Pro-Life Page

Thursday, February 26, 2015

By Steve Weatherbe | 


CONCEPTION, Chile, Feb. 25, 2015 ( - An international team of medical researchers comparing maternal mortality rates and abortion laws in 32 Mexican states claims it has disproven the claim of abortion promoters that easy access to abortion will reduce maternal deaths.

Comparing 14 states with constitutional protection for the unborn with 18 states with varying degrees of permissiveness over 10 years, the Chilean-Mexican-American team found that the less permissive states had a maternal mortality rate 23% lower, and a post-abortive mortality rate “up to” 47% lower.

Team member Dr. John Thorp of the University of North Carolina medical school said in a video released along with the study that it “pretty much refutes the conventional wisdom” that freer access to abortion will reduce maternal fatalities because abortions will be done in safe conditions.

The research director, Dr. Elard Koch, director of the sponsoring MELISA Institute and an associate researcher with the University of Chile’s faculty of medicine, said in the same video that the study does not show “making abortion laws less permissive will automatically decrease maternal deaths.”


But what it does show is that more difficult access to abortion has none of the negative impact on death rates claimed by organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the Guttmacher Institute.

At the same time, the study shows that states with more permissive laws had higher rates of violence against women. Meanwhile, those states with less permissive laws regarding abortion provided better prenatal care, more skilled maternity staff, and better emergency obstetrics.

Out of 10 factors examined, the one bearing the strongest relationship with reduced maternal mortality rate (MMR) was the mother’s literacy and education levels, which bring knowledge about pre-birth health and hygiene and dispel counter-productive folk “wisdom.” Less permissive states had better literacy rates.

Thorp said the results were not a surprise.  A similar study tracking Chilean MMR through several changes back and forth in abortion laws showed the same factors correlating strongly with a reduced MMR, especially female literacy maternal and access to modern medicine. It also showed that legal abortion access had little to no relevance.  Thorp also noted a study comparing abortion laws and the rate of complications arising from abortions in 23 U.S. states also showed that tighter abortion laws went with fewer complications.

Other factors the study found to be related to higher maternal death rates were “Poverty, malnutrition, and exposure to infectious diseases during the fertile age of women increase the risk of maternal death,” according to Sebastián Haddad, MD, a researcher at the Universidad de Anáhuac in Mexico

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

by Steven Ertelt | | 2/24/15 6:41 PM


With just two years of the Obama administration remaining, the president appears to be pushing abortion at every new turn possible. A new report today indicates the Obama administration has issued a new mandate requiring that unaccompanied illegal alien children be given access to abortions and abortion-causing drugs.

The new report comes on the heels of a LifeNews article calling attention to a pro-life group’s alarming concern that the Obama administration is attempting to force Christian groups that conduct international relief work to refer women for abortions.

“The Obama administration is getting ready to issue new rules requiring charities to provide abortions to child refugees entering the US without their parents. Faith-based groups say this is a contravention of the rights of parents and a violation of the conscience rights of faith-based groups helping resettle the children,” says Susan Yoshihara of the pro-life group C-FAM.

“The rules require faith-based providers to make referrals for emergency contraception, partner with groups which provide abortion, or notify the federal government which would make arrangements for the abortion. If groups do not do so, they are not eligible for federal aid,” she said.

CNS News has more on the pro-abortion steps the Obama administration is taking:

Health and Human Service’s Office of Refuge Resettlement (ORR) has confirmed to that abortion is one of the emergency medical services that must be made available by federally funded caregivers of illegal alien unaccompanied minors (Unaccompanied Children or UC) who have been sexually assaulted and become pregnant.

HHS issued a new regulation on “sexual abuse and sexual harassment” of unaccompanied children on Dec. 24, 2014, and although the regulation does not specially name abortion as one of the required emergency medical services, an official from HHS’ Administration for Children and Families, which operates ORR, told via email that abortion is one of those services.

“The ‘lawful pregnancy-related medical services’ includes abortion,” the email statement said.

As reported earlier, the HHS regulation also includes “emergency contraception,” which includes abortion-inducing drugs such as Plan B One Step, which can prevent a fertilized egg from implantation.


Providers must comply with the rule by June 24, 2015, according to the Federal Register.

