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.
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.
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!
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, 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. 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 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. 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. 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.
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).
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.
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.
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-486. Now 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.
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.
Isabell Akers is about to graduate from Hampton-Dumont High School in Hampton, IA, and she’s fighting for a legacy of life to continue for years to come.
The mission statement of the school “is to create a safe, caring culture of high expectations where all reach their greatest potential”; however, Akers may disagree after more than two years of failed attempts to start a pro-life club. Akers is a high school senior who has been fighting for a school-recognized pro-life club since she was a sophomore.
Thomas More Society, the legal group defending Akers, calls the decision by school officials an act of “discrimination”:
“After a series of delays and denials, the school eventually allowed Isabell’s club to meet periodically in the spring and fall of 2014, but not to advertise or host events. As Isabell will soon graduate, she tried once again in February to acquire school club status for her Students for Life club, to leave an established club in place for future high school leaders. However, the principal once again denied Isabell’s application, claiming that the Students for Life club is too ‘controversial.’”
Thomas More Society issued a demand letter to Principal Steve Madson of Hampton-Dumont High School on behalf of Akers and Students for Life of America. The letter says the principal has “unconstitutionally discriminated against Isabell by denying her the right to form a Students for Life club at Hampton-Dumont High School.”
As the Thomas More Society notes, “By law, Hampton-Dumont High School administrators must give their pro-life students the same opportunities as they give all these other school clubs.”
Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, has joined in the complaint:
“High school administrators have no right to discriminate against pro-life students,” Hawkins said. “On the contrary, high school students have the right to form Students for Life clubs to educate and inform their peers on the tragedy of abortion and to help those facing unplanned, crisis pregnancies.”
Though Akers is graduating next month, she doesn’t want to give up the fight for a pro-life club.
“I wanted to spend my high school career educating my fellow students on the beauty of human life and providing resources to girls at my school, but instead I have been fighting for my First Amendment rights,” Akers said. “By forbidding our Students for Life club from putting up posters and not letting us be included in the yearbook with other clubs, the school administration has been treating us like second-class citizens.”
And the Thomas More Society says that’s unacceptable because “the District’s refusal to officially recognize the Students for Life club as a proper student organization constitutes a violation of the students’ rights under both the federal Equal Access Act and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. All students who wish to form non-curricular clubs must be treated equally, even if the clubs they wish to form are religious or political.”
A demand letter issued to the principal asks for an immediate reversal.
Unfortunately for pro-life students, the Thomas More Society has been exceptionally busy lately because of principals denying them the right to form pro-life clubs (the same issue arose in North Dakota). These conflicts are a reminder that young people see the value of life and are willing to fight for their constitutional rights so they can speak out for those who cannot.
A poll from last month also shows this. A CBS News poll includes a section titled “The deal-breakers: What rules candidates in or out?” Second to ISIS (61 percent), just over half (51 percent) of Republicans would not vote for someone who had a different opinion on abortion as them.
The poll also asks:
Q16. Which of these comes closest to your view? 1. Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. 2. Abortion should be available but under stricter limits than it is now. 3. Abortion should not be permitted.
One-quarter of all voters fall into the latter view in believing that abortion should not be permitted. While 38 percent of voters think that abortion should generally be available. A majority of Democratic voters support available abortion, but not overwhelmingly, at only 54 percent.
Thirty-four percent of all voters fall into the second view, including a plurality of Republicans at 39 percent. Such a view is encouraging for pro-life bills which take a gradual approach when it comes to eradicating abortion through limits which a considerable amount of voters support. Such limits may not save all preborn children from abortion, but are nevertheless effective in that they can save many, while still being supported by the American voter and thus being likely to pass.
In reporting on the CBS poll results, The Washington Times suggests that abortion is one of “the biggest litmus test for GOP voters.”Thus this is an issue the candidates cannot afford to ignore during the campaign.
It is also worth noting that a Gallup poll from last May shows that those who considers themselves pro-life, compared to those the poll describes as pro-choice, are more likely to “only vote for a candidate who shares [their] abortion views.”
Pro-lifers should remain hopeful though this time that abortion will get the attention it deserves in the 2016 presidential election. If the back-and-forth between Rand Paul and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is any indication, it very well could happen.
