Pro-Life Page

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

by Josh Shepherd | LifeNews.com | 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 | LifeNews.com | 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 | LifeNews.com | 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.”

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 2/10/15 5:37 PM 

 
Breast cancer during pregnancy is very rare, occurring in only one in every 3,000 pregnant women. That’s why when Ottawa mother, Jillian O’Conner, felt a lump in her breast while nursing her 1­year­old son she thought it was a blocked milk duck. 
 
Jillian was only 31­years­old and 16­weeks pregnant when she discovered the lump and decided to visit her doctor. At first she was diagnosed with stage two cancer but was upgraded to stage four when doctors found that her liver was enlarged, which meant that the cancer had metastasized. Most doctors suggest an abortion, but Jillian refused to consider aborting her baby and sought help from a doctor who would treat her while also helping her baby. Her doctor, Mark Clemons, shared more with the Ottawa news. He said, “‘Jillian is facing not only the challenge of going through cancer treatment while pregnant but she knows her disease is not curable and once her baby is born, we will change her treatment to give her the best chance of long and fulfilling life.”
 
Now, Jillian has some good news to share. Her baby boy is here! Declan Kenneth O’Connor was born February 1st, weighing in at 7 pounds, six ounces. His mother says she was in awe when she saw him. ‘I was amazed,’ says Jillian O’Connor, ‘How he could go through so much: 12 rounds of chemotherapy, 1 general anesthetic when I had my mastectomy, mammograms, all of those and he came out perfect. He’s healthy.’ Healthy despite the chemo treatments that Jillian O’Connor was getting while pregnant in order to keep her cancer at bay. Declan O’Connor is “absolute perfection” says mom. And on Monday, Dr. Clemons got to meet the little miracle boy, who is now a week old. ‘I feel privileged that we’ve managed to give Jillian the choice to treat her and keep Declan alive and well and deliver a perfect little boy,’ says Dr. Clemons, with the Ottawa Hospital. ‘At a time when there is so much bad international news,’ he adds, ‘the love of a mother for her unborn child conquers all.’ While Declan is healthy, the prognosis is not as positive for his mother.
 
Jillian’s cancer, which was already in her lymph nodes and liver, has now spread to her bones. Now that she’s delivered Declan, aggressive cancer treatment will begin on Tuesday.Unfortunately, doctors have given O’Conner only two years to live but that prognosis could change now that the baby has been delivered. Jillian explained how it feels to be dealing with terminal cancer and pregnancy. She said, “It was a bit scary because you know, when you’re pregnant you don’t want to have a soda that has aspartame, you don’t eat cold cuts, you don’t have anything bad.”
 
 Jillian has underwent a total mastectomy and was treated with a type of chemotherapy that doesn’t cross the placenta.  Jillian concluded, “I want to play with my kids and give them a new brother or sister and live life and be a mom. Obviously I want to be the primary caregiver of my children forever and ever and ever but I also know that there’s so many people so close by who love them.” LifeNews has previously profiled other brave moms who rejected treatment after a cancer diagnosis so they could save their unborn children.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015

by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 2/9/15 3:03 PM

The pro-life movement is winning and nowhere is that seen more starkly than in polling data showing Americans strongly oppose abortion on demand.

A new Gallup poll out today shows more Americans are fed up with abortion on demand in most of the nation for any reason up to birth than ever before. The poll shows that, dating back to 2001, the fewest number of Americans are satisfied with America’s abortion laws which, currently, allow for virtually unlimited abortions in most states.

“In 2015, 34% of Americans say they are satisfied with current U.S. abortion policies. This is the lowest percentage since Gallup first asked the question in 2001,” Gallup noted.

 

The numbers show a sharp dropoff after President Barack Obama’s election — as he has racked up a lengthy pro-abortion record during his tenure in office by pushing abortion and abortion funding at every turn.

