Pro-Life Page

Monday, December 22, 2014
by Cheryl Sullenger | LifeNews.com | 12/22/14 11:15 AM
 
Pro­life activists caught an ambulance on video as it rushed a patient to the hospital from Southwestern
Women’s Options, an abortion facility known to specialize in very late­term abortions. The incident took
place on Friday, December 19, 2014.
 
This represents the seventeenth documented botched abortion at that facility since 2008.
The video clearly shows a patient on a gurney
as she was loaded into an awaiting ambulance
and whisked away to a nearby hospital.
“While abortion is never safe for mother or
child, those who champion abortion in New
Mexico cannot claim to care about women
seeking abortions when these injuries continue
to pile up without consequence,” stated Bud
Shaver, Executive Director of Protest ABQ.
 
Tara Shaver, also of Protest ABQ, verified that
the abortionist on duty was Shelley Sella, who
was featured in the film “After Tiller,” which explored controversial late­term abortions done by Sella and
others throughout all nine months of pregnancy.
 
Sella, who flies in from her home in California to conduct abortions in Albuquerque, faced license
revocation in 2012 for botching an abortion done at 35 weeks on a woman with a history of having a
previous Cesarean section. The woman’s uterus ruptured during labor and she nearly died. The incident
was discovered by Tara Shaver, who had obtained 911 records that dramatically documented the event.
Both Shaver and Operation Rescue filed complaints against Sella with the New Mexico Medical Board.
However, after a disciplinary hearing in which the Board’s attorney recommended sanctions against Sella,
the New Mexico Medical Board inexplicably cleared her of all wrong­doing in 2013, leaving Sella to
continue her pattern of seriously injuring women.
 
In addition, New Mexico has enacted no minimum safety standards for abortions and continues to allow
abortion clinics to operate without inspection or any other accountability despite the large number of
documented abortion injuries.
 
“New Mexico continues to be the Wild West for an out­of­control abortion cartel that is allowed to run amok
by a state government that refuses to hold it accountable to even the most rudimentary safety standards
that could spare women from needless injury,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue. “Until
that changes, we will continue to see women hurt and perhaps killed by abortionists that admit they do not
use practices that meet the minimum standard of care. Women everywhere should be outraged that
women’s lives and health are regarded with less consideration that what New Mexico‘s pets receive.”
Operation Rescue continues to urge the New Mexico Medical Board to take action to protect women and
shut down Southwestern Women’s Options permanently.
 
Friday, December 19, 2014

by Sarah Torre | LifeNews.com | 12/18/14 12:45 PM

 

Yesterday, the Council of the District of Columbia passed a bill that could force employers in the nation’s capital to cover elective abortions in their health plans and require even pro-life organizations to hire individuals who oppose their views on abortion. The bill will now go to Mayor Vincent Gray for approval.

This latest attempt to violate the freedom of individuals in the District should spur Congress to better protect the conscience rights for all Americans.

The “Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act,” specifically prohibits employers from discriminating in “compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment” on the basis of an individual’s “reproductive health decision making” – including the “termination of a pregnancy.”

In light of comments made by Council member David Grosso at a hearing on the bill earlier this year, the D.C. legislation could be interpreted to force even religious and pro-life employers to provide coverage of elective abortions.

The threat against conscience rights is serious for many organizations in D.C. like Americans United for Life, March for Life, Family Research Council and the Archdiocese of Washington, among others. Organizations whose mission is to empower women facing unplanned pregnancies with physical and emotional support or who advocate for policies that affirm the dignity and value of both mother and child in law could be forced to provide health insurance for the life-ending procedure they oppose.

“This bill is an egregious attack on pro-life conscience,” said Alliance Defending Freedom’s Senior Counsel Casey Mattox, who wrote letters to the council on behalf of a number of pro-life groups in the District. “The government has no business forcing pro-life organizations to pay for elective abortions.”

The bill could also prohibit an organization from making employment decisions in accordance with their beliefs so as to maintain the integrity of their pro-life mission and advocacy.

“Under the proposed bill, a Catholic school could not fire a principal who had an elective abortion, announced this to staff and students, and stated she believed this decision was consistent with Church teaching,” writes Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, in a letter to the D.C. council. He explains:

 This is absurd….[N]ot only is there nothing invidious about religious organizations making employment decisions on the basis of employee behavior, but such decisions are protected by the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of association and freedom of religion.

