National Survey of Prolife Pregnancy Centers Shows Major Influence of Ultrasound on a Mother’s Choice for Life

The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), a national legal network of prolife pregnancy centers, has unveiled the results of a survey of its medical members indicating the powerful and effective impact of ultrasound upon an abortion-minded patient empowering her to choose life.

NIFLA has a membership of more than 1,350 pregnancy resource centers, of which 1050 currently operate as medical clinics providing ultrasound confirmation of pregnancy to patients who are abortion-minded or abortion-vulnerable. NIFLA’s medical clinics were asked to report the number of ultrasounds provided in 2013 to such abortion-at-risk patients and what percentage of such patients decided against abortion and for life.

Four-hundred and ten (410) of NIFLA’s medical membership (less than one-half) reported providing 75,318 ultrasound confirmations of pregnancy in 2013 on patients identified as either abortion-minded or abortion-vulnerable. Of these abortion at risk patients, 58,634 chose to carry to term, indicating that 78% of those mothers who saw an ultrasound image of their unborn child before deciding about abortion chose life.

When asked whether ultrasound confirmation of pregnancy has a positive impact upon a mother considering abortion to choose life 83.5% said “Absolutely,” 15.76% said “More than likely,” and 0.74% said, “Only a small impact.”

“These results show conclusively what we have known for many years. When a prolife pregnancy center becomes a medical clinic and provides ultrasound confirmation of pregnancy the vast majority of patients receiving such services will choose life,” said attorney Thomas Glessner, President of NIFLA.

“Planned Parenthood has tried over the years to downplay the significance of ultrasound examinations for a pregnant mother considering abortion,” continued Glessner. “However, the results of this survey, which is the largest national sampling to date on this issue, conclusively show that when a mother considering abortion sees an ultrasound image of her baby she will, more than likely choose life.”

Glessner also noted that the sampling was from less than one-half of NIFLA’s current medical membership. NIFLA will be conducting this survey on an annual basis.

Source: National Institute of Family and Life Advocates Press Release

Touchdown! Notre Dame scores big on HHS mandate at Supreme Court

In a potentially groundbreaking decision, the Supreme Court nullified a federal court ruling against the University of Notre Dame on the HHS contraception mandate and sent it back for reconsideration by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The university is “gratified” by the decision, said vice president of public affairs and communications, Paul J. Browne. They had requested the case be remanded by the Court in light of the Hobby Lobby decision last June.

“Notre Dame continues to challenge the federal mandate as an infringement on our fundamental right to the free exercise of our Catholic faith,” Browne said.

Notre Dame is one of well over 100 non-profit institutions to sue the federal government over a mandate requiring that employers provide health care plans covering contraception, sterilization and some drugs that can cause early abortions.

After the initial mandate was announced, hundreds of organizations, churches, and business across the country voiced their religious objection. The government subsequently developed an “accommodation,” under which non-profit employers who religiously objected to offering such coverage could send a notice of objection to a third party who would then offer the coverage.

Notre Dame and other plaintiffs have argued that they would still be violating their religious convictions by cooperating in such a way with the contraception coverage, which they believe to be immoral.

The university’s request for an injunction offering protection from the mandate was initially denied, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling last February. The university then appealed its case to the Supreme Court.

The contraception mandate “violated our religious beliefs by requiring Notre Dame’s participation in a regulatory scheme to provide abortion-inducing products, contraceptives, and sterilization,” Browne stated.

Last June, the Supreme Court issued a major ruling on the contraception mandate, saying that the federal regulation cannot be applied to “closely-held corporations” – including arts and crafts retailer Hobby Lobby – if their owners have religious objections to it.

Now, the Supreme Court is instructing the appeals court to reconsider Notre Dame's case, taking into account the Hobby Lobby ruling in support of religious freedom.

Some observers said the Court’s Monday decision could foreshadow this religious freedom protection being reinforced more broadly for other religious employers as well.

The Becket Fund, which supported the university in a “friend of the court” brief, called Monday’s ruling “a major blow” to the mandate and a “strong signal” that the Court will uphold the religious freedom of institutions like Notre Dame in similar cases.

The ruling is all the more important because the university was the only non-profit organization without legal protection from the mandate, the Becket Fund added. The government was using the Seventh Circuit’s denial of an injunction to argue against other non-profit organizations who were suing, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor.

