NPR Promotes Pro-Abortion Billboards Encouraging Abortion in Illinois

On October 11, taxpayer-funded NPR aired a second story focused on the pro-abortion billboards placed along Interstate 55 between pro-life states and Illinois.

The billboards, purchased by the Seattle-based "Shout Your Abortion," were created to combat pro-life signs by crisis pregnancy centers. The pro-abortion organization argued that the signs "traumatize" women traveling from pro-life states to Carbondale, where they can legally have abortions. The pro-abortion signs contain messages like "God's Plan Includes Abortion."

The NPR story takes several statements from Shout Your Abortion and pro-abortion groups, but it only included two sentences to represent the pro-life position.

"The group's founder, Mary Ann Kuharski, said their billboards generate about 500 calls per month, with a slight increase since the Dobbs Supreme Court decision.

'We don't argue,' she says. 'We don't use harsh words. We never even use the word abortion on our billboards.'"

For a taxpayer-funded news source that is supposed to be unbiased, NPR's piece appears to serve as free political advertising for pro-abortion groups more than anything else.

This is the second time NPR has promoted Shout Your Abortion and the billboards. The first story was published by NPR Illinois on September 12. This second story, aired on NPR's "Morning Edition" on October 11, went as far as to describe pro-life pregnancy centers as "so-called crisis pregnancy centers." The written version of the same story edited this line to read "often called 'crisis pregnancy centers.'"

Click here to read more.

Biden Rule Would Interpret Pregnancy Nondiscrimination Law to Require Employers to Cover Abortion

The Biden administration has proposed a rule that would interpret federal pregnancy nondiscrimination law to require employers to cover abortions.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) proposed a rule to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which was passed into law in 2022. The law's language requires employers to make "reasonable accommodations" for women based on limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. The text does not mention abortion, but the EEOC's rule would interpret abortion as a "related medical condition."

“The Biden administration has gone rogue,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy, the lead Republican co-sponsor of the PWFA.

“These regulations completely disregard legislative intent and attempt to rewrite the law by regulation. The Biden administration has to enforce the law as passed by Congress, not how they wish it was passed. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is aimed at assisting pregnant mothers who remain in the workforce by choice or necessity as they bring their child to term and recover after childbirth. The decision to disregard the legislative process to inject a political abortion agenda is illegal and deeply concerning.”

Representatives Virginia Foxx (R-NC) and Mary Miller (R-IL) wrote a letter to EEOC chair Charlotte Burrows to demand that the EEOC rewrite the rule.

“The proposed rule defines ‘related medical conditions’ to include ‘use of birth control, menstruation, infertility and fertility treatments, [and] endometriosis,’ among other treatments and conditions,” Reps. Foxx and Miller’s letter reads. “By including treatments and conditions such as these, the proposed rule stretches its interpretation of the PWFA past the breaking point. As explained above, Congress intended the PWFA to address commonplace workplace needs of pregnant workers, such as access to water, additional bathroom breaks, or provision of a stool or chair.”

Click here to read more.

CVS Gives Abortion Pill to Pregnant Mother in Prescription Mistake

photo credit: Mike Mozart / Flickr

A CVS pharmacy in Nevada has been penalized after it gave the abortion pill misoprostol to a woman who was prescribed fertility treatment in 2019.

The CVS was fined $10,000 in penalties issued last month. Two pharmacists involved in the mistake risk losing their licenses unless they pay separate fines, complete education courses, and have no further violations over the next year.

Timika Thomas, a mother of four, was prescribed Endometrin, a drug containing progesterone, to aid in her attempt to have another child through IVF. Thomas had two embryos implanted via IVF before this incident.

Progesterone is a pregnancy hormone that helps facilitate the transfer of oxygen and nutrients from a mother's body to her child. Doctors prescribe progesterone during IVF because the process inhibits the body's natural progesterone production.