Even D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray urged the council to postpone voting on the bill a few weeks ago, noting a review of the legislation by the Office of Attorney General “deemed the legislation legally insufficient.” The Mayor’s letter continued:

According to the OAG, the bill raises serious concerns under the Constitution and under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). Religious organizations, religiously-affiliated organizations, religiously-driven for-profit entities, and political organizations may have strong First Amendment and RFRA grounds for challenging the law’s applicability to them.

In addition to those concerns, the District could also be in hot water under federal conscience law. To the extent the D.C. bill would force employers to include coverage of elective abortion in their health plans, the District would be in violation of a federal policy known as the Weldon Amendment.

Since 2004, the Weldon Amendment has prohibited state and local governments receiving certain federal funds from discriminating against health care entities that decline to “provide, pay for, provide coverage of or refer for abortions.” That protection extends to health care plans. Enforcement of the conscience policy, however, is left to the discretion of officials in the Department of Health and Human Services, which has a less-than-illustrious track record of moving quickly on complaints.

Congress should provide victims of conscience rights violations the ability to defend their rights in court, not leave them to wait on bureaucrats in the Obama administration. The Abortion Non-Discrimination Act would do just that by modifying the Weldon amendment to provide a private right of action for individuals and institutions who are discriminated against because they decline to participate in or pay for coverage of abortion.

The D.C. bill is the second time this year a government has forced employers to cover elective abortions in their health plans. In August, California mandated that almost ever health plan in the state include coverage of elective abortions, including those offered by religious organizations, religious schools – even churches. Requests to HHS officials to review the state’s mandate have so far gone unanswered by the Obama administration.

Policymakers shouldn’t wait for more assaults on conscience to better protect the freedom of every American – from California to D.C. and everywhere in between.

Thursday, December 18, 2014
by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 12/17/14 11:28 AM
 
In a horrible defeat for conscience rights for medical professionals, a British court today ruled that a pair of
midwives who didn’t want to be involved in assisting abortions must do so.
Midwives Mary Doogan and Connie Wood won a lower court decision last year but the UK’s Supreme
Court heard an appeal brought by the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, which is supported by the proabortion
British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) and the Royal College of Midwives.
The midwives, with more than 20 years’
 
experience, initially lost their cases against their
employers in the Outer House of the Court of
Session in Edinburgh in 2012. However that
decision was overturned in 2013 by the Court’s
Inner House, which judged the midwives were
legally allowed to refrain from delegating to,
supervising and supporting colleagues involved in
abortion care on their wards.
 
The dispute arose when Doogan’s and Wood’s
employers reorganized abortion services in 2007.
Mid­term and late­term abortions would be
performed on the labor ward rather than on the gynecology ward and the midwives were told they had to
oversee abortion procedures.
 
Central to Doogan’s and Wood’s defense was that previously they were not called on to delegate,
supervise or support staff engaged in the care of patients undergoing abortions.
 
But today the Supreme Court has rejected the opportunity to uphold the right of conscientious objection for
senior midwives who refuse to supervise abortions performed on a labour ward. Today’s decision issued in
the Supreme Court has been condemned by those who backed the Glasgow midwives’ fight for their right
to work in the NHS without being involved in abortions.
“We are both saddened and extremely disappointed with today’s verdict from the Supreme Court and can
only imagine the subsequent detrimental consequences that will result from today’s decision on staff of
conscience throughout the UK,” the midwives said after the decision.
 
They added: “Despite it having been recognised that the number of abortions on the labour ward at our
hospital is in fact a tiny percentage of the workload, which in turn could allow the accommodation of
conscientious objection with minimal effort, this judgment, with its constraints and narrow interpretation,
has resulted in the provision of a conscience clause which now in practice is meaningless for senior
midwives on a labour ward.”
The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) which paid the midwives’ legal expenses
throughout the case has said that senior midwives who refuse to kill babies could be forced to leave the
profession.
 
Paul Tully, general secretary of SPUC said: “The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children
acknowledges the great debt that the whole pro­life community owes to Mary Doogan and Connie Wood
for fighting this battle over the past seven years. They have fought not only for their own careers, but for all
current and future members of the profession who uphold the right to life of everyone, from the time of
conception, without discrimination. We are bitterly disappointed for them.”
 
He told LifeNews: “Today’s decision sadly makes it likely that senior midwives who refuse to kill babies will
be forced to leave the profession. Junior midwives might still be able to work in labour wards where
abortions are performed but they will be restricted to ‘staff midwife’ status at best. They could easily be
placed in an impossible situation by pro­abortion superiors, and would be unable to receive promotion to a
more senior role without fear of being required to violate their consciences. This will affect anyone who
objects to abortion, of any religion or none. It will create a second­class status in midwifery for those who
only deliver babies and don’t kill them.”
 
