Pro-Life Page

Thursday, May 14, 2015

by Steven Ertelt | | 5/13/15 5:33 PM


The House of Representatives today approved a pro-life bill that bans abortions from after 20-weeks of pregnancy up to the day of birth.

The vote for the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act broke down on mostly partisan lines with Republicans supporting the ban on late-term abortions and Democrats opposing it. The House approved the bill on a 242-184 vote with four Democrats (Reps. Cuellar, Langevin, Lipinski, and Peterson) voting for the bill and five Republicans voting against it (Reps. Dent, Dold, Hanna, Frelinghuysen) or voting present (Hice). (See very end of this article for how members voted).


Should the Senate approve the bill, President Barack Obama has issued a veto threat. But pro-life groups hope to use the measure as an election tool in 2016 in an attempt to wrest control of the White House and approve a pro-life president who will sign it into law.

During the debate today on a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks, Congressman Sean Duffy gave what may be one of the most passionate defenses of the pro-life position ever seen on the floor of Congress. Duffy took on the claim often made by Democrats who support abortion saying they stand for the defenseless and voiceless.


“I’ve listened to the floor debate day after day .. about how they fight for the forgotten, they fight for the defenseless, they fight for the voiceless. And they pound their chest and stomp their feet. You don’t have anyone in our society that’s more defenseless than these little babies,” he said. “And we are not taking — I believe in conception. I know my colleagues can’t agree with me on that. Can’t we come together and say we are going to stand with little babies that feel pain, that survive outside the womb? Ones that don’t have lobbyists and money? Don’t we stand with those little babies?”

“If you stand with the defenseless, with the voiceless, you have to stand with little babies. Don’t talk to me about cruelty in our bill — when you look at little babies being dismembered, feeling excruciating pain, if we can’t stand to defend these children, what do we stand for in this institution?” he added.


The vote for the bill came on the anniversary of the conviction of late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who killed babies in a live-birth abortion process.

“Two years ago today, Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell was convicted of murder, conspiracy to kill and involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to life imprisonment,” Congressman Chris Smith said.

“Even though the news of Gosnell’s child slaughter was largely suppressed by the mainstream media, many of my colleagues may remember that Dr. Gosnell operated a large Philadelphia abortion clinic where women died and countless babies were dismembered or chemically destroyed often by having their spinal cords snipped—all gruesome procedures causing excruciating pain to the victim,” he added. “The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is needed now more than ever because there are Gosnells all over America, dismembering and decapitating pain-capable babies for profit.”


“Fresh impetus for the bill came from a huge study of nearly 5,000 babies—preemies—published last week in the New England Journal of Medicine. The next day, a New York Times article titled: “Premature Babies May Survive at 22 Weeks if Treated” touted the Journal’s extraordinary findings of survival and hope,” Congressman Smith continued. “Thus the babies we seek to protect from harm today may survive if treated humanely, with expertise and compassion—not the cruelty of the abortion.”





This is the second time the House has voted for the legislation — having approved it in May 2013. The bill was then blocked by pro-abortion Democrats who controlled the U.S. Senate.

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

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


Americans strongly support legislation that would ban late-term abortions and protect babies who are capable of feeling intense pain during an abortion.



The vast majority of Americans are still very uncomfortable with abortion, according to a January Marist University poll. The survey finds support for abortion restrictions among both “pro-life” and “pro-choice” supporters. Despite the strong support, President Barack Obama has threatened to veto the pro-life bill.

According to the national survey, 84% of Americans want significant restrictions on abortion, and would limit abortions to, at most, the first three months of pregnancy. This includes almost 7 in 10 (69 percent) who identify themselves as “pro-choice” who support such abortion limits and oppose late-term abortions.


The same percentage (84 percent) also says that laws can protect both the well-being of a woman and the life of the unborn. In addition, by more than 20 points (60 percent to 38 percent), Americans say abortion is morally wrong.

Other national polls also show strong support nationwide for the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and stopping late-term abortions.

A poll conducted for the liberal Huffington Post find Americans support the ban on late-term abortions starting at 20-weeks of pregnancy by almost a 2-1 margin.


