December 30, 2020

Report Shows Oregon Hospitals Denied Health Care to People with Disabilities

photo credit: Matthew Perkins / Flickr
Disability rights activists found that hospitals in Oregon have been denied healthcare during the pandemic due to discriminatory policies.

NPR reported on the story of a woman with an intellectual disability who was denied access to a ventilator due to her "low quality of life." She was further asked to sign do-not-resuscitate (DNR) and do-not-intubate orders, and workers from the care home she lived at were asked to write DNRs for all residents living in the care home in advance.

Understandably upset, the care home staffers sought legal help from Disability Rights Oregon (DRO). When DRO threatened to sue the hospital, the patient was moved and put on a ventilator, which allowed her to successfully recover.

“The threat of litigation and the threat of exposing the depth and the whiff of discrimination in our state, I think, was enough to get people to do the right thing,” DRO legal director Emily Cooper told NPR. “But what that meant is you needed to have a lawyer call or you needed to have someone that had the gravitas to push for that.”

State Sen. Sara Gelser, who was contacted during the incident, voiced frustration that the state hasn't taken action to address the issue.

“Nothing happened to that hospital. Nothing happened to that physician,” she told NPR. “The health authority confirmed that, in fact, that was a coerced do-not-intubate order, that they confirmed it happened … but there was no sanction. So there was no remedy. This is immoral. We do not respond to disability discrimination in the way that we should.”

The NPR story uncovered several other instances of people with disabilities being denied healthcare for similar reasons during the pandemic. This should be greatly concerning for pro-life activists, as the denial of healthcare is incredibly similar to euthanasia consent from a patient.

The lives of people with disabilities are greatly devalued when medical institutions discriminate against them based on a supposed "low quality of life." All life is valuable.

Click here to read more.

December 29, 2020

Supreme Court To Decide Whether it Will Hear Arguments on the "Protect Life Rule"

The Supreme Court announced last week that it will consider on Jan. 8 whether it will take up a case to resolve conflicting court rulings on the constitutionality of President Trump's "Protect Life Rule."

The Trump administration's Title X "Protect Life Rule" took several steps to prevent abortion businesses from taking Title X family planning funding. Organizations that accepted funding could no longer commit abortions, refer patients to abortions, or co-locate with organizations that commit abortions. As a result of the rule, Planned Parenthood (which previously received hundreds of millions of dollars through Title X each year) opted out from Title X funding.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a challenge to the rule, but the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals permanently enjoined its enforcement.

Click here to read more.

District Judge Grants Temporary Restraining Order Against Arkansas Abortion Laws

After the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals announced on Dec. 16 that it would not be reconsidering its decision to lift U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker's injunction against the enforcement of four pro-life Arkansas laws, Judge Baker has now granted the ACLU a temporary restraining order against those laws.

The four laws ban the practice of dismembering living unborn children, legally protect unborn children who would be aborted simply because they were diagnosed with Down syndrome, require forensic samples to be collected from abortions performed on a minor, and mandate the humane disposal of remains from aborted children.

The restraining order lasts until Jan 5., but the ACLU has already filed a request for a preliminary injunction as part of the ongoing legal battle it is fighting against Arkansas.

Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge voiced her opinion on Judge Baker's decision in a statement:

“I am disappointed in Judge Baker’s decision to again temporarily block Arkansas laws protecting young girls from predators and sex traffickers, protecting girls from sex-selective abortions, and prohibiting particularly barbaric abortion practices. Arkansas has repeatedly prevailed when it has appealed similar rulings by Judge Baker and will ultimately do so again.”

Click here to read more.

December 28, 2020

After Legislators Refuse to Make Changes, Massachusetts Gov. Vetoes Extreme Abortion Bill

Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R)
photo credit: Office of the Governor of Massachusetts / Flickr
UPDATE: The Massachusetts House and Senate voted on Monday and Tuesday respectively to override Gov. Baker's veto. The below story was written before those votes occurred.

The Massachusetts legislature recently pushed to include extreme pro-abortion language in a budget bill. Gov. Charlie Baker (R) line vetoed some of this language last week, essentially separating that legislation into its own bill. On Dec. 22, however, the legislature sent it right back to his desk without changes. Now, Gov. Baker vetoed the bill.