“In three of four years since 2012, less than 40% of Americans have been satisfied. Yet between 2001 and 2008, at least 40% were satisfied every year. Gallup asks Americans about their satisfaction with the nation’s policies regarding abortion as part of the annual Mood of the Nation Poll, conducted in January. The poll was not conducted from 2009-2011. Between 2001 and 2008, an average of 43% of Americans were satisfied with U.S. abortion policies; since 2012, the average has been 39%,” Gallup said.

 

“One factor contributing to the drop in satisfaction with abortion policies is significantly lower satisfaction among Republicans since 2012. From January 2001 to January 2008, after the election of Republican George W. Bush and spanning most of his two terms, at least 39% of Republicans each year said they were satisfied with the nation’s abortion policies. Satisfaction among Republicans reached as high as 44% in January 2002, Bush’s first year in office. However, since 2012, with Democratic President Barack Obama in office, no more than 29% of Republicans have been satisfied with the nation’s abortion policies. And Republicans’ satisfaction is particularly low this year, at 21%, an eight-percentage-point decline from a year ago,” it added.

And Gallup found that Americans aren’t dissatisfied because they want more abortions and fewer pro-life laws.

“Americans who say they are dissatisfied with current abortion policies were asked a follow-up question to learn if they are dissatisfied because they want current abortion laws to be stricter or less strict. This year, of those who are dissatisfied, twice as many prefer stricter rather than less strict laws: 24% want stricter laws, while 12% want current abortion laws to be less strict,” it noted.

In response, Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) President Marjorie Dannenfelser called on Congress to advance the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, modest legislation to protect babies after five months of pregnancy.

She told LifeNews.com: “This latest Gallup poll echoes the 2014 midterm election results and the clear mandate given to the Republican Congress to pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would stop abortions after five months. Americans are eager to see the United States removed from the list of only seven countries to allow abortion on-demand past the point at which the child can feel excruciating pain. We urge the House Republican Leadership to move forward with a vote on this compassionate, sensible legislation so that Senator Lindsey Graham can advance the companion bill in the Senate. We will continue to work with both chambers to ensure the maximum number of votes.”

“This is an issue that unites Republican grassroots activists and potential 2016 candidates,” continued Dannenfelser, “while also enjoying the support of a majority of women, independents, and young people. Close to a majority of Democrats also support protecting life more than halfway through pregnancy.”

A recent survey found 84% of Americans want late-term abortions banned.

Monday, February 9, 2015

by Sarah Zagorski | LifeNews.com | 2/6/15 3:5PM

 
 Since 2004, Planned Parenthood of Missouri has only had a handful of health inspections by government officials.
The inspections found filthy conditions including rusty surgical tables, suction abortion machines, IV stands, and other equipment and
“copious amounts of dust” everywhere. Other violations included poor or non­existent infection control protocols and expired, improperly handed drugs.
As LifeNews previously reported, in the last five years Planned Parenthood of St. Louis has botched 27 abortions. Troy Newman, the Director of Operation Rescue said,
“We consider the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in St. Louis to be among the most dangerous abortion facilities in the country. We are grateful to local citizens who have
documented the long list of medical emergencies there so that the public can be made aware of the truth about the dangers of Planned Parenthood’s shoddy practices that
routinely endanger the lives of women.” Thankfully, Planned Parenthood is Missouri’s only abortion facility and new pro­life bills before their legislature, if passed, would
increase mandatory inspections. The legislation, House bills 190 and 427, will require annual inspections of abortion facilities in Missouri.
 