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


Other provisions in H.R. 36 include:

  • An Informed Consent Form including the age of the child; a description of the law; an explanation that if the baby is born-alive, he or she will be given medical assistance and transported to a hospital; and information about the woman’s right to sue if these protections are not followed.  Women deserve this information.
  • The woman is empowered with a Civil Right of Action, so she may sue abortion providers who fail to comply with the law. Parents are also given a civil right of action if the law is not followed with regard to their minor daughter.

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

by Cortney O'Brien | | 5/12/15 1:13 PM

Abortion-inducing drugs, free of charge.

The Department of Health and Human Services Agency has just announced its stricter rules that insurers must offer 18 free forms of contraception after a report suggested some health plans were charging employees copays for these services, or not offering them at all.

“Today’s guidance seeks to eliminate any ambiguity,” HHS said. “Insurers must cover without cost-sharing at least one form of contraception in each of the methods (currently 18) that the FDA has identified for women in its current Birth Control Guide, including the ring, the patch and intrauterine devices.”

Of particular controversy, are the emergency contraception options – the Plan B or morning-after pill, and Ella. Christian companies like Hobby Lobby have decried these as abortion-inducing drugs. Instead of violating their religious consciences, they have boldly rejected the Obama administration mandate. Thankfully, the Supreme Court so far seems to be on religious freedom’s side.

This new warning from HHS is yet more proof that the Obama administration is A-OK with putting government in between Christians and their faith.

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

by Steven Ertelt | | 5/11/15 12:10 PM


The House of Representatives will vote this week a pro-life bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Should the bill become law, just how many abortions would be stopped?


National Right to Life Legislative Director Douglas Johnson has more information on that elusive number. He also provides the shocking details that there are hundreds of abortion practitioners willing to do abortions at 20 weeks of pregnancy — a number that comes from a top pro-abortion research group.

“Late abortions are not “rare.” At least 275 facilities offer abortions past 20 weeks fetal age,” Johnson says in a letter the National Right to Life Committee issued to Congress today.

The anniversary of the conviction of late-term abortion practitioner Kermit Gosnell is this week and, at that time, Johnson provided more information on just how many abortion facilities do abortions after 20 weeks.


“Because of publicity surrounding the trial of Kermit Gosnell and subsequent revelations about other abortionists, many Americans are becoming aware for the first time that abortions are frequently performed late in pregnancy on babies who are capable of being born alive, and on babies who will experience great pain while being killed,” Johnson said then.

Below is a portion of a memo Johnson wrote during the first Congressional battle on the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that answers the questions on the number of late abortions and late-term abortion practitioners:


In 1995-96, many mainstream media outlets reported as unvarnished fact the claims of pro-abortion advocacy groups that partial-birth abortions were very “rare” and performed only in acute medical circumstances. These claims were later proven false by congressional investigators and investigative journalists, and were even ultimately repudiated by the head of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (NCAP), who described the claims as a concocted “party line.”

NCAP Executive Director Ron Fitzsimmons admitted to the New York Times that the partial-birth abortion method was used 3,000-5,000 times annually, and “in the vast majority of cases” on “a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along” (New York Times, Feb. 26, 1997).

However, the same pattern of eagerness to minimize painful late abortions is found in some recent media coverage surrounding the Gosnell trial and revelations regarding other late-abortion practitioners. News stories often assert that late abortions are “rare” and sometimes assert that late abortions usually involve serious medical problems of the mother or fetus. Yet these “facts” are not supported by hard data, and indeed run contrary to much of the evidence that is available.


The phrase “late-term abortion” has no fixed legal or medical meaning. Its use in news stories, without specific definitions, can be misleading and distort the debate. This distortion is in part deliberately engendered by pro-abortion groups, who use the phrase “late-term” as code for “third-trimester,” meaning after 27 weeks LMP (about the seventh month and later).

However, most Americans probably would agree that any abortion performed after the point that a live birth might occur (about 18 weeks in the LMP system, or the beginning of the fifth month) is a “late abortion,” and would surely agree that any abortion in the second half of pregnancy (after 20 weeks LMP) is a “late abortion.” The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection applies protection beginning at 22 weeks LMP (20 weeks fetal age), about the beginning of the sixth month. Beginning just one week later, one-fourth to one-third of premature babies survive long-term with good neonatal care.

