Pro-Life Page

Tuesday, May 5, 2015


  | LIVE ACTION NEWS| 


 

Last week’s shocking story of a mom who paid $25,000 to kill her 8-month-old disabled preborn baby is, perhaps, one of the most extreme cases of a late-term abortion justification, but it’s not the only one, as a controversy in Texas shows.

The Dallas Morning News reports this week on Nicole Stewart, who is angry that a Texas legislator is trying to pass a ban on abortions past the 20-week mark. She says her abortion at 22 weeks was necessary. The News reports;

“Stewart and her husband were excited to visit their doctor in 2013 to learn that the baby they were expecting was a boy. But they left with a grave prognosis: Routine skull measurements were troubling, and it appeared part of the baby’s brain never developed.

“After more tests, visits to specialists and more consultations, the couple was told the baby they had affectionately nicknamed ‘Tutu’ probably wouldn’t survive the pregnancy, and if he did, the chances of his living for more than a year were slim.”

 

Stewart and her husband aborted Tutu at 22 weeks. She says that a law forbidding the abortion would be an insult to her family because “for someone else to dictate the terms of our grief … we both were devastated,” she told the paper.

But the legislator who proposed the bill, Rep. Matt Schaefer (R-Tyler) says it’s about protecting life:

“This is about protecting babies with disabilities from late-term abortion. It doesn’t matter if you’re healthy by our standards. … Your life is valuable to God, and we want to protect that life.”

 

On his Facebook page, Schaefer posted a story about the bill, saying as a preface:

“Fetal abnormalities should not justify taking the life of unborn babies. Unfortunately, Texas law allows that. Today we tried to end the practice of aborting babies with disabilities.”

His comments were met with fury from readers, who called him everything from “misogynistic” to “sick” to “the Bible whisperer,” as well as uttering a host of other insults and accusations.

While the bill is still in a flux in the state legislature, the issues are clear on both sides: those for and against a 20-week abortion ban say their justification is to end suffering.

 

The Dallas Morning News discusses the battle between Stewart and Schaefer’s bill:

“Schaefer, who supported the 20-week ban in 2013, said his vote was based in part on the idea that a fetus can feel pain at that point of development. Now, he says, even if the fetus suffers, it’s better to honor life than end it.

“‘Pain and suffering, living and dying is part of the human condition,’ he said.

“Stewart said that for her, protecting her son from pain was paramount.

“’The decision that we made was not for us,’ Stewart said. ‘It was about him. Every single day that I carried that child after knowing how unhealthy he was was heartbreaking for me.”’

 

The argument lies in the fact that fetal abnormalities and disabilities are often diagnosed later in pregnancy. OB/GYN Daniel Grossman says, “The test to detect genetic and chromosomal abnormalities is usually performed at about 15 or 16 weeks of pregnancy, but it isn’t a catchall.”

He adds: “physical malformations caused by different factors aren’t likely to be detected until 18 weeks or later.”

The implication is that since a parent may not discover defects until halfway through fetal development, it is somehow wrong to prevent them from killing the baby at that point.

 

Stewart’s argument is that Tutu was wanted and loved, but then he was diagnosed with abnormalities, so they chose abortion. She said she felt at peace after the abortion “because he was at peace.”

However, arguments in favor of 20-week abortion bans are generally centered around fetal pain—that is, proponents of these bans argue that the reason to ban abortions past 20-weeks is that the preborn baby is capable of feeling the pain that he or she is subjected to during an abortion.

While some medical experts argue when a preborn baby can feel pain (some say it’s at 20 weeks, while studies suggest it’s not until 26 or 28 weeks), without question, a baby the age of Rose— aborted at 8 months— can definitely feel pain. Tragically, Stewart asserts that baby Tutu actually will be spared from pain.

 

Such reasoning may be clinically comforting, but at what point can we take genuine comfort, knowing our decision to end a baby’s life may not have hurt the child in the process? Too much evidence exists that Tutu also felt pain.

While all pro-lifers agree abortion kills a child, some abortion advocates even believe that abortion past a certain point of gestation hurts preborn children. The trend toward justifying late-term abortions is disturbing; likewise, so is the media heroically reporting on the women who have made this decision.

A culture of convenience endorses ending a life we don’t want.

 

Monday, May 4, 2015

by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 5/1/15 5:15 PM

 

When it comes to the issue of abortion, does prayer work? The answer from the folks at 40 Days for Life and Bound4Life is a resounding yes.

