Monday, November 30, 2015


Children sitting inside school bus

Answering three big adoption myths

adopt1. Your baby will end up in foster care

Many abortion advocates will claim that there are not enough people willing to adopt and point to the fact that there are an estimated 400,540 children in the American foster care system. While this number is sobering, and steps should definitely be taken to reduce it as soon as possible, it is not a number that affects adoption as a viable alternative to abortion for women who are not ready for parenthood.

Let’s look at the facts: according to a 2011 study by the Health and Human Services Department, an estimated 2.6 million Americans have taken concrete step towards adoption, and an estimated 18.5 million Americans have at least considered adopting a child. The HHS study additionally states that those seeking to adopt showed a preference for children under two – a criterion that newborns certainly would meet.

When a birth mother decides on adoption, she can seek out any number of private adoption companies that will help her connect with a family who desperately wants to adopt her baby. Foster care is not even in the picture.
This brings us to the next myth:

2. You will never know if your child is being taken care of

A 2012 study by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute found that 95% of private adoptions in American are “open adoptions.” An open adoption means that the birth mother chooses the family for her baby, and both parties agree to the sharing of information, and to maintain a certain level of ongoing contact throughout the years. In an open adoption, a child grows up knowing where he came from, his medical history, and that the decision to place him for adoption was a decision made out of love.

While there are varying levels of openness, it is the choice of the birth mother, not the adoptive parents, and the birth mother is able to choose a family based on the degree of openness they are willing to agree to.
A 2007 Health and Human Services study looked at the effects of adoption on children and found the following:
  • Adopted children are less likely to live in households where the income is below the poverty line
  • 85% of adopted children are in excellent or very good health
  • 91% of adopted children in the survey had been consistently insured for the past year
  • Only a small minority of adopted children are diagnosed with disorders such as attachment disorder, depression, ADD/ADHD, or behavior or conduct disorders.
  • Over half of adopted school-age children have excellent or very good perform ace in reading and math
  • Adopted children are more likely to be read to every day by their parents, or to be sung to or told stories every day
  • 81% of adoptive parents report their relationship as being very warm and close.
3. Adoption is abandoning your baby

Far from being abandonment, adoption is amazing and admirable. It takes a remarkable amount of selflessness and courage to place a child up for adoption. It means recognizing that you are not able to be the parent your child deserves, and making sacrifices to ensure that she is taken care of the way she should be.

Attitudes on adoption have also changed over the years, with two thirds of Americans having a favorable opinion of adoption. Additionally, two-thirds of Americans have a personal connection with adoption, be it through being an adoptive parent, sibling, or adopted child, or knowing someone who is one of those things.

There are many stories available online detailing how adopted children feel about their adoption, and I personally can attest to my gratefulness to my birth mother.
My birth mother was only 19 when she had me, and she already had 3 other children. Those in the pro-abortion lobby would say that my mother would have been totally justified in aborting me, but she chose life. While I was not adopted at birth, but later placed in foster care with my siblings, I still have a deep respect for the choice my birth mother made in relinquishing her parental rights so that I could be adopted along with my brother and sister (another brother was adopted by a different family). I always knew that I was adopted, and my parents made sure to explain that I was placed for adoption not because I wasn’t loved, but because I was loved very much both by them and by my birth mother.

I am very aware of the different path my life could have taken, and when I look at where I have ended up, I feel a great sense of being blessed beyond what I deserve. My parents are amazing, selfless people (although when I tell them this, they assure me that they are just normal people), who took three children who needed a family and gave them love and stability.
Adoption is a truly amazing thing, and it should be encouraged for those women who are facing an unplanned pregnancy. While they might not be ready to be parents, they can still be amazing mothers by giving their children the gift of a family, of love, of security – the gift of hope and a future.

Source: LiveAction News

Pro-Life Hero


Garrett Swasey is a hero to the pro-life movement

Much has been speculated about regarding the man responsible for the horrible attack on a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood. But one person we should be focusing on is Garrett Swasey.
Garrett Swasey is one of the three victims who lost their lives in the shooting. He was a 44-year-old University of Colorado Colorado Springs police officer who died after rushing to the scene to save another injured police officer. He was 10 miles away on campus when news of the shooting broke out, and was known to respond to dangerous calls off campus.