As LifeNews previously reported about Obama’s other abortion push this year, the pro-life group CFAM says Catholic organizations affected by the proposed rules conveyed their objection to the new rules to the Obama administration.She said the groups’ said their comment on the proposed rule is that the requirement to perform, partner or refer for abortion or contraception are a violation of conscience rights.

They are required to comply no later than June 24, 2015.

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

by Shawn Carney | | 2/23/15 10:39 AM


Great news to start the week! Through the first weekend of this 40 Days for Life campaign, our local teams have reported 26 babies saved from abortion – that we know of!

Praise God! Every one of these lives represents answered prayers – your prayers!

Norristown, Pennsylvania


Volunteers spoke to a mother leaving the Planned Parenthood facility in Norristown. “She had a pregnancy test,” said Rita, the local coordinator, “and is going to keep her baby!”

It was Day 1 of the campaign – Ash Wednesday – and the counselor who spoke to the woman said she was leaving Planned Parenthood … and heading straight to church.

“The Norristown Planned Parenthood is very, very busy,” Rita said. “It was a dangerously bitter cold day today … God bless the faithful prayer warriors who have such warm and loving hearts.”

Montgomery, Alabama


On Day 1 of the campaign, volunteers watched – and prayed – as 20 women arrived for appointments at the abortion center in Montgomery. They knew it would be challenging. Wednesday is abortion day.

The volunteers did have some joyful news to report. Two mothers changed their minds and chose life for their babies. Michelle, the local leader, said “What an awesome way to begin 40 Days for Life!”

“May God continue to bless our efforts to love the moms and their preborn children,” Michelle said, “and bring hope to the hopeless.”

Houston, Texas

The Houston Coalition for Life operates a mobile pregnancy help center on the street outside the city’s huge Planned Parenthood abortion mega-center. While they are able to connect with many women, the sad truth is that others insist on keeping their appointments for abortions


Volunteers spoke to a woman who came from out of town to have an abortion … so her family wouldn’t know about it. “She was extremely upset, but unwilling to come to the bus and didn’t want to change her mind,” said one of the local leaders. “She will probably be suffering a lot tonight.”

A second young woman saw the ultrasound of her baby, but is still thinking about abortion. She has had more than one previous abortion.

However, a third woman who was considering abortion was willing to listen. She is older, and has a number of children. After seeing her child on the sonogram, she is now planning to have her baby.

Please keep all of these women in your prayers.

Monday, February 23, 2015

by Wesley J. Smith | | 2/20/15 5:13 PM


My First Things column this week warns against the coming ”medical martyrdom,” by which I mean that the minions of

the culture of death intend to require doctors, nurses, and facilities to either kill (abortion, assisted suicide, etc.) or get out of medicine.

As if to prove my thesis, the ACLU in Washington has sued a health care system for not performing enough abortions. From the Reuters story: The

lawsuit alleges that Skagit Regional Health, which operates a large hospital and several clinics in Skagit County about 100 miles north of Seattle, is not following the state’s

1991 Reproductive Privacy Act. That law requires that any state medical facility that provides maternity care must also provide abortion care, and it prohibits the state from

interfering with or denying a woman’s right to an abortion. “The right of women to choose or to refuse to have an abortion is fundamental and has long been recognized under

Washington law,” Kathleen Taylor, executive director of the ACLU of Washington, said in a statement announcing the lawsuit. The ACLU action accuses Skagit Regional Health of providing

a wide array of maternity care services while not offering pharmaceutical abortions and rarely providing surgical abortions. Instead, the lawsuit said Skagit Regional routinely referred women

seeking abortions to off­site facilities, like Planned Parenthood, rather than performing them at its hospitals and clinics. In other words, women are not denied a “right” to an abortion, they just

are referred elsewhere. Moreover, the defendant claims their hospitals DO SO perform all kinds of abortions–apparently just not enough to satisfy the ACLU. In his

great Cooper Union speech, Abraham Lincoln said of slavers: What will convince them [that we mean them no harm]? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right.

And this must be done thoroughly – done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated – we must place ourselves avowedly with them… We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with

greedy pleasure…The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us. Ditto culture of death authoritarians.

It’s the nature of the beast. 