The folks at Bound4Life have profiled one story of a little girl who thanked a rally of 15,000 people for their prayers, which saved her from abortion. here, 40 Days for Life leader David Bereit is talking about the effectiveness of prayer and the 40 Days campaigns:

In our work, unlike in pregnancy care centers, we rarely get to directly meet the lives saved. Bryan and Matt, you hear stories – I’ve heard lots of these testimonies, but I’ve only met five of the 10,000 children saved by 40 Days for Life campaigns (that we know of). Each of them were years apart, each was at a time when I needed that affirmation this is making an impact.

To be able to see that child means so much. I was recently in Los Angeles, where I saw a four year-old girl. I first met her when she was a baby, and now I got to introduce her to 15,000 people at OneLifeLA. She was wearing a shirt that said Your Prayers Saved Me. Her mom is now engaged to the girl’s dad because this beautiful girl Leah has brought so much joy to their lives.

Seeing the positive fruit of people’s prayers, of what God can do, and also continually allowing our hearts to be broken – those two things keep me engaged with the individual and the need.

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/01/little-girl-who-was-almost-aborted-tells-rally-with-15000-people-your-prayers-saved-me/

Friday, May 1, 2015

by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 4/30/15 5:56 PM

 

President Barack Obama apparently believes pro-life organizations should be forced to hire pro-abortion employees.

 

The House of Representatives is voting on Friday on a resolution to condemn a pro-abortion measure the District of Columbia City Council approved.

The local government of the nation’s capital approved the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act (RHNDA), which prevents employers from denying employment based on “their reproductive health decision-making.” Because the language provides no exemption for religious or political groups, it could be used to force pro-life groups to hire abortion advocates.

“We can’t exist if our purpose is to advocate for a pro-life position and we’re living under a regime which is telling us you can’t structure yourself as an organization and hire people to advocate for these issues,” Travis Weber, an attorney and Director of Family Research Council’s Center for Religious Liberty, told The Daily Signal. “It’s very controlling and it brings to mind an oppressive government monitoring of groups’ purposes.”

 

But, the House of Representatives will vote Friday on H.J. Res. 43, a resolution of disapproval sponsored by pro-life Rep. Diane Black to prevent implementation of the Reproductive Health Nondiscrimination Act (RHNDA).

However, if the House passes the bill, President Barack Obama says he will veto it. In an email LifeNews obtained, the White House announced the veto threat.

“The Administration strongly opposes H.J. Res. 43, which would overturn the District of Columbia’s Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014,” the White House said. “This legislation would give employers cover to fire employees for the personal decisions they make about birth control and their reproductive health.  These personal decisions should not jeopardize anyone’s job or terms of employment.”

 

“The Act preserves the current exception in the District’s Human Rights Law for religious entities and does not impose additional requirements on employers, contrary to their personal beliefs, to provide insurance coverage related to reproductive health decisions,” it claims. “If the President were presented with H.J. Res. 43, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto this resolution.”

But the National Right to Life Committee, in a letter to members of Congress, outlined the many problems with the RHDNA measure the House resolution opposes.

The RHNDA prohibits employers within the District from engaging in “discrimination” on the basis of “decisions” reached by employees, or potential employees, regarding “reproductive health” matters. It is not disputed that abortion is among the matters encompassed by the term “reproductive health” as used in the new law. The scope of the RHNDA is very broad, covering any “decisions” that are “related to the use . . . of a particular . . . medical service . . .” [emphasis added]

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) advocates for recognition that each unborn child is a member of the human family, and that each abortion stops a beating heart and ends the life of a developing human being. That viewpoint is shared by many women who once believed otherwise and submitted to abortions, and by many men who once believed otherwise and were complicit in abortion; such persons number among the most committed activists within our organization and other pro-life organizations. Yet it would be intolerable for an advocacy organization such as ours to be required to hire, or prohibited from firing, a person who makes a “decision” to engage in advocacy or any other activity that is directly antithetical to our core mission to lawfully advocate for the civil rights of the unborn.

Under the RHNDA, using any “decision . . . related to” abortion to inform decisions about hiring, firing, or benefits (among other things) would expose our organization both to enforcement actions by the District government bureaucracy, and to private lawsuits (some of which would likely be engendered by “sting” operations by pro-abortion advocates).

Some have suggested that we would be protected from such results by a clause in the pre-existing D.C. Human Rights Act that makes narrow allowance for “giving preference to persons of the same religion or political persuasion” as a controlling “religious or political organization.” But NRLC is neither a political nor a religious organization as those terms are used in the law. NRLC is not “operated, supervised or controlled by” any religious institution or political party, as the law requires to claim the narrow exemption. Moreover, our staff is made up of persons who are personally affiliated with a wide variety of religious bodies, or with none, and persons who belong to a variety of political parties, or to none.

