Pro-Life Page

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

by Marie Smith | | 6/23/15 12:13 PM

The United Nations’ treaty monitoring body for the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) ignored the pro-life laws of four countries under review during its recent 55th session and strongly urged the countries to change their laws or policies on abortion, despite the fact that the treaty does not mention abortion.

Ireland’s constitutional protection of life from conception was targeted for elimination as the Committee told Ireland: The Committee recommends that the State party take all necessary steps, including a referendum on abortion, to revise its legislation on abortion, including the Constitution and the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, in line with international human rights standards; adopt guidelines to clarify what constitutes a real substantive risk to the life of a pregnant woman; publicize information on crisis pregnancy options through effective channels of communication; and ensure the accessibility and availability of information on sexual and reproductive health.”

The term “human rights standards” comes straight from the pro-abortion legal toolkit. No international human rights treaty includes abortion as a human right and no matter how many times the claim may be repeated, the destruction of an unborn child in abortion is a reproductive wrong, not a human right. There is no universally recognized “right to abortion”.

Chile is considering a new law to allow abortion for limited exceptions but the Committee expressed its dissatisfaction and told the pro-life country with the lowest maternal mortality rate in Latin American that it wanted the legislation to go further saying it was concerned about “a strict ban on abortion.”

Uganda was told that abortion in its country is “too restrictive” and was instructed to “…revise its abortion legislation, including by considering decriminalizing abortion and providing for exceptions to the general prohibition on abortion in certain cases.”

Venezuela’s law restricting abortion was also irrelevant to the Committee which instructed it to: “Review its legislation regarding the prohibition of abortion to make it compatible with other fundamental rights such as health and life of women and their dignity.”

Kyrgyzstan which allows abortion on demand was told that the Committee was concerned that despite abortion being legal; it was not covered by public health insurance. It was recommended that the country “…increase financial resources allocated to the health sector” and “Provide confidential access for everyone, including adolescents, to contraceptives and safe abortion services, which are fully covered by health insurance.”

The actions of the CESCR Committee, a UN entity disrespecting sovereign laws against abortion while promoting increased access to the violence of abortion and claiming it is a “human right”, comes as countries are in final negotiations of the Zero Draft on the Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs) with targets on access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights. Target 5.6 includes Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights as agreed in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development…”

Countries with laws against abortion have felt a level of protection for their national abortion policies by inclusion of references to the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD)-known as the ICPD caveat- where the Programme of Action stated that laws on abortion were to be decided at the local or national level according to the national legislative process.

However, as demonstrated by the CESCR Committee, certain treaty monitoring bodies treat national laws with contempt as they issue instructions to countries under review to change their laws and policies on abortion, regardless of what is stated in the ICPD Programme of Action. While the observations and recommendations issued by members of treaty bodies are mere “interpretations” of the respective treaty, they are increasingly used to advance support for abortion and other issues related to the broad agenda of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) which are not universally recognized human rights but which SRHR activists claim reflect so-called “human rights standards”.

PNCI expresses its deep concern for the ongoing distortion of international treaties to promote the killing of preborn babies and advises countries with laws restricting abortion to defend their sovereign laws and reject the recommendations from treaty bodies, acting as SRHR agents, to change their laws and policies to allow easy access to the violence of abortion.

PNCI notes that as the process to finalize the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and targets nears completion in September, proposals to allow treaty bodies to act as monitors of country progress for the targets, especially those on sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights, must be opposed.

Friday, June 19, 2015



Arizona has agreed to delay the implementation of its recently-signed abortion pill reversal law over a lawsuit by Planned Parenthood and pro-choice doctors, the Arizona Republic reports.

In recent years, pro-life physicians and activists have taken toexploring and promoting the possibility of abortion pill reversal, in which someone who changes her mind after taking the first pill of RU-486 treatment, mifepristone, undergoes progesterone therapy to reverse its effects and save her child’s life.