Gov. Baker is pro-abortion, but even he took issue with legislation that expanded late-term abortions and would allow some minors to have abortions without the consent of their parents. 

Explaining his decision, Gov. Baker wrote,

“As I said in my amendment letter I strongly support a woman’s right to access reproductive health care, and many provisions of this bill. However I cannot support the sections of this proposal that expand the availability of later-term abortions and permit minors age 16 and 17 to get an abortion without the consent or knowledge of a parent or guardian.”

There are enough votes in the Massachusetts House and Senate to override the governor's veto.

Click here to read more.

5th Circuit Rules Texas and Louisiana can Cut off Medicaid Funding to Planned Parenthood

The full 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Dec. 21 that the states of Texas and Louisiana can cut off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood clinics. This decision reversed a ruling by a three-judge panel from the 5th Circuit in 2015.

The 2015 decision involved only involved Texas's decision to ban Planned Parenthood from receiving funding from Medicaid. The full 5th Circuit attempted to take the case in 2017, but there were only 14 judges on the court and they reached a 7-7 deadlock.

Since taking office, President Trump has nominated six judges to the court. One of them was recused and another joined too recently to participate in the decision, but the other four all sided with the 11-member majority to allow Texas to enforce its ban. Additionally, the court said that its ruling applies to Louisiana's ban, which can now also be enforced.

Click here to read more.

December 23, 2020

University of Pittsburgh used Skin from Scalps of Aborted Children to Study Infection in "Humanized" Mice

Due to the recent controversy surrounding the development and production of some COVID-19 vaccines, pro-life advocates have taken a closer look at how body parts harvested from aborted children are used in research. One disturbing study that was published by the University of Pittsburgh in September used tissue harvested from aborted children to test how the organs of "humanized" mice would respond to staph infection.

Because it is unethical to purposefully infect people with diseases in order to study them, University of Pittsburgh researchers instead obtained "full-thickness human skin," spleens, lymphatic tissue, and other immune system cells harvested from aborted children. The skin was harvested from the backs and scalps of children aborted between the gestational ages of 18 and 20 weeks.

While it may be unethical to purposefully infect others, abortion is also unethical. Two wrongs in this scenario do not make a right.

The pictures below show human hair and skin growing on the backs of mice twelve weeks after the cells from aborted babies were transplanted.

photo from study published on Nature


Pro-life advocate Dr. Stacy Trasancos, Ph.D. wrote for the National Catholic Register about this study as well as two others that involved cells harvested from unborn children. Click here to read more from that article.

Rep. Gabbard Introduces Legislation to Protect Pain-Capable Unborn Children

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI)
photo credit: Gage Skidmore / Flickr
U.S. Rep. from Hawaii Tulsi Gabbard (D), in addition to her bill to protect the lives of children who survive attempted abortions, has introduced a bill that would protect pain-capable unborn children from abortion.

Democrats for Life of America thanked Rep. Gabbard on Facebook for introducing a second pro-life bill. “Former Democratic Presidential Candidate Tulsi Gabbard introduced her SECOND Pro-Life bill this week, which would amend Title 18 of the U.S. code to give pain-capable fetuses rights under the law. Tulsi has previously voted against this bill three times, but is now the SPONSOR of the new bill.”

There are times in the past during which Tulsi Gabbard held a 100% pro-abortion voting record, but Gabbard has advocated for some restrictions on abortion, especially during the third trimester.

December 22, 2020

Federal Court Allows Arkansas Dismemberment Abortion Ban to Take Effect

photo credit: Bill Oxford / Unsplash
On Dec. 16, the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals announced that it would not reconsider its decision to lift a district court's injunction against several pro-life Arkansas laws, including one that bans the practice of "dilation and evacuation" abortions. This will finally allow them to take effect after a three-year-long legal battle.

Among the pro-life measures that Arkansas can now enforce are a ban on sex-selective abortions, regulations on the preservation and disposal of aborted children's remains, a ban on "dilation and evacuation" abortions (which involve the dismemberment of unborn children), and a requirement that abortionists notify the police where abortion patients under 14 years old reside.

The Associated Press reported that the laws could take effect as soon as Dec. 22.

Click here to read more.

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin Fights Pro-life Laws in Federal Court

photo credit: American Life League / Flickr
Planned Parenthood is in federal court challenging several pro-life Wisconsin laws, including one that only allows doctors to commit abortions.