Article I of the U.S. Constitution provides that Congress shall “exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever” with respect to the seat of government, the federal District. Therefore, the RHNDA has been enacted with legal authority delegated to the District Council by Congress; that local body has no other political authority whatever under the Constitution. It follows that members of Congress are responsible for, and accountable for, abuses of the legal authority that Congress has delegated to District officials. The RHNDA is just such an abuse of delegated power – it is a politically motivated attack on our organization and the other organizations that seek to vindicate the human rights of unborn children.

A leading pro-life member of Congress says the vote is necessary to protect the religious liberties of pro-life groups.

 

“The upcoming House vote on the resolution to disapprove of the D.C. Council’s encroachment on religious liberty is a direct result of the persistent efforts of Republican Study Committee members,” Rep.  Bill Flores (R-TX) said.

He told LifeNews: “We first flagged this issue when the D.C. Council passed the law and have been resolute in our belief that Congress has the right and the responsibility to act in defense of our constitutional freedom of belief. This is not about one city, but rather about preserving the First Amendment right to religious liberty for all Americans.”

 

A top pro-life advocate in Washington provides more background on what’s happened and how RHNDA abrogates the rights of pro-life groups.

“RHNDA was adopted by the D.C. City Council late last year and transmitted to Congress on March 6 for a Congressional review period of 30 legislative days. The law will be enacted at the expiration of the 30 day period unless a joint resolution of disapproval is enacted. On April 21 H.J. Res. 43 was approved by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on a party line vote of 20-16,” says Jonathan Imbody, Vice President for Government Relations for the Christian Medical Association.

 

He explains: “RHNDA could restrict the First Amendment freedoms of pro-life organizations in two ways: Force a religious or pro-life advocacy group to make personnel decisions inconsistent with their sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions about the sanctity of human life. Mandate that religious and pro-life advocacy organizations provide insurance coverage for surgical abortion.”

The resolution, H.J. Res. 43, disapproves of the District’s Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act (RHNDA), which requires employers to provide health insurance covering the termination of unborn children and to hire individuals who may advocate for those practices, even if that goes against the employer’s religious beliefs.

Thursday, April 30, 2015

by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 4/29/15 4:50 PM

Should pro-life organizations be forced to hire pro-abortion employees? That’s the question the House of Representatives will answer on Friday when it votes on a resolution to condemn a measure the District of Columbia City Council approved.

The local government of the nation’s capital approved the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act (RHNDA), which prevents employers from denying employment based on “their reproductive health decision-making.” Because the language provides no exemption for religious or political groups, it could be used to force pro-life groups to hire abortion advocates.

“We can’t exist if our purpose is to advocate for a pro-life position and we’re living under a regime which is telling us you can’t structure yourself as an organization and hire people to advocate for these issues,” Travis Weber, an attorney and Director of Family Research Council’s Center for Religious Liberty, told The Daily Signal. “It’s very controlling and it brings to mind an oppressive government monitoring of groups’ purposes.”

But, the House of Representatives will vote Friday on H.J. Res. 43, a resolution of disapproval sponsored by pro-life Rep. Diane Black to prevent implementation of the Reproductive Health Nondiscrimination Act (RHNDA). A preceding debate on the resolution is scheduled for Thursday.

A leading pro-life member of Congress says the vote is necessary to protect the religious liberties of pro-life groups.

“The upcoming House vote on the resolution to disapprove of the D.C. Council’s encroachment on religious liberty is a direct result of the persistent efforts of Republican Study Committee members,” Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX) said.

He told LifeNews: “We first flagged this issue when the D.C. Council passed the law and have been resolute in our belief that Congress has the right and the responsibility to act in defense of our constitutional freedom of belief. This is not about one city, but rather about preserving the First Amendment right to religious liberty for all Americans.”

A top pro-life advocate in Washington provides more background on what’s happened and how RHNDA abrogates the rights of pro-life groups.

“RHNDA was adopted by the D.C. City Council late last year and transmitted to Congress on March 6 for a Congressional review period of 30 legislative days. The law will be enacted at the expiration of the 30 day period unless a joint resolution of disapproval is enacted. On April 21 H.J. Res. 43 was approved by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on a party line vote of 20-16,” says Jonathan Imbody, Vice President for Government Relations for the Christian Medical Association.

He explains: “RHNDA could restrict the First Amendment freedoms of pro-life organizations in two ways: Force a religious or pro-life advocacy group to make personnel decisions inconsistent with their sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions about the sanctity of human life. Mandate that religious and pro-life advocacy organizations provide insurance coverage for surgical abortion.”

The resolution, H.J. Res. 43, disapproves of the District’s Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act (RHNDA), which requires employers to provide health insurance covering the termination of unborn children and to hire individuals who may advocate for those practices, even if that goes against the employer’s religious beliefs.