Friday, February 20, 2015

by Cortney O'Brien | | 2/19/15 1:54 PM

Babies are not trash. Yet, if you took one step into facilities such as the Indianapolis Planned Parenthood, you’d see how thoughtlessly aborted children were treated once the deed was done.

This is a direct quote from Marianne Anderson, a former Planned Parenthood nurse. Her testimony is frightening and – I must warn you – graphic:

“I saw other doctors come into the products of conception room with the dirty instruments in one hand and a jar in the other. In that jar were the pieces of the baby’s body. He would take the contents of that jar, pour it into a big strainer, sift through it to make sure all the parts were there, and then pour it down the drain into the sewer system without treating it in any way.”

Anderson is one of several witnesses who took the stand at a hearing Wednesday in Indiana ahead of a vote on Senate Bill 329, the Fetal Remains Bill. This legislation would help to prevent the type of inhumane disposal the nurse described. After listening to her comments, along with several other abortion clinic workers and post-abortive women, the senators voted in favor of the bill, with a tally of 9-2.


From Indiana Right to Life:

Today a bill regarding the disposal of aborted fetal remains passed the Indiana Senate Health and Provider Services Committee. Senate Bill 329, authored by Sens. Liz Brown (District 15) and Amanda Banks (District 17), requires the Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) to adopt clear rules for how abortion facilities shall dispose of fetal remains. The bill also provides that a pregnant woman shall determine the final deposition of the fetal remains.

The pro-life organization was following and live tweeting the hearing as it unfolded. It appeared that at one point an abortion worker claimed she saw babies being treated like trash:


Perhaps just as unsettling, were the arguments the other side was trying to make. Here was one shameful suggestion from the Jewish Community Relations Council, which blatantly ignored all science tells us about conception:




One more excerpt from former Planned Parenthood nurse Anderson’s testimony is worth sharing. Again, I apologize for the graphic nature, but it offers a glimpse of just how desensitized abortionists have become to the tiny lives they are ending.

“I often heard one doctor talk to the aborted baby while looking for all the parts. It is a customary procedure to make certain there are no baby body parts left inside the mother. He would say ‘Come on, little arm, I know you’re here! Now you stop hiding from me!’ It just made me sick to my stomach.”

Mine too.

Hopefully this bill helps to restore some humanity to our most helpless.

Senate Bill 334 also passed the Indiana Senate Health and Provider Services Committee. This legislation would prohibit gender and disability abortions, forbidding a mother to abort her child because of its sex or because it was diagnosed with a disability such as Down syndrome.

Both bills need to pass the Senate to advance.

Thursday, February 19, 2015
by Steven Ertelt | | 2/18/15 4:06 PM
The Indiana Senate Health Committee today passed a pro­life bill to make it the next state to ban abortions on babies simply
because they are diagnosed with Down syndrome. Senate Bill (SB) 334, abortion prohibition based on gender or disability, passed the
Indiana Senate Health and Provider Services Committee. This bill will bar a person from doing an abortion if he or she knows the pregnant
woman wants an abortion because of the baby’s gender or a diagnosis or potential diagnosis of Down syndrome or another disability.
“Senate Bill 334 sends a clear message that Indiana does not tolerate discrimination,” shared Mike Fichter, President and CEO of Indiana Right to Life. “Studies show babies have been targeted for abortion simply because of a disability, potential disability or gender. The United Nations estimates as many as 200 million girls in the world were aborted because of their gender. Additional studies show up to 90 percent of babies with Down syndrome are targeted for abortion because of their extra chromosome.” A variety of witnesses lined up to speak on SB 334. They were Dr. David Prentice, Charlotte Lozier Institute; Mary O’Callahan, mother and Public Policy Fellow, Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture;
Dr. Aaron Deweese, neonatologist; Kathleen Black, disability activist; Dr. Lori Buzzetti, OBGYN, Trained Residents at St. Vincent Hospital and starting “So Big,”
a nonprofit to help pregnant women; Asleigh Moon, mother who was given negative prenatal diagnosis and child was born without any genetic anomalies; Kathie Shaw, young woman with Down syndrome; and Sue Swayze, Indiana Right to Life. Senate Bill 334 passed 7­4.
The bill must now pass the Senate in order to advance. SB 334 is authored by Sens. Travis Holdman (District 19), Liz Brown (District 15) and Amanda Banks (District 17) and co­authored by Sen. Dennis Kruse (District 14). The percentage of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome before birth and who eventually become victims of abortions is outlandishly high. Studies show somewhere in the neighborhood of 70­90 percent of unborn babies with Down syndrome are victimized by abortions.
North Dakota eventually became the first state in the United States to ban abortions on babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome. With the governor’s signature on the ban in 2013, Republican Gov. Jack Dalrymple took that state in a decidedly pro­life direction. Eventually a judge dismissed a legal challenge abortion activists brought against the legislation. The state of Ohio is also considering a similar ban. At the time North Dakota adopted its bill, Americans United for Life president Charmaine Yoest praised it. “A civil society does not discriminate against people – born and unborn – for their sex or for disability. We should be celebrating diversity, not destroying it,” she said. “Women in particular have been targeted for death in the womb, and we’ve also seen dramatic abortion rates for children with disabilities which put them at risk for extinction. Gov. Jack Dalrymple, Rep. Bette Grande and the legislators in North Dakota have shown courageous humanity in passing this legislation.” Yoest said that, while federal and state laws protect women and the disabled from discrimination, the unborn are not similarly protected.


