects not just the mother who suffers through the abortion or the father who could do nothing to stop it. Abortion affects the family at large – grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and brothers and sisters.

It can be a very strange thought to wonder why you were chosen to live while your brother or sister was chosen for death. Why did you survive? What would your sibling have been like, acted like, looked like? Would he or she have resembled you? Become your best friend? Years of memories you should have had were wiped out before you ever knew that your brother or sister should have existed. Indeed, abortion is anything but simple for the brothers and sisters of aborted children.

Barb, who has worked with the AAA Center for Pregnancy Counseling for nearly thirty years, writes this:

“Abortion teaches children that they have worth because they were conceived in the right conditions and at the right time; that they have value because their parents want them. Up to 50% of all American children have lost a brother or a sister to abortion, making it much more likely that they live with a performance view of love: I was born because I was wanted therefore I better perform so they will continue to love me.”

Barb also talks about the reality of survivor’s guilt among siblings of aborted children and about the horrors of selective reduction, in which one or more babies in a multiple pregnancy (twins, triplets, quadruplets) are selected for death and aborted while the rest are allowed to live. Mark I. Evans, a doctor known for doing selective reductions, explains the heartache from his own perspective. Imagine the thoughts of surviving siblings once they discover what happened to their brothers or sisters, right next to them in the womb:

“It’s a very hard procedure, because the baby is moving, and you are chasing it. That is what is very emotional — when the baby is moving and you are chasing it.”

Angie (not her real name) is the sister of two aborted children. She was the oldest child and the only girl allowed to be born. Her only full biological sibling was aborted just a few short years after Angie’s birth. Angie’s mother then went on to have two sons – Angie’s half-brothers. They were five and nine years younger than her. When Angie’s mother got pregnant for the last time, she decided she was too tired to have a fourth child. So she flew to New York, where elective abortion was legal at the time, and aborted Angie’s last sibling.

Angie will always have to wonder why she was allowed to live when her brother or sister was subjected to a crude back-alley death. Would she have ever had a sister? Would her real father have been able to stay in her life if her full brother or sister had lived? What would it have been like to have had a sibling close in age to her; to grow up with as a friend? Would she have been a second mother to her youngest sibling, just like she was to her youngest living brother? What made the difference? Why was she saved, when others died?

While Angie may never get all of her answers, it’s important that she – and other men and women like her – find an outlet for their painful questions. There are several wonderful healing ministries for men and women who have experienced abortion, but it’s much harder to find a support group for siblings of aborted babies.

Renee – an oldest daughter just like Angie – shares these sentiments on her blog, Surviving Sibling. She writes about her very personal story – her struggle with her brother’s untimely death, her love for her mother, and both her and her mother’s decisions to get involved in the pro-life movement.

“Apparently she chose that night [the night of her mother’s abortion], because going out, then, would not likely arouse suspicion. Years later it brought me such pain to think that that night before she left, when I gave her a hug, I also hugged my little brother inside, but the next time I hugged her, it was just her alone. How sad she must have been. And how innocent and unaware I was. …

“For a while after finding out, I had such a deep sadness that I could not identify at first. I felt like I did when I lost one of my nursing home friends, but nobody had recently died. What was up? Then I realized it was my brother. I was grieving the loss of a little sibling, that up until then had not existed (that I was aware of). How strange. How could I possibly feel so strongly for someone I never met, or even knew about? As I mentioned before, I am not an emotional person, so these feelings were extra unappreciated. I felt stupid for grieving 11 years later. He was long gone, I shouldn’t feel anything. But, that’s not how it works. Over time, I felt that sadness less frequently, but still, 6 years later I feel twinges at times. I have also, at times, felt completely at peace with our situation, and at other times, have seriously forgotten about him. That, I believe, is often a defense mechanism.”

Renee has decided to reach out to other siblings of aborted children through her blog and through two Facebook groups she’s created: Abortion Hurts Siblings and Others and a “secret” group called “I Lost a Sibling to Abortion.” If you are suffering from the loss of a sibling through abortion – or still processing it – check out Renee’s blog and Facebook groups. Losing a sibling through abortion is a legitimate cause for grief and pain, and it’s important to find healing as much as possible.

Abortion Recovery International also helps siblings of aborted children find healing. You can call them at 1-800-395-HELP.