Wednesday, April 29, 2015


  | LIVEACTION NEWS| 


 

These days, one of the most dangerous places to be pro-life is  California. The Golden State has mandated churches to cover abortion, and is now seeking to turn pro-life pregnancy centers into abortion counseling centers.

On April 14, the state Assembly Health Committee passed AB 775, also known as the “Bully Bill,”  on a 12 to 5 vote. AB 775 would mandate pregnancy care clinics to post a notice stating: “California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services, prenatal care, and abortion, for eligible women.”

AB 775 would also require pregnancy care centers that provide counseling but not medical care to note that the clinic “is not licensed as a medical facility by the State of California.” Both types of pregnancy care facilities would also be required to use the statements in all advertising.

The bill’s next hearing is Tuesday, April 28, with the Assembly Judiciary Committee, and pro-lifers are asking individuals to make their voices heard.

 

Jonathan Keller, executive director of the California Family Council and California Family Alliance (CFA), says:

“Remarkably, AB 775 would turn every Pregnancy Resource Center (PRC) into a state-mandated abortion referral service. The bill would force over 160 PRCs in California to use their lobbies, websites, and literature to promote state-funded ‘free’ abortions, a direct violation of their moral standards. Violators would face heavy fines of at least $500 for each infraction.”

CFA notes there was “passionate testimony from over 80 pro-life citizens who attended the hearing” for AB775, yet it passed on a party-line vote with Democrats in favor of the bill.

 

CFA reports: “As currently amended, the bill would force over 160 PRCs in California to use their lobbies, websites, forms and literature to promote state-funded ‘free’ abortions, a direct violation of the moral standards of most PRCs. Violators face heavy fines of $500-$1,000 for each infraction.”

Attorney Heather Hacker from Alliance Defending Freedom said:

“AB 775 unconstitutionally compels pro-life pregnancy centers and licensed medical clinics to espouse a government-sponsored message about abortion. This violates the First Amendment and other similar laws have been struck down across the country.”

However, there are free legal resources for these pro-life pregnancy resource centers, too. Keller from CFA talked with Brad Dacus with the Pacific Justice Institute, a law firm prepared to help PRCs fight this unconstitutional mandate pro-bono.

 

 

Above all, it is vital that pro-lifers speak out unceasingly against this bill, which would force pro-life clinics to promote abortion against freedom of conscience and religious liberty. Without a vocal outcry, bills like this advance and lead to other types of legislation. This is an example of the true “anti-choice” mentality, which forces individuals into the promotion of death. CFA recommends:

“If your representative serves on the committee, CFA is asking that you make a brief appearance at the lawmaker’s district office to register your concern in person. We are facing well-heeled opposition by pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice California.”

Californians may contact their legislators and demand that the right to free speech be upheld.

 

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

by Brad Mattes | LifeNews.com | 4/24/15 5:05 PM| 

 

Breast cancer. Two of the scariest words a woman can hear.

 

You’d think people who claim to advocate for women would do everything possible to educate them about their risks. You’d think they’d offer all the information and all the research.

But the abortion industry has a vested interest in making sure women don’t hear about the link between abortion and breast cancer. In fact, they deny it exists, even in the face of another medical entity warning young girls of the risk.

 

Earlier this month, after considering research, the American College of Pediatricians firmly reiterated its stand on the abortion and breast cancer (ABC) link. The president of the College flatly stated, “When one considers the normal anatomy and physiology of the breast it becomes clear that this link is causal not merely correlational.”

Here’s the link in a nutshell: before pregnancy, lobules in the breast are immature and undifferentiated—not yet milk-producing cells. Days after conception, though, estrogen levels start rising, triggering changes. By the end of the first trimester, estrogen is up by 2,000 percent. By 20 weeks into pregnancy, lobules have increased so much that breast volume doubles. In the last 20 weeks, the lobules mature until they can produce milk. At 40 weeks, 85 percent of the lobules have differentiated and matured into Type 4 cells, known to be more cancer-resistant.

The exposure of immature lobules to estrogen is when they’re quickly growing and changing. It’s at this time they’re most vulnerable to breast cancer. If a woman has an abortion before 32 weeks, her lobules and ducts have increased and been exposed to an estrogen bombardment, but they never get the chance to mature into the protective Type 3s and 4s. She only has more Type 1s and Type 2s—more places for cancer to form.

 

Metastatic breast cancer is on the rise in the US among women ages 25 to 39. And it’s not just here: other countries where abortion has increased also show a rise in breast cancer. Studies also show that risk increases with every subsequent abortion, as the lobules are stimulated again and again with estrogen but never allowed to mature. Learn more about the ABC link on our website.

