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.

ACTION ALERT!

UN CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

HR 147 (RATIFY CONVENTION ON CHILD RIGHTS)

We need to stop this resolution scheduled for committee hearing on Thursday, March 5, at 11:00.

Under this resolution, children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions,  without parental knowledge or consent.

Take Action:

1. Fill out a witness slip in opposition to the resolution before the hearing convenes at 11:00 am on Thursday, March 5th.  Remember to check the boxes for "Opposition," "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 10:30 am on Thursday, March 5th, and let them know that you OPPOSE HR 147. If you want to briefly explain why you oppose a resolution that encourages the ratification of the UNCRC you may do so, but it is not necessary.

Here are the members of the committee and their office numbers in Springfield:
Laura Fine, Chairman (217) 782-4194
Deborah Conroy, Vice-Chairman (217) 782-8158
C.D. Davidsmeyer, Republican Spokesman (217) 782-1840
Adam Brown (217) 782-8398
Terry Bryant (217) 782-0387
Tom Demmer (217) 782-0535
Mary E. Flowers (Bill Sponsor) (217) 782-4207
Robyn Gabel (217) 782-8052
Frances Ann Hurley (217) 782-8200
Jeanne M. Ives (217) 558-1037
Natalie A. Manley (217) 782-3316
Martin J. Moylan (217) 782-8007

References:

Katie Hatziavramidis, Parental Involvement Laws for Abortion in the United States and the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child: Can International Law Secure the Right to Choose for Minors?, 16 Tex. J. Women & L. 185, 202-203 (Spring 2007):

“The unmistakable trend in the United States is to consistently increase anti-choice legislation, particularly with respect to minors. Ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child by the United States holds a strong possibility of assisting minors who seek abortions without parental interference.  [*203]  The Convention may offer the best hope for securing adolescent reproductive freedoms on a global level. If enough diplomatic pressure were exerted on the United States to compel it to ratify the treaty, the CRC could provide significant improvements in the outlook for reproductive freedom for minors.”

Paragraph 3, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Columbia, Committee on the Rights of the Child, 42nd sess., U.N. Doc. CRC/C/COL/CO/3 (2006): “The Committee notes with appreciation…decisions of the Constitutional Court on…the partial decriminalization of abortion.”


Paragraph 55, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Chile, Committee on the Rights of the Child, 44th sess., U.N. Doc. CRC/C/CHL/CO/3 (2007): “The Committee…is concerned over the high rate of teenage pregnancies, the criminalization of the termination of pregnancies in all circumstances….”

2015 Illinois Legislative Update

There are a number of bills currently being heard in the Illinois General Assembly, some very good pro-life bills and some very bad pro-abortion bills.  Here is a summary of legislation currently introduced in the Illinois General Assembly.  Please stay informed for more upcoming action alerts.

Please visit our legislative page often for more updates.  Click here for more information.

Pro-Life Bills:

Ultrasound opportunity act

HB 2701

Chief Sponsor: Representative Barbara Wheeler

Background: This bill was sparked after an Illinois woman was refused by an abortion clinic to see her ultrasound. Frustrated, she left the clinic and instead went to a pregnancy help center that was able to give her a free ultrasound and let her see.

Bill Summary: This bill would require the medical professional to offer any woman seeking an abortion after 8 weeks gestation, the opportunity to receive and view the ultrasound prior to beginning an abortion.
Click here for more information.
_______________________________________

Women’s Health and Protection Act

HB 3274

Chief Sponsor: Representative Sheri Jesiel

Background: Illinois abortion clinics receive a health and sanitary inspection an average of once every 9 years. 193 health and sanitary violations were discovered in thirteen of the fourteen licensed women’s clinics when they were inspected between 2011 – 2014 (the majority of the women’s clinics were inspected for the first time in 9-17 years.)  A grave need for regular health and sanitary violations is necessary.

Bill Summary:  This bill does four things:

1) Requires clinics that perform 50 or more surgical abortions in a year to first receive a license from the Illinois Department of Public Health. The license can be a PTSC license (a less restrictive category made only for women’s abortion clinics) or an ASTC which is what other doctors offices are required to be licensed under – such as eye doctors.

Point of Interest: 54% of the abortion clinics open today, are not licensed and therefore have not since 1999 received a health and sanitary inspection. No Planned Parenthood in Illinois has a state license.

2)  This bill requires that each women’s abortion clinic receives an unannounced health inspection once per year.

3) If a violation is found within the clinic that continues to place women’s health at risk (such as unsterile surgical equipment was used), then the clinic doctor is required to issue a notice to all potentially affected patients. A copy of the letter must be included in the plan of correction that is submitted to the Illinois Department of Public Health.