Friday, April 17, 2015
by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 4/16/15 2:49 PM
The Supreme Court issued an order today preventing the Obama administration from forcing religious groups in Pennsylvania to obey the HHS mandate that requires them to pay for abortion-causing drugs for their employees. This is the fifth time the Supreme Court has rebuked the Obama administration and prevented it from making such a mandate.
In an order issued last night, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito prevented the federal government from enforcing its contraceptive mandate against a range of Pennsylvania-based religious organizations including Catholic Charities and other Catholic schools and social service organizations connected with the Diocese of Erie and the Diocese of Pittsburgh. The Supreme Court has previously protected the Little Sisters of the Poor, Hobby Lobby, Wheaton College, and the University of Notre Dame.
According to the Becket Fund, Justice Alito’s order is similar to the preliminary order Justice Sotomayor provided to the Little Sisters of the Poor on New Year’s Eve in 2013. The group said order requires the government to brief the Supreme Court next week on why it should be allowed to fine these organizations for refusing to distribute abortion-inducing drugs and devices and other contraceptives.
Lori Windham, Senior Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, told LifeNews: “How many times must the government lose in court before it gets the message? For years now the government has been claiming that places like Catholic Charities and the Little Sisters of the Poor are not “religious employers” worthy of an exemption.”
“That argument has always been absurd. Every time a religious plaintiff has gone to the Supreme Court for protection from the government’s discriminatory mandate the Court has protected them. That’s what happened to the Little Sisters of the Poor, Wheaton College, Notre Dame, and Hobby Lobby,” Windham continued. “The government really needs to give up on its illegal and unnecessary mandate. The federal bureaucracy has lots of options for distributing contraceptives–they don’t need to coerce nuns and priests to do it for them.”
The Supreme Court will be considering a similar case involving an order of Nashville Dominican nuns and several Tennessee — and Michigan –based Catholic charities at a conference of the Justices on April 24.
“Half of voters now oppose a government requirement that employers provide health insurance with free contraceptives for their female employees,” Rasmussen reports.
The poll found: “The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 38% of Likely U.S. Voters still believe businesses should be required by law to provide health insurance that covers all government-approved contraceptives for women without co-payments or other charges to the patient.
Fifty-one percent (51%) disagree and say employers should not be required to provide health insurance with this type of coverage. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.”
April 15 is Tax Day — the day that Americans know and dread. For many Americans, it’s the day that tax returns are due to the government, but what the government does with that tax money has long bothered many pro-lifers.
Specifically, it’s the fact that Planned Parenthood receives $1.26 million every day in taxpayer funding. It adds up to over half a billiondollars each year. But what exactly does Planned Parenthood do with all that money? What are your tax dollars paying for?
While Planned Parenthood tries to package itself as a women’s health care organization, their real business is abortion. There’s no escaping that. Looking only at their annual report will make that very clear.
Almost half of their revenue comes from tax dollars, yet they are providing less and less health care services in favor of more and more abortions. Abortion constitutes 94 percent of Planned Parenthood’s pregnancy services. And while the number of abortions performed have skyrocketed under Cecile Richards, everything else has decreased.
Americans United for Life studied the annual reports of Planned Parenthood over the last nine years, and what they found was unsurprising, yet disturbing. Cancer screenings and prevention have been slashed in half, prenatal services have plummeted, and breast exams and breast health services are practically non-existent. And while the number of patients seen at Planned Parenthood has decreased, the number of abortions they perform has increased.
Planned Parenthood performs over 300,000 abortions every year — that’s 900 children a day, or one baby every 90 seconds.
Roughly 98 percent of women who walk into a Planned Parenthood will get an abortion.
Planned Parenthood even mandates that their affiliates provide abortions, so if an affiliate wants to focus solely on women’s health care and not abortion, then the affiliate will be forced to leave the national organization. A facility can provide birth control, cancer screenings, gynecological exams, STD checks, health care education — but if they don’t provide abortions, then they can’t be affiliated with Planned Parenthood.
The abortion giant is also one of the leading sex educators in the United States, receiving more forced taxpayer contributions under ObamaCare for sex education.
But Live Action’s undercover SexEd investigation found that children are receiving disturbing information. Minors were being told to look at pornography, go to sex shops — even if it was against the law— engage in BDSM, beatings, and experiment with being tied up with ropes, whipping, and activities that involve feces and urine. Investigators were also told that it was OK for this kind of extreme sex-play to leave welts, bruises, and burns. And this is the advice given to teenagers and children. This advice from Planned Parenthood is being doled out to teenagers thanks to your tax dollars.