Both Planned Parenthood and—amazingly—Susan G. Komen for the Cure deny the link. Planned Parenthood calls it a myth. Planned Parenthood and Komen don’t have any trouble talking about other risk factors for breast cancer. But they won’t talk about abortion. Planned Parenthood starts its explanation by smearing those who do want women to have full information. Komen lumps abortion right up there with “left-handedness” as a non-factor.

Komen’s recent experience with Planned Parenthood’s mafia thuggery explains why they deny the ABC link. But Planned Parenthood’s zeal for all things abortion is understood by the millions of dollars they rake in by committing abortions.

Imagine the loss of income to Planned Parenthood should the truth about the ABC link be widely known. Killing babies is their cash cow and they’ll protect it at all costs, even when Komen gets in the way. It’s not about safeguarding the health of women. It’s all about the money.

 

Each year thousands more are diagnosed with those two frightening words, “breast cancer.” Imagine the number of women who could be spared this horrible and often deadly experience if the abortion industry would come clean and stop putting ideology over the lives of countless women. Sounds like a real war on women, if you ask me.

Begin helping women today. Get informed and then share your life-saving knowledge with others. We’re on the side of more information to empower women. You can read the College’s full statement here.

Monday, April 27, 2015

by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 4/24/15 3:34 PM

 

On April 21st, Carafem, a new abortion facility in Washington D.C., launched an ad campaign that attempts to destigmatize abortion. Their 30-second video ad features three women who are trying to avoid using the word “abortion” when another woman interrupts their conversation and boldly says, “wait a minute, you guys are talking about abortion.” The video ends with Carafem’s motto, “Abortion. Yeah, we do that.

 

 

As LifeNews previously reported, the facility, CaraFem, is opening this month and will offer hot tea and comfy robes. The “clinic” will also feature wood floors, plush upholstery and resemble a high-end salon or spa.

CaraFem president, Christopher Purdy, said, “We don’t want to talk in hushed tones. We use the A-word.” He added, “It’s fresh, it’s modern, it’s clean, it’s caring. That’s the brand we’re trying to create.” Planned Parenthood, of course, praised the new approach. Eric Ferrero, a spokesman for the abortion giant, said, “We still do a lot of work with people who are less supportive of abortion, and one way we need to communicate is in a more empathetic framework that kind of says, ‘Look, these are really complicated personal issues.”

 

However, pro-life groups believe the “fresh” approach will fail.

The president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, Marjorie Dannenfelser, said “Even people who support abortion rights don’t necessarily see it as something to celebrate. They want to think about [abortion] as a necessary evil.” National Right to Life president, Carol Tobias, added, “Abortion is not pleasant and trying to put pretty wrappings around the procedure isn’t going to make any difference.”

Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, the director of a group called Third Way, acknowledged that most people still don’t see abortion in a positive light. She said, “Most people in this country do not think abortion is a good thing on its face, even if they deeply believe it should be legal.” Nevertheless, Hatalsky still believes the group’s efforts to destigmitize abortion will attract young passionate activists who will help change public opinion.

 

 

I don’t know about you but I think it’s going to take a lot more than pretty floors and furniture to change public opinion on abortion. First of all, whether an abortion takes place at a run-down Gosnell-like facility or at a “high-end salon,” abortion always, 100% of the time, kills an unborn child and hurts the family involved.

Secondly, after abortion over 65% of women suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and post abortive women are six-times more likely to commit suicide than women who have given birth. Also, many women describe their abortion experience as ‘a nightmare,’ with 60% reporting that it felt like ’Part of me died.’

So to put it mildly, better branding, “abortion spas,” and all the positive talk in the world will never change the horror of abortion or the devastation it brings.

Friday, April 24, 2015

by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 4/23/15 11:26 AM

 

A Colorado state Senate committee approved on a party-line vote a bill that would provide justice for unborn children who are killed or injured in violent crimes against their mother.

 

With Republicans supporting the pro-life bill and Democrats voting against it 3-2 the Senate Judiciary Committee passed SB 268, the Offenses Against Unborn Children Act. Colorado Citizens for Life, along with Colorado Family Action, Alliance Defending Freedom and other local and national pro-life groups, stood in support of the legislation.

As LifeNews has reported, the Colorado woman who cut out a 7-month-old unborn baby from Michelle Wilkins’ (pictured above) abdomen, resulting in the death of the infant, will not be charged with murder. That’s because the state lacks an unborn victims law to hold criminals accountable when they kill or injure unborn children in such criminal attacks.
Colorado Citizens for Life said the law is needed to provide justice for pregnant women and their unborn children.

 

Sarah Zagorski, the Executive Director of Colorado Citizens for Life said, “This horrific case highlights the need for an Unborn Victims of Violence law in Colorado, which would recognize the unlawful killing of an unborn child as homicide. This woman’s baby was viable and suffered a cruel and violent death. Colorado should have laws punishing perpetrators of these innocent, defenseless victims.”