Wednesday, February 18, 2015

By Sarah Terzo (LiveActionNews) ­ Tue Feb 17, 2015 - 3:35 pm EST


Some pro­life groups have been focusing efforts on banning a late­term abortion procedure called the D&E (Dilation and Evacuation) abortion.

In this type of abortion procedure, the abortionist reaches into the womb with a pair of forceps and pulls out the preborn baby piece by piece, dismembering the child.

The baby is torn apart, and after the limbs, organs, and torso have been extracted, the head is crushed and removed. Pro­abortion groups have objected to the term “dismemberment” to describe these abortions. The term is accurate, as those who have performed or witnessed them can attest to. Before the actual killing and removal of the baby, the woman’s cervix (the bottom opening of the womb) must be slowly dilated with sticks called laminaria.

A day or two before the actual abortion, the doctor inserts these laminaria sticks into a woman’s body where they absorb fluid and slowly expand, opening the cervix enough to perform the abortion. So a dismemberment abortion is actually a two or three day process. Author Peter Korn wrote a book called Lovejoy: A Year in the Life of an Abortion Clinic about an abortion facility ironically named Lovejoy.

The book deals with both the inner workings of the clinic and the protesters outside. Korn interviewed workers and witnessed several abortions, two of which he describes in detail in the book. Lovejoy SurgiCenter, which still performs abortions in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy, is located in Oregon. You can see their website advertising abortions up to 24 weeks here.

In the passage below, Korn describes how a new clinic worker, Anneke, witnesses her first dismemberment abortion. An abortionist identified as Dr. Lane is doing the procedure: Still holding the forceps, Lane begins pulling, tearing apart the fetus. His first three tugs yield indistinguishable tissue. The fourth brings out more solid mass, which Anneke, from her position in the back of the small room, immediately recognizes as the trunk of a fetus…. Tiny hands and feet, extracted next, are the most recognizable.

The head is less so. The pieces of the fetus and the placenta are placed by Lane on a surgical tray at his side. A quick look at Lovejoy’s website verifies that they still perform these abortions. They are still dismembering babies in the second trimester, but their description of this dismemberment is very different from what you have just read. According to Lovejoy’s website, this is what a woman coming in for second trimester abortion needs to know. I’m quoting their message to abortion­ minded women in its entirety:

Pregnancies in the later part of the second trimester require more dilation for a safe procedure.

Between 20 and 24 weeks, the entire process takes 3 consecutive days to safely and slowly dilate the cervix.  In this situation, the first day consists of ultrasound, counseling and lab work.  There is an exam with the doctor, during which cervical dilators called laminaria are inserted into the cervical opening.  How many depends on gestation.

There are no medications for this process.  It usually takes about 2-5 minutes and may cause mild menstrual-style cramping during insertion.

Each patient is then sent home with a prescription for narcotic pain medication and information regarding her appointment the following day, when the first set of laminaria are removed and a second set are inserted for further dilation.