The laws in question also require a patient seeking an abortion to see a doctor on two separate appointments before having an abortion procedure, and that patients receive abortion pill prescriptions directly from a doctor.

By having these laws overturned, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin would be able to have midwives and nurses give prescriptions and commit abortions without a doctor being present. 

Tanya Atkinson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, told Wisconsin Public Radio (WPR), “Planned Parenthood Wisconsin is challenging these restrictions because they do interfere with a person’s ability to make their own health care decisions and make it more difficult to access the care they need.”

She also told WPR that Planned Parenthood would offer abortions at more of its facilities if the pro-life laws are overturned. Currently, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin only offers abortion at three of its 21 facilities in the state, and abortions are only completed by part-time physicians.

Julaine Appling, president of Wisconsin Family Action, argued that having these laws overturned would put women at risk. “We believe this is a dangerous road for the state to go down,” she said. “Medical abortion [the abortion pill] is not without risk. If Planned Parenthood prevails, and they open up all of their sites to do these, women will suffer from that, and certainly their unborn children will be killed because of the courts.”

Click here to read more.

December 21, 2020

Department of Justice Files Lawsuit Against Vermont Hospital for Forcing Nurse to Participate in Elective Abortion

The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced Wednesday that it filed a civil lawsuit in federal court against a Vermont hospital for forcing a nurse to participate in an elective abortion against her will in 2018.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) investigated the incident at the University of Vermont Medical Center (UVMMC) and came to the conclusion in August 2019 that the hospital had forced a nurse to participate in an abortion against her will. At that time, it filed a notice of violation against the hospital for violating the Church Amendments, a statute that prohibits health care entities from discriminating against health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions as a matter of conscience.

The DOJ alleged in the new lawsuit that UVMMC has not updated its policy to comply with the Church Amendments since the incident, and they are seeking for a federal court to acknowledge the violation and force UVMMC to change its policy.

An excerpt from a DOJ press release reads:

"The United States’ complaint alleges that UVMMC violated the Church Amendments when it chose intentionally and willfully to discriminate against a nurse who plainly made her objection to participating in abortions based on her religious beliefs or moral convictions known to UVMMC. Despite knowing of her objection, UVMMC deliberately scheduled this nurse to assist with an elective abortion while deceptively misleading her to believe the procedure did not involve abortion. Once the deceived nurse entered the procedure room she learned the true nature of the procedure. After she reiterated her objection, UVMMC refused to find a non-objecting nurse to take over, effectively forcing the nurse to continue assisting in the abortion (or abandon the patient) despite her well-known religious objection. This example makes up just part of UVMMC’s ongoing pattern, practice, and policy of discriminating against health care providers who believe that the performance, or the assistance in the performance, of abortions is contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions."

Click here to read more.

HHS to Block $200 Million in Medicaid Funding to California in Response to Abortion Coverage Mandate

Roger Severino, Office of Civil Rights Director
at the Department of Health and Human Services
Last Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced that it would be withholding $200 million in federal Medicaid funding from California for illegally mandating that all health care plans cover abortions.

Unless California starts complying with the Weldon Amendment, which bans state and local governments from discriminating against entities that don't pay for abortions, the state will withhold $200 million per quarter starting on Jan. 1, 2020.

The OCR found California in violation of the amendment on January 24, 2020. Health plan issuers in the state were being forced to fully cover the cost of all abortions or be banned by California from issuing any insurance plans there. The HHS warned California at that time that it would face consequences unless it complied, but has refused to do so for 11 months now.

“Entities that receive HHS funds should think twice before flouting federal law and refusing to come into compliance. As a result of our actions today, California will be losing $200 million in federal funds per quarter […],” said Roger Severino, OCR Director. “Whatever one thinks of the legality of abortion, no one should be punished for declining to pay for or assist in the taking of human life.”

Click here to read more.

December 18, 2020

Pro-Lifer Testifies to Congressional Subcommittee Discussing End of Hyde Amendment

Screenshot from House Appropriations Committee video
Last week, Christina Bennett, the Communications Director for the Family Institute of Connecticut, gave testimony to the Congressional subcommittee meeting to discuss the Hyde amendment.