Progesterone is also prescribed during difficult pregnancies to help prevent miscarriage. Similarly, some doctors prescribe progesterone to help mothers who regret taking the first abortion pill, mifepristone. This can help reverse the effects of mifepristone and save the unborn child's life.

In Thomas's case, CVS provided her with misoprostol. Misoprostol is the second drug in the abortion pill regimen. It induces labor, thereby removing the aborted child from a mother's womb. Court testimony by CVS staff described a series of mistakes leading to Thomas being given the wrong drug.

After Thomas took the drugs, she experienced painful stomach cramping caused by misoprostol. She searched online and found that she was prescribed an abortion pill, so she called CVS. Much like pro-life doctors, CVS pharmacists planned to try and rectify the mistake by getting injectable progesterone to Thomas, but this did not happen until the next day.

Thomas lost both children. It is unclear if the children were killed by misoprostol, or if they just didn't survive the IVF process. Regardless, Thomas's next pregnancy test came back negative.

CVS and Walgreens started carrying abortion pills earlier this year after the Biden FDA approved their distribution at pharmacies. Previously, FDA regulations required that they be distributed by the prescribing physicians.

Click here to read more.

Florida AG Asks State Supreme Court to Block Pro-Abortion Ballot Measure

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R)

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) is asking Florida's Supreme Court to block a proposed ballot measure that would amend the Florida Constitution and create a right to abortion. She argues that the measure's language deceives voters.

The proposed amendment states, "Except as provided in Article X, Section 22 [Florida's parental notification law], no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider."

Moody argues that the amendment fails to clearly define "viability." In an op-ed for Florida's Voice, Moody wrote,

"As just one example of how misleading this initiative is, the initiative creates a right to abortion through 'viability.' As any mother knows, 'viability' has two meanings when it comes to pregnancy.

First, it means whether a pregnancy is expected to continue developing normally through delivery. Doctors can tell during the first trimester, usually around about 12 weeks, whether a pregnancy is viable and would have a much lower risk of miscarriage. For that reason, many women often wait to tell family and friends about their pregnancy until that time.

Second, viability is sometimes used to mean whether a baby can survive outside of the uterus, which currently is around 21 to 25 weeks of pregnancy. The two time periods, depending on your definition of viability, are starkly different, and the procedures performed to abort a baby’s life at either time period are dissimilar."

Moody's argument suggests that some voters could interpret the language as prohibiting abortion after 12 weeks gestation, since that is when the first definition of abortion would apply. Since more Americans support abortion during the first trimester, this could draw more voters to support the amendment.

"As attorney general, I have a constitutional and statutory duty to inform the Florida Supreme Court when ballot initiatives will confuse voters. Thus, I will file a brief with the court fulfilling that responsibility," Moody concluded.

Truthfully, the language of this amendment actually allows unlimited abortion. It allows a mother's "healthcare provider" to declare an abortion legal if it would protect the mother's "health." These terms are often interpreted broadly in court, such that the amendment would allow an abortionist (the person profiting from abortion) to declare the abortion necessary to protect a mother's mental or emotional health.

Click here to read more.

Kamala Harris at DNC: Protecting Babies from Abortion After Rape is "immoral"

At the Democratic National Committee meeting in St. Louis on Oct 6, Vice President Kamala Harris advocated against pro-life laws by arguing that protecting babies from abortion after rape is "immoral."

"...the policy proposal is essentially that after someone has survived a crime of violence to their body, a violation to their body, that they cannot have the authority to make a decision about what happens to their body next. That is immoral."

Only about 1% of women who have abortions make the decision because they became pregnant from rape. Further, many pro-life laws include exceptions for rape.

Regardless, the unborn child is not considered in Harris's statement. The baby is genetically distinct from the mother. Whether the unborn child is conceived in rape or not, violence against the mother is not rectified by enacting more violence against her child.

All the same, Harris doubled down by suggesting that Americans with pro-life beliefs should not advocate for pro-life laws. “...one does not have to abandon their faith, or deeply held beliefs, to agree the government should not be telling her what to do with her body.”