Source: CNA/EWTN News

Pro-lifers stand against 'incompatible with life' diagnosis

Charlotte Lozier Institute has endorsed a pro-life initiative before the United Nations in hopes of countering a common misdiagnosis that often ends in the murder of an unborn child.

In recent years, upwards of 90 percent of babies with developmental problems in the womb have been aborted based on medical advice and diagnostic tests. Today the Charlotte Lozier Institute is joining a global initiative - sponsored by Ireland-based Every Life Counts - that urges scientists and medical professionals who support life to combat an in utero diagnosis that is medically inaccurate.

"For years there's been this phrase used by certain doctors – 'incompatible with life' – especially when someone is diagnosed in the womb with something like Down Syndrome or other kinds of genetic or physiologic conditions. And that is frankly just a misdiagnosis; [it's] medically inaccurate," shares Dr. David Prentice of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the education and research arm of the Susan B. Anthony List.

Prentice calls it "a biased judgment call" – yet week after week there are reports of such children born alive, normal, or close to normal and Down Syndrome children living happy lives, some able to support themselves.

"What Charlotte Lozier Institute wants to do is to support an effort at the U.N. called the Geneva Declaration on Perinatal Care," Prentice continues. "The idea is that it would get rid of this biased term of 'incompatible with life' to describe those unborn children who might have a life-limiting condition."

The Geneva Declaration on Perinatal Care calls for "an end to the use of this medically meaningless term [incompatible with life] which can cause great upset to the parents of children who are a given life-limiting diagnosis but who very often live for minutes, days, hours even weeks after birth and bring much joy to their families."

Written by Charlie Butts  
Source: OneNewsNow.com

Medical Personnel’s Religious Freedoms Threatened by Illinois Senate Bill

Illinois doctors, nurses and medical personnel could be forced to make ethical choices between serving God and obeying the State with a bill being considered in the Illinois Senate.

Imagine for an instance that you’re a neurologist, and a patient comes to you for help with painful, paralyzing, never-ending headaches. You do everything you can to help him, but after months of experimental drug concoctions and nutritional experiments, the headaches worsen. Depressed and distraught, the patient decides he wants to end it all. He wants you to help him end his agony once and for all.

As a doctor, you’ve been trained and have sworn to “Do No Harm,” as Greek philosopher Hippocrates taught. Your pastor, church and the Scriptures say it is a mortal sin to end or assist with ending another human life.

But suppose that the state says that you must ignore your conscience or moral standards and deliver to the patient exactly what he wants. Your conscience and your religious beliefs are irrelevant. Or, it’s possible that a doctor refusing to assist with something as radical as suicide could be the basis for a lawsuit.

That’s what could happen with doctors, pharmacists, any medical personnel if SB 1564, State Senator Daniel Biss’ (D-Chicago) amendment to Illinois’ Health Care Right of Conscience Act, become law, says First Amendment attorney Thomas Brechja.

The proposal stipulates that a medical facility or physician must have an established protocol in place, printed to distribute to patients in response to any condition that the physician may find the patient seeking.

The legislation does not state that the protocol must include only legal recourses.

The idea of such a scenario may seem impossible to imagine, but that’s what Senator Biss’ plan in SB 1564 would set into place, Attorney Brechja said in an interview.

Even delaying the treatment by one day beyond what the patient demands could imperil an objecting doctor’s practice.

“If you’re impairing the patient’s health by delaying his or her access to a suicide pill, [for example], that may be ‘Brave New World,’ but we’re already living in ‘Brave New World,’” Brechja said. “Who knows what some court somewhere is going to decide. With this bill, you’ve certainly started down that path, and into the abyss.”

Once the law says a person’s conscience must yield to state or federal law, there’s no prediction where that may lead, Brechja said.

While Illinois’ Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows citizens to act upon their religious beliefs, Biss’ law would supersede the state’s RFRA.

Nationwide, some states’ conscience clauses explicitly cover abortion, contraception, sterilization, and the withholding or withdrawing of life-sustaining treatments.

Some clauses cover local conditions. For example in Oregon, a conscience clause describes a physician’s right of refusal concerning physician-assisted suicide, which is legal in that state.