He was also strongly pro-life.

Swasey spent seven years serving as co-pastor of Hope Chapel. And while he was against abortion, and did not support Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry, his friends say that this would never have factored into his decision to respond to the shooting. He cared about saving lives, a true hero of the pro-life movement.
While many abortion advocates have been quick to cast blame on the pro-life movement, the truth is, Swasey exemplifies what being pro-life means. Being pro-life means accepting that all lives have dignity and value, inherently, regardless of what people choose to do with their lives. It’s why being pro-life means protesting both abortion, and the death penalty. And it’s why someone like Swasey would risk his life to save staffers at an abortion clinic. It’s why pro-life leaders immediately denounced the shooting. Being pro-life means protecting all life, and Swasey died doing just that. He is truly the hero of the pro-life movement.

Source: LiveAction News


"Wanted" poster

“Wanted” – A short film about adoption with a lesson for us all

By presidential proclamation, this November was designated National Adoption Month. Adoption is an issue very near to the heart of the pro-life movement, and the life enrichment it gives has been reported in such documentary works as The Sidewalk Chronicles (2015). Demystifying the process of adoption and presenting facts are very important, and so is breaking the generational cycle that devalues life.

The cultural zeitgeist too often sloppily defines the value and quality of life according to convenience. Hence, the words “wanted” and “unwanted” usually appear when pregnancy and abortion are discussed.
We know of babies whose life and death, by national law, are hanging in the balance due to whether or not they are wanted. When their parents reject them from the womb or later, these children then may struggle with feelings of being worthless and unwanted, which is a major theme in the Erwin Brothers’ October Baby (2011) film.
A movie about adoption released just this year by Roundtable Productions doesn’t mention abortion, but it bolsters conversation about nurturing life beginning within the home, even through the most simple of gestures.
A scene from Wanted.
A scene from Wanted
Aptly titled Wanted, Nathan Jacobson’s award-winning short film tells the story of Luke (a compelling performance by Rusty Martin, Courageous), a foster child who is welcomed into a family home right before his eighteenth birthday. Because of his troubled upbringing, Luke feels no one wants him, and he settles for not wanting anyone either, until something gives him a change of heart.
“He has to want this,” says Luke’s new mother, Rachel (Stacey Bradshaw). It’s a simple line that encompasses every reformation, as far back as when Jesus would query before performing a miracle: Do you want to be made well? (John 5:6) Healing involves a decision that comes from within. In order to embrace the sanctity of life, our generation has to know it, and then also has to want it. The value of life is not rooted in how wanted that life is, but how beautiful it is for someone to want it!
Wanted is a tear-jerker with cinematography that moves as gently as the story convicts. Gracing the screen is a sensitive Eliya Hurt (Polycarp), alongside a motherly Stacey Bradshaw (Providence), and a steady Andrew Cheney (Beyond the Mask). Composer John Campbell (known for Adventures in Odyssey) provides the beautiful soundtrack.

It’s artwork you can’t find a negative thing to say about. Watch it.

Source: LiveAction News

Friday, November 27, 2015

Commodification of Life


Surrogate pregnant with triplets threatened with ‘financial ruin’ if she doesn’t abort

The ethical issues with surrogacy – and assisted reproductive technology – continue to arise. Parents manufacture children on demand, and then when things don’t go as planned, they decide to then destroy the children, who were intentionally created by said parents. This scenario happens over and over and over again, but it’s no less horrifying whenever a new situation presents itself. The latest shocking example is a surrogate, implanted with three embryos by a man who wanted to become a father, who unsurprisingly became pregnant with triplets.