She added: “SB 268 will bring justice to unborn babies who are injured or killed in violent crimes against their mother. The importance of this legislation came to light in March when Dynel Catece Lane was arrested in Longmont, Colorado after she attacked Michelle Wilkins and cut her seven-month-old unborn baby out of her womb. In this unbelievable act of violence, Wilkins’ baby, Aurora, died but she survived. However, after the incident, a spokeswoman from the Boulder Country District Attorney’s Office said Lane won’t face murder charges for the baby’s death.”

“Recent shows that 76% of American’s support Unborn Victims of Violence legislation. This should show Colorado lawmakers that it’s time for our state to catch up with the rest of Americans and implement laws that reflect what the majority of our citizens believe. It is outrageous that Colorado prosecutors were not able to bring murder charges against Lane but if passed, Cadmen’s bill will prevent this from happening in the future,” she said.

 

During the committee hearing, pro-abortion groups attempted to claim that the bill would somehow be used to prosecute women for miscarriages, even though federal law and similar laws in dozens of other sates have only been used to provide justice for pregnant women an their unborn children.

“Although Planned Parenthood and the ACLU argued that Colorado’s 2013 “Crimes Against Pregnant Women” law, is sufficient for our state, it didn’t bring Michelle Wilkins or her baby Aurora the justice they deserve. Now SB 268 is headed to the Senate floor,” Zagorski said.

The bill creates a number of crimes against unborn children who are killed or injured in the process of an assault or homicide against the baby’s mother. The measure is similar to bills that have been used in the past to prosecute criminals for two crimes against both mother and child. Unborn victims laws have repeatedly been upheld as constitutional in court.

Dynel Catrece Lane was arrested after she attacked a pregnant woman and cut her 7-month-old unborn baby from her womb. In this unbelievable act of violence, the baby died but the mother, Michelle Wilkins (pictured), survived. A report shows the baby breathed a heavy last gasp before she died.

 

Colorado state law does not regard unborn children as human beings who deserve justice when they are killed. In 2013, Colorado Democrats killed a bill that would add the state to the list of more than 25 states that provide justice and protection for pregnant women and unborn children. Pro-abortion groups Planned Parenthood and NARAL opposed the bill – the very groups that endorsed Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett in his race for attorney general. Garnett is the county prosecutor who is not bringing forth murder charges against lane for killing Wilkins’ unborn baby.

Senate president Bill Cadman is the sponsor of the unborn victims bill, Senate Bill 268, that mirrors federal law and the laws of dozens of states.

“This is a sad day for the mothers of Colorado, and for the fathers of Colorado,” Cadman said in a statement after no murder charge for Baby Aurora was brought. “And for every Coloradan who was stunned to learn that no murder charges will be brought on behalf of a Longmont infant savagely cut from its mother’s body in one of the most horrific crimes in recent memory.”

“Where’s the justice for that baby?” said Cadman.

“That’s very simple,” he said. “It doesn’t call into question anybody’s rights over their own body. It absolutely protects the right of the mom and of her baby.”

 

 

“This really is a horrific situation. . .  we need equal protection for the 60,000 plus babies who are born in Colorado every year; protection that they don’t have now; protection that is afforded to them in 38 states, including some of the most liberal like California. That’s what this bill does. This is not new. This is an issue that’s come before us. Frankly, it was a discussion that I had with a house member, Representative Joshi, about two months ago, and it certainly is timely now,” Cadman said.

Current state law in these kinds of cases is governed by a 2013 law called the Unlawful Termination of a Pregnancy Act, that merely attaches a sentence enhancement for crimes against pregnant women — while ignoring the death of or injury to the unborn baby. That law provides no justice for unborn children.

 
Please thank the Senators who supported SB 268 and tell the two Senators who voted against the legislation that you’re disappointed they didn’t vote to protect unborn children who are victims of violent crimes!

 

Thursday, April 23, 2015

by Mark Bradford | LifeNews.com | 4/22/15 11:28 AM

How many babies prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome (DS) are aborted in the United States each year? Well, we don’t know.

 

While new data suggesting lower numbers has recently been published,[1] we continue to see most often in print a statistics of 90% – 92%. While that certainly draws attention to the horrifying reality that the majority of children prenatally diagnosed with DS are aborted, it is not accurate. That number relies on a 1999 European study with little data drawn from the U.S.[2] There are good reasons for advocates to use the best data available to raise awareness of the problem that exists in the link between prenatal diagnosis and abortion.