Tully continued: “Furthermore, the court has used the opportunity of this case to decide that the
conscience clause in the Abortion Act does not apply to General Practitioners and that hospital doctors
asked to prescribe abortion drugs will not be covered by the conscience clause. We anticipate that this will
lead to renewed efforts by health officials to force doctors who have a conscientious objection to abortion
either to compromise their respect for human life or to leave the profession. SPUC will support and
encourage doctors to resist any such bullying approach.”
 
The pro­life advocate concluded: “The pro­abortion lobby has long argued that conscientious objectors
should be required to refer women seeking legal abortion to other practitioners. Bodies such as the
Department of Health have qualified this by saying that this only applies when the statutory grounds for a
legal abortion apply, but the Supreme Court has said that any medical professional who refuses to provide
an abortion should arrange for a referral to someone else who will do so. This seems to go far beyond the
scope of the Abortion Act, and furthermore is not even an issue there was any need for the Court to decide
in this case.”
 
The Abortion Act of 1967 states that no one with a conscientious objection can be obliged to participate in
abortion procedures. “However, the hospital management insisted that a conscientious objection clause in
the 1967 Abortion Act applied only to active participation in a termination and did not cover the women’s
duties to delegate, supervise and support staff.
 
“The Court has nevertheless said that midwives and doctors with conscientious objections are obliged to
refer abortion patients to colleagues who don’t object to abortion. This goes further than the General
Medical Council, for instance, whose current guidance Personal Belief and Medical Practice says that
doctors should refer patients to another doctor, but does not require them to check their colleague’s proabortion
credentials,” Tully said.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014

by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 12/16/14 1:13 PM

Australia was rocked by a rare episode of terrorism on Tuesday, when a tense hostage siege in Sydney came to an end after police rescued hostages from a tenuous situation. As the world follows the fallout of the horrific event, stories of courage are emerging.

Tori Johnson, 34, and Katrina Dawson, 38 below right, were killed during the terrorist siege at Sydney’s Lindt cafe on Monday. Johnson, the cafe manager of two years, tried to wrestle the gun from the hostage-taker before he was shot. And Johnson was actually protecting two people — Dawson, 38, whose children are all under ten, was an attorney in Sydney’s central business district opposite the siege site and died of a heart attack.

Julie Taylor, 38, was getting coffee with Katrina Dawson in the Lindt cafe when Man Haron Monis launched his fatal attack.

One newspaper recounts what happened as she attempted to shield her pregnant friend.

“She had been getting coffee with pregnant Julie Taylor when Man Haron Monis entered the building – and later admirably shielded her friend from bullets,” the paper reported. “It was not clear whether Mrs Dawson was shot or what other injuries, if any, she sustained in the shocking incident.”

“Archbishop Anthony Fisher spoke at a prayer service later on Tuesday of how the two victims were ‘willing to lay down their lives so others might live,” it said.

Here’s more:

Taylor, who is recently married, was pictured fleeing the scene with two others 15 minutes before police opened fire, killing the gunman.

However she later learned that her friend Mrs Dawson, a 38-year-old mother of three, had died, reportedly from a heart attack in hospital.
Ms Taylor lives in east Sydney and is a successful barrister in corporate law at the law firm Eight Selborne. She completed a bachelor of civil law at Magdalen College, Oxford and has appeared before the High Court – one of the youngest women to do so.

She is currently in a stable condition in hospital.

During the siege, Ms Taylor was one of the first hostages chosen by Monis to outline his demands in a 44-second speech posted on YouTube.

“I’m Julie Taylor. I’m a barrister in Sydney. This is a message for Tony Abbott,” she said.

Tuesday, December 16, 2014
by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 12/15/14 11:44 AM
 
The RU 486 abortion pill has been responsible for killing dozens of people — including women in the
United States — and injuring thousands more. But the Supreme Court refused to take a case today to
protect women from it.
 
Contrary to Food and Drug Administration protocols, Planned Parenthood distributes abortion­inducing
drugs to women, oftentimes without requiring an in­person visit, up until two weeks beyond the prescribed
49 days from their last menstrual cycle. Furthermore, the organization sends women home to complete the
chemical abortion themselves without a physician present.
 