The sponsor of the bill, Kathy Swan (R­Cape Girardeau), is a former registered nurse and said that her bill is about accountability as a state and providing quality health care.
She also said that her legislation would ensure that proper protocols are followed. However, Planned Parenthood isn’t too happy about the proposed legislation. The abortion giant’s
spokeswoman, M’Evie Mead, says the deficiencies found were fixed immediately and the facility does not have a problem with inspections. She said, “Right now, to us, it looks like it’s not health and safety
motivated, it looks like it’s politically motivated. We are committed to safety; we do a lot of safety measurements. We have rigorous safety standards and in that is included
getting inspected by the Department of Health as they see fit, as frequently as they see fit.” She added that if the abortion facility is going to be inspected more frequently, every
ambulatory surgical center should be as well. Additionally, a bill sponsored by Rep. Linda Black (R­ Desloge) would enhance Missouri’s informed consent law by requiring women to watch
an informational video produced by the Department of Health and Senior services prior to having an abortion. Black said, “It would be a mere image of the printed form, but only in a narrative
documentary form.” Black added that her bill would help those who are illiterate or do not learn well by reading.
Friday, February 6, 2015

by Bryan Kemper | LifeNews.com | 2/5/15 5:19 PM 

 
If you’ve never met someone, do they still exist? This is the premise of the short film, “If I Can’t See It,” released last week by Angelic Films in
partnership with Stand True Pro­life Outreach, the youth outreach of Priests for Life. This film was made by teens in Charlotte, NC as a project of
their film club, Angelic Films. The original story was formulated by Bryan Kemper and was put into writing by WNCU film student Emily Pressley after
Kemper shared the idea with the club. Many of the teens involved with Angelic Films are also involved in pro­life work in Charlotte, NC. Zoe Griffin, a member
of Angelic Films, has been featured in many national pro­life stories giving her testimony of regretting the loss of a sibling to abortion. Zoe has spoken at
international pro­life conferences as well as represented Silent No More at the March for Life in Washington, DC. Stand True exists to educate, activate and
equip young people to stand up and be a voice for life in this culture of death. It was a perfect fit to have a group of young people like Angelic Films take on this project.
 
Stand True believes this is the generation that will abolish abortion and is excited to see young people use their time and talent to help build a culture of life.
With a powerful combination of talent, purpose, and meaning this film is a short and concise delivery of what it means to be ALIVE. The film was debuted at the
March for Life Youth Rally hosted by Stand True. Henry Hoyt, the film’s director, introduced the film and also led the members of Angelic Films in the March for
Life where hundreds of thousands of pro­lifers descended on Washington, DC to demand the end of abortion.
 “I was moved and inspired by the film” said Stand True President, Bryan Kemper. “Seeing the passion and vision of these teens gives me strength and confidence
moving forward towards our goal of the abolition of abortion.” Watching the March being led by youth, chanting “We are the pro­life generation,” it is easy to see why
Stand True and Angelic Films are so confident that an end to the abortion holocaust is in sight. 
Thursday, February 5, 2015
February 5, 2015|7:39 am| The Christian Post| 
 

A so-called "emergency contraceptive" that has been central to recent court battles due to its mandated coverage by the Obama administration works most often by causing an abortion, according to a review of medical data published this month in the journal The Linacre Quarterly.

After studying the most recent scientific and medical evidence on levonorgestrel emergency contraception, which goes by the brand name Plan B, the researchers concluded that the women who take it do not get pregnant because it "quite often" causes an abortion if taken before ovulation.

Plan B was first approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration in 1999. After passage of the Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare," the Health and Human Services Administration required most employers to cover Plan B and other FDA-approved emergency contraceptives in their employee's health insurance plans.

This "birth control mandate" led to numerous court battles involving religious groups and businesses, some of whom only objected to coverage of certain emergency contraceptives due to their potential to behave like an abortifacient drug.

In one of those cases involving Hobby Lobby, a craft store chain owned by an Evangelical family, the Supreme Court ruled last Summer that closely-held companies with a religious objection do not have to cover the drug.

The cases involving religious nonprofits, such as Christian colleges and social service groups, have continued. On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit heard oral arguments in a challenge to the mandate by EWTN Global Catholic Network, a television and radio ministry founded by a nun.

During the cases that only involved coverage of emergency contraceptives, some supporters have claimed that the science indisputably shows that Plan B never causes an abortion, even though scientists continue to debate how the pill actually works.