Pro-abortion commentators and activists have bitterly denouncedthe concept as junk science supported by no hard medical evidence. The lawsuit claims Arizona’s law is unconstitutional on both First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds—the former for requiring doctors to give “a state-mandated message that is not medically or scientifically supported,” the latter for inflicting “false, misleading and/or irrelevant information” on patients.

However, doctors in NebraskaCalifornia, and Arizona all report specific cases of successfully stopping chemical abortions begun at Planned Parenthoods. The Arizona location had told the woman reversal was impossible and not taking the second pill would cause new complications, while the California one had refused to let her hear her baby’s heartbeat. In all,, which represents 226 pro-life OB/GYNs, claims to have saved 77 lives since 2012.

Originally set to take effect on July 3, the law’s fate will now be decided at a hearing in September or October.

Thursday, June 18, 2015

STEVEN ERTELT   JUN 17, 2015   |   3:23PM    | The LifeNews| 


The California Senate will hold a hearing next week on the “bully bill” that would force pregnancy centers in California to promote abortion. Brian Johnston of the California Pro-Life Council says pro-life people need to start calling and emailing legislators urging opposition.


“This bill mandates a statement all Pregnancy Care Centers would have to tell mothers seeking care that includes how to get an abortion but not alternatives like adoption. It also exempts abortion clinics from giving the same mothers the same information,” he said.

“This bill must be urgently acted on! It is crucial that we rally around California’s Pregnancy Resource Centers and make sure that they are able to offer the support and answers that women deserve,” Johnston added. “AB 775 passed on the Assembly Floor and has now been referred to the Senate Committee on Health, and is scheduled to be heard on June 24, 2015.  If it passes the Senate Committee on Health it will be one step away from the Governors desk.”


Lori Arnold of the California Family Alliance also talked about the dangers associated with the bill.

“Mirroring its path in the Assembly, AB 775 will be heard June 24 before the Senate Health Committee,” she said. “Although named the “Reproductive FACT Act,” the bill is more accurately described by several pro-life organizations as the “bully bill.” AB 775 stifles free speech by forcing non-profit Pregnancy Care Clinics to promote a government-mandated message that violates their right of conscience. The mandate comes despite the fact that such centers receive no taxpayer funding and are supported entirely by private fundraising and donations.”


Arnold said:

  • AB 775 violates the free speech rights of Pregnancy Care Clinics by forcing them to promote abortions services that are contrary to their deeply held religious beliefs.
  • AB 775 exempts Medi-Cal family planning providers, including abortion clinics, from its disclosure requirements.
  • AB 775 promotes viewpoint discrimination by forcing one-sided disclosures by Pregnancy Care Clinics but not abortion facilities.
  • AB 775 undermines licensed PCC medical clinics by suggesting they are not “legitimate” organizations since they do not provide abortions.
  • AB 775 increases taxpayer liability, since abortion facilities are largely funded with government money. PRCs, on the other hand, are funded and operated by concerned individuals, offering a wide range of pregnancy support services at no expense to taxpayers.

ACTION: Please contact the members of Senate Committee on Health, so we can stop this piece of legislation that takes away free speech and bullies our Pregnancy Care Centers. Call-to-Action Link.

Members of the Committee follow:

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

SARAH ZAGORSKI   JUN 16, 2015   |   12:03PM    | LifeNews| 


Care Net, a national network of 1,130 pregnancy centers, has announced that over the last six years, they’ve saved over 388,000 unborn children from abortion. According to their website, the organization says their mission is to “offer compassion, hope, and help to anyone considering abortion by presenting them with realistic alternatives and Christ-centered support through our life-affirming network of pregnancy centers, organizations, and individuals.”


The non-profit was founded in 1975 and runs the country’s only real-time call center offering pregnancy decision counseling. Care Net pregnancy centers provide free pregnancy test and ultrasounds, as well as parenting support and counseling.

The pregnancy center group noted some of the amazing numbers that reveal the impact it has had.