Harris's statements show a lack of understanding of the pro-life position. Pro-lifers work hard to support both mothers and their children through political advocacy and direct support (such as crisis pregnancy centers). Pro-life Americans feel that they have an obligation to protect victims and the needy. They choose to do so through pro-life advocacy.

Click here to read more.

9th Circuit Lifts Injunction Blocking Parts of Idaho Pro-Life Law

On October 5, a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously decided to lift an injunction prohibiting Idaho from enforcing a law that protects unborn children from abortion except in cases rape, incest, or health situations threatening the mother's life.

Biden's Department of Justice filed suit against Idaho in August of 2022, arguing that the law violated the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). EMTALA requires stabilizing treatment for any conditions jeopardizing an individual's health. The Biden administration argued that Idaho's law's language was too restrictive, and it would have prohibited medical treatment legally required by EMTALA.

On August 24, 2022, District Judge B. Lynn Winmill (a Clinton appointee) issued a preliminary injunction blocking Idaho from enforcing the pro-life law while the case continued. He agreed with the Biden administration that the law conflicted with EMTALA.

The 9th Circuit based its decision on the Idaho Supreme Court's interpretation of the pro-life law. The panel found that the law does not appear to be in conflict with EMTALA.

"The Supreme Court of Idaho clarified that the text of the exception means what it says: If a doctor subjectively believes, in his or her good faith medical judgment, that an abortion is necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman, then the exception applies. Thus the district court’s reliance on declarations of certain doctors claiming that the law would undermine their medical judgement is no longer valid."

Judge Lawrence VanDyke also wrote for the 9th Circuit panel,

"The purpose of EMTALA is not to impose specific standards of care— such as requiring the provision of abortion—but simply to “ensure that hospitals do not refuse essential emergency care because of a patient’s inability to pay.” To read EMTALA to require a specific method of treatment, such as abortion, pushes the statute far beyond its original purpose, and therefore is not a ground to disrupt Idaho’s historic police powers."

While the temporary injunction has been lifted, the DOJ's lawsuit still continues. Biden's DOJ could also ask an 11-judge panel from the 9th Circuit or the Supreme Court to reconsider the injunction.

Click here to read more.

US District Judge Blocks Provisions of Pro-Life North Carolina Law

On Sept 30, US District Judge Catherine Eagles issued an injunction blocking two provisions of a new North Carolina pro-life law.

One provision would have required all abortions after 12 weeks gestation to occur in hospitals. The other provision would have required doctors to confirm a mother's pregnancy before prescribing abortion-inducing drugs.

North Carolina's “Care for Women, Children, and Families Act” passed in May allows abortion until 12 weeks gestation. It includes exceptions for rape and incest up to 20 weeks gestation, and it allows abortion in cases of "life-limiting" fetal anomalies during the first 24 weeks. It allows abortion at any stage if the mother's life is in danger.

Lawmakers argued in a brief that the law protects women from abortion businesses that would unsafely prescribe abortion-inducing drugs without first ruling out conditions such as ectopic pregnancy. A mother with an ectopic pregnancy is at great risk of hemorrhage if she takes the abortion pill regimen.

Further, the lawmakers argued that abortion businesses are often unable to handle the life-threatening complications that can occur during surgical abortions after 12 weeks gestation. Women with post-abortion complications are often transported to hospitals to address these injuries.

Operation Rescue often documents incidents when women are hospitalized after surgical abortions at abortion businesses. Many of the more recent incidents were documented at abortion businesses in Illinois.

Judge Eagles's injunction will remain in effect while Planned Parenthood's legal challenge to the “Care for Women, Children, and Families Act” continues.

Click here to read more.

Gov. Pritzker Says Pornography in Schools Allows Children to "read different perspectives"

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker took to Twitter to celebrate how his administration is preventing local governments from controlling whether pornographic books are allowed in public schools and libraries. These radical books advocate for non-marital recreational sex, thus contributing to increased numbers of unplanned pregnancies and abortions among young people.