A new study conducted by Gert de Graaf, Frank Buckley, and Brian Skotko and recently published in the American Journal of Medical Genetics[3] applies rigorous statistical modeling to diverse data sets in an attempt to provide the most accurate number possible. It is important to know over time what impact relatively new noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) technologies, only available since October 2011, will have on the already high termination rate after a prenatal diagnosis of DS.

These new NIPS tests are able to identify cell-free DNA from the placenta in the mother’s blood as early as 10 weeks into her pregnancy, and claim to inform women – with near 99% sensitivity and specificity – if the baby she is carrying might have DS.  Recent reports have indicated that some women are using these tests to make the decision to end their pregnancy without having the result confirmed with an invasive diagnostic test.[4] To understand the impact this new technology will have over time on birth rates of children with DS, it is essential to establish a benchmark that can be used for future comparison.

 

Unlike the U.S., some countries track birth defects in national registries along with prenatal diagnosis and termination rates, so there are little or no vagaries around this question. For example, the National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register (NDSCR) is a part of the larger British Isles Network of Congenital Anomaly Registers.[5] Both of these are part of EUROCAT, the broader European network of population-based registries that compiles epidemiological data on congenital anomalies across Europe. The NDSCR collects information on all diagnoses of trisomies 13, 18, and 21 in England and Wales. With a few clicks of a mouse, anyone can access the database and learn the prevalence, prenatal detection rates, and other key public health indicators related to genetic anomalies.

For example, using information gathered from all member registries, from 2008 to 2012, there were 4,288 live births of children with DS, 231 natural fetal deaths, and 5,215 terminations. DS live births as a percentage of total diagnosed pregnancies was 44%. Fifty-three percent of all pregnancies were aborted following prenatal diagnosis and a small percentage were lost to natural causes. We can also learn that during the same four-year period, 65.1% of the total DS cases were prenatally diagnosed.[6]

In the United States, we have no such data collection. And given how polarized we are as a nation around the topic of abortion and the strong value placed on the right to privacy, there is little chance that this level of data collection will ever be possible.

 

The authors of this study gathered data that is available and devised a sophisticated statistical model to estimate as closely as possible the impact of prenatal diagnosis on abortion rates. They then asked this question:  How many children with DS have been born, and what has been the net effect of pregnancy terminations following prenatal testing on live birth prevalence during the period from 1900–2010? Given that prenatal diagnosis and legal abortion weren’t available before about 1974, the authors focused on the years from 1974 to 2010 to develop their estimates.

In brief, the answer to their question is that for the most recent years, 2006–2010:

  • The estimated live birth prevalence for DS was approximately 12.6 per 10,000, or a total of around 5,300 births each year;
  • The number of pregnancy terminations following prenatal diagnosis is estimated at 3,100;
  • Taking natural losses into account, the authors estimate that there would have been 7,600 live births each year in the absence of prenatal diagnosis that resulted in abortion;
  • Their estimate of live-birth prevalence for 2010 is around 1 in 792, or slightly fewer births than the 14.47 per 10,000, or 1 in 691, live-birth prevalence published by the Centers for Disease Control (2004–2006 estimates).[7]

 

The net result of their research is that abortion after prenatal diagnosis has reduced the population of individuals living with DS in the U.S. by approximately 30%.

This should not be confused with the percentage of women who abort following a prenatal diagnosis. That number would certainly be higher. This reflects the overall reduction in the DS population, and takes into consideration total DS pregnancies, whether prenatally diagnosed or not. The authors state that prior to October 2011 and the availability of NIPS, about 72% of women elected to have traditional prenatal screens and only an estimated maximum of 2% went on to have invasive diagnostic procedures, i.e., amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling. If prenatal screening becomes more widely available, as seems to be happening, then one would expect the number of terminations to increase.

 

 

As an interesting aside, the authors estimate the total case prevalence of DS in the U.S., excluding elective termination and natural loss, to be 1 in 365. This number correlates closely with the reported live birth incidence of DS in the Arab world where abortion for DS is not permitted. The birth prevalence in Dubai is estimated at 1 in 449 overall, but much greater among the Emiratis: 1 in 319.[8]

In this publication, the authors have identified regional and racial/ethnic differences in the prevalence of abortion following prenatal diagnosis by drawing data from 12 states that maintain live birth data of DS births by racial/ethnic group. The group with the highest number of terminations was Asians/Pacific Islanders (61%) followed by non-Hispanic whites (39%), non-Hispanic blacks/Africans (27%), Hispanics (18%), and American Indians (16%). Regionally, Hawaii and the Northeast states have the highest termination rates compared to other regions of the US at 62% and 46%, respectively. The South is the lowest with an overall reduction rate of approximately 23%.

The authors of this study have provided valuable baseline data that should help frame the discussion of the impact of prenatal diagnosis on future termination rates.

