United Nations

 

Dustin Siggins  

---

UN report promotes children’s ‘right’ to abortion without notifying parents

A recent report from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) says that laws against abortion, sex work, drugs, and same-sex relationships impinge upon the freedoms and potential of young people.

In the report, which was heavily criticized by C-FAM and the Population Research Institute's Steven Mosher, UNFPA also says that young people worldwide -- including minors -- should have unrestricted freedom to engage in contraceptive sexual intercourse and abortion without parental involvement.

"Emergency contraception is something that adolescents particularly need because they use relatively ineffective methods," the report states. "Another systematic literature review by Denno et al. (2012) shows that the most effective out-of-facility approaches to reaching youth with services include condom distribution via street outreach and promotion of over-the-counter access to emergency contraception.”

Perhaps of most importance to pro-life advocates is the UNFPA's promotion of abortion.
"Age of consent laws that require adolescents to get the permission of a parent or guardian to use a service, or that limit access to people under a certain age, are barriers to information and services for adolescents’ barriers to information and services for adolescents," argued the report. "Despite being signatories to treaties and agreements that call for adolescents to have access to sexual and reproductive health care, many countries have laws or policies that do not allow for unmarried adolescents or minors to have access to contraceptives."

“Adolescents who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy and want to terminate it may be more likely to resort to unsafe abortion knowing that they have to get the permission of their parents or guardian to get a legal abortion,” it adds.

Anne Morse, the Population Research Institute’s media and research coordinator, told LifeSiteNews that "children and teens are vulnerable in ways that adults are not. From child labor laws to child pornography laws, every just society recognizes that it has a duty to protect the vulnerable."
"The UNFPA gives lip-service to this idea," said Morse, "but then betrays it when it advocates to abolish parental consent laws and to make Plan B available over-the-counter to children and teens."

In contrast to Morse, the report says that "age of consent laws are also a barrier when adolescents under 18 want access to HIV testing and counselling, harm-reduction services, such as needle exchange programmes, and other services. Besides blocking access to information and services, these age of consent laws contradict the idea that young people should participate in decisions that affect them in line with their evolving capabilities."

The report cites a UNAIDS report to call pro-life and pro-parent laws "age discrimination," and says that such laws “interfere...with their civic participation, their ability to freely make decisions, and their access to sexuality education and life-saving sexual and reproductive health and HIV services."
According to its website, the UNFPA's mandate is to "[deliver] a world where every pregnancy is wanted, every birth is safe, every young person's potential is fulfilled." Specifically, the UNFPA focuses on "reproductive health, gender equality, and population and development strategies" around the world.

UNFPA has received a great deal of criticism from pro-life and pro-family groups because of their support for abortion, same-sex "marriage," and widespread contraceptive use. C-FAM's analysis of the UNFPA report notes that while the agency acknowledges that parents are the first source of information and advice on sexuality-related issues, it also says that this "does not happen the way it should." Instead, according to UNFPA, many times parents “do not know how to talk to their children about such matters.”

"In total, the UNFPA report asserts that the key to development is ensuring that adolescents’ sexual behavior is unsupervised, unrestricted, publicly funded, and, above all, non-procreative," C-FAM noted. "UNFPA posits that the imposition of sexual anarchy upon youth will ensure their well-being and that of the whole world."
The United States stopped funding the UNFPA over its support for population control policies under President George W. Bush, but its millions in funding were restored after President Obama took office.

Source: LifeSite News

Abortion

 

The Unborn Child: The most vulnerable human life

By Margaret Somerville

Margaret Somerville

The Preamble to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states: “ … Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, ‘the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.’”

Canada is a signatory to this Convention, which imposes obligations on state parties to it to implement its provisions. However, we currently have no law on abortion, that is, no “legal protection (of the child) before … birth.” And many of our politicians, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, do not want to allow even a discussion as to what such “appropriate legal protection” might be.
Legal protection does not require giving rights to an unborn child, or recognizing him or her as a person, or even that the child is human. We use the Criminal Code to protect from cruelty kittens and puppies and baby seals, which have none of these attributes. Surely, we have at least similar obligations to unborn children.

There is an increasing recognition and, at the least, resulting deep concern that past a certain point in gestation abortion is a cause of severe pain for the fetus. There is quality evidence (U.K. research) suggesting the beginnings of pain perception in the fetus at 16 weeks gestation and most researchers agree that is a reality at 20 weeks. In response to this research, ten American states have prohibited abortion after 20 weeks gestation.