So, how many abortions are performed in the U.S. on pain-capable unborn children, after 22 weeks LMP (20 weeks fetal age)? NRLC’s Johnson said: “Nobody has a good handle on how many late abortions are really occurring, but there is growing evidence that they are far more common than most people want to think.”


The Gosnell case and recent hidden-camera videos issued by the organization Live Action provide further evidence that a great deal of the late abortion iceberg is below the water. Some of the jurisdictions with the most liberal abortion policies have no reporting requirements — for example, California, Maryland, and D.C. — or do not collect data on stage of pregnancy (Florida, for example). Other jurisdictions have reporting requirements but don’t enforce them — the Grand Jury report on Gosnell said (page 171) that between 2000 and 2010, Gosnell reported only one second-trimester abortion to the state. Yet it appears (pp. 26-27, 88) that Gosnell probably performed thousands of second-trimester and third-trimester abortions during that decade. Multiple other practitioners who perform large volumes of late abortions have also failed to report or not been required to report.


A 2008 study, “Abortion in the United States: Incidence and Access to Services, 2005,” released by the Guttmacher Institute (which was originally founded as a special affiliate of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, currently the nation’s largest abortion provider) found that, in 2005, there were at least 1,787 abortion providers in the United States. Of the 1,787 providers, the study found that “[t]wenty percent of providers offered abortions after 20 weeks [LMP], and only 8% at 24 weeks [LMP]…” This translates to at least 300 abortion providers who will perform abortions after 20 weeks LMP and around 140 willing to perform abortions at 24 weeks LMP.

The 140 or more abortion providers who perform abortions at 22 weeks LMP and later would be the providers directly affected by H.R. 1797.

Monday, May 11, 2015

by Dave Andrusko | | 5/8/15 9:50 AM


When NARAL uses a piece of pro-life legislation to fundraise on, you can be sure it will act in exactly the negative manner it falsely attributes to pro-lifers. That is, the language will be inaccurate, intended to polarize, and wholly misleading.


There is a particular irony that NARAL should rhetorically go off the deep end about the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act today. I will explain why in just a second. (LifeNews Note: The House will vote on this major pro-life bill next week.)

Pro-abortionists are nothing if not unoriginal. So…how do they describe a piece of legislation that won’t allow abortionists to dismember a living unborn human being piece by piece? They don’t get into the specifics–they don’t dare to.

We will.

The Act bans “the use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors or similar instruments [that], slice, crush or grasp a portion of the unborn child’s body in order to cut or rip it off.”


Instead they recycle the idea that the Act uses “medically inaccurate language.” Not to be confused, of course with such familiar pro-abortion ruses as saying dismemberment abortion “involves dilating the cervix and using surgical instruments to remove the fetal and placental tissue.”

Ilyse G. Hogue, President, NARAL Pro-Choice America, tells her followers that in addition to using “gory” language, the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act “demonizes abortion providers” intending to “polarize public opinion.”

Really? Let’s take the latter charge first.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. “Polarizing public opinion” is the Abortion Industry’s stock and trade. Nothing pro-lifers propose–no matter how middle-of-the-road or supported by the public–is anything other than “radical,” “disrespects women,” and/or unconstitutional.


This law would “polarize public opinion” for one reason only: because it removes the veil, bringing what actually happens in an abortion out of the darkness and into the light of day

What about demonizing abortionists? Presumably because really only awful people would “use instruments to grasp a portion (such as a foot or hand) of a developed and living fetus and drag the grasped portion out of the uterus into the vagina…[using] the traction created by the opening between the uterus and vagina to dismember the fetus, tearing the grasped portion away from the remainder of the body…. [until the unborn baby] bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb…”

That is taken from an opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, drawing on the testimony of abortionist LeRoy Carhart. “In Dr. Carhart’s words, the abortionist is left with ‘a tray full of pieces,’” Justice Kennedy added.

In the beginning I referenced the timing of Hogue’s email. It came the day after we ran “Staff admits to being disturbed by dismemberment abortion method.”  In her post, Kansans for Life Legislative Director Kathy Ostrowski drew on a paper written 37 years ago by a specialist in “late-term” abortions.