 

The fact that there have been no clear-cut statistics in the U.S. regarding how many women receive a prenatal diagnosis for DS, their subsequent decision regarding birth, termination, or adoption is frustrating. It is equally frustrating that there is no accurate census of the population living with DS in the U.S. Another statistically based study published in 2013 revised the estimated population of those living with DS in the U.S. in 2008 from a previously estimated number of 400,000 to around 250,000 – that represents a 25%–40% reduction in population that could substantially impact services and supports, and also potential funding made available for research.

Using the statistic of 90% or 92% when citing abortions of babies with DS indeed presents a horrifying scenario, but in truth so do the numbers derived from more recent and presumably accurate surveys. DS advocates should consider the impact using old and inaccurate data might have on those considering their options following a prenatal diagnosis of DS. Hearing that 90% to 92% of parents opt for termination might have the opposite effect from what advocates desire and even encourage those who would consider abortion after a prenatal diagnosis.

 

Advocates would be far better served by using the statistics provided in this new study, i.e., that it is estimated that abortion following a prenatal diagnosis of DS results in a 30% reduction in overall DS births. Jamie Natoli, et al., proposed another statistic that correlates well with this study. In a 2012 publication in Prenatal Diagnosis, their research calculated a weighted mean across the U.S. of a 67% termination rate following prenatal diagnosis.[9]

Whatever the statistical realities may be, the number of those who choose abortion after a prenatal diagnosis  is far too high. It should be none. To paraphrase the recently deceased disabilities rights activist, Dr. Adrienne Asch, the only thing prenatal diagnosis can provide is a first impression of who a child will be. Making such a radical decision as to end the life of a child based upon a first impression is a most horrible and violent form of discrimination. It has no place in an American society that is committed to ending discrimination in any form and that has intensified that effort for persons with disabilities over the last 25 years since the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act in July 1990.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

by Eric Metaxas | LifeNews.com | 4/21/15 12:21 PM

 

Do you think that it’s impossible to reverse an abortion? Well, praise God, think again!

 

A young woman ten weeks pregnant walks into her local Planned Parenthood office, grieving the death of her father. She thinks she just can’t cope with a pregnancy right now. Planned Parenthood gives her the abortion pill RU-486. She takes it and leaves the office, but hours later, she regrets her decision.

What does she do?

As we all know, there’s a growing body of literature documenting the emotional devastation, depression, and guilt many woman suffer after having an abortion. Some, like this woman in Arizona, start having regrets during the several days it can take for the abortion pill procedure to complete its course.

 

In this case, the woman goes back to Planned Parenthood the next morning looking for help. But she’s told that the abortion pill cannot be reversed, and she could face complications if she doesn’t finish off the series of pills.

Well, right there in the waiting room she Googles “abortion pill reversal” on her cell phone, and reaches a national call center that links women in the midst of this kind of abortion with physicians willing to help save the lives of their unborn babies.

Within 45 minutes, she is in the office of Dr. Allan Sawyer (pictured above), an Arizona OB-GYN. He shows her an ultrasound of her two-and-a-half-month-old unborn baby, which has a heartbeat and is moving around in her womb. He says it might be possible to save the child and prescribes the hormone progesterone to reverse the effects of RU-486Now safely through the first trimester, this grateful woman’s baby is due in September.

 

According to the pro-life Center for Arizona Policy, this is no fluke. Although the Abortion Pill Reversal protocol is pretty new, already, 80 children have been born because of it, and more than 60 pregnancies, like this woman’s, are ongoing due to this procedure.

Dr. Sawyer cannot be written off as a fly-by-night character, either. He is the former president of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and he has delivered more than 10,000 babies on three continents. In testimony before a state legislative committee, he said the abortion pill works by attacking progesterone in the pregnant woman, which kills the baby in utero. This effect can be reversed if progesterone is given to her quickly.

In early April, Arizona Governor Ducey signed into law a requirement that physicians must inform women who take the abortion pill that the pill’s effects may be reversible.

 

Who could be against that? Only those who say it infringes on a woman’s “right to choose.” Except that they don’t seem so eager to guarantee the right of a woman to choose to have her baby.

 

Now, one lawmaker who opposed the bill said administering high doses of progesterone to block the abortion pill’s effects has not been studied and is an unproven medical procedure. In his testimony, however, Sawyer dealt with that objection, saying, “The safety of progesterone supplementation during pregnancy has been well established, and this is used routinely for high risk pregnancies such as those conceived through in vitro fertilization and also for pregnancies at risk of preterm labor.”

Thank goodness that we still have doctors like Allan Sawyer, and legislators willing to vote their consciences as well as common sense in support of the dignity of human life. Women deserve all the facts. Especially when it might save a life.

 

Pages