Wednesday, July 30, 2014



Former clinic worker on how pro-choicers view women who regret their abortions

By Sarah Terzo
“The pro-abortion movement makes a lot of noise about respecting a woman’s heartfelt and well-considered “choice” to have an abortion—but only if she remains quietly pro-choice and regret-free afterwards. That same woman becomes a “traitor” to her gender, a mindless follower of dogma, or an object of cartoonish ridicule if she admits her abortion was a mistake and now wants to help others avoid the same pain, guilt, sadness, and remorse she—WE—experience as a result of making an irreversible error so grave as killing our children…..
“It is sadly (but tellingly) incongruous that pro-abortion supporters equate their cause for the ”right” to murder our unborn children to women’s equality, women’s rights, and caring for women when it seems obvious that women hurting after an abortion are pretty much left to fend for themselves. This is intellectual dishonesty in blind service to keeping the lucrative abortion industry in business at the expense of not only the helpless children killed, but also their customers: the pregnant mothers seeking their grisly services.
“It is shameful that the pro-abortion side mocks or ignores our pain, regret, and remorse—and refuses to warn women about these inherent psychological risks.”
Editor’s note. This appeared at Clinic Quotes. The quotes are from Jewels Green’s “Clinic Mocked Post-Abortion Women Who Are Now Pro-Life

Source: NRLC News

Assisted Suicide


Assisted Suicide Death Cult “Death Coaching”

By Wesley J. Smith
Philip Nitschke
Philip Nitschke

I discovered the assisted suicide death cult when my friend Frances killed herself under the influence of the Hemlock Society, since evolved into Compassion and Choices. This pernicious group taught her how to kill herself, what drugs to take, how to use a plastic bag–and gave her moral permission to do it. It was literally proselytizing for suicide.
Since 1993, I have written hundreds of articles and blog posts about this topic, as well as a book–now in its third iteration–Forced Exit: Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide, and the New Duty to Die.
Derek Humphry
Derek Humphry

Perhaps that is why I am always a bit surprised that others are surprised at the tragic consequences that flow from death cult advocacy. Now, in Australia, Philip Nitschke has lost his medical license. Having traveled there to expose this ghoul–I helped end his importation of suicide bags into Australia–my only question is: What took the authorities so damn long?
Why take his license? From The Australian story that discusses the “death coaching” among a large segment of the movement:
The term “death coaching” is how Judi Taylor describes the tragic suicide of her 26-year-old son Lucas in a deserted park in Germany. “It was death-coaching, not life coaching, that killed him,” says the Melbourne mother of three sons.
Lucas, a talented linguist, ended his life after taking an -euthanasia drug he had bought in Peru. Judi Taylor says her son’s every step and every instruction – and strong encouragement – came from a Peaceful Pill online forum run by Exit International, the pro-euthanasia lobby group run by now-suspended medical practitioner Philip Nitschke.
Jack Kevorkian
Jack Kevorkian

Take a look into the death cult world of Nitschke, Derek Humphry (founder of the Hemlock Society), the Final Exit Network, and Jack Kevorkian, among others:
It is the case of Lucas Taylor, whose unpublicised suicide -occurred in April 2012, and his mother’s detailed plea to the medical board that may have sealed Dr Nitschke’s fate. Lucas spent many hours chatting online with fellow paid-up members of Exit Inter-national, who are sent an ebook copy of Dr Nitschke’s writing on euthanasia as part of their fee.
It was a secretive world that Judi Taylor discovered only after his death, when she and her -remaining sons hacked into his computer, found his Peaceful Pill forum password and began reading a bizarre and grim litany of -online conversations. “There seemed to be hundreds of people busying talking to each other about the best methods to commit suicide,” she says. “Lucas mentioned in his posts that he’d learned about importing illegal drugs and what airports to use.
One person would say: ‘Oh, Nembutal’s the way to go.’ They’d discuss whether the best place to go was China or Peru. “It seemed to be peer-to-peer communication, and in all the hundreds of messages nobody was saying they had a terminal illness…

Because assisted suicide/euthanasia isn’t about “terminal illness” and never has been.
It is important to note that Nitschke is not a pariah in the international assisted suicide movement. He is a rock star. He has often spoke at big “right to die” events, including past biannual conventions of the The World Federation of Right to Die Societies. (This year, Derek Humphry–who published the newsletters that helped lead Frances to the grave and whose advocacy has led to dead teenagers–will be an honored speaker. It’s what they all are.)

Media love Nitschke too (and Humphry, and Kevorkian, etc.). I recall debating him on CNN, and in the moments before we went live, the producer effusively thanked him for appearing on the show: “Thank you, Dr. Nitschke! Oh, thank you for being with us! Thank you!” I am not exaggerating. It made me sick.

So does the euthanasia movement. Some advocates present a far more sophisticated approach than Nitschke, Humphry, and Kevorkian. But scratch beneath the veneer, they are all part of the same death cult, promoting in different versions, the same death coaching.

Editor’s note. This appeared on Wesley’s great blog.

Source: NRLC News

Media Bias


Where have we heard this before? Pro-abortionists shunning “pro-choice” label

By Dave Andrusko
Cover of the January 2013 issue of Time magazine

Wait a minute. Didn’t we just write about this? Yes, we did, in January 2013. (See; and
Like a snake shedding an old skin, pro-abortionists were keen to be free of the “pro-choice” label. Now—coincidentally with mid-term elections rapidly approaching—once again we read in the Abortion Industry’s in-house newspaper, the New York Times, that “Advocates Shun ‘Pro-Choice’ to Expand Message.”

Planned Parenthood was the moving force in 2013. Citing the results of focus groups, Planned Parenthood said its “newest messaging will be moving away from the language of choice.” According to Anna North, writing at
“Rather than selecting a new term to replace ‘pro-choice,’ Planned Parenthood hopes to move beyond such terms entirely and present abortion as something too complicated to be divided into two sides. A soon-to-be-released Planned Parenthood video takes this new approach, casting labels like pro-life and pro-choice as limiting and abortion as a complex and personal decision.
“We just don’t know a woman’s specific situation,’ says the ad (not yet online). ‘We’re not in her shoes.’”