Care Net-affiliated pregnancy centers have done 579,322 free ultrasound scans and presented the Gospel message to more than one million people. Another 1.1 million mothers received tangible baby items and materials for their newborn and CareNet centers gave out 1.8 million free pregnancy tests.

“Approximately 1,180 Care Net affiliated pregnancy centers welcome those facing unplannedpregnancies with life-affirming compassion, hope, and help. Every year about 30,000 peoplevolunteer at these pregnancy centers. And since 2009, there has been a 20 percent growth in the number of Care Net centers providing free ultrasounds to their clients,” it said.


Here’s more:

Care Net has saved 388,691 lives! Where did we get this number? In 2014, we gathered information from our affiliated pregnancy centers to see what impact Care Net has made in the past six years (2008-2013). Of the women who came in considering abortion, 388,691 chose life. This is 8 out of 10 women visiting a Care Net center who were at risk for abortion.

In addition to our pregnancy centers, Care Net has a Pregnancy Decision Line, which takes real-time calls from women and men facing difficult pregnancy decisions. In pursuing Care Net’s mission of providing compassion, hope, and help to women and men facing pregnancy decisions, our centers and Pregnancy Decision Line impact lives. By presenting women and men with realistic alternatives to abortion. our centers help them choose life for their unborn children and abundant life for their families. The 388,691 life decisions made have changed the lives of unborn children and their families.


As LifeNews previously reported, every year 16,000 babies are saved from abortion after their mothers see an ultrasound of their unborn baby at a pregnancy center. When a woman is in crisis, they often can only think about the here-and-now and not about the ramifications an abortion might bring. They are thinking about the reaction of their parents, their friends, and their partner. They are contemplating how much their life will change if they have a baby, and if they can financially care for another human being.



Others may be in direr circumstances, such as becoming pregnant because of rape or incest, being in an abusive marriage or relationship, or living in extreme poverty, wondering where their next meal will come from. Whatever the situation, these women are looking for help and a solution to their crisis immediately.

This is why when a woman walks into an abortion clinic and hears that abortion doesn’t end the life of another human being and is a safe and fairly pain-free procedure, they leave thinking they may have found what they were looking for. At an abortion clinic, women will not find out that 60% of women who have abortions suffer from post-traumatic–stress disorders, or that suicide rates among women who’ve had abortions are six-times higher than those who have given birth.


They will not hear that abortion will increase their risk of infertility, breast cancer and future ectopic pregnancies. And they most definitely won’t learn about all the women who have been maimed or even killed at the hands of an abortionist. All they will know for certain is that they have an all-eclipsing crisis and the woman at Planned Parenthood told them that abortion is “no big deal”.

However, at pregnancy centers women are given the truth about all their options. Additionally, many centers even provide support for women after they’ve had their baby. They supply women with baby clothes and food, facilitate parenting classes and walk alongside them as they venture into motherhood. Currently in the United States, there are 2,000 of these centers, and it is our duty as pro-lifers to work alongside them in their efforts to save lives.

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

STEVEN ERTELT   JUN 15, 2015   |   10:24AM    | LifeNews| 


The U.S. Supreme Court today rejected an appeal from the state of North Carolina to uphold a pro-life law allowing women a chance to see an ultrasound of their unborn baby before an abortion. Ultrasounds are routinely performed before an abortion but abortion clinics often don’t let women see the ultrasound image or get a description of their unborn baby before the abortion occurs.


Justice Antonin Scalia voted to hear the appeal but a majority of the justice voted against hearing it, meaning the law will not be upheld.


To allow women a chance to see the ultrasound, North Carolina passed a bill requiring abortion practitioners to ensure that happens. The law also requires the abortion practitioner to allow a woman considering an abortion to hear the heartbeat of her baby and to describe what the ultrasound shows. But it faced a lawsuit from the ACLU and Planned Parenthood.

In January 2013, a district court imposed a temporary injunction on the law, claiming that its mandated disclosures about abortion are an unconstitutional imposition of “the state’s philosophic and social position discouraging abortion,” rather than being factually based.