We must admit that abortion causes only suffering for the brothers and sisters of an aborted child – whether they come before or after the abortion.
As Barb says:

“I think one of the most difficult things for me to face is a woman who is attempting to justify an abortion for the sake of her other children. I always want to tell them…the best thing for her little ones is to have a brother or a sister. In fact, explaining to sons and daughters a few years in the future as to why they aborted their sibling will probably be the most difficult thing they will ever do[.]”

Editor’s note. This appeared at liveactionnews.org.

By Kristi Burton Brown via NRL News Today

Pro-abortionists scramble to try to neutralize impact of the truth about dismemberment abortions

Groundbreaking legislation recently introduced in Kansas that would protect unborn children from dismemberment abortions is causing quite the stir among abortion advocates.

A recent article by Tara Culp-Ressler featured on ThinkProgress described the legislation as “the next anti-abortion strategy lurking around the corner.” According to the author, the bill is “cloaked in emotional language” and filled with “evocative details.”

But it’s not the language of the bill that elicits strong reactions; it’s the reality of dismemberment abortions themselves. It’s unthinkable that in a civilized society we would permit our youngest members to have their tiny limbs pulled and twisted apart.

These are the same little ones we can see plain as day on an ultrasound with a beating heart, unique facial features, and tiny hands and feet. These reminders resonate with our most basic humanity.

Culp-Ressler’s article quotes Dr. Anne Davis, the consulting medical director for Physicians for Reproductive Health and an OB-GYN who provides abortions. Davis exclaimed, “Immediately, when I heard the title of these bills, I had to take a deep breath and calm down.”

“This is a familiar tactic, similar to the other types of bans we’ve seen. It seems the strategy is to take language that provokes emotional responses and then to argue that, because there’s an emotional reaction to something, it should be illegal,” she continued.

Elizabeth Nash, the states issue manager at the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, also took issue with the language: “Clearly this is an effort to take some of the tactics of the past — using very graphic descriptions and inflammatory language — to ban access to abortion.”

Yet, abortionists themselves note the gruesome nature of dismemberment abortions.

Dr. Warren Hern, a Colorado abortionist who has performed numerous D&E abortions and has written a textbook on abortion procedures, has stated “there is no possibility of denial of an act of destruction by the operator [of a D&E abortion]. It is before one’s eyes. The sensation of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current.”

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy offered this description of the D&E abortion technique:

“After sufficient dilation [of the cervix], a doctor inserts grasping forceps through the woman’s cervix and into the uterus to grab a living fetus. The doctor grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn apart limb by limb. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off.”

In place of a straightforward description, ThinkProgress chose this vague description: “It [D&E abortion] involves dilating the cervix and using surgical instruments to remove the fetal and placental tissue.”

While nothing is technically inaccurate about that description, it purposefully omits the key details about what happens to the unborn child, skipping over the dismemberment process entirely.

The article also questioned the validity of a medical illustration of a D&E abortion.

The writer refers to the graphic as National Right to Life’s “renderings” of a D&E abortion. But in fact, that graphic is an off-the-shelf image from the standard catalog of images produced by Nucleus Medical Art, a leading provider (probably the leading provider) of the technical medical illustrations used in every area of medical education. The drawing was not commissioned by NRLC, nor altered by NRLC. The image is NMA’s depiction of a D&E abortion at 23 weeks LMP (21 weeks fetal age).
But nothing needs to be changed to shock the conscience. A straightforward graphic of that a D&E abortion at 23 weeks speaks for itself.

Dismemberment abortions, like partial-birth abortions, tear on the public’s heartstrings because it forces us to face a horrifying reality. No longer is abortion a social or political issue, but a human issue, which results in the brutal deaths of the youngest members of the human family.

Science shows that within 3-4 weeks after fertilization, the growing unborn child’s heart begins its first beats. By 6 weeks, the child has detectable brainwaves and a complete skeletal system. A week later, the child has complete fingers, toes and ears, and by 8 weeks all organs are formed and functioning. By 20 weeks, the unborn child has the capability to feel pain.

Dr. George Flesh, a former abortionist, wrote,

“Tearing a developed fetus apart, limb by limb, is an act of depravity that society should not permit. We cannot afford such a devaluation of human life, nor the desensitization of medical personnel it requires. This is not based on what the fetus might feel but on what we should feel in watching an exquisite, partly formed human being being dismembered.”

It’s well past time that our society stands up and protects its youngest and most vulnerable from the violence of dismemberment abortions.

