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
Friday, April 10, 2015
by Sarah Zagorski | LifeNews.com | 4/9/15 9:40 AM
The pro-abortion American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing the Obama administration for documents it says will show that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is restricting access to abortions for unaccompanied immigrant children.
In February 2014, the USCCB objected to a new regulation proposed by the Obama administration that would require contractors to provide access to contraception and abortion for unaccompanied immigrant children who have been raped. In an official letter, the USCCB as well as World Relief, the National Association of Evangelicals and Catholic Relief Services, explained that the new regulation violates religious liberty, specifically the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
They wrote, “There is little question that a government requirement to provide or refer for items or procedures to which an organization has a religious and moral objection would impose a ‘substantial burden’ on its exercise of religion.” Additionally, the USCCB said they were opposed to transferring teenagers to other groups that would do abortions because they believe it still enables actions that violate their religious beliefs.
Brigitte Amiri, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU, disagrees and said, “The bishops want to take millions of dollars in government contracts, but at the same time, they don’t want to comply with the terms of the contracts.”
However, the bishops said, “We believe that, through practical discussions, we can find a resolution that allows the government to fulfill its obligation to care for unaccompanied children, while also respecting the religious and moral beliefs of faith-based organization that, to date, have provided such critical care for this vulnerable population.”
As LifeNews previously reported, during the Bush administration the USCCB received a five-year $19 million grant to help victims of sex trafficking. But unfortunately, the Obama administration has refused to protect religious liberty and denied the bishops the renewal of their grant because they would not refer the women for abortions.
After the grant was denied, Sister Mary Ann Walsh suggested that the U.S Department of Health discriminates against Catholics. She said, “There seems to be a new unwritten reg at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). It’s the ABC Rule, Anybody But Catholics. The program worked well on the ground but not so well for distant administrators promoting the abortion and contraceptive agenda, who bristle at the fact that in accord with church teaching, USCCB won’t facilitate taking innocent life, sterilization and artificial contraception.”
Thankfully, the USCCB has not wavered on their opposition of abortion or their refusal to be apart of it in any way. In fact, in 2014, the Catholic bishops were so upset about taxpayer funding of abortions in Obamacare they urged Congress to shutdown the federal government so the issue can be addressed.
Thursday, April 9, 2015
by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 4/8/15 2:57 PM
Polling data has consistently shown Americans are pro-life on abortion and a new YouGov survey released today is no exception. The poll finds 66% of Americans say unborn babies are people and 52% say human life begins at conception.
The majority of Americans (56%) also believe that abortion should not be legal and another 76 percent supports unborn victims laws that would charge criminals with two crimes when they kill or injure an unborn baby in an attack on her mother. The study, which polled 1,000 people, was commissioned after no charges were filed against Dynal lane, who cut Michelle Wilkins’ 7-month-old baby Aurora out of her womb in March in Colorado.
From the survey:
YouGov’s latest research shows that the vast majority of Americans (66%) think that fetuses in the womb are people. Only 16% think that fetuses are not people. A majority of every demographic group believes that fetuses are people, though Democrats and people who earn over $80,000 a year (both 56%) are the least likely to say that fetuses are people. Furthermore, another 76% of Americans think that if a fetus is killed in the course of a violent attack on a pregnant woman the attacker should be charged with murder.
Most Americans (52%) believe that life starts at conception. A further 20% believe that life begins when a fetus is able to survive outside of the womb, while 18% think that it only begins at the moment of birth. Attitudes towards when, exactly, life begins differ greatly according to age. While 63% of over-65s and 61% of people aged 45 to 64 believe that life begins at conception, only 36% of under-30s agree with them. Just under half of under-30s either believe that life begins when a fetus can survive (25%) or at birth (22%).
From YouGov: “Asked broadly about abortion rights, 56% of Americans think that abortion should not be legal on request, with 17% saying that it should never be allowed and 39% saying that it should only be allowed in certain special cases. 16% support abortion until the first trimester, while 9% support it until the point of survivability. 20% believe that abortion should always be legal.”
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 4/7/15 10:48 AM
Kansas Governor Sam Brownback has signed an important pro-life bill to help stop Kansas’ position as a haven for late-term abortions. Brownback signed the the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, which would ban the gruesome dismemberment abortion procedure.
The latest abortion figures in Kansas showed abortions going down but the number of dismemberment abortions, or D&E abortions, rising from 584 in 2013 to 2014. They constituted 8.8% of the total 7,263 Kansas abortions reported.
Gov. Brownback commented, “This is a horrific procedure and we are pleased to ban it in Kansas and we hope it will be banned nationally.”
To commemorate this ground-breaking and first-in-the-nation measure, Gov. Brownback will travel across Kansas for ceremonial signings of the bill on April 28.
“Dismemberment abortion kills a baby by tearing her apart limb from limb,” said National Right to Life Director of State Legislation Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D. “Before the first trimester ends, the unborn child has a beating heart, brain waves, and every organ system in place. Dismemberment abortions occur after the baby has reached these milestones.”
Kansans for Life Executive Director, Mary Kay Culp, explained that SB 95 bans a particularly gruesome abortion method in which a living unborn child in her mother’s womb is ripped apart by an abortionist using sharp metal tools. In the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, the unborn child, “dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb.”[Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 958-959].
“SB 95 bans a particularly gruesome abortion method in which a living unborn child in her mother’s womb is ripped apart into pieces by an abortionist using sharp metal tools,” she said. “Abortionist LeRoy Carhart testified under oath that the unborn child is alive because he is watching him/her on ultrasound during the procedure. In the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, the unborn child in a D&E/ Dismemberment abortion, “dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb.'”
The bill was carried on the House floor by Rep. Steve Brunk (R-Wichita), with assistance on legal areas by former judge, Rep. John Rubin (R-Shawnee) – both pro-life leaders in the House.
D&E dismemberment abortions are as brutal as the partial-birth abortion method, which is now illegal in the United States and which was upheld in the Supreme Court. But would such an abortion ban be constitutional given the Roe v. Wade decision? National Right to Life points to the high court’s ruling in the partial-birth abortion case as grounds for banning dismemberment abortions too.
In his dissent to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2000 Stenberg v. Carhart decision, Justice Kennedy observed that in D&E dismemberment abortions, “The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off.” Justice Kennedy added in the Court’s 2007 opinion, Gonzales v. Carhart, which upheld the ban on partial-birth abortion, that D&E abortions are “laden with the power to devalue human life…”
Testimony provided by Kansans for Life emphasized that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ban on the partial-birth method of abortion in 2007 after two cases, Stenberg v Carhart and Gonzales v Carhart. In both cases, the Court closely examined both the partial-birth and D&E/ Dismemberment abortion methods and found them to be “brutal.”
“When abortion textbooks describe in cold, explicit detail exactly how to kill a human being by ripping off arms and legs piece by piece, civilized members of society have no choice but to stand up and demand a change,” added Spaulding Balch. “When you think it can’t be uglier, the abortion industry continues to shock with violent methods of abortion.”