“Illinois became the first state in the nation to ban book bans earlier this year,” Pritzker said on X.

“2022 had the most attempted book bans on record for the ALA. It was time for us to act. 

Unlike Republicans, I want our children to read as much as they can and to read different perspectives.”

Illinois became the first state in the nation to ban book bans earlier this year.

2022 had the most attempted book bans on record for the ALA. It was time for us to act.

Unlike Republicans, I want our children to read as much as they can and to read different perspectives. pic.twitter.com/AyD3F3WEXG

— Governor JB Pritzker (@GovPritzker) October 2, 2023

Earlier this year, Pritzker signed legislation empowering the state government to remove public funding from libraries and school districts if they enact bans against pornographic materials. The law was written in response to local governments removing progressive sexual materials from public libraries.

Harlem School District 122 is one such district that removed graphic sexual content such as the book "Gender Queer" from its shelves in response to parental backlash.

Click here to read more.

Texas AG Sues Yelp for Deceptively Labeling Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R)

On Sept 28, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) announced a lawsuit against Yelp for using "inaccurate and misleading language" to label Yelp pages for pro-life pregnancy centers. Paxton argues that the labels violated Texas's Deceptive Trade Practice Act.

A press release from Paxton's office reads,

"Yelp’s CEO is entitled to his views on abortion, but he was not entitled to use the Yelp platform to deceptively disparage facilities that counsel pregnant women instead of providing abortions. Yelp appended language to all pregnancy resource center Yelp pages, indicating that those pages 'typically provide limited medical services and may not have licensed medical professionals onsite.' That disclaimer is misleading and often untrue because pregnancy resource centers frequently do provide medical services with licensed medical professionals onsite."

Yelp removed the misleading labels after Paxton requested the company to do so earlier this year, but Paxton's lawsuit argues that Yelp "remains liable for penalties and other relief for the duration of its unlawful behavior." The lawsuit seeks an enjoining order preventing Yelp from taking similar actions in the future. It also seeks civil penalties and monetary damages.

Click here to read more.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom Appoints Pro-Abortion PAC President to Feinstein's Senate Seat

On October 1, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced the appointment of Laphonza Butler to the US Senate seat left vacant after the death of Sen. Dianne Feinstein. Butler is the president of the pro-abortion political action committee Emily's List.

“An advocate for women and girls, a second-generation fighter for working people, and a trusted adviser to Vice President Harris, Laphonza Butler represents the best of California, and she’ll represent us proudly in the United States Senate,” said Governor Newsom. “As we mourn the enormous loss of Senator Feinstein, the very freedoms she fought for — reproductive freedom, equal protection, and safety from gun violence — have never been under greater assault. Laphonza will carry the baton left by Senator Feinstein, continue to break glass ceilings, and fight for all Californians in Washington D.C.”

National Right to Life issued a statement regarding Butler's appointment:

"[Gavin Newsom's] appointment of Laphonza Butler, president of the pro-abortion EMILY’s List, is just another example in a long line of actions that Newsom has taken to push unlimited abortions. 

EMILY’s List is a political action committee that spends millions of dollars every election cycle to elect pro-abortion Democrat women. To be endorsed by EMILY’s List, candidates must take a hardline stance opposing any and all protections for unborn children. In previous election cycles, the group has pulled endorsements from pro-abortion candidates because the candidates opposed partial-birth abortions or taxpayer funding of abortion."

Onlookers were quick to point out that Butler does not live in California. At the time of Newsom's announcement, Butler's social media pages and her bio on the Emily's List website stated that she lived in Silver Spring, Maryland. After the announcement, this information was quickly removed.

When Fox News pointed this out to Newsom's office, it responded that Butler owns a home in California, and she will re-register to vote there before she is sworn in.