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden is involved in the case.


“Pro-life laws provide women with crucial information that they wouldn’t otherwise get from abortionists,” said Aden. “The court was wrong to view these reasonable disclosures of fact as merely ideological. This law simply provides women the adequate time and information they need to make such an important decision.”

“The State has a compelling interest in ensuring that women are not rushed or coerced into having an abortion,” the brief in Stuart v. Camnitz explains. “The General Assembly could appropriately take notice that some women who seek to obtain an abortion may have been pressured into doing so, and that women who have the opportunity to see and hear specific information about fetal development have time to ponder the decision and a chance to discuss it with their physician.


“Women in need deserve laws that are in the best interest of their physical and emotional well-being, and that take into consideration their unborn child,” added Aden. “We hope the court will allow this law so that women and children can flourish.”

U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles in Greensboro issued the initial ruling about the law, which also provides for a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion. The lawsuit, filed in the Middle District of North Carolina, claims the new law violates the rights of women and abortion facilities.

The law is important because women frequently complain they were not shown any ultrasound information before the abortion even though abortion centers routinely do them to determine the age of the unborn child at the time of the abortion.


The pro-life measure received approved from the state legislature and became law when lawmakers overturned a veto from pro-abortion Governor Bev Perdue, a Democrat. The measure helps women obtain information about abortion’s risks and alternatives they may not otherwise receive before an abortion.

Planned Parenthood Health Systems, Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina and the Center for Reproductive Rights, a New York-based pro-abortion legal group, joined the lawsuit the ACLU filed.

Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D., director of state legislation for the National Right to Life Committee, responded to the lawsuit, saying, “What are abortion advocates afraid of? Probably that when mothers see the recognizable images of their unborn children as they kick and move inside the womb, with beating hearts, abortionists will lose business.”


Balch added: “As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in Gonzalss v. Carhart in 2007, ‘Whether to have an abortion requires a difficult and painful moral decision….The State has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed. It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know…’”


“Mothers and their unborn children are the victors today because this law would protect a mother’s right to receive vital information prior to making a life or death decision about her unborn child,” said Balch.“With final passage of this law,  no longer will mothers in North Carolina be left to the one-sided sales-promoting information provided by an industry that is in the business of killing unborn children.”

The informed consent bill provides that a booklet containing scientifically accurate information about risks, alternatives and information on the development of the unborn child, compiled by the Department of Health and Human Services, be offered to the mother at least 24 hours prior to an abortion so that she might have the opportunity to read and understand the information.  It also provides that an ultrasound image of the unborn child be displayed at least four hours prior to an abortion so that the mother might view it.

“The abortion industry, working in league with Governor Perdue, attempted to place a financial bottom line above the rights and protection of mothers,” Balch added.


During the committee debate on the legislation, lawmakers engaged in a jaw-dropping discussion to determine if it is better that children not be killed in an abortion or save the state money. Members of the appropriations committee debated a fiscal note legislative staff attached to the bill saying it would result in more than 2,900 births of children annually who may otherwise have become victims of abortion. The made the estimates based on similar legislation in Mississippi that resulted in abortion reductions and claimed the births would cost the state approximately $7 million a year in Medicaid expenses.

Rep. Burt Jones of Rockingham was incredulous and said, according to WRAL, that he couldn’t believe legislators were debating whether more abortions or more expenses were better.

“To me, it is incredible that we would even debate the idea that somehow we can improve the fiscal impact of this state by not allowing children to be born,” he said. “I’m a fiscal conservative, but if we’ve got to pay a little more money in this state because more children have the right to be born, then so be it.”

Monday, June 15, 2015

By Ben Johnson| Thu Jun 11, 2015 - 4:14 pm EST| LifeSiteNews| 


TALLAHASSEE, FL, June 11, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – No sooner had the ink dried on a bill that would give women in Florida time to consider their decision before having an abortion than the abortion industry sued to block the law.