Pro-choice advocates contend that there is “nothing to discuss” in relation to the current total absence of law governing abortion in Canada. But, if they are as clearly correct in this regard as they claim, why are they so afraid of having a discussion about it?
I suggest it’s because they know that when we see the unborn child, as we now can with advanced imaging techniques, and even just imagine, let alone see, what abortion involves for it, most of us have an emotional and morally intuitive reaction that this is not an ethically neutral act. That accords with recent research showing that emotions and intuitions are important mechanisms in good ethical decision making.

All abortions raise ethical issues. It’s a further question, however, what law should govern abortion, which is the issue we need to discuss.
As to the argument that the unborn child is not a human being, it is a living being and it’s human, which indicates that it’s a “human being.” A process of elimination results in the same conclusion: an unborn child is not any other species, and it’s not a fantasy or a hallucination. As the recent sex-selection abortion debate in the media has shown us, once we put a focus on the fetus as the youngest, most vulnerable human amongst us, even many pro-choice supporters see abortion in a very different light.

The law operates not only at the level of individual conduct, but also, at institutional and societal levels. It establishes our most important shared values, and norms and basic presumptions.
At present in Canada, uniquely among comparable nations, the basic presumption is “Yes, you may have an abortion”; there are no restrictions, abortion is legal throughout pregnancy. Contrary to pro-choice rhetoric, there is, however, no consensus that this is an acceptable state of affairs.
Surveys show that around two-thirds of Canadians believe that there should be some restrictions on abortion, at the latest at viability of the unborn child (it has some chance of living if born), which the Canadian Medical Association places at 20 weeks gestation.

We know that a large majority of Canadians do not support the opposite presumption, an absolute “No, you must never have an abortion,” being enacted through law.
Which leaves us with a choice for a basic presumption between, “Yes, you may have an abortion, but not if certain factors are present,” and, “No, you may not have an abortion, unless certain conditions are fulfilled.” In terms of values, the latter is more supportive of respect for life and the former of individual autonomy.

To choose which approach should be adopted, we need to have a full, well-informed, serious and mutually respectful debate. It should include considering the shared values that the present lack of law on abortion reflects and that any proposed law would establish. Let’s hope we all, especially our politicians, have the courage and wisdom to engage in this debate.
Margaret Somerville is director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law. This first appeared in The Ottawa Citizen.

Source: NRLC News

Abortionists

 

The abortionist as hero: Part Two

By Dave Andrusko

Late-term abortionists Curtis Boyd and Glenna Halvorson-Boyd

Yesterday, in Part One of “The abortionist as hero,” we talked about Carol Ball, the medical director for Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, who splits her time among Planned Parenthood’s headquarters in St. Paul, Minnesota, Duluth, Minnesota, and the Sioux Falls, South Dakota abortion clinic.

In the fluff piece written by The Los Angeles Times’ Maria L. LaGanga, Ball is a hard-worker, impatiently chafing under pointless pro-life requirements foisted on her and her soul mates by a know-nothing South Dakota legislature and governor. A closer look easily undercuts the abortionist-as-hero profile.

I was actually going to write about another abortionist turned into a saint by an agreeable reporter when a friend forwarded me a story from the British newspaper The Guardian. The subjects of their adoring story are the husband and wife team of Curtis Boyd and Glenna Halvorson-Boyd.
Karen McVeigh has her work cut out for her. The Boyds specialize in late, late abortions. On the webpage of their Southwestern Women’s Options abortion clinic, it states flatly:

Elective Abortion through 28 weeks

Later Abortions for Maternal Indications

Later Abortion for Fetal Indications

(To her credit, McVeigh eventually concedes this has little constituency outside the fringes of the Abortion Movement.)
There is the usual explanation/justification/rationale but Curtis Boyd takes it a step further. When such abortions –late second and third trimester abortions—are performed

“they are always done – always – for very compelling reasons.”