By Andrew Bair, NRL News Today

U.S. House votes to repeal ObamaCare ... again, Dold one of 3 GOPers to oppose

The U.S. House voted 239-186 to repeal Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act with no Democrat votes in support. Two Illinois Republicans sent out explanations for their votes immediately after casting them.

Republican Illinois Congressman John Shimkus (IL-15) supported the measure.

“The reality is that the President’s upending of our health insurance system has hurt more Americans than it has helped,” said Shimkus.

“On a family level, millions of Americans have lost plans they liked and were promised they could keep while others have been forced to pay hundreds of dollars more just to keep seeing their doctor,” Shimkus continued. “For employees and their employers, Obamacare’s costly mandates have led to cutbacks in hours, wages and hiring.”

Republican Illinois Congressman Bob Dold (IL-10) was one of three GOPers that opposed it, along with freshmen Reps. John Katko of New York and Bruce Poliquin of Maine.

“The people of the 10^th District sent me to Congress to advance solutions, not sound bites, to the problems we face.   Among the issues that I believe congress must urgently address are the rising premiums and deductibles under the Affordable Care Act, along with the law’s massive cuts to Medicare programs and plan cancellations that have limited choices in healthcare.  I have always maintained that the Affordable Care Act was the wrong approach for America’s healthcare system and opposed its passage from the start.  However, the only way we are ever going to move beyond simply talking about the law’s many flaws and finally deliver solutions to the American people is through bipartisan reforms that can pass both chambers of congress and receive the President’s signature.

“Casting yet another symbolic vote for full repeal of the law, without any replacement legislation, simply distracts us from the work that must be done to drive costs down, restore access to care and make healthcare work for everyone.”

Illinois Review will post the Illinois delegation roll call as soon as its available. The bill now proceeds to the U.S. Senate. It is unknown how U.S. Senator Mark Kirk will vote on the measure.

Senator Dick Durbin has promised to oppose it. President Obama promises to veto it.

Source: Illinois Review

2014 shows Planned Parenthood decline but gov't funds still flow

Planned Parenthood is declining even though the federal government continues to pump a huge amount of taxpayer dollars into the organization.

American Life League's STOPP International has released a survey of Planned Parenthood facilities in the United States. Spokesman Jim Sedlak describes what the organization found.

Sedlak, Jim (American Life League)“During the year 2014, Planned Parenthood continued to close centers at a record rate,” he says. “In 2014, they closed 34 health centers in 19 different states, which means it now has a total of 668 centers around the nation.”

That's down from 938 in 1995. Out of those centers, 337 perform surgical or medical abortions. The number of Planned Parenthood facilities nationwide has declined dramatically since 1973.

“Planned Parenthood maintains its position as the nation's largest abortion chain as it now operates 45.6 percent of all of the surgical-medical abortion facilities in the country,” he tells OneNewsNow.
As far as tax revenue for 2014, government funding has decreased, but only slightly compared to the overall amount directed to Planned Parenthood.

“The government reduced funding by $12 million, but it still gives them over $530 million - so the decrease was not much,” he says.

Most of the decrease came from state tax revenue. American Life League's goal is to put an end to Planned Parenthood, and Sedlak contends the report shows the campaign is having the intended impact.

South Dakota has become the fifth state with only one Planned Parenthood abortion facility in operation, and North Dakota is the only state where medical services are not offered by Planned Parenthood.

By: Charlie Butts, OneNewsNow.com

Planned Parenthood: Our study shows abortions are totally safe - NOT!

A pro-life group is fighting abortion giant Planned Parenthood for claiming abortion protocols by the Food and Drug Administration are not needed.

The protocols, if followed, are designed to provide the optimum level of safety for women doing chemical abortions. Planned Parenthood, after conducting its own study, claims there are no concerns.

Mailee Smith, a spokesperson for Americans United for Life, says the study was done using only Planned Parenthood's own patients – and only some of them.

"There is data missing for 45 percent of the women who underwent chemical abortions," Smith says. "That's a significant percentage and we don't know if those women had multiple chemical abortions, and so that skews the data considerably."

Another 15 percent never reported back to Planned Parenthood, so it's not known if they had complications.

Planned Parenthood 620x300The study is being used to counter states that want laws to follow FDA protocol.

"The study actually does no comparisons between the FDA-approved protocol and their misuse of the drugs," says Smith, who is an attorney. "They only look at their misuse of the drugs. And so there's no proper comparison between what the FDA has said is the only proper way to administer the drugs."