Planned Parenthood’s instructions have directly led to the deaths of women from mifepristone, another
name for the RU 486 abortion pill. Planned Parenthood had been telling women to use the abortion drug
vaginally even though the FDA indicated oral use is safer for women. It wasn’t until four California women
all died within a week of using the abortion drug they received from Planned Parenthood abortion
businesses that it changed its policy to conform to the FDA protocol.
 
Knowing all that, the state of Arizona had
approved a bill designed to protect women’s
health from Planned Parenthood, the abortion
business that was violating FDA protocols and
putting women’s lives at risk by how it was
improperly dispensing the abortion drug. The
law bans dispensing the drug during the 7th­9th
weeks of pregnancy, when women may die
form using it.
 
Previously, the The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling siding with the Planned Parenthood
abortion business in its legal battle to ignore FDA rules and subject women to dangerous abortions by
giving them the abortion drug outside the guidelines the FDA has put in place. Today, the Supreme Court
refused to hear the state’s appeal in order to uphold the pro­life law.
 
The abortion drug is responsible for the deaths of dozens of women worldwide, including several in the
United States alone, and it has injured at least 1,100 women in the United States alone as of 2006 figures
from the Food and Drug Administration.
 
Planned Parenthood Arizona’s lawsuit was initially filed in Maricopa County Superior Court and it
challenges two pro­life bills slated to take effect in 2011. The abortion business complains the bills would
make abortions tougher to get in Arizona and would prohibit non­physicians from giving women the
abortion drug — something the FDA recommends be limited to a licensed doctor.
After its passage in the Arizona legislature, the pro­life Center for Arizona Policy hailed the law.
“Passed in 2012, the purpose of this law is to ensure the abortion industry distributes the dangerous and
deadly abortion pill in line with FDA protocol. While the FDA protocol requires the pill to be distributed within
the first 49 days of a pregnancy, Planned Parenthood has dispensed the pill through 63 days of a
pregnancy,” it said.
 
“With all the evidence that shows the abortion pill presents serious risks to the lives of women, it should be
distributed with the utmost care. It is irresponsible for Planned Parenthood to persist in ignoring this
protocol for a pill that is responsible for at least 14 deaths in the United States,” it added.
 
The case is Humble v. Planned Parenthood, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 14­284.
Monday, December 15, 2014
by Randy O'Bannon, Ph.D. | LifeNews.com | 12/12/14 7:44 PM
 
What if you walked into the waiting room of any of the country’s abortion clinics and told the young mothers
waiting there in the lobby that there’s a new study indicating that the “procedure” they’re about to undergo
will, in the coming year, send thousands of women to the emergency room or back to the clinic to deal with
a complication or a “failed abortion”?
How many of them would say that makes them feel more comfortable with their decision? None, you would
suspect.
 
Yet if one actually reads a new study (as opposed to the press release) out of the University of California –
San Francisco (UCSF), that’s what is being acknowledged but cloaked. Instead of a true picture, you get a
UCSF release trumpeting the results as showing that the “Major Complication Rate After Abortion Is
Extremely Low” (UCSF Release, 12/8/14).
But a closer look at the data shows there is some
real stretching and spinning going on here, belying
the “extremely low” complication rate assertion. As
you read our analysis, be sure to focus in on what
the authors consider to be “minor” complications.
The UCSF study, “Incidence of Emergency
Department Visits and Complications After Abortion,”
is based on a recent study of California Medicaid
recipients. It appeared in the December 8, 2014,
edition of the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.
 
California is one of the states that pays for the abortions of women enrolled in Medicaid. The study looked
at the billing data from 50,273 Medi­Cal patients who had 54,911 abortions in 2009­2010.
The authors do not give comparable state data from those years, but note that of the 181,730 abortions
performed in California in 2011, about 51% were covered by the state’s Medi­Cal program. This study
looked at just those records of patients were treated under the fee­for­service (vs. managed care) part of
the program. [1]
 
Nearly 8% (or between one in 12 and one in 13) of women showed up at the clinic or a local Emergency
Room (ER) seeking some service within six weeks of their abortions. Some of those were eliminated from
further study because billing records appeared to show that they came in for some service unrelated to the
abortion. (These were not specified, but this could be something like smashing a finger in the car door,
coming down with the flu, etc.)
 
But even pulling these out and other “complications not validated,” one is left with a substantial number of
women dealing with medical problems resulting from their “safe” abortions.
On the billing records of those women returning to the clinic or going to the ER, they found women
hemorrhaging, dealing with infections, uterine perforations – the sort of problems we’re supposed to think
were relics of the early days following the Roe v. Wade decision when abortionists were just learning their
craft.
 