Chicago Planned Parenthood Hospitalizes Two Women within a Week

Within a span of five days in January 2023, two women were transported by ambulance from the Near North Planned Parenthood in Chicago Illinois after experiencing severe hemorrhaging from abortions. The Pro-Life Action League recently obtained 911 records via FOIA request and provided them to Operation Rescue.

Redacted audio recordings of the 911 calls are available here.

The two emergencies in question occurred on January 20 and January 25. Both emergencies involved heavy bleeding after abortions. In these cases, it is likely that Planned Parenthood perforated the women's uteruses.

Both women who were injured in these incidents were 29 years old. It's frustrating to hear that Planned Parenthood hospitalized two similar patients the same way within a week.

“The abortionists at this high-volume Planned Parenthood continue to butcher women in the process of violently killing their precious, innocent babies,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “The more babies they can kill, the more blood money flows into their pockets. The suffering experienced by mothers is just a by-product of increasing their profit.”

Click here to read more.

New Jersey Abortion Coverage Mandate Takes Effect

New Jersey Gov Phil Murphy (D)

A New Jersey law requiring large employer health insurance markets to cover abortions took effect on September 18. Individual and small employer markets were required to provide the coverage earlier this year.

New Jersey's Freedom of Reproductive Choice Act tasked the state's Department of Banking Insurance to determine whether health insurance providers should be required to cover abortion. The conclusions released by the department argued that “abortion is part of comprehensive insurance coverage for reproductive care and should reasonably be included in the range of services coverage by health insurance.”

Further, the department argued that abortion coverage costs would be offset by costs that health insurance companies would not have to pay for prenatal, delivery, and postnatal care. Essentially, the department argued that health insurance companies could save money by paying for abortions instead of health care that values the lives of the unborn and young infants.

“New Jersey remains a leader in safeguarding reproductive rights and health care services. Implementation of this requirement across department-regulated plans will provide access to abortion services without exceptions limiting coverage — reaffirming a woman’s ability to make medical decisions about her reproductive health,” New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy said in a statement. “This rulemaking is another step forward in ensuring residents can access the reproductive care they both need and deserve.”

New Jersey's law did not create a new legal right to abortion. Vulnerable New Jersey women could already choose abortion. The new law requires third parties to pay for elective abortions. That is the opposite of choice.

Click here to read more.

UN Adopts Pandemic Readiness Declaration Endorsing Abortion Rights

On Sept. 20, leaders at the United Nations (UN) General Assembly approved a non-binding political declaration outlining strategies to better respond to global pandemics in the future. Embedded in the declaration's language, however, calls for universal abortion rights by 2030.

A UN press release said that the declaration calls for "stronger international collaboration and coordination at the highest political levels to better prevent, prepare for and respond to pandemics." 

A report from the Washington Stand pointed out language in the declaration calling for pro-abortion social policies. Paragraph 52 of the 78-paragraph document calls for UN members to,

“Ensure, by 2030, universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes, which is fundamental to the achievement of universal health coverage, while reaffirming the commitments to ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences…” 

Chris Gacek, senior fellow for the Regulator Affairs at Family Research Council, told the Washington Stand that the resolution was put forth without a formal vote. “There was no vote,” he explained. “People are under the impression that it passed. That usually means that there was a roll call vote of the General Assembly, but there was no consensus on this.”

The declaration's stated goal for member nations to enact specific policies by 2030 means that an official treaty would need to follow. The next step for such a treaty could take place in Geneva next May.

Click here to read more.

Senate Holds Slow Military Appointment Votes to Bypass Sen. Tuberville's Pro-Life Protest

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL)

For the first time since Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) began protesting Biden's pro-abortion military policies by blocking unanimous consent votes for military appointments, the Senate has appointed leadership roles by individual votes. One vote took place on Sept. 20, and another two were held on Sept. 21.