Biss’ proposal contradicts the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, Brechja said, the first part of which says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”

The legislation would overrule the religious beliefs of American citizens that practice medicine and encumber their constitutionally-guaranteed free exercise of religion.

The medical personnel would be required to have on hand printed information that can be immediately distributed to the patient with referrals to the desired service.

“This is dangerous legislation,” Brechja said.

Take Action!

Currently this bill is postponed in Judiciary Committee

You can contact the members of the Judiciary Committee and tell them to OPPOSE this bill.

Click here for information on the members of the Judiciary Committee

Click here for more information on this bill and many others.

Written by: Fran Eaton

Sources: Illinois Review, Illinois Family Institute
Legislative alert by Illinois Federation for Right to Life

ACTION ALERTS

Women’s Health and Protection Act - ACTION ALERT! 

HB 3274

Sponsor: Representative Sheri Jesiel

Requires the Department of Public Health to annually conduct at least one unannounced inspection of each pregnancy termination specialty center. Contains provisions requiring the notification of patients if the Department finds a violation of the Act that could threaten patients' health.
This bill is scheduled for a hearing the Human Services Committee on March 18, 2015 at 8:00 a.m.

ACTION ALERT!  

Fill out a witness slip in support the bill before the hearing convenes March 18, 2015 at 8:00 a.m.
Remember to check the boxes for "Proponent," "Record of Appearance Only," Enter "Illinois Federation for Right to Life" for the Agency field and "Citizen" for the Title Field. Make sure to "Agree to Terms" before submitting.  Click here to fill out a witness slip for this bill.

Please contact as many of the committee members as you can and let them know that you SUPPORT HB 3274, the Women’s Health and Protection Act.

Robyn Gabel (Chairperson) (217) 782-8052
Litesa E. Wallace (Vice Chairperson) (217) 782-3167
Patricia R. Bellock (217) 782-1448
Carol Ammons (217) 558-1009
Jaime M. Andrade, Jr. (217) 782-8117
Kelly M. Cassidy (217) 782-8088
Tom Demmer (217) 782-0535
Laura Fine (217) 782-4194
Mary E. Flowers (217) 782-4207
Norine Hammond (217) 782-0416
Sheri L Jesiel (217) 782-8151
Cynthia Soto (217) 782-0150
Brian W. Stewart (217) 782-8186
Michael Unes (217) 782-8152

Click here for more information on this bill.
_______________________________________

Women’s Health Defense and Pain Capable Act - ACTION ALERT! 

HB 3561

Sponsor: Representative Terri Bryant

This bill amends the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975. It provides that except in the case of a medical emergency, no physician or person shall knowingly perform, induce, or attempt to perform an abortion upon a pregnant woman when the probable gestational age of her unborn child has been determined to be at least 20 weeks.

ACTION ALERT!  

Fill out a witness slip in support the bill before the hearing convenes March 18, 2015 at 8:00 a.m.
Remember to check the boxes for "Proponent," "Record of Appearance Only," Enter "Illinois Federation for Right to Life" for the Agency field and "Citizen" for the Title Field. Make sure to "Agree to Terms" before submitting.   Click here for fill out a witness slip for this bill.

Please contact as many of the committee members as you can and let them know that you SUPPORT HB 3561, the Women’s Health Defense and Pain Capable Act.

Robyn Gabel (Chairperson) (217) 782-8052
Litesa E. Wallace (Vice Chairperson) (217) 782-3167
Patricia R. Bellock (217) 782-1448
Carol Ammons (217) 558-1009
Jaime M. Andrade, Jr. (217) 782-8117
Kelly M. Cassidy (217) 782-8088
Tom Demmer (217) 782-0535
Laura Fine (217) 782-4194
Mary E. Flowers (217) 782-4207
Norine Hammond (217) 782-0416
Sheri L Jesiel (217) 782-8151
Cynthia Soto (217) 782-0150
Brian W. Stewart (217) 782-8186
Michael Unes (217) 782-8152

Click here for more information on this bill.
_______________________________________

Want to Elect a Pro-Life President? Here’s what NOT to do

The pro-life movement is united in its goal of electing a pro-life president in 2016. The Obama presidency brought us two new pro-abortion Supreme Court justices, a healthcare law that expands abortion and threatens the vulnerable, and vows to veto pro-life legislation, including a bill that would protect unborn babies 20 weeks and older, from painful late abortions. We cannot afford four, let alone eight, more years of a president that does not value the right to life.