There wasn’t unanimity last year, nor is there total consensus on dropping “pro-choice” this year. You have to read Jackie Calmes’ story from yesterday carefully to understand why the renewed emphasis.
The first explanation—and most illuminating–is that “advocates say that the term pro-choice, which has for so long been closely identified with abortion, does not reflect the range of women’s health and economic issues now being debated.” Moreover, they add, nor “does it speak to a new generation of young women, who tell pollsters that they reject political labels — not least one that dates back four decades, to the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to abortion.”

What does that mean in English?
That the tread on the pro-choice tire is almost completely gone. That more and more Americans self-identify as pro-life, including younger women. And that the Planned Parenthoods are desperate to branch out their interminably stupid “war on women” mantra by talking less and less about abortion and more and more about “women’s health.”

(What doesn’t get discussed, and which is keenly important, is that today’s woman—feminist, post-feminist, traditionalist—has long since grown weary of the victimization game. Conjuring up images of coat-hangers and ‘back-alley abortions’ is both insulting and hugely off-putting.)
What else in Calmes’ story? Pro-abortionists tried to persuade themselves that even though more and more people (male and female) are identifying as pro-life, that didn’t mean they were in favor of limitations. Of course, this also manages to miss that many who self-identify as “pro-choice” are quite willing to support at least some protections, if not many.

“But such results,” Calmes wrote, “also showed the weakness of the pro-choice label, advocates and pollsters said.” So, in accordion-like fashion, they expanded to include different labels, all of which had the (intended) effect of putting less and less emphasis on abortion.
What does it say about pro-abortionists that they are giving up “One of the most enduring labels of modern politics — pro-choice”? Calmes gently describes the change away from this meaningless label as a result of it having “fallen from favor, a victim of changed times and generational preferences.”

A more direct way of saying it would be that “pro-choice” is passé. An even clearer description would be that at a time when pro-lifers are succeeding on so many levels, the label is too closely associated with support for abortion.

Source: NRLC News

Pro Abortion Legislation


Another deeply deceptive pro-abortion bill introduced, this time in Pennsylvania

By Maria Gallagher, Legislative/PAC Director, Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation
ProlifeONGYNSThe abortion industry and its allies incessantly insist that pro-lifers are waging a “War on Women.” But as a new bill in Pennsylvania illustrates once more, it is pro-abortionists who habitually treat women as if they are too immature to be told the truth about abortion and its risks.
The weapon of choice, in this case, is a deceptively named Pennsylvania bill called the “Patient Trust Act.”
House Bill 2303 is sponsored by known abortion advocate Rep. Dan Frankel (D-Allegheny County). The Senate version, Senate Bill 1456, is sponsored by a one-time pro-life legislator who is now running for Lieutenant Governor on a pro-abortion platform, Senator Mike Stack (D-Philadelphia County).

The sponsors, who are being championed by a pro-abortion blog which partners with the nation’s largest abortion operation, Planned Parenthood, claim they are trying to rid the doctor-patient relationship of “politics.” In fact, the “Patient Trust Act” is political from beginning to end.
The bill states that health care practitioners should not be required to provide information to a patient that is not “medically accurate.” The legislation also says that the government should not require a health professional to perform a medical service that is not “evidence-based.”
Who could argue with that? If they are not properly informed, even pro-life legislators might be deceived into sponsoring it.

But the devil is in the details.
In their quest for legitimacy, the sponsors are pointing to a report by the National Partnership for Women & Families, which claims that a political agenda is “undermining women’s health care.”
One problem here. The group has a radically pro-abortion political agenda of its own. The organization—and the legislation’s sponsors—are upset with common sense protective laws that inform women about the risks of abortion. That is their real aim—to prevent women from obtaining critical information about abortion-related health risks.

And this points to the radical nature of the pro-abortion movement. They want to declare an information blackout in abortion facilities. They want to ignore scientifically-based research showing that abortion can increase a woman’s risk of sterility, substance abuse, depression, and premature delivery of subsequent babies. If a woman knows that, she might think twice about having an abortion—and that could hurt the abortion facilities’ bottom line.

Keeping women uninformed leaves them vulnerable—weak, rather than empowered. Beware of “patient trust” legislation which may be coming to your state. It’s not about good medicine. It’s about preventing the kinds of protective laws which can help women make sound health decisions that positively impact themselves and their families.

Source: NRLC News



Infamous abortionist Brigham in court again trying to get suspended license back

By Dave Andrusko
Abortionist Steven Brigham
Abortionist Steven Brigham

It’s important to remember that long before there was abortionist Kermit Gosnell, convicted of three counts of first-degree murder, there were plenty of abortionists who were so outrageous even their Abortion Industry brethren tried to separate themselves from them.
As good (actually bad) as example as you are likely to ever find is Steven Brigham. He is, alas, back in the news again.

You have to remember that Brigham has lost his medical license in multiple states. Currently he is fighting to regain his license in New Jersey which has been temporarily suspended.
Writing for The [New Jersey] Star-Ledger, Susan K. Livio told her readers that last Friday, Brigham’s attorney asked a judge “to consider his client a target of ‘selective enforcement’ who thought he was following accepted medical practices.”

That was the second half of the lead sentence.
The first half explained why his license had been suspended: “for starting late-term abortions in his South Jersey office and sending five women to Maryland to finish the procedure.”
(Last year, The Philadelphia Inquirer’s Marie McCullough put it more bluntly in another of her thorough investigative stories of Brigham: “Three years ago, New Jersey suspended it [his license] when he was caught – after a critically injured patient went to the police – doing what he was disciplined for in the mid-1990s: starting late-term abortions in New Jersey and finishing them in another state.”)

Why would Brigham do that? “The Attorney General’s Office claimed Brigham had used the two-state practice to evade New Jersey law prohibiting doctors from performing abortions after the 14th week of a patient’s last menstrual period outside a hospital or other licensed medical facility,” Livio explained.

To no avail Deputy Attorneys General Joshua Bengal and Gezim Bajrami asked Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin “to consider Brigham’s history in New York, where his license was revoked for similar offenses in 1994, and in Pennsylvania, where two clinics were cited and shut down after the doctor voluntarily placed his license on ‘permanent inactive status,’” Livio wrote.
Masin’s explanation? Brigham has yet to give up his Pennsylvania license (the case is still in ligation) and because (Livio explained) “it wouldn’t be fair to consider his New York revocation because the New Jersey judge disagreed with that ruling in 1996 and Brigham kept his license.”
However, Brigham’s attorney, Joseph Gorrell, did bring up Brigham’s Pennsylvania track record, Livio wrote, “but only as evidence of selective enforcement. . .to explain why all of this really happened.’” (Gorrell alluded to Brigham being an “easy target for pro-life advocates.”)