But as the father didn’t want triplets, he’s now demanding that she get an abortion against her will, and is even threatening her if she continues to refuse.
Melissa Cook was paid $33,000 to have a man’s child via artificial insemination. Like many IVF parents, the man chose to have three embryos implanted, because implanting multiple embryos has the highest chance of achieving a successful pregnancy. All three embryos took, and Cook discovered she was pregnant with triplets at about eight weeks. She says he immediately began to raise concerns, which have become more threatening over time.
The dad “understands, albeit does not agree, with your decision not to reduce,” his lawyer, Robert Warmsley, wrote in a Friday letter to Cook, who has never met the sperm donor.
“As you know, his remedies where you refuse to abide by the terms of the agreement, are immense [and] include, but are not limited to, loss of all benefits under the agreement, damages in relation to future care of the children [and] medical costs associated with any extraordinary care the children may need,” the lawyer warned.
Cook received another letter from Warmsley on Tuesday urging her to schedule a “selection reduction” — abortion of one of the fetuses — by day’s end.
Cook insists that abortion isn’t right, that these are human beings. But she also says she’s beginning to waver in her resolution to protect these lives, as she’s understandably scared of the repercussions if she doesn’t do as this man demands.
Surely, pro-abortion activists will loudly be denouncing this man and offering their support to this woman, as they claim they support a woman’s right to do what she wants with her own body, and say that a woman should never be pressured into an abortion. But don’t hold your breath waiting for them to pipe up.

Sadly, this is not unusual. It was awful enough when parents of twins, also conceived through IVF, publicly spoke about their dismay at becoming pregnant with twins. They enthusiastically implanted two embryos, and were then outraged when they shockingly became pregnant with twins. These parents didn’t abort either of their babies, thankfully, but they openly dehumanized their children and hoped for one of them to have a birth defect so they could have an excuse to abort them.
Other parents actually go through with the selective reductions. Celebrated pro-abortion “feminist” Amy Richards famously wrote about her decision to kill two of her preborn children after becoming pregnant with triplets because she would have to do horrible things like move to Staten Island, shop at Costco, and buy big jars of mayonnaise. And if a couple undergoes IVF and becomes pregnant with a child who has a disability, like Down syndrome, chances are that child will be killed.

IVF allows people to design babies and then destroy them when the product they paid for is “defective” in some way. The day of parents designing their children’s hair and eye colors doesn’t seem too far off. Instead of treating children as independent human beings with their own inherent dignity and value, we have begun to treat them as objects we are entitled to own. And even when these children aren’t aborted, it still affects them. Alana Newman, founder of Anonymous US, an organization that aims to give a voice to children conceived through artificial reproductive technology, pointed out that these parents are inflicting pain on their future children, often pushing their own suffering onto the children they want. We as a society seem to believe that we have the right to play God. It’s that simple.

And in a culture that commercializes children, likes to play God, and treats children as products they’re entitled to own, it’s no surprise that abortion is so rampant. Melissa Cook’s tragic story is heartbreaking, but it’s just the latest symptom of a larger disease.