If it prevails in court, Florida will become the 27th state to require a waiting period. Late last night, Gov. Rick Scott signed H.B. 633, which requires an abortionist to provide women with accurate information about the abortion in person 24 hours before performing an abortion.

The bill lifts the 24-hour waiting period in the cases of rape, incest, intimate partner violence, or human trafficking, but only if the woman produces documentation of the fact, such as a police report or restraining order. It is scheduled to take effect on July 1.


"Florida mandates waits of three days before getting a marriage license, 20 days before divorce, and three days before buying a handgun. Rarely is any surgery done the same day as the consultation,” wrote Jim Styer, the president of Sarasota-Manatee Right to Life. “So, why not a short wait before an abortion, certainly an irreversible decision?”

One of the bill's supporters said he had a very personal stake in its passage. State Sen. Don Gaetz, R-Niceville, said his wife, Victoria, nearly had an abortion three decades ago. They now have a 29-year-old daughter named Erin.

“I’m glad she had 24 hours to think about it,” Sen. Gaetz said during debates in April.


Nonetheless, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is based in New York, filed a lawsuit today in Leon County Circuit Court, saying the bill violates a woman's “right to privacy.”

“It’s clear that the sole purpose of this law is to make it more difficult for a woman who has decided to have an abortion to get one, and to punish and discriminate against those who do,” said Renée Paradis, senior staff attorney for the ACLU. “Furthermore, it’s flat-out offensive.”

Autumn Katz, staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said, “We are confident this demeaning measure will be struck down as a blatant violation of the state’s strong constitutional protections for women’s rights.”


Lois Backus, the executive director of the Philadelphia-based Medical Students for Choice – which is also part of the lawsuit – said the law made it “impossible” for abortionists to provide “care” for their patients. She also worried the pro-life law threatened future generations. “If allowed to go forward, this law will make it more difficult for women in Florida to obtain the quality health care they deserve for generations to come,” Backus said.

Rep. Jennifer Sullivan, R-Mount Dora, who sponsored the bill, said, "I am confident precedent will be respected, and I look forward to seeing this effort to protect life and a women's health become the law of Florida.”

Friday, June 12, 2015




Rebekah Nancarrow had an ultrasound at Planned Parenthood (for which she paid $80), but wasn’t allowed to see the image. She was told by a Planned Parenthood worker that seeing the fetus on the screen  “will only make it harder on you.”

Nancarrow later went to a crisis pregnancy center and was given a free ultrasound. This time she was allowed to view it. Nancarrow was so moved by what she saw on the ultrasound screen that she changed her mind about having an abortion and decided to have her baby. She says:

Had I not had the sonogram, I would have had the abortion. But that sonogram just confirmed 100% to me that this was a life within me, not a tissue or glob.

Nancarrow’s story reveals two things. One, that pregnancy resource centers are lifesavers and should be supported by pro-lifers. Two, that there is a reason why pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood fight against laws allowing women to see their baby on the ultrasound screen. These abortion providers know that if more women saw the baby moving in their wombs, there would be fewer abortions.

Thursday, June 11, 2015

by Steven Ertelt | | 6/10/15 6:02 PM


The pro-life group Priests for Life was one of the earliest organizations to file a lawsuit against the Obama administration over its HHS mandate. The mandate compels religious groups to pay for birth control drugs and drugs like ella that can cause very early abortions.


A federal appeals court has responded today to its appeal of a lower court decision on its lawsuit and the ruling protects Priests for Life from having to comply. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that Priests for Life does not have  to obey the HHS mandate – or pay steep fines for refusing to do so and it granted the pro-life organization a stay late today.

Father Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, said: “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted our motion to stay the mandate, meaning that the injunction protecting us from the mandate will remain in place while the Supreme Court considers our case.”

Pavone told LifeNews that Priests for Life’s attorneys filed the cert petition asking the Supreme Court to hear its case, on the merits, challenging the HHS mandate, after the appeals court refused a petition to give the case a hearing before the full court.