But then, these kinds of abuses are hardly surprising for an organization that considers itself to be above the law. Planned Parenthood has been found to be willing to cover up the sexual abuse of minors, aid and abet child sex-trafficking, and has even been caught committing Medicaid fraud.
Planned Parenthood has transformed itself into an abortion behemoth — the largest abortion provider in the United States — all while decreasing its legitimate health care services, while engaging in lawbreaking to fill its pockets with more blood money.
This is the organization that your tax dollars are funding. When are we going to say enough, and demand that the government defunds Planned Parenthood?
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Tue Apr 14, 2015 - 1:53 pm EST |By Ben Johnson| LifeSiteNews|
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK, April 14, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Oklahoma has become the second state in the nation to ban the procedure of dismemberment abortions, the most common form of second-trimester abortion.
Gov. Mary Fallin signed the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act into law late last night, protecting the state's unborn babies from the process of dilation and evacuation (D&E) abortion, in which unborn babies torn apart limb-from-limb.
The bill, which takes effect on November 1, passed the state legislature by lopsided majorities, clearing the state House of Representatives 84-2 in February, and the state Senate last week by a 37-4 margin.
"Governor Mary Fallin is to be commended for her quick action in signing into law the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, which will prohibit this barbaric inhumanity in our state," said Tony Lauinger, the chairman of Oklahomans For Life.
Responding to the victory in Oklahoma, National Right to Life Committee President Carol Tobias said focusing on this process “has the power to change how the public views the gruesome reality of abortion in the United States." The NRLC's Director of State Legislation Mary Spaulding Balch, said that by the point a D&E abortion would take place in the second trimester, the unborn child already has “a beating heart, brain waves, and every organ system in place."
D&E abortion accounts for approximately 96 percent of all second trimester abortions, according to the National Abortion Federation – an estimated 100,000 abortions a year.
“So, yes, a dismemberment ban would stop many babies from being aborted,” pro-life newshound Jill Stanekwrote. But she adds that the educational value may be more important yet, since it was during the time that bills banning partial birth abortion were “introduced throughout the states and federally during the 1990s that public opinion began to change on abortion.”
The abortion industry and the mainstream media have objected to both newly enacted state laws. The New York Times assailed the Kansas ban in an editorial, calling the bill a “legislative assault” directed against “the most common method of ending a second-trimester pregnancy.” The Times adds that pro-life legislators pursued this ban “even though there is no dispute among doctors” about the procedure's “reliability.”
Carole Joffe, a professor in the reproductive health program at the University of California at San Francisco, wrote in a letter to the Times, “To be sure, in the abstract, the details of dilation and evacuation abortions, as with many other medical procedures, are upsetting to many.” But, she wrote, “the availability of these abortions is essential.”
Angie Remington, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, agreed that "in all cases, a woman and her doctor need every medical option available.”
Having tasted success in two dependably pro-life states, the right to life movement plans to move forward with additional legislative efforts nationwide. Father Frank Pavone said today that Priests for Life “has been advocating for over a decade that states begin to protect children from this procedure” and that expanding the campaign to other states “is a key priority."
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 4/13/15 6:20 PM
Thousands of pregnancy centers across the nation are the counterbalance to the abortion industry by providing women with tangible help and real alternatives to abortion. But pregnancy centers in California may soon find themselves forced to promote abortions under legislation pending in the California legislature.
AB 77, the Pregnancy Counseling Discrimination Rule, would require all pregnancy centers to promote abortions to their clients. There is no conscience clause or opt out for centers that provide pregnant women assistance without abortions or abortion referrals. Failure to comply carries a $500 fine for first offense and $1,000 for each subsequent offense. The bill authorizes the Attorney General, city attorney, or county counsel to impose the civil fines.
The bill will be heard in Assembly Health committee on Tuesday and the California Pro-Life Council is concerned it will pass and be sent to the state Assembly floor.
Lori Arnold of the California Family Alliance emailed her concerns about the bill to LifeNews.com.
“California’s grisly abortion industry is in the midst of a government-sponsored boon. In 2013, the state waived safety regulations for abortion clinics (AB 980) and reduced the medical standards required to perform abortions by allowing certain nurses to do the surgeries (AB 154),” she said. “And last year, the California Department of Health cut all medical reimbursements by 10 percent while increasing taxpayer funding of abortions providers by 40 percent.”