A surprising number of these were related to the new chemical or “medication” abortion method that was
supposed to offer women a safer alternative to surgical abortion.
There were nearly four times as many surgical abortions (34,755 first trimester, 8,837 2nd trimester or
later) tracked by the study as there were chemical abortions. (11,319). Yet there were more identified
complications associated with the chemical method (588) than they were for the surgical ones (438 for first
trimester, 130 for 2nd or later) combined.
 
The complication rate for chemical abortions was 5.2%, versus complication rates of 1.3% for first trimester
suction aspiration abortions and 1.5% for second trimester or later methods. This would make chemical
abortions four times riskier than early surgical ones and more than three times less safe than a second or
third trimester procedure.
This is hardly the “advance” or “improvement” that women were promised when the government was
asked to approve RU­486 more than a decade ago.
A number of these complications involved “incomplete” or “failed” abortions [2]. Most of these were
identified as “minor” complications by researchers (there were also “minor” hemorrhages, uterine
perforations, and infections).
 
UCSF originally found 535 repeat abortions within six weeks –165 “subsequent medication [chemical]
abortions,” and 370 “subsequent aspirations.
Theoretically, some of these could be new abortions, but much more likely is that these are chemical or
surgical procedures that were performed to complete the earlier incomplete or failed abortions.
These may not all have been counted as complications, or they may have fallen into the category of 658
“Other” or “Undetermined” complications. The latter seems likely, given that the “treatment” for 400 of
these (about 61%) was “uterine aspiration.”
The point which their own data makes abundantly clear is that these abortions far from being as
safe or successful as advertised.
 
Remarkably, the researchers attribute the high rate of complications (the majority of which they term
“minor” and “expected”) among women having chemical abortions to “aspirations performed presumptively
or to alleviate bleeding or cramping symptoms.”
In other words, bleeding or cramping was so bad that women came back to the clinic or went to the ER,
where doctors (noticeably including those from the clinic who would have seen ordinary abortion bleeding
before) decided emergency surgery was needed. Yet in most cases, UCSF wants us to believe, this was
just a “minor” or “expected” complication.
 
All told, the study found that 2.1%, or about one out of every 48 abortions, were connected to a
complication that was diagnosed or treated at some medical facility. Though perhaps lower than the
complication rates one might expect for essential life­saving major surgery, this is hardly the risk­ free
“procedure” the abortion industry and lobby wants people to think it is. It is also higher than people might
expect for a “procedure” that abortionists have been working to perfect for over 40 years.
Remember this study was of a selected population in California. What if one applied these results
nationwide, based on the estimate there are now roughly 1.05 million abortions annual?
It would translate into more than 22,000 women visiting their local ER or returning to the clinic for medical
care each year. How many women in clinic waiting rooms today would be surprised to hear that number?
How many would be reassured of abortion’s safety?
 
An important consideration to keep in mind: This focuses on just the first six weeks, makes no effort to
track complications or injuries that might occur later on, such as infertility, subsequent premature birth, or
breast cancer, which can be heartbreaking, expensive, or even deadly. And we have not even begun to
consider the long­term psycho­social effects of abortion and the health consequences that flow from
subsequent depression, drug abuse, eating disorders, and documented higher rates of suicide.
The UCSF researchers admit that there may be critical data missing from their study. Some complications
might never have been recorded and there was no data at all on abortion’s maternal mortality, possibly the
most critical piece of information.
Also, by relying on Medi­Cal codes, we could not assess whether any of the complications lead to deaths
or detect complications not documented by the billing codes. For instance it is possible that complications
seen or treated at the original abortion facility did not result in any Medi­Cal reimbursements, thereby
undermining the complication rate.
This last sentence tell us that if a woman returned, distraught and bleeding, to the abortion clinic where she
first went for her abortion, and the clinic decided not to make waves and charge the state to complete the
abortion or repair the damage done by the first procedure, there would be no record of the complication.
In the light of recent operations like those of abortionist Kermit Gosnell’s, such a scenario does not seem
far­fetched. If true, it would point to an even higher complication rate.
On the whole, by tracking and matching the billing records of clinics and hospitals, the study does
represent an improvement over surveys which simply relied on abortionists self­reporting. This is probably
one reason why the numbers were as high as they were, even with some still potentially serious holes in
the data.
 