Warren Hern admitted that there were members of his own staff who were disturbed by this particular method of abortion which (in his words) they “view as destructive and violent.” As Kathy wrote

According to Hern, unlike the staff response to first-trimester suction abortions, dismemberment abortions cause “significant emotional reactions of medical and counseling staff” including “physiological symptoms, sleep disturbances, effects on interpersonal relationships, and moral anguish.” Two employees reported being preoccupied with the gruesome procedure outside of work and having disturbing dreams.

Those responses came from staff who were a party to this hideous assault on innocent unborn babies. They didn’t need the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act to know that what they were doing was wrong, wrong, wrong!


Hogue concludes the law needs to be treated “as a major, nationwide threat.” It is.

It is a threat to barbarism, inhumanity, and cruelty beyond description.

Friday, May 8, 2015

By Ben Johnson| LifeSiteNews|  Thu May 7, 2015 - 4:39 pm EST


May 7, 2015 ( – The age of fetal viability may be revised downward, as a new study has found that a significant number of babies born at 22 weeks will survive if they receive life-saving treatment.

Nearly one out of every four babies born at that early date was able to live after receiving medical treatment, according to a study published today in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Five percent of babies born at 22 weeks survived without any outside assistance, according to the Wall Street Journal.

In all, 18 of the 78 babies born at 22 weeks survived after being given treatment. Researchers found that 39 percent of these babies survived without even moderate impairments. Six of the survivors suffered from serious complications such as hearing loss, blindness, or cerebral palsy.


The rate improved for babies born at 23 weeks gestation: About one-third of those babies survived, half with no serious complications.

About 5,000 of the 18,000 babies born at a very premature age are born at 22 or 23 weeks of pregnancy.

“It confirms that if you don’t do anything, these babies will not make it, and if you do something, some of them will make it,” said Dr. David Burchfield, the University of Florida's chief of neonatology, who did not take part in the study.

“The study’s finding could herald a seachange in the way abortion is viewed in the U.S.,” according to Newsweek magazine, because the “right” to abortion is strictly tied to the presumptive age of fetal viability.


The Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that the Constitution had an implicit right to privacy, which included the right for women to obtain an abortion. However, after an unborn baby is viable on his or her own, states could place greater restrictions on the procedure.

The 1973 ruling defined viability at 28 weeks. Keeping up with trends in science, 1992's Planned Parenthood v. Casey revised that to 24 weeks.

As doctors are able to preserve life at an earlier and earlier stage, the age of viability has continued to plunge, a trend this study confirmed.

University of Iowa pediatrics professor Dr. Edward Bell told the New York Timesthat 22 weeks is the new age of viability, as far as he is concerned.


As the age of viability creeps downward, states could begin imposing greater pro-life protections for the unborn.

The new report found that no child born before 21 weeks survived, whether or not the baby received medical treatment.

Ten states currently have laws on the books barring abortion after 20 weeks, and the House of Representatives has contemplated passing a national ban on the practice. However, proponents of that limit are not arguing that a child could survive outside the womb but are instead asking the Supreme Court to recognize “a separate and independent compelling state interest in unborn human life that exists once the unborn child is capable of feeling pain,” said Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D., the director of state legislation at the National Right to Life Committee.

That legal strategy has led academics who support abortion-on-demand, such as American University political science professor Karen O'Connor, to speculate thatthe Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade.


A summary of the new study on the viability of premature babies at 22 weeks, entitled “Between-Hospital Variation in Treatment and Outcomes in Extremely Preterm Infants,” can be read here.

Thursday, May 7, 2015
May 6, 2015|6:22 pm| The Christian Post|

Representatives of eight pro-life organizations based in Washington, D.C. signed a joint statement saying they will not comply with a new law passed by the City Council that would prevent them from making hiring and firing decisions based upon an employee's position on abortion.

"Despite the enactment of this unjust law, we will continue to hire employees who share our commitment to the dignity of every member of the human family. We will not abandon the purpose of our organizations in order to comply with this illegal and unjust law. We will vigorously resist any effort under RHNDA to violate our constitutionally protected fundamental rights," the Monday statement says, in part.