Saying that it was too late in the trial to bring up such a defense, Masin said no. “We would have to have a full-scale hearing. I don’t see any basis for allowing that at all,” Masin said.
According to Livio, Masin said he expected to rule “shortly.” Masin’s decision “would then be the subject of a medical board hearing to decide whether to adopt the findings.”

Source: NRLC News

Safe Haven


Labrador finds abandoned baby on side of road, umbilical cord still attached

By Dave Andrusko
24 Hour News 8’s Henry Erb speaks to Jeff Kopp, who along with his dog Bobby found a newborn on the side of the road near Diamond Lake.
24 Hour News 8’s Henry Erb speaks to Jeff Kopp, who along with his dog Bobby found a newborn on the side of the road near Diamond Lake.

Mid-morning on Monday Jeff Kopp of White Cloud, Michigan, was walking Bobby, his black Labrador mix, when the dog pulled him down the road and toward a satellite dish.
Kopp told WOOD-TV that he normally doesn’t walk along Marion Road but that Bobby “seemed to be on a mission.”

The dog sniffed at something near the dish and when Kopp came closer he realized that what he first thought was a rabbit was actually a baby.
The baby, her umbilical cord still attached, was lying on her side “in the fetal position.” (She might have been out there as long as six hours, according to Lt. Chad Palmiter of the Newaygo County Sheriff’s Department.)
WOOD-TV reported that Kopp called to a neighbor to call 911 and shouted for his wife and daughter, Cathleen Neal.

“He hollered for myself and my mother to get a blanket or a towel because he just found a baby,” Cathleen said. Initially the baby was not crying or moving.
Once she was picked up and wrapped in the blanket, “then eventually she started to cry and we knew that she was OK,” Kopp said. “It was a relief to me because I knew she was alive.”
When emergency responders arrived the baby was conscious and breathing, although she had some bruises and scrapes. She was taken to Gerber Memorial Hospital in Fremont.
According to published reports, later on Monday, authorities were able to find the child’s teenage mother. The sheriff’s office said she was taken to the hospital for evaluation.
Before she was identified as the baby’s mother, the teenager had come outside, Cathleen Neal explained.

“When the young lady came out and asked us what was going on and I told her, she just made it seem like she didn’t know what was going on, but yet she was the one who had the baby,” Neal said.
“I know she’s a young girl, but she’s not stupid, so it really makes me wonder why,” Neal said of the baby’s mother. “It’s just really hard to believe. It’s really hard to believe that someone would do that.”
She told WOOD-TV that she thought the teen was probably “scared to death” and didn’t know what to do. “There are other options,” Neal said.

According to the television station, “Michigan has a ‘safe haven’ law that allows a person to anonymously surrender an infant within 72 hours of birth to an Emergency Service Provider, like a hospital, or police or fire station. In 2013, 11 infants were surrendered, according to the Michigan Department of Human Services.”

Source: NRLC News

Tuesday, July 29, 2014



Baby Ziah, declared dead eight minutes after birth, “comes back to life”

By Dave Andrusko
Nikkita Pereira and Baby Ziah
Nikkita Pereira and Baby Ziah

The British publication The Daily Mail is a seemingly inexhaustible source for stories of babies (and moms) who beat incredible odds to survive.

Add to that joyous litany Nikkita Pereira whose son Ziah was delivered by emergency Caesarean section and pronounced dead eight minutes after his birth. The story, written by Lizzie Parry, ran today, although Ziah’s saga actually took place in 2012.

First the background. Ms. Pereira had been in labor for 28 hours at The Royal Free Hospital in London when doctors determined Ziah’s heartbeat was fading with every contraction. (It turned out that the umbilical cord had wrapped around Ziah’s neck in the womb.)
With only minutes to work with, they quickly delivered him by C-Section but he was not breathing.
“The silence was deafening as doctors spent eight minutes frantically trying to get him to breathe,” Parry wrote.
“Then I heard the doctor announce his time of death as 11.02am,” Pereira told Parry. “I felt as if my own heart stopped that very instant too, I was completely crushed. It’s difficult to express in words how painful it was – I couldn’t bear the thought that I’d never get to know my son.”
Then “Just as I was about to give up, a miracle happened – Ziah drew a deep breath and burst into tears,” Pereira said. “When I heard him cry it was like I was breathing again.”
She told Parry that not a day goes by “where I don’t thank my lucky stars for her son.” Ziah is now 2 ½ “and every day feels like a miracle.”

Source: NRLC News

Media Bias


Pro-abortion lobby has no convincing answers to the scandal of sex-selective abortion

By Dave Andrusko
Julie Bentley
Julie Bentley

When the leader of Britain’s oldest pro-abortion group, the Family Planning Association, admitted she was “struggling” with the issue of sex-selective abortion, it was a rare admission by a self-described “pro-choice feminist” that aborting children because they are female is an almost intolerable dilemma.

Julie Bentley, as is required by pro-abortionists, denounced the investigative reporting by the Daily Telegraph which found that abortion clinics were willing to abort on the basis of the baby’s sex without a second thought. Clinicians admitted they were prepared to falsify paperwork to arrange the abortions even though it is illegal to conduct such ‘sex-selection’ procedures. Without getting into the substance of the findings, Bentley writes of the “hysterical demonization of abortion professionals.”
Bentley, between the lines, also concedes that there are virtually no limitations under the 1967 Abortion Act. Strangely, she tells us that “Abortion is a red herring,” presumably because women can abort for any reason or no reason. Bentley then gets to the nub of her column: “We should be asking ourselves, why? Why are women requesting to abort female foetuses?”
She understands and recites the historical and cultural reasons before pondering what (for pro-abortion feminists) is the imponderable:

On the one hand, a woman may well be facing familial pressure to abort a female, so shouldn’t “pro-choice feminists” get out of the way so she can get a “safe, legal abortion?”
On the other hand, Bentley wrote, if “pro-choice feminists” accept sex-selection abortion, ”are we also indirectly colluding with unacceptable discrimination? And therefore, allowing it to go on unchallenged for generations to come”?

At the end of her column, Bentley told her readers, “I don’t think there are simple answers to dilemmas of this complexity.” This reminds the reader of what she said at the beginning: that asking this question “doesn’t make me a hypocrite or water down my pro-choice values. But it does mean I’m asking myself some really difficult questions.”