Source: LiveAction News

Media and Abortion


Slate hopes watching ‘Jessica Jones’ will shame pro-lifers

Slate just loves Jessica Jones, the new Netflix show. Slate also loves to promote abortion and has found a way to combine both.
A piece from Nov. 24 by Christina Cauterucci claims in its headline that “Anyone Who Opposes Abortion for Rape Survivors Should Watch This Jessica Jones Scene.” The piece’s byline and content also specifically address those in the GOP who oppose rape exceptions.
It would be one thing if the piece hailed what Cauterucci thought was a television show making an important point about this issue. It would even be plausible if the piece stuck to its headline and suggested that those who hold such a view might look into another perspective. But that’s not what Cauterucci does. Instead, she slams those who do hold such a view.
The piece is chock full of your typical pro-abortion misconceptions when it comes to abortion.
A character from episode six is Hope Schlottman, who is pregnant with the baby of a rather terrifying serial rapist. Hope is in jail and has paid another inmate to beat her up in hopes of inducing a miscarriage.
Titular character Jessica Jones suggests that Hope wait for a clinical abortion. Hope answers, “Every second it’s there, I get raped again and again.”
For those of us who have not found ourselves in such a situation, we may not be able to know exactly what Hope is going through, but there are those who have gone through the same thing, and who have spoken up. Many of them do not feel the way Hope does. Rather, it’s those around them – those pressuring them to abort – who have taken such a disdainful view about the pregnancy.
That Hope doesn’t want to wait also rebuts one of Cauterucci’s own points. The caption following the screenshot from the episode reads, “With no other options, Hope Schlottman took her abortion into her own hands.” Except it doesn’t sound like Hope had “no other options.” Since Hope was not set on choosing life, she could have at least taken Jessica Jones’ suggestion. If Slate is trying to use this character’s situation to argue about the fate of women should abortion be outlawed, they fail miserably here.
As an abortion-supporting site, it’s not surprising that Slate takes issue with pro-life candidates. But Cauterucci makes a very bold, and also false, claim:
This year’s slate of Republican presidential candidates is crowded with men who wouldn’t give Schlottman’s case a second thought.
Current presidential candidates may oppose abortion in cases of rape or incest. But by opposing one so-called solution to a horrific crime and act of violence in no way means that they “wouldn’t give [a] case a second thought.”
Marco Rubio, for instance, a candidate mentioned by name, talked with Meet the Press’s Chuck Todd about the rape exceptions. Part of his response mentioned:
… I mean, a rape is an act of violence. It’s a horrifying thing that happens. And fortunately, the number of abortions in this country that are due to rape are very small, less than 1% of the cases in the world. But they happen. And they’re horrifying. And they’re tragic. And I recognize that.
This is just one instance where Rubio has spoken about his stance. Does that sound like somebody who “wouldn’t give [a rape victim’s] case a second thought?”
The rest of the piece contains points which could apply exactly to the regret a woman who aborts her baby may feel:
Schlottman’s pleas testify to the injustice of abortion politics that don’t include exceptions for rape, incest, and women’s safety. Politicians who would force a woman to carry to term a fetus created by assault are inflicting yet another violation on a survivor who’s already had her desires trampled… But for actual survivors of sexual violence, memories of a perpetrator without Killgrave’s evil superpowers can be equally painful as Schlottman’s. A resulting pregnancy can be an equally distressing reminder of that trauma—to say nothing of the sadism of forcing a rape victim to endure the excruciating, sometimes days-long ordeal of labor and delivery.
Oftentimes the abortion is a way of “inflicting yet another violation on a survivor who’s already had her desires trampled,” especially if the woman is pressured into the abortion.
The woman now has to recover from the abortion as well as from the rape. And let’s not forget that an abortion is always a violation against the preborn child’s life, regardless of how conception took place.
Cauterucci points to the “sometimes days-long ordeal of labor and delivery.” But that’s how babies are born, regardless of whether or not a woman was raped. (A midwife mentions that while it’s very difficult to predict how long labor takes, first births rarely take over 18 hours.)The amount of time your delivery takes doesn’t depend on how your baby was conceived.
More important is the fact that the baby will be born and labor will come to an end. However a baby was conceived, giving birth is a courageous act. Many rape victims have shared that it helped empower them from their rape.
Cauterucci closes by stating that “politicians should be concerned with punishing rapists, not their victims.” Yes, exactly! Aborting the baby may actually serve to help a rapist, as it covers up his crime. An abortion, even if it is what the rape victim wants, or thinks she wants, punishes a completely innocent party. The preborn child is the farthest thing from the rapist – he or she is a victim.
Essentially, Cauterucci’s piece does very little for rape victims. It just shames those who happen to disagree with her view.

Source: LiveAction News

Abortion Clinic Workers


Abortion workers reveal disturbing facts about abortion industry

By Sarah Terzo
abortion-facility-672x372Pro-choice author Carole Joffe interviewed abortion industry workers for her book The Regulation of Sexuality: Experiences of Family-Planning Workers. Although many of the clinic workers Joffe interviewed genuinely seemed to want to help the women, the book reveals many disturbing things about what went on in the abortion facility. According to the workers’ own words and the author’s observations, women were rushed through the facility to maximize profits – and abortionists often treated them badly.