This appointment is late morning and generally takes 60-90 minutes. Again, the patient is sent home, this time given information regarding her surgery appointment the next day, where both the laminaria and pregnancy are removed under general anesthesia.  The surgery appointment is usually early in the morning and may take 2-3 hours.

That’s it. If you blink, you can miss it. The “pregnancy” is “removed” along with the laminaria. There is no mention of a baby, or even a “fetus” – just the insignificant removal of a “pregnancy” along with the sticks that dilated the cervix.

Although we don’t know what women are told in the facility by staff, it seems clear that on their website, at least, Lovejoy sugarcoats late-term abortions and sanitizes them in an attempt to advertise these abortions to women. In his book, Korn describes facility workers subtly pressuring women to go through with their abortions and being less than honest with them about fetal development. One patient, named Peggy by the author, had some questions to ask the clinic counselor:

Peggy’s (the patient’s) mind is off on a different track. “Is it true that at six weeks it has a heartbeat?” Carye (the counselor) says nobody is sure exactly when the heart begins beating, and tries to deflect that concern. “This pregnancy and you are the same thing,” she adds, explaining to Peggy that prior to twenty-four weeks the fetus cannot survive outside her womb.

The pregnancy and the woman are the same thing? Obviously then, a woman in her 24th week has four hands, four arms, four legs, two hearts, etc. In addition, medical science proves that a baby’s heart begins beating at or around day 21 .

Clearly there is some major dishonesty and manipulation of the facts going on here.

Facility workers hide the truth because fewer women might choose abortions if they knew their baby was going to be dismembered. Pro-abortion activists hide the truth because fewer people would support abortion if they knew. Despite the efforts of clinic workers and abortion activists to mask reality, evidence of the brutal dismemberment of preborn children cannot be denied.

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

by Josh Shepherd | | 2/16/15 1:46 PM

As America’s pro-life movement advances to protect mothers and pre-born children, many work daily on diverse efforts — in crisis pregnancy centers, in churches praying faithfully, on the mission field, in public policy groups… in a thousand other places.

One common need for pro-life advocates is unimpeachable research: interpreting data on the number of abortions, abortion rates, and the effectiveness of pro-life advocacy to save lives. On the last point, any serious scholar will uncover the work of Michael New, Ph.D.

After earning degrees from Dartmouth and Stanford, New held a postdoctoral position at Harvard University before moving to his current teaching role at the University of Michigan–Dearborn. He also serves as an Adjunct Scholar with Charlotte Lozier Institute, the research and education arm of Susan B. Anthony List.


In an exclusive interview, New discusses how faith sparked his deeper involvement in defending pre-born lives, what research says on banning abortion after 20 weeks, why libertarians need a big tent, and more.

Bound4LIFE: Dr. New, the path of Ivy League research scholars is not typically to address abortion-related issues with statistical analysis. Does your interest in life issues pre-date your academic career?

Michael New, Ph.D.: I was not really involved in pro-life issues until I went to college. In 11th Grade, they showed the movie The Silent Scream — and I began to view abortion as a terrible injustice, but I still wasn’t motivated.

In college, I got involved in a conservative group on campus which set me down the road toward becoming a pro-life activist.

I remember one day I was sitting in Mass, and it hit me like a ton of bricks: life is a really important issue. It wasn’t like the capital gains tax or term limits or the 15 other things I’d been researching. Surely saving pre-born lives is the most important.

Being a college student, I thought the best thing I could do is start a group. I spoke to my priest, who told me about another student trying to get a group off the ground; we joined forces, and I never looked back.

Bound4LIFE: How did this new outlook influence your research work?

Michael New: That took a little longer. As a graduate student at Stanford, my dissertation dealt with state-level budget rules and fiscal limits.

I was lucky to be at Stanford, for two reasons. First, Stanford is very quantitative — they insisted on a lot of statistics and methods courses, which worked out well for me. Second, the school’s social sciences departments are much more ideologically diverse than many others are.

In my research I noticed that these fiscal limits, put in place in the 1970s, were often ineffective. Many of these so-called “limits” were poorly designed or had various problems that limited effectiveness.

After I earned my Ph.D., I had a fellowship at Harvard. Following the state-level taxation study, somehow the thought occurred to me: I hope these state laws pro-lifers are working so hard to pass are doing some good.