“But abortion profiteers like Planned Parenthood and NARAL are still not content with state taxpayers as their sugar daddy. They are now pushing new discriminatory regulations that would force local Pregnancy Care Centers and Clinics (or PCCs, which provide free and confidential support services to pregnant mothers) to advertise and promote chemical and surgical abortions,” Arnold added. “Under the provisions of AB 775 (Chiu, D-San Francisco), PCC’s that provide medical services such as ultrasounds would be required to refer all clients to Medi-Cal programs that provide free abortions. In addition, any non-medical centers that offer free counseling, pregnancy support, and parenting classes would be required to post signage stating they are “not licensed facilities.” Both types of PCCs would also be coerced to include such statements in all advertising.”
CareNet, one of the largest networks of pregnancy centers in North America, strongly opposes the legislation. In a statement on its website, Eve Marie Barner Gleason, director of Center Best Practices, said the measure is clearly biased in its approach.
“The abortion industry in California has a problem,” she said. “They have already ensured a steady income stream by getting abortion funded by taxpayers through Medi-Cal. But some women choose to seek information and assistance in making a pregnancy decision at centers where they receive accurate information about abortion risks and are empowered to choose life. They see every choice for life as money lost.”
Arnold says market share is undoubtedly a primary motivation for AB 775. “But sadly, it goes even beyond money. The pro-abortion movement will not be satisfied until it silences all opposition to its cause. At the same time, it defiantly rejects its own hypocrisy
Unfortunately, if approved, AB 755 will become a dangerously powerful tool in the anti-life arsenal. As CareNet’s Gleason told her member operators, “You pay for your advertising. Now, they want you to pay for theirs too.”
Finally, the bill would also require the Attorney General to post on the Department of Justice’s Internet Web site a list of the covered facilities upon which a civil penalty has been imposed.
Contact members of the Assembly Health Committee to oppose the bill:
Kansas Governor Sam Brownback just signed into state law a bill that bans the “dismemberment” abortion method known as the D&E: dilation and evacuation. It is the first ban of its kind in the nation.
While abortion is always a violent and grisly procedure, the D&E is especially so. These abortions are typically performed in the second trimester, and the baby is literally ripped apart limb by limb. It is so horrific that, when the technique was first refined, a paper spoke ofthe emotional distress it caused for the doctors who performed it.
Of course, the abortion lobby is furious over the ban. Senator David Haley compared the ban to slavery; Planned Parenthood called it “dangerous” and “outrageous”.
But perhaps the most offensive reaction to the ban was that of Dr. David Grimes, at RH Reality Check. Grimes’ response was to compare pregnancy to cancer:
Rather glib, eh? A preborn baby is just a problem to be taken care of. And a violent D&E abortion is the solution. And apparently, a preborn baby is just like cancer. Abortion, a procedure that always, always takes a life, is the same thing as a procedure that is sometimes necessary to save a life.
Those are some impressive mental gymnastics there.
It’s worth pointing out, though, that there’s a little problem with the cognitive dissonance Grimes is enjoying. Pregnancy is nothing like cancer — it doesn’t just swoop down and mysteriously happen to unsuspecting women the way that cancer does. Women who are diagnosed with cancer have no choice in whether or not they get it; there isn’t an action they take that they know could lead to becoming afflicted with cancer.
For the overwhelming majority of women who become pregnant, though, it happens because of an action that they willfully chose. As much as abortion advocates like to talk about being “pro-choice”, they like to ignore that most women who become pregnant chose to take that risk. It is offensive in the extreme to compare an unplanned pregnancy to cancer.
Cancer is a disease that will spread through a person’s body and slowly, painfully take their life. A baby comes into being due to the actions that two people choose to take, and is the beginning of a new life. It also says a lot about how much the abortion lobby needs to dehumanize the preborn child, and attack its very existence — how dare that baby come into being through absolutely no fault of his or her own?! — in order to justify their sick and disgusting arguments.
The two, cancer and pregnancy, could not be more different, yet abortion advocates have no problem with shamelessly trotting out this despicable comparison in order to further their pro-abortion agenda. And yet they want to call pro-lifers the extremists? Please