To achieve our goal, we have to be strategic. Here are six ways we can actually defeat a pro-life candidate. We cannot make these mistakes in 2016.

1) Fall in love with your candidate.

Pro-life advocates should get involved in campaigns. Their active participation and volunteer activities can help a pro-life candidate build a strong campaign. It also puts the pro-life advocate in contact with the candidate so that if he/she wins, a relationship can be built and strengthened. Too often, however, pro-life advocates get so excited about their candidate that if he/she loses to another pro-life candidate (especially in a primary), the pro-life grassroots person doesn’t support the pro-life candidate who won–and won’t volunteer in the campaign or work to get others to vote for that candidate. Pro-life candidates need the active support of all pro-lifers and, all too often, without that full support, a pro-abortion candidate wins.

2) Believe that your candidate is the only “real” pro-life candidate in the race and bash other pro-life candidates.

In a primary where there are several pro-life candidates, pro-life individuals select the candidate they think is best. Unfortunately, some pro-lifers will attack other pro-life candidates as not being “prolife enough.” If, for example, another candidate has a lengthy pro-life voting record, they will pick out one or two votes and attack him as not being “really” pro-life. By doing this, the pro-lifer demoralizes other pro-lifers and weakens enthusiasm for the pro-life candidate who does win the primary. The pro-abortion candidate will, of course, take advantage of this. Because some pro-lifers have attacked the successful pro-life candidate, the pro-abortion candidate will use that in pro-life circles to hold down support for his opponent. Ironically, at the same time, the pro-abortion candidate will be going to other voters, attacking the pro-life candidate who won as a “radical pro-life extremist.”

3) Support a really nice candidate who is pro-life but has no chance of winning.

Millions of unborn children’s lives are at stake. That’s why the viability of a candidate must be considered when we go to the polls. There are some wonderful pro-life candidates who may even be active in right-to-life organizations, who decide to run for office. However, if they can’t gain enough support to be a viable candidate, they need to be encouraged to step aside for a candidate who can actually win and take action to protect unborn children.

4) Expect the candidate to sound like a Right to Life chapter chairman.

People who are not directly involved in the pro-life movement are not going to be as articulate or well-versed on all the pro-life issues. They may not know every detail of unborn development or understand the ins and outs of the Mexico City Policy. Unless there has been some prior discussion with active pro-life advocates, some candidates may not realize that there are certain words that will be interpreted differently by the pro-life community that he intended. Just because the wrong word comes out of his/her mouth doesn’t necessarily make the candidate a phony. Sometimes a truly pro-life candidate can be tripped up by the media, be confused, ill-informed, misquoted, or quoted out of context. Give him or her a chance to explain what they really believe. They will do what’s right when they’re elected. Words are nice, action is better.

5) Expect the candidate to always make abortion the major issue in the campaign.

A 2014 post-election poll by The Polling Company/Woman Trend found that 23% of voters said abortion affected their vote and chose the pro-life candidate. Just 16% said abortion affected their vote and picked the pro-abortion candidate. While it is a distinct advantage for candidates to be pro-life and does make a difference in the outcome of an election, it also means that a large majority of the voters had other issues that were more important to them. In order to win, a candidate has to focus on many issues that will appeal to a broad variety of voters. It is the job of the right-to-life movement to inform the pro-life community about the candidate’s position on abortion. It is the candidate’s job to reach a cross-section of voters on a broad range of issues. When abortion is discussed in the campaign, the candidate must clearly and directly articulate his/her pro-life position. However, to expect the candidate to always make abortion the major issue in the campaign can be a sure way to lose an election.

6) Vote for a third-party or independent candidate who has no chance of winning.

When a general election is between a pro-life candidate and a pro-abortion candidate representing established parties, there will be times when a third-party or independent candidate will get into the race, claiming to be the “real” pro-lifer. He will attack the pro-life candidate who has a real chance of winning and get other pro-lifers to do the same. This is a sure strategy to elect the pro-abortion candidate. Pro-lifers who support the third-party or independent candidate, to the detriment of the pro-life candidate who could win, may feel like they have not compromised their principles. But if they succeed in indirectly helping to elect a candidate who will allow the killing of unborn babies to continue, they have compromised away something far more important ““ children’s lives.