Joffe observes that the abortion facility regularly overbooked patients to maximize revenue. A significant portion of women, she observed, didn’t show up for their appointments and overbooking guarded against lost business. Joffe says:

Like many other nonprofit clinics, Urban [the name Joffe gave to the clinic] typically overbooked clients, especially at peak hours, to guard against the loss of revenues that would result from too many no shows. This meant, for counselors, a never-ending stream of clients in the waiting room…The clinic had to make the most efficient use of medical personnel, the highest-paid workers in the clinic, for financial reasons and for courtesy. (83)

One thing to take away from this quote is that many women change their minds after making the initial abortion appointment. We don’t know how many of the women the book speaks of chose life on account of pro-life intervention, but their minds were changed by something. Not all women who make their appointments already have their minds made up. Abortion seeking women are often still reachable.
But the facility’s overbooking also had the result that workers were forced to rush women through the abortion process one after another to fit them all in. They did not have time to counsel women as thoroughly as they would’ve liked. As Joffe says:
… As the clinic director was fond of pointing out, counseling did not generate revenue for the clinic; being seen in the medical room did. Perhaps the greatest problem with slowdowns [counseling sessions that took longer than average] was the risk of annoying doctors.(89)
There was no doubt that the overbooking was done mainly to maximize profits:
Besides ongoing frustration over salaries, the [abortion] counselors felt that there was no real understanding of the pressures and demands of their work. They believed, for example, that the agency director and board were always devising ways to increase the patient load (and hence generate more revenues) without considering that more patients applied a need for additional staff. (57)
Obviously, counseling fell by the wayside. There was little care or respect for each woman as an individual. Even though many of the workers wanted to give more support, they were under intense pressure.
The facility’s owners and management always wanted to increase revenues. This caused tension between workers who wanted to help a woman make the best choice for her and management which simply wanted more abortions done:
At Urban, as in other family planning clinics that provide abortion services, these services are the major source of revenue; hence, there are constant pressures from management to increase the total number of abortions performed. During the period of my observations, abortions were performed four days a week, and there were ongoing discussions about whether they should be increased to five. (112-113)
One abortion counselor talks about trying to console upset women despite the pressure to rush them out of her office quickly:

I’ve taken up to one hour and a half if the patient needs it – the people at the front desk don’t love it if I do that too often, but if I have to, I do. I just had a patient today that took a really long time. It was a post abortion – she was crying, feeling really guilty. The doctor really scared her; I had to act as her advocate. (86)
This is not the only time a worker had to protect a patient from the words and actions of the facility’s abortionists.

As Joffe says:
Another counselor grievance concerned doctors’ interpersonal style with patients. Certain doctors were accused of being too abrupt or “insensitive” with patients… Bernice [a clinic worker] recalls that when “Dr. Stuart first came, he did a very racist number on a couple of patients. I called him on it, and he has changed.” Some specific accusations of insensitivity were related to the rejection of obese women for clinic abortions.… [These patients pose “special difficulties” in an emergency] Counselors felt that some doctors handled this admittedly difficult situation in a particularly mortifying way. (106)

Also, abortion workers were forced to try and intervene for women when they were on the abortion table and wanted to change their minds, or became so agitated it seemed clear they did not want the abortion. Abortionists often did not want to stop the process, even if they could do so safely:

Infrequently it happened that a patient became so upset during the procedure that the counselor felt that it should be stopped.… For the Urban physicians, on the other hand, the ruling premise was that any procedure, once started, should continue – as long as it was medically safe to do so… For some doctors at Urban, “starting” meant any contact with the patient, including the preabortion pelvic examination.… The doctors at Urban did not routinely proceed with the abortion in the face of immense distress. As one put it, “if she’s crying a little, you still go ahead… If she jumps a foot off the table during a pelvic, that is a different story.” The point is that the doctors have far more tolerance of emotional distress than the counselors did. And the ultimate decision to continue or discontinue past a certain point is with the doctors. (106)

The workers complained about the insensitivity some doctors showed towards patients.
Some doctors tended to initiate small talk with the counselors and essentially ignore the patients: most counselors felt that this was insensitive: “she’s lying on the table having an abortion… She doesn’t want to hear what you did with your boyfriend last weekend. (97)
And, of course, there was only so much the abortion workers could do to protect women from shoddy medical care and poor surgical skills. One worker says:

At Gino’s, quality of a hamburger depends on who’s working the grill that day. It’s the same with abortions. If Dr. Benjamin is on that day, I know there’ll be few complaints. If it’s Dr. Thomas, I know there will be a lot of pain. (105)

Even though many of the workers Joffe interviewed went into the abortion business hoping to help women, they all had to face the reality that the doctors and facility administration were not in the abortion business to serve the women, but to make money. Sadly, most workers adjusted to this reality and continued working there. However, the author notes that during the time she was interviewing and observing at the facility, one worker decided she’d had enough. She announced that she had become pro-life and quit her job in the abortion business, never to return.