The Hyde Amendment has been attached to every spending bill Congress has passed for decades, and its purpose is to prevent federal tax dollars from being used to fund abortion. Pro-abortion legislators are threatening to end the Hyde Amendment by arguing that it prevents poor women from having abortions that wealthier women can access. With the same logic, these lawmakers argue that the Hyde Amendment is inherently racist. Arguments over this topic started earlier this year, even holding up a federal stimulus bill to which pro-abortion lawmakers refused to add Hyde Amendment language.

Bennett was the only person to give pro-life testimony last week, but she was able to cover several different reasons why government funding of abortion is unethical.

Afterward, Bennett spoke Live Action about several of the arguments she made in her written and spoken testimony. Among them were how government-funded abortions enabled sex-traffickers and abusers to coerce women into abortion who otherwise may not have chosen to abort, how abortion disproportionately ends the lives of minority unborn children, and how unethical practices of the abortion industry would be rewarded by simply paying it with tax dollars.

“This is a government that has had so many abuses against people of color, and to think that on top of that, it’s going to fund abortion!” Bennett wrote in her written testimony to the subcommittee, “[It is] at the least irresponsible and at the most sinister to allow the federal government with a history of eugenics, slavery, Jim Crow laws, and other forms of systemic racism to pay for-profit organizations to end the lives of the vulnerable.”

Click here to read more.

Federal Judge Denies Trump Administration's Request to Enforce Abortion Pill Regulations Again

photo credit: Joe Gratz / Flickr
In a ruling last week, a federal judge is continuing to prevent the FDA from enforcing Risk Evaluation and Mitigation System (REMS) safety requirements for the abortion pills mifepristone and misoprostol. This allows abortion pills to be sold over the internet without the woman first having an appointment with a doctor to assess the woman's pregnancy. 

Back in July, U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang placed FDA safety requirements that were applied to the abortion pill under a preliminary injunction due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Siding with the ACLU and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Chuang said that the pandemic had moved the goalposts of what should be considered an "undue burden."

In August, Chuang went even further by allowing people to purchase abortion pills both online and in pharmacies without ever seeing a doctor in-person.

Also in August, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to stay Chuang's motion on the basis that “judges are not to second-guess how officials address public health concerns,” but the court chose not to rule on the merits of the injunction. Instead, it simply asked the government to “dissolve, modify, or stay the injunction, including on the ground that relevant circumstances have changed,” and for the District Court to rule again after receiving a renewed motion from the Trump administration.

On December 9, Chuang denied the Trump administration's renewed motion. The administration argued that because some states were relaxing their restrictions and the medical community had made progress on both treatments and vaccines for COVID-19, there should be a stay or dissolution on Chuang's injunction. Chuang disagreed, calling these arguments “premature.”

“Accordingly, while the progress on vaccines and medical treatments for COVID-19 are cause for optimism and may advance the day that the Preliminary Injunction will no longer be warranted, the impact of these advances to date has not meaningfully altered the current health risks and obstacles to women seeking medication abortions. The Court therefore finds that these factors do not materially alter the likelihood of success on the merits or warrant a stay or dissolution of the injunction at the present time.”

In situations where an unborn child has surpassed the gestational age at which an abortion via the abortion pill regimen is no longer safe, or the mother has an ectopic pregnancy which would pose an even greater risk to the mother if she were to take the abortion pill regimen, REMS safety requirements can be lifesaving. By continuing to prevent the FDA from enforcing these guidelines, Judge Chuang is increasing the risk that the abortion pill has to injure or kill women in addition to their unborn children.

December 17, 2020

Massachusetts Gov. Baker Line Vetoes Abortion Expansions in Budget Bill

Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker (R)
UPDATE: The Massachusetts House of Representatives and Senate both voted Wednesday to reject all of Gov. Baker's line vetoes. With the margins of those votes, they could override even a full veto from the governor. The story below was written before these developments.

Last Friday, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker signed off on the state's 2021 budget bill, but he line-vetoed several parts that would have expanded abortion. He took issue with the expansion of late-term abortions and the allowance of 16 and 17-year-olds to obtain abortions without the consent of their parents.