Smith alleges that Planned Parenthood's goal is not about women's health but the abortion business's financial gain.

By Charlie Butts OneNewsNow.com

Abortion proponents in uproar over pro-life handcuff mailer

The abortion lobby has taken note of Pro-Life Action League’s mailer project and doesn’t like it.
On January 22, the 42nd anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v Wade decision, the League sent a mailer to every abortion clinic in the U.S.

Inside was a pair of plastic handcuffs, a photo of Oklahoma City abortionist Naresh Patel being arrested last month, and a note asking, “Could you be next?”

The note encouraged abortion workers to get out of the business for their own good and included PLAL’s Eric Scheidler’s personal cell phone number.

The list of abortionists and workers who have been arrested in the past four decades since abortion was been legal and supposedly moved off the back alley is as long as the reasons: extortion, tax evasion, sex abuse, drug abuse, illegally prescribing and selling drugs, murder, negligence, on and on. criminality.

And it makes sense. Those in the business of killing babies for a living have already demonstrated rather gaping character flaws. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to conclude they’ll commit other crimes.

But abortion proponents are up in arms. Quoting Planned Parenthood executive VP Dawn Laguens from a Cosmopolitan article devoted to the mailer:

“I think it reads like what it is: intimidation and harassment and a very implied threat,” she said. Abortion opponents “want to outlaw abortion and put women and doctors in jail. I think they’re sending about as clear a message as they can that that’s exactly what they want to do.”

How PLAL’s mailer could be construed as a threat to lock up women is a stretch, but Cosmo wasn’t alone. Kudos to BreitbartUnmasked.com for adding an illustration for flourish….

leftinalabama.com saw menace in the mailer as well, also accusing PLAL of supporting China’s one-child policy by buying Chinese-manufactured handcuffs – really.

I asked Scheidler, why all the attention? It’s not as if pro-life activists haven’t done similar mailings before.

“One reason is they think it makes us look like we’re trying to intimidate someone,” said Scheidler. “But if you think about it for more than a second – toy handcuffs and a signed letter including a personal cell number – a threat of what? If you’re committing crimes and I know about it, then I am going to turn you into the police; that’s not a threat.”

Eric noted the League gets pro-abortion counterparts – mailers with red coat hangers on them.
“We just laugh,” said Scheidler.

But PLAL’s mailer also hit close to home.

“I think they have a guilty conscience,” noted Scheidler. “Arrests like that of Naresh Patel put them in such a bad light. It exposes them for who they are. It has been really surprising to have two abortion providers actually call me as a result of the mailer – a pro-life activist – to try to justify what they’re doing.”

One, Anise Burrell from Summit Medical Center in Detroit, argued with Scheidler on the phone for 10 minutes.

“She kept repeating, ‘This is an ugly cruel world’ she was sparing children from being born into,” said Scheidler.

 

Abortion industry types know mailers such as PLAL’s may have the intended impact and prompt abortionists and workers to walk away. Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards tried to mitigate the damage in a tweet…

Who's preventing more unintended pregnancies: healthcare providers or anti-abortion activists mailing them handcuffs? http://t.co/dXMQ5t1nlJ
— Cecile Richards (@CecileRichards) January 29, 2015

Scheidler has indeed received calls and texts from workers wanting out.
But there is a flip side.

“I’ve received countless crank calls and crank texts,” noted Scheidler, adding someone complained to Facebook about him yesterday, which led to his account being suspended for three hours.
Then there are real the real harassers.

The post Abortion proponents in uproar over pro-life handcuff mailer appeared first on Jill Stanek.

Ban on Dismemberment Abortions among Right to Life Movement’s top agenda items for 2015

National Right to Life President Carol Tobias

One of the great humanitarian achievements of the Right to Life movement was the exposé of partial-birth abortion by National Right to Life. Our massive public education campaigns and our innovative laws to ban partial-birth abortion moved millions of Americans to take a second look at abortion, and millions of them switched to the pro-life side.

One of those who was shocked by partial-birth abortion wrote the majority decision in upholding the national ban on that procedure that we passed in 2003: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Kennedy had a record of indecision on abortion. But the majority decision he wrote in the PBA case showed a man appalled by the brutality of partial-birth abortion, in which an innocent unborn baby is induced to delivery and then killed by stabbing her in the head just as she emerges from the womb. Kennedy provided the decisive vote to ban this practice, which remains banned throughout the United States today.