Source: Carole Joffe The Regulation of Sexuality: Experiences of Family-Planning Workers (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1986)

Editor’s note. This appeared at and is reprinted with permission.

Source: Abortion Workers



U.S. Bishops Declare “Intrinsic Evil” of Abortion Must Always Be Opposed

Editor’s note. The following is provided by PNCI–the Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues.
USCCB77The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) approved revisions to “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” on political responsibility during their recent meeting in Baltimore. The updates in the document “take account of recent developments in the United States in both domestic and foreign policy” including “the ongoing destruction of over one million innocent human lives each year by abortion” and physician-assisted suicide.

The bishops warn against “intrinsically evil” actions which must always “be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned.” Abortion and euthanasia are listed as prime examples because they “have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others”. Human cloning and destructive research on human embryos, and “other acts that directly violate the sanctity and dignity of human life”, are also intrinsically evil and “must always be opposed”.

The bishops warn that it “is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.”

Catholics are called “to make practical judgments regarding good and evil choices in the political arena” and the bishops warn that the taking of innocent life in abortion cannot be equated as “just one issue among many” and must always be opposed.

They advise that when voting, “It is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose policies promoting intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.”

Catholics serving in elected office are called to have “a heroic commitment” and “must commit themselves to the pursuit of the virtues, especially courage, justice, temperance, and prudence. The culmination of these virtues is the strong public promotion of the dignity of every human person as made in the image of God in accord with the teachings of the Church, even when it conflicts with current public opinion. Catholic politicians and legislators must recognize their grave responsibility in society to support laws shaped by these fundamental human values and oppose laws and policies that violate life and dignity at any stage from conception to natural death.”

Opposing evil should also “open our eyes to the good we must do, that is, to our positive duty to contribute to the common good and to act in solidarity with those in need.”

Faithful Citizenship explains the USCCB’s position that it “supports laws and policies to protect human life to the maximum degree possible, including constitutional protection for the unborn and legislative efforts to end abortion, assisted suicide, and euthanasia. We also promote a culture of life by supporting laws and programs that encourage childbirth and adoption over abortion and by addressing poverty, providing health care, and offering other assistance to pregnant women, children, and families.”

The bishops call for greater assistance for the sick and dying stating, “The end of life is a holy moment, a moment that marks a preparation for life with God, and it is to be treated with reverence and accompaniment. The end of life is as sacred as the beginning of life and requires treatment that honors the true dignity of the human person as created in the image of the living God. We recognize that addressing this complex issue effectively will require collaborative efforts between the public and private sectors and across party lines.”
The document ends with the section, Goals for Political Life: Challenges for Citizens, Candidates, and Public Officials, and a list of ten policy goals which the bishops offer in the hope that it will “guide Catholics as they form their consciences and reflect on the moral dimensions of their public choices.”

The ten issues “address matters of different moral weight and urgency”, some involve intrinsically evil acts, which can never be approved while others “involve affirmative obligations to seek the common good.”

Source: NRLC News



Couple sues for malpractice after IVF doctor aborts “strangers’ embryos” mistakenly implanted in woman

By Dave Andrusko
Melissa and David Pineda
Melissa and David Pineda

David and Melissa Pineda have filed a malpractice suit against Dr. Rifaat Salem, alleging that he used two different techniques to abort when Dr. Salem discovered he had mistakenly implanted “strangers’ embryos” in Mrs. Pineda.