Anthony Ozimic of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) may have put it best when he said, “Ms. Bentley’s admission proves that the pro-abortion lobby has no convincing answers to the scandal of sex-selective abortion.”

Source: NRLC News

Abortion and Breast Cancer Link


Scientific Review of 72 Epidemiological Studies, Biological Evidence Supports Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

By Karen Malec, President, Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
no_abortion_talkreA scientific review conducted by Angela Lanfranchi, MD and Patrick Fagan, Ph.D., found that support for an abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link exists in current knowledge of breast physiology (as it is presented in standard medical texts), as well as epidemiological and experimental research. The review, published in Issues in Law and Medicine, is entitled, “Breast cancer and induced abortion: A comprehensive review of breast development and pathophysiology, the epidemiologic literature, and proposal for creation of databanks to elucidate all breast cancer risk factors.”[1]

Lanfranchi is Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery at the Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. Fagan is the Director of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute.
Among 72 epidemiological studies they reviewed, the authors explained:
“…21 show some positive, statistically significant relationship. Seven studies show a positive, marginally significant link between induced abortion and breast cancer. Of three meta-analyses on the subject, two show a positive, statistically significant link between induced abortion and breast cancer. Two ecological epidemiological studies show a relationship between induced abortion and breast cancer. These studies have been conducted over fifty years across multiple cultures and countries….”[2]

The authors explained that surging pregnancy hormones (mostly estrogen) stimulate breast growth during the first months of pregnancy, leaving the breasts with an increase in cancer-susceptible Type 1 and Type 2 lobules (where most cancers are known to originate). If the mother carries her pregnancy to 32 weeks, her risk sharply declines because she has matured a sufficient number of lobules into permanently cancer-resistant Type 4 lobules; and she has acquired 90% of the risk reduction associated with a full term pregnancy. The authors said this evidence explains why other well-accepted reproductive risk factors raise risk including childlessness, premature birth before 32 weeks and second trimester miscarriages.[3]

The authors identified methods that are being used in gravely flawed studies that result in either an underestimate or the elimination of the risk: i.e., failure to follow women for a minimum of eight to 10 years after an abortion so that cancers are detectable; excluding breast cancer patients and women with histories of breast cancer; excluding consideration of women who died of the disease; confining their analyses to young women in their reproductive years; only comparing childless aborting women with childless never-pregnant women, instead of making the comparison with childbearing women (who are at reduced risk for breast cancer); and ignoring the effects of highly carcinogenic abortions (i.e., abortions occurring before first full term pregnancy, before age 18 or after age 30; abortions among women with a family history of breast cancer; and second trimester abortions).
The National Cancer Institute concluded after its 2003 workshop that abortion is not associated with breast cancer. But Lanfranchi and Fagan said the NCI’s conclusion contradicts not only epidemiological evidence of a link, but also accepted reproductive risks for breast cancer listed in standard texts including premature birth before 32 weeks gestation, delayed first full term pregnancy and childlessness.[4]
The authors analyzed the evidence in light of the nine criteria that Sir Austin Bradford Hill recommended in 1965. These guidelines are used to help determine whether a cause-effect relationship exists between a potential risk factor and a disease. After demonstrating that all nine criteria have been met, Lanfranchi and Fagan concluded:

“We see that many studies of induced abortion demonstrate significant associations, across multiple cultures and with some apparent specificity of cause (hormone exposure). The association manifests itself in the appropriate order, demonstrates a dose effect, is biologically plausible and coherent with existing science and has been demonstrated by analogy.”[5]
ABC link critics claim that recall bias is a flaw in research supporting a link. But they conveniently ignore studies that are free of any possibility of recall bias, including a prospective study on women in New York and two ecological studies.[6-8] Lanfranchi and Fagan called the recall bias hypothesis “unproven.”

In order to expand knowledge of the link, the authors recommended the establishment of a tissue bank and the development of a research data network located in existing mammography screening centers that would collect standardized data on forms concerning women’s reproductive, hormonal and breast histories that would include all potential risk factors.
Editor’s note. The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women’s organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.

1. Lanfranchi A & Fagan P. Breast cancer and induced abortion: A comprehensive review of breast development and pathophysiology, the epidemiologic literature, and proposal for creation of databanks to elucidate all breast cancer risk factors. Issues in Law and Medicine 2014;29(1):1-133. Available at: <>.
2. Ibid, p. 101.
3. Ibid, p. 102.
4. Ibid, p. 100.
5. Ibid, p. 103.
6. Howe HL, Senie RT, Bzduch H, Herzfeld P. Early abortion and breast cancer risk among women under age 40. Int J Epidemiol 1989;18:300-304.
7. Remennick L. Reproductive patterns and cancer incidence in women: A population-based correlation study in the USSR. International Journal of Epidemiology 1989;18(3):498-510.
8. Carroll, P. The breast cancer epidemic: modeling and forecasts based on abortion and other risk factors.” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Vol. 12, No. 3 (Fall 2007) 72-78. Available at: <>.

Source: NRLC News

Parental Involvement


Parental notification law drives down teen abortions in Minnesota

Supreme Court ruling 24 years ago opened the door to similar lifesaving measures

Editor’s note. I did not see this when it first ran last month, but the importance of this post from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life needs to be shared.
MCCLParentalNotice2014MINNEAPOLIS—Teen abortions in Minnesota have declined dramatically since the state enacted a law requiring parental notification before minors undergo abortions. Tomorrow [June 25] is the 24th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding Minnesota’s parental notification requirement.

The law (MN Statute 144.343), strongly supported by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), was passed by the Legislature with large bipartisan majorities in 1981. It requires that both parents be notified at least 48 hours before an abortion is performed on a minor girl. The measure includes a judicial bypass procedure, which is required by the courts, and exceptions for rare cases.
Minnesota’s law was in place until 1986, when it was enjoined by a federal district court. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually ruled on June 25, 1990, in the case of Hodgson v. Minnesota, upholding both the two-parent and 48-hour requirements. The law went back into effect that year.

“Our Minnesota law and the Supreme Court decision affirming it helped open the floodgates for more state parental involvement laws,” commented MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach. “Strong evidence shows that these laws, among other factors, reduce the incidence of teen abortions.”