But Kennedy didn’t only write about partial-birth abortion. He compared it to another abortion method that is so brutal it is truly hard to write about: Dismemberment Abortions.

Imagine a society in which it is perfectly legal to take an unborn baby, who often is developed enough to feel the most excruciating pain, and then to coldly and purposefully pull that child apart – dismembering her – body part by body part; arms, legs, torso, and head.

Nobody would believe a civilized society would do that. Right? Wrong.

We do that right here in the United States of America. In all 50 states.

Today, National Right to Life announces the 2015 Legislative Agenda for the Right to Life Movement. And along with passing the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act, we are determined this year to bring the tragic issue of Dismemberment Abortions to the public’s attention, beginning with passage of the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, which has already been introduced in the Kansas legislature

Your support for National Right to Life exposed the brutality of partial-birth abortion. You got it banned. Your support moved a nation to switch in polls to majority pro-life. Now your support is needed to educate about and ban the unspeakable evil of killing unborn babies by tearing them limb from limb.

By Carol Tobias, President, National Right to Life, via NRL News Today

Pampers releases new ad celebrating babies – born and preborn

This month, Pampers released a new ad: “A Newborn Journey of Firsts.” Pampers has been known in the past for its beautiful, visually stirring ads that broadcast a pro-life message. A previous ad called babies miracles who “deserve protection” and referred to a baby on an ultrasound screen as a “he” instead of an “it.”

This time, Pampers’s ad — which has already received over 860,000 views on YouTube — opens as a mother lovingly caresses her pregnant belly. The scene switches to an incredible ultrasound where a baby is moving in the womb and, as Pampers puts it, is saying her “first hello.”

Below the video, Pampers writes:

From the first scan to the first cuddle, every first is significant no matter how small they seem. For both baby and mom, it’s a journey full of firsts. And there’s nothing more rewarding than experiencing each and every one together.

And indeed, even though the moment of a baby’s first existence —fertilization — is so small that it can’t be seen by the naked eye, it’s incredibly significant. From that moment, a new, unique, living human being has been created. That human being will never exist again in a different body. All he or she needs is the opportunity to grow and develop. This is the same opportunity that a newborn, a preschooler, and an adolescent need.

Even the liberal Huffington Post agrees, in an article featuring the Pampers ad, that “as soon as fertilization occurs, your baby will begin undergoing thousands of changes over the next 40 weeks.” Note that “fertilization” is named as “your baby’s” first stage of life.



Celebrate, with Pampers, the journey of a baby’s firsts. And see the beauty of human life at its various stages. As the Huffington Post sums it up, “new parents and their babies are in this thing together.”

Yes, from the very first “first moment” of fertilization.

By Kristi Burton Brown, NRL News Today

Editor’s note. This appeared at http://liveactionnews.org/pampers-releases-new-ad-celebrating-babies-born-and-unborn/#more-59021

Planned Parenthood 2013-2014 Annual Report: Pro-Abortion, Prosperous, and Proud

Despite the closing of some clinics (usually in pursuit of greater profits) and constant complaints about “assaults on reproductive rights,” Planned Parenthood again made hundreds of millions last year off of abortion as the country’s largest “abortion provider,” which is today responsible for about a third of all America’s abortions.

PPFA’s overall $1.3 billion income for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014, was a record. Put in perspective, according to 2013 figures from the World Bank, a country with a gross domestic product this high would rank ahead of Greenland, Grenada, Tonga, Micronesia and several other independent countries.

To be clear the aforementioned $1.3 billion in income is not all directly from abortion, but a substantial portion of it is and a lot more is indirectly connected. (See below.)

According to Planned Parenthood’s 2013-2014 Annual Report, “Our Health, Our Decisions, Our Moment,”  clinics affiliated with the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) performed 327,653 abortions in 2013. This is up slightly from 2012’s 327,166, but just a bit below 2011’s record 333,964.

The stability of Planned Parenthood’s abortion count – between 324,000 and 334,000 since 2008 – is remarkable, given that national figures for abortions have been in a nosedive since 2008; they have dropped 13% in just the last three years. Planned Parenthood’s ability to continue to prosper in a “down market” is a testament to PPFA’s unchallenged role as the overwhelmingly dominant provider of abortion and its powerful political connections.