Analyzing the issue of abortion with state-level data had never really been done, partly because it was tough to get a good data set: what states had passed what laws at what time.

Back then only NARAL tracked this data, in a report called Who Decides? issued annually. Yet getting all their reports over many years proved difficult; NARAL did not provide copies to the Library of Congress, nor did they make archives available online.

I found out in a roundabout way that there were archives I could access — at the Women’s Library at Harvard. All the Who Decides? reports were right there waiting for me, which was very fortuitous.

So I had the initial study ready in 2003 and a few people looked at it, but no one really wanted to publish it.

Bound4LIFE: Ultimately, how did your first study of pro-life laws get published and noticed by the media?

Michael New: That fall Harvard brought in a number of visiting fellows, one of whom was Stuart Butler of The Heritage Foundation (now of The Brookings Institution). At his weekly seminar on health policy, we developed a friendship and I told him about this study.

Butler was intrigued, scholars at Heritage were interested, yet they had never done a study on life issues before. To make sure there were no mistakes, they actually had a staff member reconstruct my data set from scratch.

That study released in January 2004, to a lot of response. It showed clearly that public funding restrictions, parental involvement laws and informed consent laws all have effects in bringing abortion numbers down. Using a similar research model, I’ve updated the study a few times — most recently in a September 2014 report.

I figured the pro-life movement would appreciate the study and I’d move on; you know, pat me on the head and go about their day. It did not work out quite that way.

At the time, the pro-life movement did not have many proactive social scientists — no one critiquing studies that Guttmacher Institute and other groups were publishing. From time to time, I would get requests from people, “Hey, could you take a look at this study and give some feedback?” I was happy to do that.

National Review Online showed a lot of interest in my writing and research. Within a few years, I became an NRO blogger: summarizing my own research, as well as writing quick, punchy critiques of studies being published with a pro-abortion bias.

Bound4LIFE: Many pro-life advocates may not know you’re affiliated with Cato Institute, a libertarian-based think tank. As an adjunct scholar, you’ve written much about the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) in Colorado.

Michael New: You know, as bad as the media is about inaccurately reporting on life issues, the amount of misinformation they’ve spread about TABOR has probably been worse.

At Cato Institute — which takes no official position on abortion — there are a fair number of people sympathetic to the pro-life position. It’s never really caused tension.

I’ve occasionally had people at libertarian gatherings who wouldn’t talk to me due to my work on pro-life issues. To which I say, Libertarians ought to have a big tent. You win by addition and multiplication, not by subtraction and division. It’s a lesson we need to take to heart.

Bound4LIFE: Right now in Washington, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act remains a topic of hot discussion. What is your view on this proposed policy from a research perspective?

Michael New: Focusing attention on late-term abortion is smart, both for political and policy reasons.

The open discussion of partial-birth abortion in the mid-1990s fundamentally changed the debate. Public opinion shifted after that debate started, as they saw pictures of aborted pre-born children even in mainstream media. It became hard to avoid, which lead many people away from a hardline pro-abortion stance.

On this ban after 20-weeks development, demographics that are not typically pro-life are supportive. Several polls show women are more likely to support a 20-week ban than men. The data show there isn’t an age gap: young people are as likely to support this proposal as folks of an older generation.

I find it interesting to see how pro-abortion groups are reacting. A number of states have passed a 20-week ban on abortions — based on the pre-born child’s pain capability as well as dangers to the mother.

Most of these are not being challenged in court. Perhaps these groups realize they would lose a legal challenge, which would set a “bad precedent” in their thinking. Even though they are making statements against the laws, they are generally not contesting the 20-week ban in the states.

It’s wise to advance on a policy with broad support, which the issue of protecting pain-capable unborn children certainly has.

Friday, February 13, 2015

by Sarah Zagorski | | 2/12/15 11:10 AM


In December 2014, Planned Parenthood Federation of America released their annual report for the 2013-2014 fiscal year. In the report, they list their twelve top moments of the year, from helping reduce teen pregnancy to “fighting” breast cancer. They even included their work in influencing pop culture by fighting abortion stigma in the movie Obvious Child.

Planned Parenthood seems especially proud that they influenced 126,494 youth through a new chat and text program online. According to their report, this program helps teens reach dedicated “specialists” at urgent moments to provide advice.