When the Biden administration announced its legally questionable policy to pay the abortion travel expenses of military members and their dependents, Tuberville announced his intent to reject unanimous consent votes for military promotions and appointments until the policy was stopped. He followed through on that promise, blocking unanimous consent votes for over 300 appointments since February.

Federal law prohibits Department of Defense funds from being “used to perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or in a case in which the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.” The Biden administration's policy technically doesn't pay for abortion procedures, but it does pay for travel expenses and paid leave to obtain abortions.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) criticized Tuberville before initiating the first vote: “What Sen. Tuberville is doing will set the military and the Senate down a path to vote on every single military promotion,” Schumer said. “It will make every single military officer’s promotion subject to the political whims of the Senate and even of one senator. It will change the nature of our nonpolitical military. It will hamstring the Senate and further bog down this body and make it harder for us to legislate.”

Tuberville countered later on the Senate floor, arguing that the Senate “could have confirmed these nominees a long, long time ago” but that Democrats have instead “spent months complaining about having to vote.” He also commented that the backlog would be much smaller if Schumer had held individual votes for appointments without letting a backlog increase.

“My hold is still in place,” Tuberville said. “The hold will remain in place as long as the Pentagon’s illegal abortion policy remains in place. If the Pentagon lifts the policy, then I will lift my hold. It’s as easy as that.”

Click here to read more.

California Attorney General Sues Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers over Abortion Pill Reversal

California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D)

On September 21, California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) filed lawsuits against five pro-life pregnancy centers for promoting abortion pill reversal.

Bonta's lawsuit accused the pregnancy centers of misleading women about abortion pill reversal, thereby violating California laws regarding false advertising and unfair competition.

The first drug in the abortion pill regimen, mifepristone, suppresses the pregnancy hormone progesterone. Progesterone helps support a developing child by facilitating the flow of oxygen and nutrients from the mother to the child. When Progesterone is blocked by mifepristone, the child dies of starvation and asphyxiation.

Abortion pill reversal involves prescribing additional progesterone to ensure the unborn child receives the oxygen and nutrients needed to survive. If a mother regrets taking mifepristone, abortion pill reversal can save her child's life. Progesterone is also prescribed to help prevent miscarriage during difficult pregnancies.

Bonta's lawsuit claims that no scientific evidence supports the safety and efficacy of abortion pill reversal.

“HBI and RealOptions took advantage of pregnant patients at a deeply vulnerable time in their lives, using false and misleading claims to lure them in and mislead them about a potentially risky procedure,” Bonta alleged. “We are launching today’s lawsuit to put a stop to their predatory and unlawful behavior.”

Heartbeat International is one of the organizations named in Bonta's lawsuit. It is affiliated with several pro-life pregnancy centers in the area, and it hosts the Abortion Pill Rescue Network Hotline. The Hotline takes calls from women who regret taking mifepristone, and it helps connect them with doctors who prescribe abortion pill reversal. Heartbeat International released a statement in response to Bonta's lawsuit.

“All major studies show that using progesterone to counteract a chemical abortion (Abortion Pill Reversal) can be effective since it’s the very same hormone a woman’s body produces to sustain her pregnancy. One study even shows an effective rate of 80%. Progesterone has been safely used with pregnant women and their babies since the 1950s. To date, statistics show more than 4,500 women have had successful abortion pill reversals and that number grows higher each day.”

Bonta's lawsuit in California reminds us of the dangers posed by political prosecution. In Illinois, pro-life pregnancy centers are threatened by SB1909. Though it is currently blocked pending litigation, this law would threaten legal action against any pro-life pregnancy center accused of "deception" or "omission of any material fact." The law does not provide a definition for "material fact," thereby allowing prosecutors to interpret the phrase broadly and potentially require pro-life pregnancy centers to refer women for abortions.

Click here to read more.

"Shout Your Abortion" Places Billboards on Highways from Pro-Life States to Illinois

Pro-abortion advocates purchased six billboard advertisements on the highway leading from several pro-life states toward Illinois. The billboards, intended to try and counteract several pro-life advertisements along the same path, display messages such as "abortion is ok" and "God's plan includes abortion."