Abortion income: direct and indirect

At the going rate for standard surgical abortion at 10 weeks ($451 is the figure from Guttmacher for 2009), the 327,653 abortions performed by Planned Parenthood would represent at least $147.7 million. That does not account for the greater cost of chemical abortions, which are a big part of Planned Parenthood’s total and are heavily promoted and widely available at its clinics.

Nor does the figure take into consideration that many PPFA clinics offer considerably more expensive second trimester abortions (over a hundred clinics, with more than a dozen of those offering abortions at 20 weeks or more), meaning that $147.7 million is likely an extremely conservative figure.

Not often talked about is that when women come into Planned Parenthood for abortion, they are also sold pregnancy tests, contraceptives, and may be tested and treated for sexually transmitted diseases or infections. These will be counted and costed as separate “services” but all may be connected to the abortion visit.

For all their talk about “choice” and allowing women to make their own determinations with regard to their pregnancies, the services such women receive at PPFA clinics are decidedly one-sided. According to the annual report, the breakdown of services rendered specifically to pregnant women shows Planned Parenthood’s clear institutional bias: prenatal care 5.4%, adoption 0.5%, abortion 94.1%.

Looked at another way, these figures tell us nearly 19 out of every 20 pregnant women who got these services at Planned Parenthood were sold abortions. And notice that abortions outnumbered adoption referrals by a more than a 174 to one.

Using Tax Dollars, Angling For More

Despite of (and sadly, in some places, perhaps because of) its clear abortion agenda, Planned Parenthood continues to receive an inordinate amount of its funding from taxpayers. We learn from the report that 41% of its revenues are from “Government Health Services Grants & Reimbursements.”

These are services or programs paid for by local, state, or federal governments. While law prevents federal dollars from paying directly for abortion (those dollars mean more private funds available for that purpose, though), many state and local governments do fund abortions, helping to keep the abortion giant running.

PPFA is fully aware of the significance of its government ties, seen not only in the dollars and energy expended in recent elections, but in their concerted effort to promote ObamaCare, which could deliver them customers for years to come.

The annual report notes that Planned Parenthood reached “more than 1.7 million people in 18 cities across eight states” with information about their eligibility for new health insurance and says it was able to help over 100,000 fill out their applications. It also noted, in the same sentence, that it had registered 15,000 people to vote.

Abortion Defense and Advocacy

Planned Parenthood bills itself not only as “the nation’s leading reproductive health care provider” but also adds “and advocate.” It is clear from this latest annual report that they take that “advocate” role seriously, and that the defense and promotion of abortion is a central part of that advocacy.

While Planned Parenthood’s abortion agenda was being thwarted in many statehouses across the country, the group trumpets the claim that “We won court victories protecting abortion access.” They have in mind restrictions placed on chemical abortions in Arizona that enforced the protocol approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and a rule in Iowa requiring physicians to be present when chemical abortions are prescribed (which is not the case with so-called “web-cam abortions” where the abortionist only interacts with his patient over the internet). And appeals were pending at the time of the report.

Planned Parenthood also hailed a federal judge’s decision on an Alabama law that would have required abortionists to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, a reasonable regulation designed to insure the abortionist be able to accompany his “patient” to a local hospital when emergencies arise.

What is remarkable is not that Planned Parenthood temporarily won in some courts what they could not win in the legislatures – this is, after all, the legacy of Roe v. Wade – but that they were only partially, and one hopes, temporarily successful in that regard.

The photo from one section of “Our Health, Our Decisions, Our Moment” features a woman wearing a “Stand with Texas Women” T-Shirt, a state where Planned Parenthood invested enormous amounts of money and publicity. Their political star—pro-abortion state Senator Wendy Davis—was obliterated in her race for governor, and the courts are still listening with varying amounts of skepticism to a flurry of lawsuits filed against Texas’ H.B.2. Planned Parenthood also says they’re “pushing back” against other laws in Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin where they have seen limited success.

Aiming for the Next Generation

Planned Parenthood touts the existence of 200 college campus groups, 182% more than they had just three years ago, and the deployment of 1,503 “peer educators” – young advocates for Planned Parenthood’s agenda – to reach “nearly 100,000 of their peers across the country.

A quote featured in this section shows where this outreach is headed. After “Dakota” mentioned learning about Planned Parenthood when visiting the clinic with her mother and eventually getting involved in the peer educator program there, she shares, “My plan is to go to medical school and become an abortion provider. Being part of Planned Parenthood gives me the space to do this work.”