Plan B is to prevent a pregnancy after having sex with no other form of birth control. (It is not the same as RU-486, which both sides of the abortion debate acknowledge is an abortifacient.)

The authors address eight different claims regarding how Plan B is presumed to work. Examining the most recent research on Plan B, the authors conclude that those claims have no basis for support.

The authors also note that some claim Plan B does not cause an abortion by first redefining the term "abortion." An abortion, they claim, can only occur after implantation, rather than at conception, when life begins.

In 2012, when there was much debate over Plan B and Obamacare, for instance, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics released a statement saying that Plan B does not inhibit implantation. Some liberal news sites reported on that statement under headlines like, "Abortion Qualms on Morning-After Pill May Be Unfounded," and "Morning-After Pills Don't Cause Abortion, Studies Say."

Plus, at the time of this publication, the WebMD page for Plan B states that the drug does not cause an abortion, but then redefines abortion as stopping "development of a fetus once the fertilized egg implants in the uterus."

The Linacre Quarterly is the official journal of the Catholic Medical Association and explores ethical issues with a medical dimension. The report was written to guide Catholic hospitals on the use of Plan B for rape victims.

The effect of Plan B depends upon the menstrual cycle of the patient, they concluded. If Plan B is given within two days before ovulation, Plan B "has significant potential to work via the death of the embryo."

If Plan B is taken after ovulation, it could have opposite the intended effect. Plan B "in the postovulatory period may be increasing a woman's risk of becoming clinically pregnant."

Based upon these findings, the authors conclude that current Catholic hospital rape protocols "appear to be faulty and should be revised."

"Since the most recent medical data clearly note that [Plan B] does not effectively stop ovulation and has high potential to work via abortion when given prior to ovulation, these protocols would no longer be in compliance with Catholic teaching," they wrote.

Judie Brown, president of American Life League, agreed with the report's conclusions.

"Catholic bishops have been assured, by Plan B proponents, that the drug does not cause an abortion," she said. "We now know this is not true. There is a grave risk that preborn human lives are being killed by Plan B, and Catholic hospitals need to immediately halt dispensing these drugs and review their policies."

The authors of the report are Chris Kahlenborn of The Polycarp Research Institute, Rebecca Peck of the Florida State University College of Medicine, and Walter Severs of the College of Medicine at Penn State University.

Wednesday, February 4, 2015

by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 2/3/15 1:33 PM

 

Members of the British parliament today voted to make Britain the first country in the world to allow scientists to create

three­parent genetically­engineered embryos, sometimes called “designer babies.” In the process, the babies the babies, born from

genetically modified embryos, would have DNA from a mother, a father and from a female donor. The British parliament voted 382 to 128

in favor of the technique and Prime Minister David Cameron allowed a free vote on the issue and voted for it. Conservative lawmaker Fiona Bruce

said the measure would lead to “designer babies.” “Where will it lead? The answer has to be that we stop here. The answer has to be that we say this

is a red line in our country, as in every other country in the world, that we will not cross,” she said during the debate. Dr. Peter Saunders, a pro­life physician

from Britain and a leading campaigner against three­parent embryos, says members of Parliament were worried Britain would appear scientifically backwards

if it did not approve the plan. “Last week forty scientists from 14 countries urged the British legislature to approve the new laws allowing mitochondrial DNA transfer,”

he said. “The stance of scientists creates huge pressure for MPs who risk being labelled ‘ignorant’ or uncaring for objecting. But the question is not nearly as simple as it

looks on first appearance. These new regulations are dangerous. No other country has officially legalised the techniques and no one can predict what the consequences for

future children will be.” “These techniques are highly experimental, unproven, known to be very unsafe (bear in mind that children’s lives will be the experiment), ineffective,

costly, a waste of public money, insufficiently understood, unnecessary (only potentially helping 10­20 families a year) and will require large numbers of eggs to proceed, even for

just a few families,” Saunders continued. “Genuine concerns about this new mitochondrial technology have been swept aside in Britain in the headlong rush to push the scientific