The 2016 presidential election is an important moment for our movement. Let’s not squander this opportunity. The lives of unborn babies and their mothers hang in the balance.

By Andrew Bair, NRL News Today

Editor’s note. This appeared on page six of the March digital edition of National Right to Life News. You can read this story—and the entire 39 page issue—at www.nrlc.org/uploads/NRLNews/NRLNewsMarch2015.pdf.

Abortion contributing to Chicago’s “fiscal free fall” and Rahm’s collapse

From the Investors.com article, “Rahm Emanuel’s Chicago nears fiscal free fall,” March 2:

In progressive Chicago… Moody’s has cut its credit rating to two grades above “junk.”…

The steady financial decline of the nation’s third-largest city prompted us recently to say that Chicago was well on its way to becoming the next Detroit….

[P]rospects aren’t good, as people – particularly high-income individuals and businesses – flee the city’s high taxes and stiff regulations….

People are leaving in droves, voting the only way they can in a one-party town – with their feet.

From 2000 to 2009, Chicago’s population shrank by 200,000 – the only one of the nation’s 15 largest cities to lose people. The city now has 145,000 fewer school-age children than it had more than a decade ago, according to district data, forcing the closure of about 100 schools since 2001.

Those school closures are playing a part in the embarrassing run-off election Mayor Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s former chief-of-staff, is facing, and which he may lose:

Emanuel recently emerged from the Windy City’s mayoral primary with just 45% of the vote against four opponents, forcing Chicago’s first-ever mayoral runoff. A poll taken.. Feb. 28 showed Emanuel leading second-place primary finisher Jesus “Chuy” Garcia… by a slim 42.9% to 38.5% margin.

About those school closures, from the New York Times, yesterday:

The sky-blue paint has begun to peel on the three-story building that was onceAnthony Overton Elementary [pictured below]. Window air-conditioners are speckled with rust. Doors where children used to rush in and out are sealed with plywood.

The empty shell of this school on Chicago’s largely black South Side stands as a reminder of one of Rahm Emanuel’s defining acts as mayor: overseeing the closing of nearly 50 public schools deemed underperforming, underutilized or both. It was the largest closing of schools in memory, with many of them in black or Latinoneighborhoods….

“It hurts,” said Earvin Wade, 55, who lives across the street. “You used to have a lot of kids there, families around. It was at the heart of our neighborhood. Now it’s nothing but an eyesore.”…

[I]n the end, it may be the education agenda that [Emanuel] proudly, defiantly and swiftly carried out that threatens his political future.

Population shrinkage and closing schools may in part be blamed on people “flee[ing] the city,” but an equally obvious reason for the decline is abortion.

Between 1995 and 2013, the dates for which Illinois county abortion breakdowns are available, a staggering 486,743 children were aborted in Cook County, accounting for 55.8% of the 872,631 abortions committed in Illinois during those 19 years.

Those are just the past two decades, with the two decades of legalized abortion before that likely the same.

The children aborted in 1973 would have been having their own children during the 1990s, so the number of lost people is compounded beyond what we see.

It is tragic that black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Chicago are blighted by empty schools. But the people themselves killed off the students. Blacks and Hispanics have a much higher rate of abortion than whites. According to Guttmacher, five times as many blacks as whites get abortions, and two times as many Hispanics as whites.

And abortion is just one social ill contributing to Chicago’s demise.

“In Chicago, 51% of children live in single-parent homes,” notes the Chicago Tribune.

Had Democrats in charge of the city since 1931 embraced conservative social values and encouraged premarital abstinence and stronger two-parent married families, the children allowed to live would not be “underperforming” in school to the extent that they are, along with being the victims of other societal plagues.

Such as murder, which unstable homes contribute to. Quoting Pew Research:

In terms of raw number of murders, Chicago has long been at or near the top of U.S. cities, according to FBI crime statistics. In 2012, it had 500 murders, the most of any city in the country; Chicago has been among the top three cities with the most murders since 1985.

Will the people wake up? But politicians aren’t the answer. They’re part of the problem.

Churches with their theological act together are really Chicago’s only hope.