“We went there to have a baby, not to kill a baby,” Mrs. Pineda said. The Pinedas told The Daily Mailthey never would have agreed to an abortion.”
The Daily Mail’s Ashley Collman reports this all began in December 2013 after the couple was unable to conceive a fourth child. They decided to go to Dr. Salem for IVF treatments. The embryos were implanted on February 7.
While Mrs. Pineda was on ordered bed rest, and just two days after the procedure, “she says she got a call from the Torrance, California, fertility doctor telling her to come into the office immediately – even though it was a Sunday.” According to Collman.

When she got to the practice, Mrs. Pineda says she had a disturbing conversation with a nurse who said she came in to check on the couple’s remaining embryos on Saturday and found that all 14 original eggs were still in the petri dish – suggest that they had in fact been implanted with another person’s embryos.
Without any explanation, Dr. Salem said he wanted to check in on how the embryos were doing. But Mrs. Pineda believes she actually underwent a very painful dilation and curettage procedure – a scraping of the cervix which is the most common method used in first term abortions.
Mrs. Pineda was told to come in the next day to receive an injection of a drug that would stop some of her bleeding, but she later found out that what she really received was the drug methotrexate – a chemical abortion drug.

The couple’s lawyer, Neil Howard, told the Daily Mail Salem had not gotten the Pinedas’ consent for either the D&C or the chemical abortifacient. “In a sworn deposition, one of the doctor’s nurses says Mrs. Pineda didn’t sign off on the D&C until after it was performed,” Collman reported.
“There’s no question in my mind that this was a viable healthy pregnancy that he [Dr. Salem] wanted to make sure did not continue,” Howard told the Daily Mail. “That’s why he did two things: a chemical abortion and a surgical abortion. He wanted to be 1billion per cent sure this baby did not go to full term.”

Mr. Pineda said, “We should have a little kid running around now,” adding, “That’s the hard part and what will never be replaced – the moments and the happiness with this child that we wanted and it’s not there now.”
The Pinedas told The Daily Mail they “believe that the couple whose embryos they received should know the truth about what happened. ”
Dr. Salem’s practice did not immediately return calls, the Daily Mail reported.

Source: NRLC News



Abortion attorneys fear U.S. Supreme Court ruling on dismemberment method

By Kathy Ostrowski, Legislative Director, Kansans for Life
D& E 16 wk illustrationreOver the Thanksgiving holiday, all fourteen judges of Kansas’ state Court of Appeals will begin analyzing all legal briefs, pro and con, for an expedited hearing on the grisly topic of dismemberment abortions.

That includes a “friend of the court” brief submitted by Kansans for Life in support of Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt. Schmidt is appealing a lower court decision that blocked implementation of the state’s first-in-the-nation Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act.
Oral arguments are set for December 9.
Last July Shawnee County District Court Judge Larry Hendricks issued an injunction, blocking Senate Bill 95 from going in effect.
The Act bans a barbaric abortion method that tears living, well-formed unborn babies apart in their mother’s wombs.
The preliminary injunction was obtained by the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Kansas father-daughter abortionists at the Center for Women’s Health in suburban Kansas City.
But the abortionists’ lawsuit was not filed in the federal court route that ends with the U.S. Supreme Court. The Kansas Attorney General’s legal team points out clearly in its filings that the abortionists logically should have taken that path, but instead are pursuing the state court path that ends with the state Supreme Court.

Why? Two reasons. Abortion attorneys
1. recognize this Act could well be upheld for the nation, and
2. want to, instead, carve out a state right to abortion as interpreted into the Bills of Rights section of the Kansas Constitution.

The explanation for #1 is that dismemberment method abortions were examined at some length by the U.S. Supreme Court during their deliberations on partial-birth abortions. The Court assessed both methods as “brutal.”

In its 2007 Gonzales decision, the High Court upheld a prohibition on the gruesome partial-birth method, as furthering “legitimate interests in regulating the medical profession in order to promote respect for life, including life of the unborn.”
The explanation for #2 is that the Kansas state Supreme Court has shown a decidedly pro-abortion bias over the past two decades. Abortion attorneys are attempting to take advantage of that, hoping that the Kansas Supreme Court will “discover” a right-to-abortion in the state Constitution.
Everyone knows that is what is happening. The Nov. 15 “rebuttal” filing from the Kansas Attorney General observed that

“[this suit invites] Kansas courts to take on a long rejected activist role: to change the people’s Constitution of the past 150 years in order to recognize “rights” that Plaintiffs may deem politically or morally expedient, but which an overwhelming majority of Kansans do not support.”