They go on to brag that our generation will be the healthiest ever, and that because of Planned Parenthood, our women will be safe from unintended pregnancies, STD’s and cancer. Seems impressive, right? From a review of their report, they sound like quite the life-saving organization.

However, while Planned Parenthood keeps busy playing semantic word games with America, we’re left to uncover what really took place at their facilities.


In 2013, they performed 327,694 abortions, maintaining their position as the largest abortion business in America. They also raked in $305.3 million and continued to receive over a half-billion dollars in taxpayer dollars. Their breast cancer screening services dropped by 17% and their prenatal services by 4%; and for every adoption referral, the abortion giant performed 174 abortions.

Overall, Planned Parenthood reported more than $127 million in excess revenue, and more than $1.4 billion in net assets.

A new graph from Online for Life explains better than words how many abortions Planned Parenthood performed in 2014 .


Yes, 94% of their “services” to pregnant women are abortion services; but hey…at least they will keep our families safe, right?

I wonder how safe unborn babies feel when being removed from the safe haven of their mother’s womb by a suction machine 29-times more powerful than a household vacuum cleaner. During a suction-aspiration abortion, the unborn child is dislodged and sucked into a tube, either whole or in pieces. Then, as we learned from former Planned Parenthood Director, Abby Johnson, after the abortion a staff member of the facility must review the parts of the baby removed by the vacuum system to ensure that all parts of the baby were indeed removed from the mother’s womb.

I wonder how safe women feel who leave Planned Parenthood, stripped of their dignity, expected to “recover” from the death of their child. And I wonder how safe our families feel, knowing that an organization that supports late abortion, and even has representatives that support post-birth abortion,are teaching our children their views about our most sacred values.

Why is it that in Planned Parenthood’s Annual Report, they forget to mention all the women that leave their clinics maimed from botched abortions? Why do we never hear about the unsanitary conditions in some Planned Parenthood facilities, like the one in Delaware that was required to close down because the conditions were similar to Gosnell’s House of Horrors?

If Planned Parenthood did acknowledge these realities, would America believe that they were a safe, life-saving organization? Of course not.

In order to cover up the truth, Planned Parenthood confounds America in many ways. They spend millions of dollars to refresh their brand; they facilitate bus tours around the country to rally support of pro-abortion Senators; and they create pretty reports with bright images of safe and happy women celebrating their health and families. Planned Parenthood might want to cover it up, but we must expose the truth behind the largest abortion business in America.

Thursday, February 12, 2015

by Steven Ertelt, Holly Gatling | | 2/11/15 5:21 PM


The South Carolina state House has approved a pro-life bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks, because research shows unborn children can feel intense pain.

Called the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H3114) the measure received an 80-27 vote in the House and now moves to the state Senate. More than 18,000 ‘very late term’ abortions are performed every year on perfectly healthy unborn babies in America.

During the committee hearing, experts talked about unborn children and the pain they feel in abortions.

Dr. Stuart Hamilton, M.D., a Columbia University trained pediatrician and long-time supporter of pro-life legislation, described fetal development for members of the committee. He said he agrees with scientific research demonstrating the unborn child can feel pain at 20 weeks after fertilization.

“There is evidence for the probable appreciation of pain by 20 weeks gestation after fertilization,” Dr. Hamilton told the subcommittee. “Anatomically at 20 weeks, the examination of the nervous system displays the appropriate tracks in the central nervous system and the peripheral nerve fibers that are designed to transmit and carry pain impulses.” He went on to explain that at the age of 16 weeks, the baby’s body shows “substantial neurological maturation.” Even at 12 weeks, he said, “The immature constituents of these pathways are clearly visible with magnification.”

A father-son team of physicians also spoke in favor of the bill. Dr. Tom Austin, M.D., a retired neonatologist, and former director of Neonatology at the USC School of Medicine, defined pain as “a noxious insult that one attempts to avoid or repel.” In his practice he treated babies prematurely born at 18 to 22 weeks. “They did show response to stimuli,” he said. “They would respond, move, recoil.”