One thing is clear. No matter the spin, no matter the “medical progress,” no matter the experience, the
special training, the new methods, abortion has not become “safe” or even appreciably safer. Women are
still being injured by abortion, and women are still dying.
Of course, the biggest “complication” is that someone – the innocent unborn child – dies in every
“successful” abortion. This alone is evidence that abortion is an inherently unsafe and unsound “medical
procedure.” Abortion violates the most basic principle of medical ethics: “first do no harm.”
Abortion harms women and children. What further research do we need?
[1] The data from this study was supposed to be better because patients who did not return to the clinic but
went instead to the ER were included by cross referencing the abortion billing and treatment coding.
Researchers looked at any billing for any medical service occurring anywhere within six weeks of their
original abortion billing and sought from codes to determine whether or not that treatment was abortion
related.
[2] “Incomplete” abortions, of which there were 231, would be those abortions in which some part of the
baby, placenta, gestational sac remained in the woman’s body. “Failed” abortions, of which there were 30,
would be when the baby remained and the abortion failed to occur.
Thursday, December 11, 2014

by Kristi Burton Brown | LifeNews.com | 12/10/14 4:41 PM

(LiveActionNews) — With today’s modern technology and medical information, we have a real-time window into the womb. What happens to babies before birth – all the ways they move, grow, and change – is nothing short of amazing.

Here are just 10 things that happen to babies before birth. These 10 things demonstrate their uniqueness, value, and of course, their humanity.

What’s more, each of these 10 things happen in the first trimester – when approximately 90% of abortions in the U.S. occur.

1) “On the first day following fertilization, the human embryo is identifiable as a specific individual human being on a molecular level.”

South Dakota legislative task force, appointed to examine the science behind unborn life, found that “the new recombinant DNA technologies indisputably prove that the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a living human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine.”

2) A Baby’s Heart Begins to Beat at 21 Days.

Here is a video of the baby’s heart beating at four weeks and four days, just a little over a week after it began beating.

 

According to The Endowment for Human Development, “[b]etween fertilization and birth, the heart beats approximately 54 million times…”

3) At 2 to 3 Weeks, a Baby’s Brain is the “First Organ to Appear.”

4) A Baby May Feel Physical Pain as Early as His Fifth Week.

After examining scientific resources and hearing medical testimony, the South Dakota Task Force found that “(the necessary pieces) for pain detection in the spinal cord exists at very early developmental stages.” Babies have also been documented moving away from unwanted or painful touch in their first few weeks of in utero life.

5) A Baby’s Kidneys are Present at Only 5 Weeks.

In fact, by eight weeks old, all of the baby’s organs are in place and only need to be fully developed.

6) A Baby’s Brainwaves Can be Measured at 6 Weeks Old.

See the brainwaves for yourself here.

8 week old human fetus. All her organs are present.

7) At 6 Weeks, a Baby Will Move Away if His Mouth is Touched.

The Endowment for Human Development has a video of a six-week-old baby responding to touch here.

8) A Baby’s Ear Can Begin to be Seen Around 6 Weeks.

9) A Baby Has Fingerprints at 9-10 Weeks.

These fingerprints will be the same throughout the baby’s life. His permanent identification is already developing. Watch a video and see an unborn baby’s fingerprints here.

10) A Baby Can Suck Her Thumb and Yawn at 9 1/2 Weeks Old.

According to The Endowment for Human Development, most babies prefer their right thumb. At this age, plenty is going on. A baby’s vocal cords are forming, her bones are hardening, and her toenails and fingernails are emerging. See a video of a ten-week-old baby yawning here.

For more on prenatal development, go here.

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

by Jill Stanek | LifeNews.com | 12/9/14 1:21 PM

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards disclosed in Elle in October that she had had an abortion:

I had an abortion. It was the right decision for me and my husband, and it wasn’t a difficult decision. Before becoming president of Planned Parenthood eight years ago, I hadn’t really talked about it beyond family and close friends. But I’m here to say, when politicians argue and shout about abortion, they’re talking about me—and millions of other women around the country.

At the time I thought the “it wasn’t a difficult decision” line was terribly insensitive to Richards’ three surviving children. They certainly know it could have been any one of them who was snuffed, in which case so what, according to their mother?

But we know why Richards had to act blasé. There is a new campaign underway to destigmatize abortion, and to do that abortion has to be portrayed as nothing earth shattering to a woman and not necessarily done for awful reasons, like rape, or a handicapped baby. Explained post-abortive Merritt Tierce in a recent New York Times op ed:

By repeating only the gut-wrenching, heartbreaking, terrifying abortion stories, we protect a lie: that abortion isn’t normal. We have learned to think of abortion with shame and fear. We have accepted the damaging idea that a person who wants an abortion must grovel before the consciences of others…. We have to stop categorizing abortions as justified or unjustified.