The annual number of minor abortions in Minnesota peaked at 2,327 in 1980, the year before the parental notification law first went into effect. Teen abortions then began to steadily decline. Since 1989, the last full year before the Supreme Court ruling, abortions performed on minors have dropped 71.7 percent. In 2012 (the latest year for which data is available), minor abortions fell to 403, the lowest number on record (statistics for minors go back to 1975) and only 3.8 percent of all abortions.
Despite clear public support for parental involvement laws, they are opposed by abortion advocacy groups, including Planned Parenthood, and by Gov. Mark Dayton, who co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act as a U.S. senator. That measure would have eliminated virtually all state abortion laws, including Minnesota’s parental notification requirement. Dayton also voted twice against legislation to require parental notice when a minor is taken across state lines for an abortion, circumventing the law in the state where she lives.

“Parental involvement laws don’t just save unborn lives from abortion,” noted Fischbach. “They reflect the commonsense principle that parents are responsible for their kids and that kids need their parents. To exclude parents, especially at a time of crisis, would be a tremendous disservice to children. Yet that is precisely what Gov. Dayton wants to do.”

Source: NRLC News

Planned Parenthood


PPFA Cecile Richards’ interview with Bill Moyers: The “rest of the story”

By Dave Andrusko
Bill Moyers interviewing Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards
Bill Moyers interviewing Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards

Understandably so, pro-lifers have paid the most attention to PPFA President Cecile Richards’ bizarre comparison of abortion to a colonoscopy in a July 18 interview with Bill Moyers. But if you either saw the program (which I did not) or read the transcript (which I just did, you know there was no comparison too absurd, no hyperbole too hot for this pro-abortion tandem.
Here are just a few nuggets at As you would expect from Moyers, many comments are snarky, snide, and over the top.
#1. “Thanks to a sustained legal strategy in particular, which includes achieving a Supreme Court majority of five conservative Catholic men, all appointed by Republican presidents, they have been inching toward success.” Moyers loves to hammer “conservative Catholics,” conservative Catholic men even more.

Is it somehow un-American to have a “sustained legal strategy”?” To name just two examples, how did pro-abortionists overthrow the laws of all 50 states (in Roe v. Wade) if not by use of a “sustained legal strategy”? More benignly, how did African Americans overturn separate but equal laws except by “a sustained legal strategy”?

#2. Every chance Moyers gets he conflates passage of protective state laws with individual acts of violence decades-old and condemned by pro-lifers then and ever since. They are not alternative “tactics.” Passing laws is wholly legitimate, violence wholly illegitimate.

#3. Moyers does ask, “Is it conceivable to you that your opponents have won the moral argument, that is they’ve convinced enough people in conservative circles that abortion is morally wrong, leaving politicians that you talk about no choice but to go where the voters lead?” Richards, of course, vehemently disagrees, but it is interesting that Moyers (who more than once talks about pro-choicers losing) even raises the possibility.
Of course, pro-life legislation wouldn’t be passing in many parts of the country if only “conservatives” believed abortion is “morally wrong.” If you look at data from Gallup and Rasmussen—to name just two—shows that a majority believes abortion is morally wrong while only about a third believe it is morally right.

#4. From then on, every question is in Richards’ wheelhouse. “Do you really think that Women’s Health Protection Act that was debated this week could undo some of the damage being caused by this onslaught of regulations?” To which Richards responds, “Absolutely.”
Here is one of the clearest examples of pro-abortion abracadabra in the interview. As we have documented at NRL News Today, the law is better described as the “Abortion Without Limits Until Birth Act.” In testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee [], NRLC President Carol Tobias patiently explained why the measure is even more radical than the infamous Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). She said
“Having failed, in many cases, to persuade the federal courts to strike down the laws they dislike, the extreme abortion advocates now come to Congress and demand that this federal pro-abortion statutory bulldozer be unleashed to scrape everything flat.
“The bill would subject any law or government policy that affects the practice of abortion, even indirectly, to an array of sweeping legal tests, designed to guarantee that almost none will survive. The general rule would be that any law that specifically regulates abortion would be presumptively invalid. The same would be true of any law that is not abortion-specific but has the effect or claimed effect of reducing access to abortion.
“It is apparent that those who crafted this bill believe that, where abortion is involved, immediate access to abortion, at any stage of pregnancy, is the only thing that matters.”
And, finally,

#5. Moyers asks
“What is your response to what some of your opponents say that abortion is vastly different from other procedures and therefore needs higher medical standards? Is there any merit in that argument?”
Richards answers,
“Absolutely none. I mean, again, abortion is one of the safest medical procedures in the country.”
Requiring “Higher medical standards” than for what? In many locales, tanning salons are more closely regulated than abortion clinics. In the post-Gosnell era, does anyone who does not draw a check from the Abortion Industry really believe that the “problem” is over-regulation?
Which brings us back to abortion as equivalent to a colonoscopy.
I don’t suppose anyone should be surprised. This really IS how Richards thinks and speaks.
We should also remember (as noted in #2) that the objective of the hyperventilating rhetoric is to make it as difficult as possible for pro-life people to peacefully, legally work to change laws, or indeed even to exercise their freedom of conscience not to be involved in any way with abortion.
The Cecile Richardses of this world have one goal: ever more abortions. And that requires silencing opposing voices—you and me.

Source: NRLC News

Monday, July 28, 2014

Planned Parenthood


Cecile Richards compares abortion to colonoscopies

Planned Parenthood has been desperate for a long time to make themselves out to be purveyors of women’s health care, when really, their business revolves around — what else? — abortion. Oh, sure, they like to pretend that they care about things besides abortion. They certainly do offer other services, but their own annual report shows that abortion is their bread and butter.
According to their annual report, abortion makes up 94% of their pregnancy “services”, and the number of abortions they performed has increased over the years, while their other health care services have decreased. It’s all about the money for Planned Parenthood, and abortion sure is lucrative. That’s why they have required all Planned Parenthood affiliates to perform abortions, causing them to subsequently lose affiliates that actually did care about health care. What abortion is not, is PR-friendly. People don’t like abortion. So Planned Parenthood has to pretend they actually care about women’s health, even lying about the services they perform. (Remember the mammogram debacle?)