That, of course, isn’t remotely true, as we have discussed in many posts. Indeed, in the documentary “After Tiller,” a tribute to four other abortionists who perform third-trimester abortions, several contrary facts are clear whenever one of the four (Susan Robinson) gave interviews.
For example Robinson routinely undercuts the rationales and rationalizations that are presented as justifications to abort babies who have long since passed the point of viability. As we explained in a 2013 post, Robinson offered a bevy of extenuating circumstances—excuses—to get around the simple truth that she will abort some unspecified percentage of huge, mature babies for reasons most people would not believe are commensurate with the gravity of killing a viable unborn baby.

Then in early October 2013, in another interview, we learned that Robinson did not know about the long list of parents ready to adopt children with Down syndrome and that “I think that the public perceives first of all that late abortion could be completely eliminated if people would only get their act together and have their abortions earlier, which is completely untrue.”
Moreover the criteria for which babies she will abort is hazy, to put it mildly. As Caitriona Palmer, an ultra-sympathetic interviewer put it, “Many others who come to Robinson are carrying fetuses destined to be too ill or disabled to live productive lives outside of the womb.” By “productive lives,” you know Robinson is talking about babies with Down syndrome and babies with maladies that are not fatal.

Back to the Boyds.
Pro-abortionists have the same four or five sound bites. Legislation that gives women a moment to breathe before making a life and death decision is to treat them as ”idiots,” an inability of opponents “to accept women as fully responsible citizens,” to quote Glenna Halvorson-Boyd.
And, of course, there is no such thing—ever—as a negative aftermath of an abortion. Check that: on those rare, rare, rare occasions that there are, it’s because of preexisting conditions in the woman—aka, blaming the victim. Boyds are fond of such nonsensical non-sequiturs.
In a very revealing exchange, Boyd takes the opportunity to…clarify….what he had said previously, which has been quoted back at him countless times.

Sure, he said, when asked, “Am I killing? Yes. I know that.” But that was taken out of context, he told McVeigh.

“They [the interviewer] said murder. Murder is a legal definition. I said yes, it’s killing, but it is not murder.”

Oh.
One other point of many that could be made. Naturally anyone who peacefully protests outside their abortion clinic is to be dismissed. But notice what one woman, whose baby is “post 22 weeks,” says:

“They yelled at me. They said, ‘We’ll help you find somebody to adopt your baby.’ They had signs and pictures up at that gestational age. It was pretty nasty.”

It was “pretty nasty” to offer to help to find a couple to adopt her baby, or to show a representative photo of a baby the same age as the baby she was about to abort?

The headline to the story is, “‘I can’t think of a time when it was worse’: US abortion doctors speak out.” It’s “worse” not just because of the many pro-life laws passed in the past two years, but because it—meaning us—was supposed to go away. Here is the conclusion:

When Roe v Wade made abortion legal, [Curtis Boyd] was jubilant. “We thought we had won, it was over. At that time, the media mocked these crazy anti-abortion groups. They were not taken seriously.”

The Boyds never believed they would still be in the abortion business 43 years later. “We thought [by now] it would be available in every family practice, that there would be no resistance Every medical school would be teaching it.” Now, Curtis says, “We wake up and think, ‘My God what has happened?’”

Maybe what’s happened is that the American people are waking up to the ghastliness of not just what the Boyds are doing to huge unborn babies, but to the savagery which is abortion at any stage.

Source: NRLC News

Tragedy

 

Voiceless in life, Robert Gensiak’s mourners determined his voice will be heard

Mr. Gensiak weighed 69 pounds when he died at age 32

By Dave Andrusko
The unfortunate truth is that while we run many uplifting, soul-nourishing stories on NRL News Today, the anti-life cancer, which has long since metastasized, continues to claim additional victims beyond 1.1 million unborn babies who lives are taken each year.

We’ve written three times about Robert Gensiak, who died an unspeakably brutal death, starved to the point where his bones showed through by his mother and sisters. His “crime”? To be defenseless. He had Down syndrome.

He weighed 69 pounds at his death; the local newspaper chose not to print photos “as a matter of taste.” Mr. Gensiak’s shriveled remains were cremated.
As the prosecutors made abundantly clear at trial, he was nothing more than a meal ticket to his sisters and mother.