[HT gerfingerpoken on Twitter for Investors.com article; top photo via Politico; bottom photo via New York Times]

The post Abortion contributing to Chicago’s “fiscal free fall” and Rahm’s collapse appeared first on Jill Stanek.

By Jill Stanek, JillStanek.com

So you won't perform abortions, doc? Prepare to be sued by the ACLU

The American Civil Liberties Union is suing a hospital in Washington state – because it's not performing enough abortions to make its plaintiff happy. 

The ACLU has filed suit against Skagit Regional Health under the state's Reproductive Privacy Act, which requires that public hospitals that offer maternity services also offer access to abortions, too.

The complaint is that the hospital - which does some abortions but refers others to Planned Parenthood - doesn't do enough abortions.

In a press release, the ACLU complained that Skagit performs a "wide array" of maternity care services "yet does not provide medication abortions and rarely provides surgical abortions."

Worse still, claims the far-left ACLU, too many doctors at Skagit have signed up to refuse to do abortions.

Dan Kennedy, who heads Human Life of Washington, says the law is "quite clear" that doctors and nurses can't be forced to participate in abortions, and their hiring can't be based on if they're willing to perform them.

"That is also illegal," he says, "and yet that is exactly what the ACLU wants."

A Washington newspaper reports that there is "tension" over the state law demanding abortions and also allowing doctors to opt out of performing them.

"The law says we can't require employees to violate their conscience to perform an abortion," a spokesperson for the Washington State Hospital Association told the newspaper. 

Kennedy considers the lawsuit "the tyranny of the intolerant," pointing out the Left's supposed live-and-let-live belief that champions the rights of the individual.

"And yet if you don't agree with them, they don't let you live so it's absolutely deplorable," Kennedy complains. "This is just absolute nonsense but another one of those things where they just beat on something, and beat on it until they end up getting their way." 

By: Charlie Butts, OneNewsNow

Why are ardent pro-abortion feminists reluctant to tell their own children about their abortions?

NRLC has run dozens of stories about the attempt of pro-abortionists to “normalize”abortion by (among other tactics) “telling their stories.”The assumption is not hard to figure out. They believe if woman “openly”talk about their abortions, over time the public will grow used to hearing the stories and conclude, hey, it’s no big deal to dismember a baby.

Of course, in reality what happens to the kid is subsumed under the neutral sounding nomenclature of “choice.”My guess is few abortion “stories”talk about separating tiny arms and legs from little torsos.

“What Happened When My Daughter Asked About My Abortion,” by Raven Snook (I’m assuming that is her actual name) appeared yesterday on Yahoo’s Parenting section.

The first third of the story””about Snook’s difficulty in telling her own child about her own abortion””introduces us to the wonderfulness of “Not Alone,”an organization run by Sherry Matusoff Merfish and her two grown daughters.

Merfish had an abortion in college and did not tell her daughters about it until they went off to college. Beth Matusoff Merfish subsequently wrote an op-ed for the New York Times. We commented on it at the time and are reposting it both as background to this post and because it is a fascinating example of burying the truth in the guise of telling the truth.

There’s nothing terribly original in “Not Alone,”except that (a) the accounts are short videos posted on the site, and (b) more “stories” than you might think would be posted on a pro-abortion site talk of pain and depression following an abortion. (We also wrote about that last year.)

Snook asks herself why she “froze” when her nine-year-old daughter asked, “Mommy, were you ever pregnant besides me?”

After all, Snook tells us, she’d been open with her friends about her abortion, was “unabashedly pro-choice,”had talked about the birds and the bees with her daughter “and the fact that women have the right to decide if and when they become mommies.”

Yet…

when it came to revealing my own abortion “a necessary conversation so that my daughter views it as a personal choice, not a political one” I panicked.

Which is what led Snook to the discovery that “Apparently I’m not alone.”

I spoke with a number of moms, including a few ardent feminists who discussed their abortions with me, but couldn’t bring themselves to tell their kids. As one admitted, “I don’t know why! I’m not ashamed of it, and it was the right thing to do at the time, but I have this mental block about it. The stigma goes deep.”

Which led her to the importance of “telling stories”and “Not Alone.”After all, why should any woman who had aborted””let alone someone who is “unabashedly pro-choice”””dread telling her own kids?