RHNDA is a reference to the "Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act," which went into effect in the District of Columbia this week. It states that employers in the capital city cannot take opinions about abortion or an employee's decision to have an abortion into account for hiring and firing.


The Act amends a previous D.C. law and says that employers may not discriminate based upon "reproductive health decision making, including a decision to use or access a particular drug, device or medical service, because of or on the basis of an employer's personal beliefs about such services."

Those signing the statement represent Alliance Defending Freedom, Americans United for Life, Concerned Women for America, Family Research Council, Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, March for Life, Susan B. Anthony List, and Association of Christian Schools International.

The U.S. House of Representatives additionally passed a resolution stating its disapproval of the D.C. law. The move was unusual. Twenty-five years have passed since the House passed a similar measure.


The City Council was initially responding to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby last summer, which allowed closely-held companies a religious exemption from the Affordable Care Act's birth control mandate. The Council first wanted to force employers to do what the Supreme Court said you could not force employers to do — violate their religious beliefs regarding birth control, including abortifacients. The Council backed off that idea and instead passed RHNDA.

The Council also passed the Human Rights Amendment Act of 2014, which removed an exemption for religious schools to the city's gay discrimination ordinance. Religious schools in the district are still allowed to only hire adherents to their faith, but beliefs about homosexuality may not be a consideration. The change in the law also means that religious schools cannot reject student groups that endorse views about human sexuality that violate the schools' religious teachings.


ADF, a conservative legal group, has already stated that it will use its resources to defend the religious freedom of groups accused of violating either of these laws.

"Pro-life organizations in our nation's capital should not be forced to pay for abortions or hire those who oppose their pro-life beliefs," said ADF Senior Counsel Casey Mattox. "While the D.C. Council has retreated from this law's original goal, which was to force pro-life organizations to pay for abortions in violation of their conscience, RHNDA remains an unnecessary and illegal attack on pro-life conscience that Congress must stop and that we will fight, if necessary, in the courts."

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

by Steven Ertelt | | 5/5/15 6:54 PM


The percentage of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome before birth and who eventually become victims of abortions is outlandishly high. Studies show somewhere in the neighborhood of 70-90 percent of unborn babies with Down syndrome are victimized by abortions.


To address the phenomenon, North Dakota eventually became the first state in the United States to ban abortions on babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome. With the governor’s signature on the ban in 2013, Republican Gov. Jack Dalrymple took that state in a decidedly pro-life direction.

Eventually a judge dismissed a legal challenge abortion activists brought against the legislation.

Now, the state of Ohio is considering a similar ban on abortions of babies with Down syndrome. Naturally, abortion backers have no problem with aborting babies simply because they have the disability.


Today, Ohio Right to Life’s Down Syndrome Non-Discrimination Act (H.B. 135) received its first legislative hearing as the Ohio House Committee on Community and Family Advancement heard sponsor testimony on Ohio Right to Life’s Down Syndrome Non-Discrimination Act. The legislation, sponsored by Representatives Sarah LaTourette and David Hall, could make Ohio a leader in protecting unborn babies with Down syndrome.

“Prohibiting discriminatory abortions is a critical step in Ohio’s efforts to sow a more empathetic and diverse culture across our state,” said Stephanie Ranade Krider, executive director of Ohio Right to Life. “Our culture is increasingly accepting of the marginalized members of our communities, as we should be. To refrain from extending this same level of protection and acceptance to our children in the womb would not only be inconsistent–it would be dangerously hypocritical.”

Families from around central Ohio joined Ohio Right to Life in the committee hearing in support of the legislation. Ohio Right to Life says that one of the primary goals of this legislation is to educate the public about discriminatory abortions and make the practice even more unconscionable in the public mind.



“I believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is wrong,” said Rep. Sarah LaTourette in her testimony. “But regardless of if you agree with me or not, I hope that you can see that this isn’t an issue about abortion – it’s an issue of discrimination. Discriminating against a person, not allowing them their God-given right to life, simply because they might have Down syndrome.”

To learn more about Ohio Right to Life’s Down Syndrome Non-Discrimination Act, click here.

Tuesday, May 5, 2015



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 | | 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.

Friday, May 1, 2015

by Steven Ertelt | | 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.