Just how saturated the report is with spin is made apparent in the section proudly proclaiming that “We fought abortion stigma in popular culture.” The discussion here centers around the awful film “Obvious Child” which featured the story of a woman unapologetically getting an abortion. It was supposed to be a comedy. Planned Parenthood calls it “edgy, hip, funny, remarkably honest” though there was little-to-no honesty about either the humanity of the “obvious child” or the psychological pain that follows many women after their abortion.

Planned Parenthood hailed the movie as a “major breakthrough” when it came out, but failed to highlight the integral role it played in bringing the story to screen. Now here in the annual report PPFA mentions how they “worked for years with the film’s writer, director, and producers to shape the story, helped them film it in a Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic health center, and oversaw its release to widespread critical and commercial success.”

While there were some of the usual media sycophants that gave “Obvious Child” the politically correct praise that might be expected, it is a far stretch to call the film a “commercial success.” According to Box Office Mojo, the domestic total gross for the film was just $3,123,963. The highest it ever ranked in any week of its release was #19. For the year, it came in #158, behind “The Lunchbox,” “Vampire Academy,” and the 30th anniversary re-release of “Ghostbusters.”

Like much of the rest of Planned Parenthood’s talk about abortion and the unborn child, there’s more spin than substance to their claims.

Leaner … and Meaner

Planned Parenthood does not mention how many clinics it closed or affiliates it merged in the year, but notes the “25 percent increase in productivity” that followed efforts to help “35 affiliates strengthen their operations.”

Planned Parenthood claims to have opened 10 new “health centers,” though one of the three it specifically mentions (Tacoma, WA) appears to be a relocation and another (Fayetteville, NC) seems to be a mega-clinic that opened in 2009.

PPFA affiliates all over the country have been building and opening giant new megaclinics over the past ten years, massive modern new facilities that can not only process many more abortions a day, but also can meet new health codes being passed by many state legislatures.

So, in a nutshell, even as the culture around them grows increasingly uncomfortable with their signature product, Planned Parenthood is as committed to abortion as it ever was and is looking for ways to defend and expand its abortion empire.

By Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D. via NRL News Today

Editor’s note. This appeared in the current issue of National Right to Life News. You can read the entire 39-page edition at www.nrlc.org/uploads/NRLNews/NRLNewsJan2015.pdf

January 22 and A Matter of Life

NRLC President Carol Tobias (left) co-hosting “A Matter of Life” with Maryann Lawhon.

Last week, I told you about the opportunity I had to co-host a show, broadcast live on YouTube, on January 22,m the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade. This second annual show, “A Matter of Life,” from River Song Productions (RSP), was set up to interview leaders in the pro-life movement, interspersed with interviews on the Washington mall with attendees of the March for Life.

Probably the most unusual (and encouraging) aspect of this show is that the production crew consisted almost entirely of Pennsylvania high school students (and their teacher) doing this as a project for their broadcast communications class. (A few former students, who are now in broadcasting in college, came to help with the event.)

These high school students operated the cameras and other equipment, conducted the interviews from the rally site, and coordinated the frequent switches between the rally interviews and the in-studio guests.

I joined the in-studio interviews as co-host with Maryann Lawhon, executive producer of the video, “The Voice of John.” Maryann is a nurse who, in 1977, stumbled upon a live baby, the result of an abortion, who had been left to die on a cold metal table. She held the baby and baptized him before he died, telling him she would be his voice and let the world know what had happened to him. I met Maryann last year when I was interviewed on the show and was thrilled when she asked me co-host this year’s show.

RSP reserved a room in the hotel that was used as a base of March for Life operations. Because of problems with internet service in the hotel, those watching live had to wait a little bit before the show actually went live, as scheduled.

Our first guest, Congressman Lou Barletta (R-Pa.), was on his way back to his district in Pennsylvania and participating by phone. Congressman Barletta told us he was pleased to vote yes on the No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act which passed the House earlier that day, and that he was a proud co-sponsor of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

We then had the pleasure of interviewing Donna Harrison, M.D., executive director of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. She addressed the problem of premature births as a result of previous abortions, as well as the link between abortion and breast cancer.

Dr. Harrison was followed by such notables as Kelsey Hazzard, president of Secular Pro-Life, who reminded us that the pro-life movement is not monolithic, and Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, who discussed the dual emotions of mourning for the loss of unborn babies while we rejoice in the beauty and gift of Life.