The pro-abortion group "Shout Your Abortion" purchased the ads in pro-life states along Interstate 55 leading to Illinois. In addition to funding provided by Shout Your Abortion, pro-abortion advocates have crowdfunded over $12,000 to support the billboards.

"Anti-abortion groups have lined I-55 with horrible billboards intended to shame and traumatize people," Shout Your Abortion wrote on its website. "We hope that our billboards are a beacon of support and affirmation for everyone making that journey."

The six billboards span Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.

“It just hurts my heart to think about all the folks that are having to encounter [pro-life billboards] in order to access abortion care,” Shout Your Abortion Executive Director Amelia Bonow told NPR Illinois. “And…we're all quite used to being inundated with shame-based, judgmental, harassing anti-abortion messages, whether that's on billboards or protesters screaming outside of a clinic or messaging coming from the faith community.”

Pro-Life Across America Director Mary Ann Kuharski told NPR Illinois that her organization is currently in the process of changing some of the billboards, but recent campaigns have used messages such as “Every Life Counts -- I could feel pain at 12 weeks’ and “Protect the Babies – heartbeat at 18 days from conception.”

Pro-life messaging values the lives of unborn children. Human life has intrinsic, sacred value. Any message acknowledging the humanity of children whose lives are ended by abortion can invoke an emotional response. The messaging is not intended to harm mothers. It is intended to help them acknowledge the value of unborn children and save lives. The billboards placed by Shout Your Abortion only help to keep society in denial and enable more deaths.

Click here to read more.

NARAL Changes Name to "Reproductive Freedom for All"

On September 20, NARAL Pro-Choice America announced that it had changed its name once again in an attempt to manipulate the language used in the abortion debate. Now, it goes by the name "Reproductive Freedom for All."

In 1969, before Roe v. Wade was decided, the organization founded itself as the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws. After Roe was decided in 1973, it changed its name to the National Abortion Rights Action League.

In 1993, the group changed its name again to the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. That changed to NARAL Pro-Choice America in 2003 when the organization geared up for the 2004 presidential election.

Despite all these name changes, the organization's primary goal is still to expand abortion and enable the deaths of innocent unborn children.

NARAL president Mini Timmaraju explained the newest change to New York Times reporter Lisa Lerer. Lerer reported that the change targets younger demographics; particularly younger male voters. The group hopes to sway voters by further separating the political debate from the rights of unborn children.

“NARAL is incredibly resonant for the political world, but we’re not necessarily in the business anymore of just winning political opinion within elected officials and policymakers,” Ms. Timmaraju said. “We are now in a much bigger fight for the heart and soul of the American people and those are folks who are brand-new to the abortion debate.”

Lerer's report also announced that the organization hopes to enact pro-abortion policies by pushing to eliminate the Senate filibuster, opposing voter ID laws, and asking pro-abortion administrations to add more justices to the US Supreme Court.

Lerer also suggests, "The abortion rights movement has shifted its message from talking about abortion as health care to casting the legality of the procedure as an American liberty. It’s a message NARAL has been pushing since 2018, when an internal research project found the argument to be the most broadly persuasive."

Abortion is an act that ends human lives. It deprives these humans of all rights, including personal liberty. No matter how many times NARAL changes, it fails to recognize the humanity of unborn children. In doing so, it continues to promote death.

Ohio Supreme Court Accepts "Unborn Child" Wording for Abortion Rights Ballot Item

On September 19, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled 3-2 in favor of the Ohio Ballot Board's language for a ballot item that would enshrine a right to abortion in the Ohio constitution.

The proposed amendment would legalize abortion at all stages of pregnancy as long as an abortionist deems it necessary to protect the mother's health. This can include mental health, and abortionists would be able to make the judgment themselves.