So it’s kind of cute — and by cute, I actually mean enraging — to see Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards try to compare abortion to actual necessary medical procedures. In an interview with Bill Moyers, Richards compared women getting abortions to men getting colonoscopies, asking us to imagine if men had to endure protests in order to get medical procedures performed. Because war on women!
BILL MOYERS: What do you think will come from the court’s junking of the 35-foot buffer zone?
CECILE RICHARDS: Well, we’re already seeing in Massachusetts that absolutely, immediately after that decision eliminating the buffer zone we had record numbers of protesters outside of the following women all the way up to the door of our health center in Massachusetts. These are not all kindly, elderly ladies simply whispering in the ears.
And even if they were, it is the right of women in this country to be able to access healthcare that they need without harassment and without the advice of dozens of people outside their health center. I mean, can you imagine if, you know, if men in this country, before going into their doctor had to walk through a gauntlet of protesters telling them, you know, whether it’s not to get a colonoscopy or just go down the list? It’s incredible.
MOYERS: Is there a war on women? Or has that become a convenient metaphor?
RICHARDS: It’s not a term I use. But in some ways, if the shoe fits, you know, I feel like I don’t like to think there’s a war on women. But the evidence is that there is certainly within some, certainly some elements of the Republican party, and unfortunately a lot of the leadership, and a lot of politicians in this country, folks who are uncomfortable, I believe, with women being equal in America.
Does anyone else find it revealing that Richards equates an unborn child with a person’s bowels?
Anyway, there goes Cecile Richards, trying to turn abortion into “health care” again. See, it’s just so, so wrong for women to have to endure protests on the way to murder the little demon spawn growing inside of them! But let’s just compare abortion to a colonoscopy. A colonoscopy, according to WebMD, is:
Colonoscopy is a test that allows your doctor to look at the inner lining of your large intestine camera.gif (rectum and colon). He or she uses a thin, flexible tube called a colonoscope to look at the colon. A colonoscopy helps find ulcers, colon polyps, tumors, and areas of inflammation or bleeding. During a colonoscopy, tissue samples can be collected (biopsy) and abnormal growths can be taken out. Colonoscopy can also be used as a screening test to check for cancer or precancerous growths in the colon or rectum (polyps).
Sounds pretty important, right? Not only important, but potentially life-saving. Abortion, on the other hand, is the act of killing an unborn child. Dress it up in whatever cheerful euphemisms you want, but that’s what it is. It is almost never medically necessary, despite constant caterwauling from abortion advocates to the contrary. This has become especially fashionable for the abortion lobby to claim regarding late-term abortions — it’s because of health issues with the baby or the mother! — but that’s not true.

Even the pro-abortion, former arm of Planned Parenthood, Guttmacher Institute owns up to the fact that the vast, vast majority of abortions are performed because of convenience. It makes a pleasant talking point, sure, that abortions are mostly performed because of a birth defect or because otherwise the mother will die, but it just isn’t the truth.
So comparing a legitimate and potentially life-saving medical procedure to an elective, almost always unnecessary, procedure that takes the life of an unborn child just doesn’t quite fly. Cecile Richards and her ilk have always tried to deny the unborn of their inherent humanity, calling them “clumps of tissue” or “products of conception”. But comparing a polyp to a fetus?

By the time any abortion is performed, the baby almost surely already has a heartbeat and brain waves, not a useless and potentially cancerous piece of tissue. And the fact that Cecile Richards sees any similarity between the two at all shows just how depraved her mind truly is

Source: LiveAction News

New Radical Bill


Where do Senate Democrats running for election stand on the “Abortion Without Limits Until Birth” Act?

By Andrew Bair
The "Abortion Without Limits Until Birth" bill "seeks to strip away from elected lawmakers the ability to provide even the most minimal protections for unborn children, at any stage of their prenatal development." - National Right to Life President Carol Tobias, testifying against S.1696.
The “Abortion Without Limits Until Birth” bill “seeks to strip away from elected lawmakers the ability to provide even the most minimal protections for unborn children, at any stage of their prenatal development.” – National Right to Life President Carol Tobias, testifying against S.1696.

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on a radical pro-abortion bill (S.1696) sponsored by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Ct.) and promoted by major pro-abortion advocacy groups.
If enacted, the law would nullify virtually all limits on abortion nationwide, including protective measures that enjoy broad public support, including informed consent laws, waiting periods and laws that protect pain-capable unborn children from excruciating abortions late in pregnancy.
The bill, which has been characterized as the “Abortion Without Limits Until Birth” Act, currently has 35 co-sponsors, all Democrats.

With nearly two thirds of Senate Democrats on board with Blumenthal’s plan to expand abortion, the question must be asked: Where do the Democratic candidates running for Senate this fall stand on this legislation?
In the competitive race for Senate in Alaska, incumbent Sen. Mark Begich’s position is clear. He supports tearing down virtually all limits on abortion nationwide as indicated by his signing on as a cosponsor.
Congressman Bruce Braley, who is running for the open Senate seat in Iowa, is a cosponsor of the House version of the bill.
In Kentucky, Democratic nominee Alison Lundergan Grimes told the Huffington Post’s Howard Fineman in 2013 that she was “pro-choice down the line on abortion.”
EMILY’s List, a pro-abortion PAC that backs only female Democratic candidates who embrace abortion-on-demand, is one of Grimes’ biggest financiers, according to the Washington Post.
EMILY’s List is also investing heavily in Michelle Nunn’s candidacy in Georgia. Nunn ran sponsored Facebook posts touting the endorsement from the pro-abortion PAC.
However, as noted in the Wall Street Journal, Democrats running in traditionally red states, like Georgia, have deliberately downplayed their positions on abortion.
Nunn’s campaign has only offered the tired platitude that she would like to see abortion “safe, legal and rare.”  Voters in Georgia deserve to know where she stands on this bill.
Like Nunn, Sen. Kay Hagan in North Carolina is abiding by a similar playbook on abortion. She has not commented on Blumenthal’s bill and has generally dodged the abortion issue.
However, it’s not difficult to draw conclusions based on her record. Hagan, another EMILY’s List beneficiary, has a 0% rating from the National Right to Life Committee, indicating solidly pro-abortion voting record. Most recently, Hagan joined Planned Parenthood in advocating for a bill taking aim at pro-life conscience protections.

Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, another Southern Democrat facing a tough reelection in 2014, has come under fire for saying one thing on abortion and doing another. Pryor’s opponent, pro-life Republican Tom Cotton, has put the issue front and center in the campaign.
Cotton spokesman David Ray said, “Senator Pryor says one thing in Arkansas, and votes the opposite way in Washington. He says he’s pro-choice, then he says he’s pro-life. He says he’s against late-term abortion, but he won’t do anything about it. He says he’s against taxpayer funding of abortion, but he’s voted for it repeatedly. Senator Pryor simply can’t be trusted on this issue.”

Thus far, Sen. Mary Landrieu in Louisiana has avoided discussion of Blumenthal’s “Abortion Without Limits Until Birth” bill. But she has been in the hot seat after indicating she would not support legislation to protect unborn children who are capable of experiencing pain.
Republican Congressman Bill Cassidy, who is running to challenge Landrieu, said she is “clearly pro-abortion rights.” It’s time for Landrieu to inform voters how she would vote on Blumenthal’s bill if brought to a full Senate vote.

In Colorado, Sen. Mark Udall, who is engaged in a tough race against pro-life challenger Rep. Cory Gardner, has not signed on as cosponsor of Blumenthal’s legislation. Udall has repeatedly hit his opponent on abortion in the campaign, attempting to characterize him as extreme on the issue. Voters should demand to know where Udall stands on his colleague’s extreme bill to invalidate longstanding protective measures for unborn children and their mothers.
Sen. Blumenthal told Roll Call in a November interview, “As the election approaches, I think the voters are going to want to know where legislators stand on these issues.”
In her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the bill, National Right to Life President Carol Tobias urged the Senate’s Democratic leadership to agree to a proposal by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) that the Senate hold two votes, one on Blumenthal’s S.1696 and one on Graham’s S.1670, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

“We challenge you, and the leadership of the majority party, to allow the American people to see where every senator stands on both of these major abortion-related bills. Let the American people see which bill reflects the values of each member of the United States Senate—life or death for unborn children?,” said Tobias.

As Americans in key states prepare to elect lawmakers to be their voice in Washington, it’s vital that candidates engage in an honest discussion of where they stand on important issues. No candidate running for Senate should be given a free pass to dodge answering where they stand on Blumenthal’s “Abortion Without Limits Until Birth” bill and Graham’s Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

Source: NRLC News

Saturday, July 26, 2014

Abortion Industry


Dealing—Poorly—with the Stigma of Working in the Abortion Industry

By Dave Andrusko
noshameabortionreSome things never change because they are part of the human condition. And that holds true even for the most inhuman of behaviors–or perhaps especially so–because those actions so cut against the grain of our deepest instincts.

We’re re-posting the revealing quotes Sarah Terzo extracted from a post on a pro-abortion blog. (See “’Abortioneer’ talks about stigma of working in an abortion clinic”)

The title of the piece was “Working 9-5: How We Talk (or Don’t) about Abortion, subtitled “The ins and outs and ups and downs of direct service in the field of abortion care.” It is enormously helpful in understanding the toil exacted from people who work in the abortion industry.
When the author wrote the piece, likely in the back of her mind was the apprehension that someone like me would comment on her ambivalence bordering on depression at working at an abortion clinic. But she had to get it out, especially about the isolation best captured, perhaps, in her comment that “Only recently have I been able to have conversations with my dad about abortion after years of bitter silence.”

You don’t read a lot of these admissions by abortion insiders. Why? In addition to not wanting to provide ammunition to the enemy (us), it’s very difficult to admit there is (as the author of this piece concedes) a “stigma” to trafficking in the blood of unborn babies (obviously my characterization, not hers).

And if you do normal “mommy things” (as she described it) with the mother of your son’s best friend—whom you like—you are loath to come right out and admit that killing is what you do for a living, in case the mother is one of those you-know-who.
One of the very first pieces I ever read about the bottled up turmoil of those who worked in the abortion trade was a piece that appeared in the American Medical News July 12, 1993: “Abortion providers share inner conflicts.”

The story drew on discussions at workshops sponsored by the National Abortion Federation. Over the years I have re-read it several times. Here are the operative three paragraphs that catch the core of their “inner conflicts”:
“The notion that the nurses, doctors, counselors and others who work in the abortion field have qualms about the work they do is a well-kept secret.
“But among themselves—at work, or at meetings with other providers—they talk about how they really feel. About women who come in for ‘repeat’ abortions. About women whose reasons for having abortions aren’t ones they consider valid. About their anger toward women who wait until late in their pregnancies to have elective abortions. And about the feelings they have toward the fetus, especially as gestational age increases.
“They wonder if the fetus feels pain. They talk about the soul and where it goes. And about their dreams, in which aborted fetuses stare at them with ancient eyes and perfectly shaped hands and feet, asking, ‘Why? Why did you do this to me?’”
To return to “Working 9-5: How We Talk (or Don’t) about Abortion,” the author finishes her pep talk/justification by telling us she can live with the protestors and the unappreciative boss and the inability to freely talk about her job. She sticks around because she is “committed to something larger (the ‘work’).” She feels “like I’m making a difference in someone’s life … and I’m motivated by that.”

Wouldn’t it be wonderful—and much easier on her psyche—if she found motivation not by lethally choosing sides, but because she had found a way to make a positive difference in both lives, the mother’s and her unborn child’s?
Likely? No. But it has happened before and it will inevitably happen again
 Source: NRLC News

New Website

The truths not so hidden between the lines of “abortion stories”

By Dave Andrusko
not-alone-2“This New Website Is Encouraging More Women To Talk About Their Abortions” announced the headline to Tara Culp-Ressler’s story at Okay, I thought, let’s read what she has to say and then check out the new website.
The hook for writing the piece, I gather, was that Emily Letts had joined, “an organization encouraging women to talk about their abortions that just launched a new website this week.” (This was a couple of weeks back.)

You’ll remember that Letts, an aspiring actress who works as a counselor at a New Jersey abortion clinic, took it upon herself –from her perspective—to demythologize abortion. Women have to know that having an abortion is as easy as falling off a log and safer than, well, practically anything.
Letts placed second in the Abortion Care Network’s “Stigma Busting” video competition. Her video went viral, and Letts has been giving interviews ever since. Video of what? Her unborn child’s last few minutes.