We also chatted with Bryan Kemper of Stand True, Kristen Hawkins of Students for Life, and many others.
The 3 1/2 hour show is available for viewing on YouTube at A Matter of Life.

By Carol Tobias, President, National Right to Life, NRL News Today

Alex Guinness, Obi Wan Kenobi, and abortion

(Left) Alec Guinness as Obi Wan Kenobi

Those of us old enough to remember seeing the original “Star Wars” (at the theatres in 1977 are not the least bit surprised that it seems as if the trailer for the latest installment (“Star Wars: Episode VII–The Force Awakens”) has been seen by half the people in the known universe.

The list of “iconic” characters—including those will not be in Episode VII—is as lengthy as almost any movie you could think of. One of those, of course, was Jedi Master Obi Wan Kenobi (played by the late, great Alec Guinness).

I had not read much about Guinness and did not even know that he had written an autobiography, “Blessings in Disguise.” So it was not until I read Fr. Dwight Longenecker’s “Abortion and Obi-Wan Kenobi” that I learned Guinness’ own back story.

Here’s the beginning to Fr. Longenecker’s great read:

In 1914 Agnes Cuff, a flighty and unstable young woman with few prospects and little money found herself pregnant. The father didn’t want to be involved. She was alone, shamed, poor and pregnant.

Today she would be encouraged to get herself to an abortion clinic and end the unwanted pregnancy.

Instead a little boy was born.

Fr. Longenecker gives his readers some of the fascinating background details. For example, that “Alec Guinness” were actually his first two names— the place for his last name (and the column where his father’s name would be listed) were blank.

“If abortion had been easy and legal in England in 1914,” Fr. Longenecker writes, “the world would never have experienced the witty, smart, subtle art and the quiet, steady witness of Alec Guinness….…and Star Wars would have had an enormous void.”

But, of course, Guinness’ individual story, while important, is used to illustrate a larger part. He was important, whether his birth was timely or not.

Among the 57 million+ lost lives just in the United States since 1973, who knows what greatness was lost? “What advances in science, medicine, technology, business, the arts and sport might there have been?” Fr. Longenecker writes.

I would just add that, of course, Fr. Longenecker is not saying that we have to make a major contribution to “justify” our existence. Our right to life is something we are endowed with–even if the legal culture sees otherwise—not something given to us or “earned” by us.

It is ours not because we achieve greatness but simply because we are members of the human family.

By: Dave Andrusko, NRL News Today

Washington Post’s agenda clear in its slanted coverage of March for Life

 

You would think—or maybe not—that just to change things up, the Washington Post might actually treat a massive “March for Life” in an even-handed way. Or at least acknowledge, in some fashion, that no movement brings anywhere near the number of people each year to Washington, DC to peacefully, legally make its case.

I do not mean I would expect something beyond the obligatory “tens of thousands of abortion opponents” figure. Not so long ago the Post would trivialize a rally which routinely brings in 100,000 to 200,000 participants —or more —by talking about “thousands of abortion opponents.” So I suppose that’s progress.

But I really, honestly wonder if a massive numbers of a group came to the nation’s capital that the Post liked (as opposed to despising), how would they describe the situation if a tiny number of opponents showed up to counter-demonstrate?

Would they, for example, run one small, close-up photo in the print edition that showed some pro-abortionists, who had temporarily blocked the March, at close proximity to the police with the caption, “There were heated exchanges in front of the Supreme Court building on Thursday, and some who were in the street were arrested”?

To the unwary, you might think that there were roughly equal numbers of pro-lifers and pro-abortionists—or so few pro-lifers it’s not worth showing a photo of them. Since the pro-abortionists are not identified as such, you might even think that pro-lifers were some of those arrested in front of the Supreme Court. In fact, it was members of the estimated 75 pro-abortionists—typically foul-mouthed and confrontational—who were arrested, which was not even mentioned in the story!

As these things go, the account itself could not have been much worse. After the standard “there sure were a lot of young people there” (the gigantic crowd, in fact, was overwhelmingly comprised of younger men and women), the reporter’s agenda quickly surfaced: the not-so-subtle thrust that other groups with their own agendas other than pro-life had marched (as if anyone would have tried to stop them).

Indeed, the reporter sought out representatives of those who see abortion as only “one” issue. It’s kind of a “if you can beat them, dilute their impact” strategy.

And so it goes with the Washington Post: Fair and balanced? Not.

By Luis Zaffirini, NRL News Today