His son, also Dr. Tom Austin, M.D, is an obstetrician-gynocologist who practices in the Columbia area.  He described his experience with delivering pre-mature infants. “I agree with my father. You can see the baby is trying to live.” He also criticized the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a national organization that supports abortion-on-demand. He described ACOG as being closely tied to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion business. Dr. Austin said he is not affiliated with ACOG and instead has joined the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

South Carolina Citizens for Life, the state affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee which developed the model pain-capable legislation, the Catholic Diocese of Charleston, the South Carolina Baptist Convention, the Palmetto Family Council, and the North Greenville Christian World View Center are among the organizations supporting the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.


Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee says several states have already passed the bill and a federal version is pending in Congress.

A national poll by The Polling Company found that, after being informed that there is scientific evidence that unborn children are capable of feeling pain at least by 20 weeks, 64% would support a law banning abortion after 20 weeks, unless the mother’s life was in danger.   Only 30% said they would oppose such a law.

A November 2014 poll from Quinnipiac found that 60 percent of Americans support legislation limiting abortions after 20 weeks, including 56 percent of Independents and 46 percent of Democrats.

During a Congressional hearing on the federal bill, former abortion practitioner Anthony Levatino told members of the committee the gruesome details of his former abortion practice and how he became pro-life following the tragic automobile accident of his child.

Another bombshell dropped during the hearing came from Dr. Maureen Condic, who is Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine. She testified that the unborn child is capable of reacting to pain as early as 8-10 weeks. This is when most abortions in America take place.

The bill relies on the science of fetal pain to establish a Constitutional reason for Congress to ban abortions late in pregnancy. The science behind the concept of fetal pain is fully established and Dr. Steven Zielinski, an internal medicine physician from Oregon, is one of the leading researchers into it. He first published reports in the 1980s to validate research showing evidence for it.

He has testified before Congress that an unborn child could feel pain at “eight-and-a-half weeks and possibly earlier” and that a baby before birth “under the right circumstances, is capable of crying.”

He and his colleagues Dr. Vincent J. Collins and Thomas J. Marzen  were the top researchers to point to fetal pain decades ago. Collins, before his death, was Professor of Anesthesiology at Northwestern University and the University of Illinois and author of Principles of Anesthesiology, one of the leading medical texts on the control of pain.

“The functioning neurological structures necessary to suffer pain are developed early in a child’s development in the womb,” they wrote.

“Functioning neurological structures necessary for pain sensation are in place as early as 8 weeks, but certainly by 13 1/2 weeks of gestation. Sensory nerves, including nociceptors, reach the skin of the fetus before the 9th week of gestation. The first detectable brain activity occurs in the thalamus between the 8th and 10th weeks. The movement of electrical impulses through the neural fibers and spinal column takes place between 8 and 9 weeks gestation. By 13 1/2 weeks, the entire sensory nervous system functions as a whole in all parts of the body,” they continued.

With Zielinski and his colleagues the first to provide the scientific basis for the concept of fetal pain, Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand has provided further research to substantiate their work.

One leading expert in the field of fetal pain, Dr. Kanwaljeet S. Anand at the University of Tennessee, stated in his expert report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice, “It is my opinion that the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by term newborns or older children.”

“The neural pathways are present for pain to be experienced quite early by unborn babies,” explains Steven Calvin, M.D., perinatologist, chair of the Program in Human Rights Medicine, University of Minnesota, where he teaches obstetrics.

Dr. Colleen A. Malloy, Assistant Professor, Division of Neonatology at Northwestern University in her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in May 2012 said, “[w]hen we speak of infants at 22 weeks LMP [Note: this is 20 weeks post fertilization], for example, we no longer have to rely solely on inferences or ultrasound imagery, because such premature patients are kicking, moving, reacting, and developing right before our eyes in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.”

“In today’s medical arena, we resuscitate patients at this age and are able to witness their ex-utero growth and development. Medical advancement and technology have enabled us to improve our ability to care for these infants…In fact, standard of care for neonatal intensive care units requires attention to and treatment of neonatal pain,” Dr. Malloy testified. She continued, “[t]hus, the difference between fetal and neonatal pain is simply the locale in which the pain occurs. The receiver’s experience of the pain is the same. I could never imagine subjecting my tiny patients to horrific procedures such as those that involve limb detachment or cardiac injection.”