They told the police the day after he died (in response to how his health had so badly deteriorated) they were “concern[ed] that if they placed Mr. Gensiak in a personal care facility, the financial support they received from his Social Security benefits would dry up.” According to Joseph Kohut of the Times-Tribune of Scranton, “Before the end of the interview, investigators said Mr. Gensiak’s mother asked if she would still receive her son’s Social Security check even though he died.”
In June 2013, Lackawanna County District Attorney Andy Jarbola described Mr. Gensiak’s death as “the worst case of neglect I’ve seen the last 26 years. …This family, the mother and two sisters, basically let this young man rot to death.”
A columnist for the Times Tribune has written several times about Mr. Gensiak, with equal parts eloquence and anger. Chris Kelly is determined that neither Mr. Gensiak himself nor the inhumanity his kin displayed toward him will be forgotten.

Kelly began his column today with a quote from the Old Testament:

“Learn to do right; seek  justice. Defend the oppressed…” — Isaiah 1:17

Yesterday the Arc of Northeast Pennsylvania dedicated a plaque to Mr. Gensiak, a photo of which we’ve included with this post. It reads simply

“Robert Gensiak, 2013, Every voice shall be heard.”

“We felt so bad for Robert,” Arc Executive Director Don Broderick said, Kelly reported. “He didn’t have a voice in life, and we wanted to give him one in death. He suffered tremendously at the hands of his family.”

Kelly writes,

Robert’s plaque is about the size of a shoebox, set in stone. Someone at the ceremony lamented that it looked like a grave marker. I said that was fitting, because Robert doesn’t have one. He never even had an obituary.

His mother, Susan Gensiak, is serving 10 to 20 years. Sister Joan “got five to 10 years for a neglect charge and one to five years for endangering the welfare of a child,” Kelly explained. [Like Robert Gensiak, “Her daughter, Robert’s niece, was also infested with scabies.”]

The youngest sister, Rebekah, testified against her mother and sister. Her sentence was six to 23 months.
Kelly concluded this column, which I strongly suspect it will not be his last about Mr. Gensiak and the cruelty of his family, with this:

We don’t know what Robert liked, what made him happy, what he dreamed about or even what he looked like. The only pictures of him appear to be autopsy photos. All they tell about Robert is how much he suffered.

A small ceremony of remembrance was held Tuesday at the Arc of Northeastern Pennsylvania in Scranton. No family attended. None of the small crowd who gathered around Robert’s memorial ever knew him.

All wish they had.

Source: NRLC News

Words to Live By

 

Archbishop Chaput: “Being Human in an Age of Unbelief”

By Dave Andrusko

Archbishop Charles Chaput

Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., is the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Philadelphia, and author of several books, including “Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life.” He has spoken at National Right to Life’s annual convention and is the recipient of NRL Educational Trust Fund’s “Proudly Pro-Life Award.”
Archbishop Chaput is a resource whom pro-lifers can profitably mine for moral, ethical, and spiritual counsel. He is a dazzlingly brilliant thinker and a clear and inspirational writer.
On the pro-life site www.thepublicdiscourse.com you’ve find an adaptation of a lecture Archbishop Chaput delivered at the University of Pennsylvania. Do yourself an enormous favor and take ten minutes to digest his speech titled, “Being Human in an Age of Unbelief.”

Let me offer just one, albeit quite lengthy, excerpt, that speaks to the heart of all pro-lifers:

That leads to my fourth and final point. The pro-life movement needs to be understood and respected for what it is: part of a much larger, consistent, and morally worthy vision of the dignity of the human person. You don’t need to be Christian or even religious to be “pro-life.” Common sense alone is enough to make a reasonable person uneasy about what actually happens in an abortion. The natural reaction, the sane and healthy response, is repugnance.

What makes abortion so grievous is the intimacy of the violence and the innocence of the victim. Dietrich Bonhoeffer—and remember this is the same Lutheran pastor who helped smuggle Jews out of Germany and gave his life trying to overthrow Hitler—wrote that the “destruction of the embryo in the mother’s womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed on this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder.”

Bonhoeffer’s words embody Christian belief about the sanctity of human life present from the earliest years of the Church. Rejection of abortion and infanticide was one of the key factors that set the early Christians apart from the pagan world. From the Didache in the First Century through the Early Fathers of the Church, down to our own day, Catholics—and until well into the twentieth century all other Christians—have always seen abortion as gravely evil. As Bonhoeffer points out, arguing about whether abortion is homicide or only something close to homicide is irrelevant. In the Christian view of human dignity, intentionally killing a developing human life is always inexcusable and always gravely wrong.