4) The Illinois Department of Public Health will issue a Public Health announcement regarding the violations found that continue to endanger women’s health. It must include the location, the dates when the violation took place, and the issue (for example: HIV, STD, staph infection, tetanus, etc) that the female patients may need to be treated for.
Click here for more information.
_______________________________________

Women’s Health Defense and Pain Capable Act

HB 3561

Chief Sponsor: Representative Terri Bryant

Background: Advancements in science and medicine have provided us with substantial evidence showing that unborn children are feel the pain of dismemberment abortion as early as 20 weeks gestation. Documented reactions of unborn children feeling pain during surgery has led fetal surgeons to find it necessary to sedate the unborn child with anesthesia to prevent the unborn child from thrashing about in reaction to invasive surgery.

Bill Summary: This bill would prohibit abortions after the unborn child is 20 weeks gestation. An exception is allowed for a significant health risk that would endanger the mother’s life.
Click here for more information.
_______________________________________

Insurance Nutritional Support

HB 120

Chief Sponsor: Representative Mary Flowers

Background: Health insurance companies have denied coverage for intravenous feeding and for enteral or tube even if a doctor deems in a written order one is medically necessary for the health and life of a patient.

Bill Summary: This bill would require insurance companies to provide the same coverage (including co-pay and deductibles) as other benefits within the plan ensuring patience have full access to medically necessary feeding tubes.
Click here for more information.
_______________________________________

Pro-abort Bills:

Public Aid for Abortions

HB4013

Chief Sponsor: Sara Feigenholtz

This bill amends the State Employees Group Insurance Act of 1971 and removes a provision prohibiting the non-contributory portion of a health-benefits program from including the expenses of obtaining an abortion, induced miscarriage or induced premature birth

Bill Summary: This bill removes on restrictions on tax payer funding of abortions
Click here for more information.
_______________________________________

Immunization Exemption Amendment

SB1410 

Chief Sponsor: Senator Mulroe

This bill amends the School Code. Requires the State Board of Education to publish on its Internet website the exemption from immunization data it receives from schools. It requires that parents or legal guardians who object to health, dental, or eye examinations or immunizations on religious grounds must present to the appropriate local school authority a Department of Public Health objection form, detailing the grounds for the objection and signed by the parent or legal guardian, as well as a religious official attesting to a bona fide religious objection whose signature must be notarized (instead of presenting a signed statement of objection detailing the grounds for the objection).

Bill Summary: This bill complicates and makes it harder for parents to opt out of immunizations due to parent's & religious rights.
Click here for more information.
_______________________________________

Health Care Right of Conscience Act


SB1564 

Chief Sponsor: Senator Biss

This bill amends the Health Care Right of Conscience Act.  This bill requires that notwithstanding any other law, a health care facility, or any physician or health care personnel working in the facility, may refuse to permit, perform, assist in, counsel about, suggest, recommend, refer for, or participate in health care services because of a conscience-based objection.

Bill Summary: This bill undermines Healthcare Right of Conscience
Click here for more information.
_______________________________________

Source: Illinois Federation for Right to Life with information from Illinois Right to Life

Teenager dies after being forced to take abortion pill

The Times of India is reporting that a teenage girl died after being forced to consume an abortifacient by a man who had allegedly sexually exploited her “several times.”

Reporting from Kanpur, Faiz Rahman Siddiqui wrote that police identified the man as Monu, a local resident. According to the story, Monu has fled and authorities “are conducting raids at his possible hideouts to arrest him,” according to Officer Anurag.

Siddiqui quoted an unnamed police official at length:

When Monu learnt that the girl had become pregnant, he allegedly started forcing her to undergo an abortion. On Friday, Monu compelled her to consume a pill that would cause an abortion. Soon after consuming the pill, the girl’s condition deteriorated and she collapsed. Monu abandoned her at the spot and fled. Later, she was spotted by locals who informed her parents, who rushed her to a nearby Community Health Centre from where she was later referred to Lala Lajpat Rai hospital. She died in the hospital on Sunday night during treatment,” said the police official. Her body has been sent for postmortem.

Siddiqui also quoted the girl’s father who said, “Monu had raped my daughter several times and forced her to consume [an] abortion pill. He must be severely punished for causing [the] death of my daughter.” (What exactly the girl consumed was not specified other than an “abortion pill.”)

Siddiqui reported that police have registered a case against Monu under sections 313 (forcible abortion) and 314 (causing death with abortion).

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News Today