Just to ask the question is to answer it: all the pro-abortion feminist jargon in the word doesn’t minimize the fear that your living children might look at your differently, might feel less secure.

Snook ends with an unintentionally revealing final paragraph:

I still haven’t answered my daughter’s question. The day she inquired, after a few moments of silence, I blurted out, “Why would you ask that?”and quickly changed the subject. Now I want to find my way back to that conversation, but in an organic way. I’d rather she initiate it than me say, “By the way, have I ever told you about the time I had an abortion?”So I’m waiting, but I know it will come. And this time, I’ll tell the truth.

“By the way?”

“By the way, did I tell you about the time I forget to get milk?”

“By the way, have I ever told you that I once forgot to unplug the curling iron?”

Taking an unborn child’s life is not a by-the-way topic of conversation. Snook squares the circle by telling us that she’s going to find an “organic way” to revisit the subject she quickly changed from.

But there is night and day difference between trying to portray abortion as an example of how “women have the right to decide if and when they become mommies”and honestly admitting (if you feel it is right to tell your children) that you made a mistake.

One is rationalizing an evil. The other is confessing human vulnerability and asking for forgiveness.

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News Today

Pro-choice activist: “I know life begins at conception”

Pictured Left: Jodi Jacobson

[From Jodi Jacobson “Life Begins At Conception. That’s Not the Point” RH Reality Check November 4, 2012.]

“Here is a startling revelation: I am a mother of two and a woman who earlier in her life had an abortion. I am unapologetically pro-choice. And I know life ‘begins’ at conception …. because I kinda already knew that having a child required, as a first step, the successful integration of a sperm and an egg, or fertilization.

“In other words, ‘life’ begins at conception, if by ‘life,’ we mean the essential starting place of a potential human being. Neither my 16-year-old daughter nor my 13-year-old son would be here if they were not first conceived, if the fertilized eggs had not gone through the process of cell division, successfully implanted in my uterus and developed into healthy embryos, and subsequently gone successfully through the many other phases of development leading to their births.”

[Commenting on a quote from Congressman Paul Ryan, where he said that seeing his unborn baby on the ultrasound screen, convinced him that life began at conception]

“I understand that seeing the sonogram of a wanted child is a powerful thing and a connection to the potential person whose birth is much awaited. But if it took Paul Ryan to see a sonogram of his daughter in utero to get him to believe his wife was pregnant and that his daughter’s “life” began with conception, the state of GOP knowledge on sex and biology is even worse than I thought.”

She does not explain how “life begins at conception,” but an unborn baby is only a “potential child.” It is typical pro-choice doublespeak.

Editor’s note. This appeared at clinicquotes.com.

By Sarah Terzo, via NRL News Today

How to change hearts on abortion in under one minute

A new video from Pro-Life Texas, Stolen Moments, offers a perspective so powerful, you may be left speechless after you see it:

The video gives faces to a handful of the 57 million Americans who are not with us today because of legal abortion. Just imagine the millions of unique individuals who would be your siblings, your aunts and uncles, your teachers, your classmates, you doctors, your childhood best friends, your co-workers, or maybe even your spouse or your own children. They were not the victims of circumstance, disease, disaster, or accidents. Their deaths were wholly preventable – their lives could be thriving today. We will never know who those 55 million were, but we have all been affected by their loss.

The filmmakers at Pro-Life Texas, Jason Vaughn and Andrew Koch, wanted to expand the perceptions of the millions lost to abortion. Abortion victims are usually depicted as babies in utero, growing and developing.

But what if we carried that image further, thought the filmmakers, to explore the adults and children who are tangibly missing from our daily lives today as a result of abortion. “I wanted something different that made people think of those aborted as not just blobs of tissue or faces on a sonogram,” said Koch. “These were people who had a life and future taken from them and the world.”

Unfortunately, the pair’s vision was stalled by the anti-Life antics of Kickstarter, the crowd-funding site that bizarrely banned the Stolen Moments campaign, along with the hugely-funded Gosnell Movie campaign. Both campaigns moved to Indiegogo, where they each achieved or exceeded their full funding goals. “Crowd-funding has been huge to help creative messages on both sides of the spectrum to get out and promote open and free speech,” said Vaughn.