“Without the stay granted today, we would have been in the position of being fined for failing to comply with the mandate,” Father Pavone said. “But no matter what happens, we will not obey the mandate, nor will we pay fines to the government.”

“The government is using the same kind of arguments it has used in other lawsuits against the mandate brought by religious groups, namely, that because they have a religious exemption and in the light of promised changes in the mandate, these groups really aren’t being harmed, have nothing to worry about, and therefore no basis to sue the government,” Pavone added.

“The case of Priests for Life is different from that of the other religious entities, however. We were not covered by the ‘religious exemption,’ and therefore the mandate was to be effective for us this past January 1,” he said.


Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a favorable ruling in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a landmark case addressing the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of business owners to operate their family companies without violating their deeply held religious convictions. But that ruling applies only to Hobby Lobby and similar businesses.

Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Samuel Alito handed down the decision for the high court, saying, “The Supreme Court holds government can’t require closely held corporations with religious owners to provide contraception coverage.”

The court ruled that the contraception mandate violated the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, a 1993 law and it held that the mandate “substantially burdens the exercise of religion” and that HHS didn’t use the “least restrictive means” to promote this government interest, tests required by RFRA.


Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy joined in the majority decision. Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.


The Hobby Lobby decision only applies to companies, including Conestoga Wood Specialties, which had a companion case pending before the Supreme Court. Non-profit groups like Priests for Life and Little Sisters are still waiting for a Supreme Court ruling about their right to opt out of the mandate.

A December 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll shows Americans disagree with forcing companies like Hobby Lobby to obey the mandate.

“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.”

Another recent poll found 59 percent of Americans disagree with the mandate.

Wednesday, June 10, 2015




Abortion facilities across Texas are expected to shutter after a federal appeals court upheld a state law requiring abortion facilities to meet hospital safety standards.

The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that Texas may enforce provisions of H.B. 2, a pro-life law passed by the state legislature and signed into law by former Governor Rick Perry.

The mandate requires Texas abortion mills to meet ambulatory surgical center standards. Facilities that perform abortions must upgrade spaces in order to comply with uniform criterion, such as minimum requirements for facility hallways, doorways, ventilation systems, and rooms.


The provision would effectively shutter abortion facilities across the Lone Star State, protecting women from unregulated and shoddy mills that only catch public attention after botched abortions or Gosnell-like barbarity.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton praised the ruling:


“H.B. 2 both protects the unborn and ensures Texas women are not subjected to unsafe and unhealthy conditions,” Paxton said. “I am proud to have both supported this law in the legislature and defended it in the courts.”

The decision by the three-judge panel relied on the U.S. Supreme Court Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, which gives states the right to curb abortion if those restrictions are “reasonably related” to a “legitimate state interest.” In a ruling released Tuesday, the court wrote:


“In plain terms, H.B. 2 and its provisions may be applied throughout Texas, except that Supreme Court precedent requires us to partially uphold the district court’s injunction of the [ambulatory surgical center] requirement as applied to the Whole Woman’s Health abortion facility in McAllen, Texas, and to uphold the district court’s injunction of the admitting privileges requirement as applied to Dr. Lynn when he is working at the McAllen facility.”

Abortion advocates claim the law’s requirements on facilities in McAllen and El Paso places an “undue burden” on women seeking an abortion, forcing them to drive hundreds of miles to facilities located in San Antonio or Houston. The court, however, said women in El Paso seeking an abortion may leave the state to neighboring New Mexico, an abortion wild west where abortions are legal up to birth.


“The closest Texas abortion facility that will remain open is in San Antonio, over 550 miles away,” the court wrote. “There is an abortion facility approximately twelve miles away in Santa Teresa, New Mexico. Prior to H.B. 2, more than half of the women who obtained abortions at the Santa Teresa facility were from El Paso. The State argues the closure of the El Paso abortion facility will not impose an undue burden because women in this area can travel to the Santa Teresa facility.”

The court ruling, however, exempts the last open abortion facility in the Rio Grande Valley.