Thus, Richards reiterated her abortion was no biggie in a video she made for the “1 in 3″ campaign a couple weeks ago, adding, “[t]oday, I’m telling my story”:

 

But Richards didn’t tell her story. She gave absolutely no details other than she and her husband were indifferent about killing their baby.

Which leaves so many unanswered questions. How can it be that the premier leader of the abortion/contraception industry got pregnant by mistake? Was she using birth control? What kind of birth control?  When did she get her abortion, before or after she was married? Why? Before, after, or between which child? Did she get her abortion at a Planned Parenthood or go to a private doctor? Did she do it for her career (which would be incredibly ironic)?

And how could Richards travel the country promoting Planned Parenthood and abortion for eight whole years as president and not disclose her own abortion? Wasn’t that living one huge, stinking lie?

The mundaneness by which Richards claimed to have procured her abortion began to show itself differently in an interview she gave to Cosmopolitan, published yesterday, in which she said:

I just talked to my kids the other day, and they knew I’d had an abortion, and they were sort of like, “Mom, it was no big deal,” but I could also tell it was important to them that we talked about it.

That sentence makes no sense. If their mother’s abortion was “no big deal,” it should have not been “important” for the kids to talk about. Clipping one’s fingernails would fall under the category of “no big deal,” in which case kids wouldn’t think it important to discuss.

So what exactly was “important” for Richards and her surviving children to hash through? That they are missing a sibling? That there’s someone to mourn? That they are special to their parents, even if by the luck of the draw they could have been so unspecial as to have been killed – without a second thought?

The problem with Cecile Richards’ abortion is if it truly “wasn’t a difficult decision,” then she is showing heartlessness not just about the death of a child created with the man she loved, then killed in cooperation with him, but also toward their surviving children.

But we know Richards is lying, because it turns out she needed to somehow smooth things over with her children, I’m guessing during the Thanksgiving holiday. She needed to thread a needle of displaying callousness toward the offspring she killed but love toward the offspring she didn’t kill but easily could have – quite a feat, and good luck with that.

 

How can @CecileRichards show apathy toward the child she killed but love to those she didn’t?

Which makes the latest pro-abortion campaign another impossibility to pull off. If even the president of Planned Parenthood cant do it, no one can.

If Richards were to ever show compassion in any way toward her aborted baby, she would be unlocking a compartment in her consciousness that would begin to unravel everything she stands for.

The thing is, I think Richards already knows all that.

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

by Jill Stanek | LifeNews.com | 12/9/14 1:21 PM

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards disclosed in Elle in October that she had had an abortion:

I had an abortion. It was the right decision for me and my husband, and it wasn’t a difficult decision. Before becoming president of Planned Parenthood eight years ago, I hadn’t really talked about it beyond family and close friends. But I’m here to say, when politicians argue and shout about abortion, they’re talking about me—and millions of other women around the country.

At the time I thought the “it wasn’t a difficult decision” line was terribly insensitive to Richards’ three surviving children. They certainly know it could have been any one of them who was snuffed, in which case so what, according to their mother?

But we know why Richards had to act blasé. There is a new campaign underway to destigmatize abortion, and to do that abortion has to be portrayed as nothing earth shattering to a woman and not necessarily done for awful reasons, like rape, or a handicapped baby. Explained post-abortive Merritt Tierce in a recent New York Times op ed:

By repeating only the gut-wrenching, heartbreaking, terrifying abortion stories, we protect a lie: that abortion isn’t normal. We have learned to think of abortion with shame and fear. We have accepted the damaging idea that a person who wants an abortion must grovel before the consciences of others…. We have to stop categorizing abortions as justified or unjustified.

Thus, Richards reiterated her abortion was no biggie in a video she made for the “1 in 3″ campaign a couple weeks ago, adding, “[t]oday, I’m telling my story”:

 

But Richards didn’t tell her story. She gave absolutely no details other than she and her husband were indifferent about killing their baby.

Which leaves so many unanswered questions. How can it be that the premier leader of the abortion/contraception industry got pregnant by mistake? Was she using birth control? What kind of birth control?  When did she get her abortion, before or after she was married? Why? Before, after, or between which child? Did she get her abortion at a Planned Parenthood or go to a private doctor? Did she do it for her career (which would be incredibly ironic)?

And how could Richards travel the country promoting Planned Parenthood and abortion for eight whole years as president and not disclose her own abortion? Wasn’t that living one huge, stinking lie?