For such a short video, the pair put many months of work into production. But they wanted to get the first video just right, in hopes that the first installment will serve as the catalyst for a forthcoming series of short films aimed at providing an unexplored perspective on abortion to the masses. “If it makes one person thinks about their options and what may be lost if they get an abortion,” said Vaughn, “then it’s a success beyond measure and well worth the efforts of all involved.”

Source: Texas Right to Life, via NRL News Today

Ultrasounds Save Lives

A survey conducted by the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), a national legal network of prolife pregnancy centers, showed how powerful ultrasounds are in changing the minds of abortion-minded and abortion-vulnerable patients. 

NIFLA stated in a press release:

Four-hundred and ten (410) of NIFLA's medical membership (less than one-half) reported providing 75,318 ultrasound confirmations of pregnancy in 2013 on patients identified as either abortion-minded or abortion-vulnerable. Of these abortion at risk patients, 58,634 chose to carry to term, indicating that 78% of those mothers who saw an ultrasound image of their unborn child before deciding about abortion chose life.

When asked whether ultrasound confirmation of pregnancy has a positive impact upon a mother considering abortion to choose life 83.5% said "Absolutely," 15.76% said "More than likely," and 0.74% said, "Only a small impact."

Planned Parenthood and abortion advocates will do all they can to conceal the reality that abortion kills babies.  That is why they refer to preborn babies as “tissues” or “products of conception” and oftentimes dissuade women from looking at their ultrasounds.  Technology reveals the truth that they try to hide from women.  When a woman sees her preborn child on an ultrasound, with a beating heart by 22 days post-fertilization, she will most likely choose life—78% of abortion-minded or abortion-vulnerable mothers who saw their ultrasounds did!  It is not a coincidence that 83.5% said that the ultrasound “Absolutely” has a positive impact and another 15.76% said that it “More than likely” did. 

We are seeing a trend in women connecting with their babies before birth.  Four dimensional ultrasounds (4-D) have done wonders in revealing to us the humanity of the child.  One ultrasound company did a 3-D/4-D photo contest asking parents to send in their child’s ultrasounds and photo post-birth, generally in the same pose as their ultrasound. The results are stunning, revealing the striking resemblance of these children’s mannerisms, both in the womb and outside of it.  There is also a new phenomenon of women doing 3-D printing of their ultrasounds for as little as $250.  A writer at the Washington Post admitted that it “could perhaps change the abortion debate.”  When the humanity of the preborn child is revealed with the help of technology, both the child and the mom win.

Source: FRCBlog

ACTION ALERT!

Ultrasound opportunity act

HB 2701

Chief Sponsor: Representative Barbara Wheeler

This bill provides that at any facility where abortions are performed, the physician who is to perform the abortion, the referring physician, or another qualified person working in conjunction with either physician shall offer any woman seeking an abortion after 8 weeks of gestation an opportunity to receive and view an active ultrasound of her unborn child by someone qualified to perform ultrasounds at the facility, or at a facility listed in a listing of local ultrasound providers provided by the facility, prior to the woman having any part of an abortion performed or induced and prior to the administration of any anesthesia or medication in preparation for the abortion.

Take Action:

1. Fill out a witness slip in support the bill before the hearing convenes at 8:00 am on Wednesday, March 11th.  Remember to check the boxes for "Proponent," "Record of Appearance Only," Enter "Illinois Federation for Right to Life" for the Agency field and "Citizen" for the Title Field. Make sure to "Agree to Terms" before submitting.
Click here to fill out the witness slip.

2. Please contact as many of the committee members as you can before 7:30 am on Wednesday, March 11th, and let them know that you SUPPORT HR 147, the Ultrasound opportunity act.

Robyn Gabel (Chairperson) (217) 782-8052
Litesa E. Wallace (Vice Chairperson) (217) 782-3167
Patricia R. Bellock (217) 782-1448
Carol Ammons (217) 558-1009
Jaime M. Andrade, Jr. (217) 782-8117
Kelly M. Cassidy (217) 782-8088
Tom Demmer (217) 782-0535
Laura Fine (217) 782-4194
Mary E. Flowers (217) 782-4207
Norine Hammond (217) 782-0416
Sheri L Jesiel (217) 782-8151
Cynthia Soto (217) 782-0150
Brian W. Stewart (217) 782-8186
Michael Unes (217) 782-8152

Click here for other legislation.