The Fifth Circuit decision overturns a lower court ruling, nullifying a decision by District Judge Lee Yeakel, who said the requirement had no compelling interest for public health. Abortion advocates vow to take the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Prior to H.B. 2, there were roughly 40 abortion facilities in the state. Yeakel said the number of abortion mills is expected to dip in the state to about eight with the new provision in effect.

H.B. 2 also requires abortionists to have hospital admitting privileges with 30 miles of their abortion facility.

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

by Steven Ertelt | | 6/8/15 9:54 AM


The governor of North Carolina has signed into law a pro-life bill that will help the state save more babies from abortions. Republican Gov. Pat McCrory signed a bill that would put in place a 72-hour waiting period before an abortion — allowing women more time to find abortion alternatives and choose life for their unborn child.


“McCrory’s office sent an email Friday evening which announced that he had signed pardons for two brothers wrongfully imprisoned for three decades in the killing of an 11-year-old girl. At the bottom of the email, it was noted that McCrory had also signed nine bills, listing each bill by their number without referring to their specific title,” AP reported.


Republican lawmakers filed House Bill 465, which would ban healthcare facilities owned by the University of North Carolina and East Carolina University from performing abortions. Additionally, the legislation would increase the required waiting period prior to an abortion from 24 hours to 72 hour.

North Carolina joins Missouri, South Dakota and Utah in requiring a 72-hour waiting period, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion advocacy group funded by Planned Parenthood. Overall, 26 states require a waiting period, usually 24 hours.

Republican Rep. Jacqueline Schaffer of Charlotte told members that her bill, which would extend the waiting period from 24 to 72 hours, “empowers women.”

“We truly believe that this is a bill women who are both pro-choice and pro-life can get behind,” she said.


“Seventy-two hours is not asking for too much for something this important,” GOP Rep. Pat McElraft said during the debate. “Why do we not want (women) to have the opportunity to change their minds? Please let women have this opportunity to reach out to pregnancy clinics to guide her … for alternatives.”

“Once conception occurs, you’re talking about the rights of two human beings,” said GOP Rep. Debra Conrad of Winston-Salem. “I want to hear about the rights of these young babies.”

Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, today praised North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory for signing legislation to protect unborn babies.


“Governor McCrory and the North Carolina legislature, by enacting the new abortion waiting period, have saved countless women from a lifetime of regret,” said Fr. Pavone.  “As pastoral director of the world’s largest ministries for healing after abortion — Rachel’s Vineyard and the Silent No More Awareness Campaign — I know that many mothers weep for their aborted children years, even decades later.  A three-day wait cannot compare to a lifetime of emotional pain.”

“Making sure that abortion clinics meet the minimum health and safety standards is just common sense,” added Fr. Pavone, “except to the abortion industry, which is wildly unregulated, and to its advocates, who think that keeping women safe and doctors accountable is somehow antithetical to women’s rights and health. Thank you, Governor McCrory, for doing the right thing.”



Naturally, abortion proponents oppose the bill.


The vice president of public policy at Planned Parenthood, Melissa Reed, commented on the legislation and said, “This delay, coupled with the additional restrictions, further demonstrates that politicians are attempting to practice medicine with absolutely no understanding of the scope of practice of abortion care.”

She continued, “In reality, these bills have nothing to do with patient safety and are just attempts by politicians to insert their own political agendas into medical care, It is shameful North Carolina legislators continue to sacrifice women’s health in their ideological attempts to take this state backwards.”


As LifeNews previously reported, in 2013 a North Carolina abortion facility was shut down after the Department of Health and Human Services found that it “present an imminent danger to the health, safety and welfare of the clients and that emergency action is required to protect the clients.” TheBaker Clinic for Women, located in Durham, failed to perform adequate quality control in blood banking as well as controlled testing on 108 patients that received Rh(D) (Rhesus) testing.

ACTION: Please call the Governor at (919) 814-2000 to thank him for signing the bill.