A coalition of pro-abortion groups sued the Ohio Ballot Board over the word choice used in the ballot item set to appear this fall. The language chosen by the ballot board replaced the word "fetus" with "unborn child."

The Ohio Supreme Court rejected the argument by pro-abortion groups that the ballot board's language "introduces an ethical judgment."

Mary Cianciolo, a spokesperson for the Ohio Secretary of State's Office, told NBC News, “By rejecting special interest attempts to substitute their own carefully crafted and poll-tested language for that of the ballot board, they have ensured Ohio voters will have a full and accurate understanding of the proposed measure when they go to cast their ballots.”

Click here to read more.

Indiana Attorney General Files Suit Against Hospital System Employing Abortionist Caitlin Bernard

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R)

On September 15, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita filed suit against the state's largest hospital system, Indiana University Health (IUH). The lawsuit alleges that the hospital system was complicit in abortionist Caitlin Bernard's violation of privacy laws when she informed the press about a 10-year-old rape victim's abortion.

Indiana's Medical Licensing Board reprimanded Bernard and fined her $3000. IUH, on the other hand, claimed that Bernard did not violate any laws with her actions.

Rokita's lawsuit states,

"The 10-year-old’s treatment was a very private and sensitive matter, as was the abuse she suffered that resulted in her pregnancy. Neither the 10-year-old nor her mother gave the doctor authorization to speak to the media about their case.

Rather than protecting the patient, the hospital chose to protect the doctor, and itself."

The lawsuit alleges IUH violated the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and an Indiana patient privacy law.

Rokita also argues that IUH is not treating employees fairly, suggesting that other employees were fired after lesser offenses.

"By publicly contradicting the Medical Licensing Board by contending [Bernard’s] actions were 'in compliance with privacy laws,' and through its inconsistent application of its privacy policies and sanctions among its 36,000 member workforce, IUH has created confusion regarding what conduct is permitted under HIPAA privacy laws and the Indiana Patient Confidentiality rule. The inconsistencies and confusion threaten the privacy of its Indiana patients."

Click here to read more.

Scientists Seeking Approval for Artificial Wombs

photo credit: Andrew Nyr
CC-BY-SA-4.0

Researchers at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) are requesting permission from the FDA to begin human testing for artificial womb technology. At this time, the researchers hope to use these artificial wombs to increase the survival rates of micro-preemies.

So far, CHOP researchers have successfully used artificial womb devices to keep premature lambs alive.

FDA advisors are set to meet and discuss the request next week. “This is definitely an exciting step and it’s been a long time coming,” Kelly Werner, a bioethicist and neonatologist at Columbia University Medical Center, told Nature. “Clinicians who work with premature babies will be closely following this meeting.”

If artificial wombs become readily available to preserve the lives of unborn children prior to viability, then the abortion debate will change dramatically. Pro-abortion activists would no longer be able to take the stance that abortion is necessary to preserve a mother's "bodily autonomy." Artificial wombs could take the burden of childbearing away from women with unplanned pregnancies without ending the lives of innocent children.

Some pro-abortion activists still argue for abortion rights in an era of artificial wombs. In an op-ed for Vox, I. Glenn Cohen wrote that women should have the option because they might not want to be a genetic parent.

“This would effectively preserve her right not to be a gestational parent — as she can stop gestating by transfer to the artificial womb — but not her right not to be a genetic parent. That’s because a child would come into being with her genetic code that she does not want to exist,” he said, adding, “Confronted with the argument that transfer to an artificial womb could be made mandatory, a different strategy might be to stand up and defend abortion as a right not to be a genetic parent — full stop. The asserted right, in other words, would extend further than the right not to be a gestational parent and include a right to terminate the fetus.”

In this argument, a mother's feelings toward her child are more important than the child's well-being; even to the point that a mother has the right to order her child's death. It is an extreme position, even for pro-abortion activists.

Artificial wombs may create other ethical concerns, but it is worth discussing how emerging technology will affect the abortion debate.

Click here to read more.