The Kansas Court of Appeals has been asked by the Kansas Attorney General to rule on whether the lower court– that opined dismemberment abortions cannot be banned –erred in two areas:
· misstating the relevant U.S. Supreme Court findings, and
· claiming that there exists a state right to abortion.
The abortion attorneys have clearly misstated the U.S. Supreme Court—and that’s why they don’t want to end up there.

As to the claim that Kansas has a state abortion right, attorneys for the Center for Women’s Health argue that permitting abortionists to dismember living babies till they bleed to death is part of a woman’s liberty right, and a development of Kansas’ “pro-woman” history. They cite that, from its inception, Kansas gave women the right to hold property and vote in school election
How absurd is that stretch?! Unless a baby is merely property that can be dismembered/shredded in the manner that is most convenient for abortionists. However, the Supreme Court’s most recent abortion ruling of 2007 doesn’t invest abortionists with veto power over the state legislature:
“Physicians are not entitled to ignore regulations that direct them to use reasonable alternative procedures. The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice, nor should it elevate their status above other physicians in the medical community.” Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 163
“The medical profession, furthermore, may find different and less shocking methods to abort the fetus in the second trimester, thereby accommodating legislative demand.”

There is more yet to be aired on what attorneys are claiming in “friend of the court” briefs now being digested by the Kansas appellate court

Source: NRLC News

Wednesday, November 25, 2015



Adopted boy shares same disability as his new grandpa

The beautiful story of an adopted boy with a disability has gone viral after photographers captured the moment his adoptive grandfather – who has the same disability – met the child.

Little Kirill was placed for adoption by his biological family when he was just 20 days old. It took his adoptive parents Doug and Lesley Facey three years to adopt the four year-old from an orphanage in Kazakhstan but they were thrilled when they were finally able to pick him up and take him to his new Canadian home. By the time the Faceys got Kirill, he had been passed up for adoption six times because he was born without a hand. Doug Facey told Fox 6 that when he expressed an interest in adopting Kirill, the adoption agency questioned him, repeatedly asking if he and his wife really wanted a child with only one hand.

At the age of four, Kirill spent his life thinking there was no one else like him. That is until he met Doug’s father, his new adopted “Grandpa,” Chris Facey. Doug told ABC News about the moment his new son met his dad and the touching encounter was captured in the image below. “I was excited when Kirill met my Dad,” Doug said.
Karille and Grandpa disability adoption
“I knew it would be a great thing for him because Kirill would realize he was not the only person in the world missing a hand.”
Doug described the first time his dad saw a photo of Kirill. “Dad’s reaction was emotional the first time he saw a picture. His first words were, ‘He’s like me,'” Facey told TODAY.

“My Dad’s reaction was one of excitement as well because he could show [and] teach Kirill that the sky is the limit and he can do whatever he wants.”
Lesley Facey said that the media attention her family has received has been tremendous. “A lot of people are saying, ‘You guys are wonderful and you guys have done a fabulous thing,’ but Doug and I never, ever thought that way,” she told Canada’s CBC.

Lesley thought back to the concern others had when the couple adopted Kirill, telling Fox6 that she knew no disability would hold her son back because it did not hold back his new grandpa:
How can I sit there and say ‘this is gonna be a problem’ when you’re looking at this man who’s been to the Paralympics, who played soccer, he’s a great philanthropist in the city, he’s a very successful businessman. How can you sit there and say ‘my child won’t be able to do any of that?’
Kirill’s new grandpa agrees, noting that when he met his grandson for the first time, “I didn’t see a little boy who was disabled and missing a right hand.”
Doug said that he and Lesley are happy that now their son can just be a kid. They told the media that adopting Kirill has changed their lives and that they are happy to “have a little boy to love, cherish and educate.”
“He’s going to get the best chance to be the best he possibly can. He’s bright, he’s smart … He’s a keeper,” his grandpa added.

Source: LiveAction News