Massachusetts Citizens for Life (MCFL) Executive Director Patricia Stewart, while frustrated with parts of the legislation that he accepted, thanked the governor for taking the stance he did. “Although there remains much in this bill with which to take issue, we thank Governor Baker for the common sense recommendation to raise the age for consent to abortion to 18.” 

C.J Williams with MCFL wrote, “He retained the section permitting abortion at and after 24 weeks in cases of so-called ‘fatal fetal abnormalities,’ even though that term is ambiguous and not defined in the bill and opens the door to fatal error.”

Pro-lifers and Gov. Baker have all expressed frustration that this policy was mixed with the state's annual budget. 

“I do share some of the unhappiness that was raised by a number of members of the Republican Party — that putting policy in the budget was something that both leaders in the House and Senate said they would not do,” said Gov. Baker. “And it’s pretty hard to argue that this isn’t a major policy initiative that is now in the budget.”

Legislators can either accept the governor's changes, amend the bill further, or attempt to override his veto with a two-thirds vote in both houses. The House of Representatives could override his veto with the same votes the budget had when it passed.

Click here to read more.

New Pennsylvania Shutdown Exempts Abortion Businesses

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf (D)
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, pro-abortion Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf shut down has shut down businesses throughout the state once again. Similar to how Illinois operated when it was shut down, however, abortion clinics were made exempt from Gov. Wolf's order.

The governor's forces businesses such as gyms and theaters to close their doors. Restaurants, much like in Illinois, are required to resort to outdoor-dining and takeout orders if they are to operate at all. Abortion clinics are allowed to continue business as usual, however, receiving special treatment from Gov. Wolf.

It is presumed that for five months starting near the end of February and ending in July, the state Health Department did not inspect abortion facilities at all, since the department's website does not show inspection reports for any of that time. Pro-life advocates are concerned that this new lockdown might once again mean that abortion clinics are not held accountable to Pennsylvania's health standards.

Earlier this year, Gov. Wolf also vetoed a bill that would have expanded telemedicine in the state because it would have banned tele-abortion.

December 16, 2020

Stanton Healthcare CEO Calls on Pro-Life Pregnancy Clinics to Resist HHS if Xavier Becerra Mandates Abortion Referrals

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra
photo credit: Gage Skidmore / Flickr
Brandi Swindell, the founder and CEO of the pro-life pregnancy healthcare provider Stanton Healthcare, is objecting to Joe Biden's nomination of California Attorney General Xavier Becerra for HHS Secretary. She is asking the Senate to reject Becerra's nomination, and she is asking pro-life pregnancy centers across the country to resist the HHS if it attempts to force them to refer women to abortion clinics under Becerra's direction.

Stanton Healthcare, which has a branch in southern California, has dealt with Xavier Becerra during his time as Attorney General for the state. Becerra attempted to compel pro-life pregnancy centers to refer patients to abortion clinics using the force of law. In NIFLA v. Becerra, the Supreme Court ruled that this kind of compelled speech violated the rights of pro-life pregnancy centers, but a "packed" court could potentially change this stance. The original vote only protected the rights of pro-life clinics by a 5-4 vote.

In a statement from Stanton Healthcare, Swindell said:

"AG Becerra has a track record of working against life-affirming women's medical clinics like Stanton. How do we judge future behavior? By past behavior.

"If he is confirmed, it will be a nightmare for women's health. We strongly urge the Senate to oppose the confirmation of AG Becerra and to do everything within their power to protect pregnancy centers and clinics.

"I want to make it clear as the Founder and CEO of Stanton Healthcare: if Becerra becomes the HHS Secretary, our Stanton Healthcare clinics will never refer for abortions regardless of any mandates set forth by HHS. We will not comply. We would risk arrest, jail time, and fines to defend our right to provide quality compassionate, medically-accurate care to the clientele we serve. And we encourage pregnancy centers and clinics across the nation to refuse to be intimidated into compliance with abortion referrals. Now is the time for us to fight and stand like never before."

Click here to read more.

New Data Shows Abortion Businesses Took Millions in PPP Funding Despite Booming Business

Emergency loans from the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) were sent out by the federal government this past spring to allow small businesses to pay their employees during a time that they may not even be allowed to operate. Frustratingly, new data reveals that financially successful abortion businesses received over $3.5 million in PPP loans, and pro-abortion lobbying groups received over $9.3 million.