According to Culp-Ressler, Letts was flooded with correspondence and “she ended up connecting with Beth Matusoff Merfish, who received similar feedback after she published a personal account of her mother’s abortion in the New York Times.“

We wrote about Merfish.  Letts and Merfish clearly are a perfect match.
Merfish didn’t know that her mother had aborted until Merfish was in college. And while it took a few years for that shock to wear off, “knowing made me even more proud of her and more determined to defend reproductive rights.” Pardon?
All it took, apparently, was to be told “that her choice was the right one and that her love for my sister and me was unequivocal” and “My mother said she wanted to reassure me that I had no reason to doubt her support in any situation I might face in my own life.”


It read as if Merfish’s pride in her mother’s willingness to tell her own story trumps what is in that story—the death of an older sibling. As if being told she would stand behind Merfish’s decision to abort her grandchild compensates for the truth that it could have been Merfish who was aborted. As if being assured that her mother’s love was “unequivocal” would wipe away the truth that her love (and that of her fiancé later husband) failed the test when it mattered most.

So it became “clear” to Letts and Merfish, Culp-Ressler writes, “that more people needed an outlet to talk about their experiences in this area. So they decided to team up, and created an online space for women to record and upload their own personal videos about abortion.”
I went to this afternoon. The lead video is of “Emily M” of London, UK. I will visit the site again next week, but here’s three preliminary takeaways.
Like Letts, Emily M tells us she had “unprotected sex” and has ever since she was a teenager. I mention that because both women struggle (however fleetingly in Letts’ case) with what Emily M calls “self-blame.” However, in the final analysis (she was “lucky” to already be in therapy for something else), she tells her viewers that she’d come to understand that “accidents do happen” and that “two people were involved.”

So #1 any notion of adult responsibility is not only foreign to these women, it is, to them, just another form of guilt-tripping that the “culture” insists they endure. The baby is not even an after-thought—except to place his or hers death on the Internet, as grotesquely disrespectful an act as I can imagine.

#2. In explaining her decision, Letts talked about how there was a “YouTube clip of a woman taking the abortion pill “[a chemical abortion], but not surgical abortions. Emily Y had a chemical abortion. Here are a few of her descriptions:
It was “one of the most painful things I’ve ever experienced”; “unbelievable pain”; “insanely painful”; she had bled “for five weeks”; and the physical impact on her body was “absolutely shocking.” She also experiences “chronic pain.”
#3. As is the case with so many of these “abortion stories,” Emily tells us that she slipped into depression almost immediately, crying and crying and crying, although she ends offering the assurance she is “stronger” for having had the abortion and is “at peace with my decision,” having come through “the other side of it.”
And, rest assured, the abortion “has been life-changing.” Among other insights
“And I now feel so much appreciation of being a woman, what my body can do. And I feel a great appreciation of motherhood may one day be, should I should decide to conceive.”
Now she feels a “great deal of responsibility” for her body, the strong hint being you have to “go through something”—the abortion—to “feel differently.”

The conclusion? “Speak, you’re not alone”: you are “strong and will get through this”; and “you have NOTHING to be ashamed for.”
To the proponents of women telling their abortion stories, the central belief is that there is strength in numbers. The more, the merrier.
You would think that (even for them) the one time that theory wouldn’t apply is when the number is 56 million…and counting.
But you would be wrong.
Source: NRLC News



Decoding Hillary Clinton’s interview on NPR’s “On Point”

By Dave Andrusko
HillaryClinton88reYou would think that being in the limelight since the late 1970s, Hillary Clinton would be more adroit in dealing with “the media.” As we talked about a couple of weeks ago, Mrs. Clinton, formerly both a United States senator and Secretary of State, started off her book tour on the wrong foot. Or, more accurately, with foot squarely placed in mouth.

Clinton, like her husband staunchly pro-abortion, took another run at it this week in an interview with NPR’s “On Point,” hosted that night by John Harwood. The interview, understandably, was primarily about her stint as Secretary of State, current foreign policy hotspots, and Harwood’s query “[I]s there a management deficit in this administration?” (Clinton deflected the question, instead blaming “gridlock and opposition to the president that started the first day he went into office”—aka “a political deficit.”)

Harwood ended the interview with a reference to former New York Times editor Jill Abramson’s recent critical characterization of Clinton’s expectations of journalists:
“Last question, Madam Secretary, before we run out of time. It’s about you and the press. Jill Abramson, my longtime boss and friend, said recently, ‘Hillary Clinton has terribly unrealistic expectations for journalists.’ And my question for you is, have you been so scalded by your past interactions that it makes you difficult for you to communicate in the way that you would need to as a presidential candidate or otherwise?”
Clinton answered:
“Well, I don’t think so. I think maybe one of the points Jill was making is that I do sometimes expect more than perhaps I should, and I’ll have to work on my expectations. But I had an excellent relationship with the State Department press that followed me for four years and I enjoyed working with them, and whatever I do in the future, I look forward to having the same kind of opportunities.”
Where to begin?

First, in her interview with POLITICO, what Abramson actually told Gail Sheehy last week was that Clinton was “incredibly unrealistic about journalists. She expects you to be 100 percent in her corner, especially women journalists.” Harwood conveniently left off the second sentence (and particularly the last three words), which is arguably the heart of Abramson’s critique, and certainly the most biting.

Second, far from being “scalded,” most of the time Mrs. Clinton luxuriates in a bath of highly favorably media coverage. She has trouble when she makes the most incredibly insensitive, elitist statements. That is, when she isn’t questioning the competence of reporters, which is not a formula for making friends.

For example, if Clinton had “an excellent relationship with the State Department press that followed me for four years,” what’s the implication?
I wrote about this back in June in “Hillary Clinton, gaffes, and the list of all-purpose excuses.”
Her apologists strongly suggest that her problems (if there actually are any) with the political press is that they are not the sharpest knives in the drawer. Or as Carl Bernstein (who wrote a boilerplate book about Hillary Clinton) put it, “Part of her problem goes to her mistrust, justified in significant measure, of the press, and its difficulty in handling complexity and ambiguity in context.”
That is arguably one of the silliest, most disingenuous comments you will ever read. Hillary Clinton utters these clunkers (such as coming out of the White House dead broke,” indeed in debt) because she’s been forced to reduce “complexity and ambiguity” into language those dolts in the press can handle? Please.

The important thing to remember is that it is significant that even this far out, Clinton is the acknowledged front-runner to be her party’s 2016 presidential nominee. No matter how many gaffes—once memorably defined as “when a politician tells the truth”—Clinton has many protectors in the media and they will do everything possible to explain away her forays into truth-telling.

 Source: NRLC News