boundaries.” Public opinion in England runs counter to the idea. The Department of Health is brazenly claiming widespread public support for the measure – despite its own consultation

showing a majority (62%) actually oppose the plans. In addition a ComRes poll conducted in August 2014 found that only 18% of people support a change in the law to permit the creation

of three­parent children through genetic modification. Click here to sign up for daily pro­life news alerts from LifeNews.com In the technique, a donor egg’s nucleus is removed and replaced

with the nucleus of a woman with mitochondrial disease. That genetically­engineered egg is then fertilized with sperm creating an embryo that has genetic material from three persons, the

mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from the donor, and nuclear DNA contributed by the parents. LifeNews blogger Rebecca Taylor, who works in the scientific field, talked more about the potential problems.

“And while it sounds like a nice thing to be able to help women who have mitochondrial disease to have healthy children (a woman with a mutation in her mtDNA cannot help but pass on that mutation

because we inherit our mitochondria from our mother), there is a laundry list of ethical issues that finally seem to be gaining traction,” she explained. She lamented the fact that mitochondrial replacement

has more in common with SCNT, better known as cloning, than it does IVF. “In both cloning and MR, the nucleus of a donor egg is removed and replaced with another. In cloning, the egg is made to think it has

been fertilized. In MR, the egg is fertilized,” Taylor explained. “We know that SCNT in animals has had some serious problems. Cloning trials in agricultural animals in New Zealand were halted because an unacceptable

number of the cloned animals and their gestating mothers had to be euthanized.” This isn’t just a concern in England. In 2014, in the United States, an FDA Advisory Committee held a hearing examining mitochondrial

disease prevention with the creation of three­parent embryos.

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

by Sarah Zagorski | LifeNews.com | 2/2/15 5:16 PM

 

In the book, The Abortion Resource Handbook, pro­abortion author, K Kaufmann, encourages teenagers not to tell their parents about their abortion experiences. She writes, “However sad or angry you feel right now, keep in mind that not involving a parent is often a sign of maturity – that you are able to make and take responsibility for your own decisions. Keeping the pregnancy and abortion a secret may even turn out to be a positive experience.

For many young women, it may be one of the first times they make an important or life­changing decision on their own, and they may feel more confident and better about themselves as a result.” Well, she’s definitely right about one thing; abortion is a life­changing decision but it will not make a teen feel better about herself. In fact, studies show that teenagers who’ve had abortions are ten­times more likely to commit suicide than teens who haven’t.

As LifeNews previously reported, it is critical that teenagers who’ve had abortions receive the care they need afterwards and parents can’t provide that if they don’t know about it.

Furthermore, girls who obtain “secret” abortions often do so because they are forced by older men who impregnated them, and then return to abusive situations.

Psychologist Dr. Vincent Rue has talked about what happens when teens hide abortions from their parents: “When an adolescent elects abortion without parental consultation, she must inevitably return to her family context. However, she returns with a secret that shames and emotionally strains her coping abilities. She must employ increased deception to protect her secret and to protect herself from her perceived fears of being found out and condemned by her parents and siblings.”

News stories frequently reveal yet another teen who has been sexually abused by a person in authority—a coach, teacher, or someone else. Daily, teens are taken to abortion clinics without the consent or even the knowledge of their parents.  Ultimately, though, teenagers shouldn’t be making the decision to have an abortion without the consent of a parent in the first place.

This is why pro­life advocates believe in implementing parental consent laws,which require abortionists to either notify or obtain consent of a parent or guardian before a minor girl has an abortion. Unfortunately, however, most abortion activists oppose parental involvement laws even though 71% of American’s support it.

This is most likely because they are more concerned with the money they make from selling abortion than the health and wellbeing of the teenager involved. Thankfully, according to a recent report from National Right to Life, 30 states in the U.S. have parental consent laws that require abortionists to. Studies also show that parental consent laws make positive impacts on teenagers because they reduce the rates of abortion, birth, and pregnancy.

Pages