The mundaneness by which Richards claimed to have procured her abortion began to show itself differently in an interview she gave to Cosmopolitan, published yesterday, in which she said:

I just talked to my kids the other day, and they knew I’d had an abortion, and they were sort of like, “Mom, it was no big deal,” but I could also tell it was important to them that we talked about it.

That sentence makes no sense. If their mother’s abortion was “no big deal,” it should have not been “important” for the kids to talk about. Clipping one’s fingernails would fall under the category of “no big deal,” in which case kids wouldn’t think it important to discuss.

So what exactly was “important” for Richards and her surviving children to hash through? That they are missing a sibling? That there’s someone to mourn? That they are special to their parents, even if by the luck of the draw they could have been so unspecial as to have been killed – without a second thought?

The problem with Cecile Richards’ abortion is if it truly “wasn’t a difficult decision,” then she is showing heartlessness not just about the death of a child created with the man she loved, then killed in cooperation with him, but also toward their surviving children.

But we know Richards is lying, because it turns out she needed to somehow smooth things over with her children, I’m guessing during the Thanksgiving holiday. She needed to thread a needle of displaying callousness toward the offspring she killed but love toward the offspring she didn’t kill but easily could have – quite a feat, and good luck with that.

 

How can @CecileRichards show apathy toward the child she killed but love to those she didn’t?

Which makes the latest pro-abortion campaign another impossibility to pull off. If even the president of Planned Parenthood cant do it, no one can.

If Richards were to ever show compassion in any way toward her aborted baby, she would be unlocking a compartment in her consciousness that would begin to unravel everything she stands for.

The thing is, I think Richards already knows all that.

Tuesday, December 9, 2014
by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 12/8/14 12:30 PM
 
A Catholic religious order, the Little Sisters of the Poor, will appear before a federal appeals court today to
tell it to protect their religious liberties and prevent the Obama administration from making them comply
with Obamacare’s abortion mandate.
The mandate compels religious groups to pay for birth control and drugs that may cause abortions.
Without relief, the Little Sisters face millions of dollars in IRS fines because they cannot comply with the
government’s mandate that they give their employees free access to contraception, sterilization, and
abortion­inducing drugs.
 
Previously, the U.S. Supreme
Court temporarily protected the
Little Sisters from the mandate.
The Little Sisters are now before
the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
in Denver to extend that protection,
and their attorneys will present oral
arguments today.
“We are thrilled the Supreme Court
temporarily protected the Little
Sisters from having to violate their
conscience or pay crippling IRS
fines. We are hopeful the Tenth
Circuit will give them more lasting protection,” said Mark Rienzi, Senior Counsel at the Becket Fund for
Religious Liberty and lead counsel for Little Sisters of the Poor. “The federal government is a massive
entity that has lots of ways to deliver contraceptives to people–it doesn’t need to force the Little Sisters to
participate.”
 
The injunction from the Supreme Court provided the Little Sisters short­term protection from being forced
to sign and deliver the controversial government forms authorizing, ordering, and incentivizing their health
benefits administrator to provide contraceptives, sterilization, and drugs and devices that may cause early
abortions. Instead, the Little Sisters simply had to inform HHS of their religious identity and objections.
Protection has been given to 18 of the 19 similar cases.
 
“Virtually every other party who asked for protection from the mandate has been given it,” said Rienzi.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled that the Christian­run Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to obey the
HHS mandate that is a part of Obamacare that requires businesses to pay for abortion causing drugs in
their employee health care plans.
The Little Sisters are joined in the lawsuit by their religious health benefit providers, Christian Brothers
Services and Christian Brothers Employee Benefits Trust, and hundreds of similarly­situated Catholic
ministries that obtain their health benefits from the same providers. The Plaintiffs are also represented by
Locke Lord, a national law firm, and by Kevin Walsh, a law professor at the University of Richmond.
A December 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll shows Americans disagree with forcing companies like Hobby
Lobby to obey the mandate.
 
“Half of voters now oppose a government requirement that employers provide health insurance with free
contraceptives for their female employees,” Rasmussen reports.
The poll found: “The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 38% of Likely U.S.
Voters still believe businesses should be required by law to provide health insurance that covers all
government­approved contraceptives for women without co­payments or other charges to the patient.
Fifty­one percent (51%) disagree and say employers should not be required to provide health insurance
with this type of coverage. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.”
Another recent poll found 59 percent of Americans disagree with the mandate

Pages