It was discovered in May that Planned Parenthood affiliates had received more than $80 million in loans, but those loans were canceled by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Planned Parenthood was supposed to be excluded from those loans since it classified itself as a non-profit with over 500 employees, and it upset many that the largest abortion business in the country had successfully taken millions of dollars from the limited PPP loans available to small businesses.

Alison Dreith, the deputy director of the abortion business Hope Clinic for Women in Granite City, IL, told CBS News in April that “women are now less likely to change their minds once they schedule an abortion. Normally, 50% go through with it; amid the pandemic, the rate is 85%.” Abortion clinics have been allowed to remain open in Illinois, even as other businesses have been forced to shut down, many of which have closed permanently. At the same time, Hope Clinic received over $150,000 in PPP funding.

The SBA disclosed in July only the names of businesses that received $150,000 or more in PPP loans, but it did give the exact amounts of the grants or the names of businesses that received less than $150,000. After major media outlets filed a lawsuit, the SBA recently released more complete data.

Secular Pro-Life analyzed this newly released data compiled a list of abortion businesses and lobbying groups that took loans, as well as how much funding they received. Below is a selection of Illinois abortion businesses from that list.

Access Health Center in Downers Grove, IL received $64,155.


Michigan Avenue Center for Health in Chicago, IL received $28,012. The grant was approved on May 1, 2020. Less than three months later, Michigan Avenue for Health hospitalized a teenage girl.

Women's Aid Center in Chicago, IL received $90,000.

December 15, 2020

Visa and Mastercard Blocked Payments to Pornhub for Enabling Sexual Crimes. Now it's Blocking Millions of Videos in a Desperate Attempt to Survive.

photo credit: Ivan Radic / Flickr
Pornhub, the largest pornography website in the world, has blocked millions of videos from public view on its website after Visa and Mastercard blocked payments to the site using their cards. It hopes to regain favor with the companies by taking this action, but it's unknown if this will be successful.

Pornhub is guilty of enabling sex trafficking and rape through its website. It doesn't require people who upload videos on the site to confirm the age of the people portrayed in their videos, nor whether they gave consent to the sexual acts shown. The organization Exodus Cry, which fights against child and sex trafficking, created a short video explaining how Pornhub enables and profits from these crimes.


In response to allegations that the company profits from the sexual exploitation of others, both Mastercard and Visa announced last week that they would be blocking payments from their cards to the website. Mastercard has suggested that it has permanently blocked the use of its cards on the website, while Visa says that its cards are suspended while the company completes a more thorough investigation. American Express told the Associated Press last week that its cards were already blocked from usage on "digital adult content websites."

Mastercard told the Daily Caller that it had already completed an investigation which “confirmed violations of our standards prohibiting unlawful content” on Pornhub.

On Dec. 14, VICE reported that Pornhub has taken a dramatic move to remove all non-verified content on the website from public access. The website, which previously hosted roughly 13.5 million videos, seems to have blocked over 10 million videos in this process.

After victims of sexual violence are forced or manipulated to commit sexual acts against their wills, they are often similarly pushed toward abortions. The actions that financial institutions are taking against Pornhub and its Canadian parent company MindGeek are doing far more than the Canadian or American governments have ever done to hold the pornography giant accountable for the role it has played in enabling sex-trafficking. 

Manhattan Planned Parenthood Hospitalizes Fifth Woman this Year

photo credit: Operation Rescue
The Planned Parenthood facility in Manhattan, New York hospitalized one of its clients last week, bringing the grand total of women it has sent to the emergency room in the year 2020 to five.

Near 11:000 a.m. on Dec. 8, pro-life activists witnessed emergency medical workers enter the facility before exiting with a woman on a gurney. She was completely covered with a sheet. After the workers loaded her into an ambulance, they drove about a block away before turning on their sirens. This practice is often requested by abortion businesses that are trying to avoid negative press or that don't want to scare women from having abortions.

Until recently, the Manhattan Planned Parenthood clinic was called the Margaret Sanger Center, after the abortion giant's founder. Margaret Sanger's name was removed from the clinic earlier this year after the company come under fire for the systemic racism of its past. Sanger was well-known for her racist policy of encouraging abortion among the black population specifically so she could reduce the reproduction of genes that she felt were bad for society.

Click here to read more.