Working against abortion doesn’t license us to ignore the needs of the homeless or the poor, the elderly or the immigrant. It doesn’t absolve us from supporting women who find themselves pregnant or abandoned. All human life, no matter how wounded, flawed, young or old, is sacred because it comes from God. The dignity of a human life and its right to exist are guaranteed by God. Catholic teaching on abortion and sexuality is part of the same integral vision of the human person that fuels Catholic teaching on economic justice, racism, war, and peace.

These issues don’t all have the same content. They don’t all have the same weight. All of them are important, but some are more foundational than others. Without a right to life, all other rights are contingent. The heart of the matter is what [Alexander] Solzhenitsyn implied in his [1978] Harvard comments. Society is not just a collection of sovereign individuals with appetites moderated by the state. It’s a community of interdependent persons and communities of persons; persons who have human obligations to one another, along with their human rights. One of those obligations is to not intentionally kill the innocent. The two pillars of Catholic social teaching are respect for the sanctity of the individual and service to the common good. Abortion violates both.

In the American tradition, people have a right to bring their beliefs to bear on every social, economic, and political problem facing their community. For Christians, that’s not just a privilege. It’s not just a right. It’s a demand of the Gospel. Obviously, we have an obligation to respect the dignity of other people. We’re always bound to treat other people with charity and justice. But that good will can never be an excuse for our own silence.

Believers can’t be silent in public life and be faithful to Jesus Christ at the same time. Actively witnessing to our convictions and advancing what we believe about key moral issues in public life is not “coercion.” It’s honesty. It’s an act of truth-telling. It’s vital to the health of every democracy. And again, it’s also a duty—not only of our religious faith, but also of our citizenship.

The University of Pennsylvania’s motto is Leges sine moribus vanae. It means “Laws without morals are useless.” All law has moral content. It’s an expression of what we “ought” to do. Therefore law teaches as well as regulates. Law always involves the imposition of somebody’s judgments about morality on everyone else. That’s the nature of law. But I think the meaning of Penn’s motto goes deeper than just trying to translate beliefs into legislation. Good laws can help make a nation more human; more just; more noble. But ultimately even good laws are useless if they govern a people who, by their choices, make themselves venal and callous, foolish and self-absorbed.

It’s important for our own integrity and the integrity of our country to fight for our pro-life convictions in the public square. Anything less is a kind of cowardice. But it’s even more important to live what it means to be genuinely human and “pro-life” by our actions—fidelity to God; love for spouse and children; loyalty to friends; generosity to the poor; honesty and mercy in dealing with others; trust in the goodness of people; discipline and humility in demanding the most from ourselves.

These things sound like pieties, and that’s all they are—until we try to live them. Then their cost and their difficulty remind us that we create a culture of life to the extent that we give our lives to others. The deepest kind of revolution never comes from violence. Even politics, important as it is, is a poor tool for changing human hearts. Nations change when people change. And people change through the witness of other people—people like each of you reading this. You make the future. You build it stone by stone with the choices you make. So choose life. Defend its dignity and witness its meaning and hope to others. And if you do, you’ll discover in your own life what it means to be fully human.

Source: NRLC News

More Myths From Planned Parenthood

 

Video from a NY Planned Parenthood affiliate: inaccurate and downright weird

  Lauren Enriquez 

share

A lucrative Planned Parenthood affiliate in New York pulls out all the stops to bring viewers the most awkward and misleading video experience possible. The video was released in 2011, but until Saysumthn’s Blog brought it to the fore this week, the video languished in obscurity with very few views… and we can see why. This isn’t the first of Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic‘s super creepy and awkward videos, either. This video, for example, shows young girls how the very existence of condoms will make their desire not to have sex magically disappear. Here’s the 2011 video:

Let’s see the sampling of lies PP pulled out for the video above.

Myth:

Reality:
Does a large portion of the women you serve live in a cave with a tunnel that goes to and from Planned Parenthood and nowhere else? Because that’s basically the only way you could be the only source of family planning for any woman in the United States. Almost every grocery store, drug store, and gas station sells condoms. Also, family planning that involves abstinence only on days of fertility is as effective as the Pill (and women who practice it don’t even need a drug store, much less a Planned Parenthood).
Myth:

Reality:
It should not be news to anyone, but Planned Parenthood does not treat HIV.
Myth:

Reality:
Another piece of misinformation. Planned Parenthood’s method of breaking down their “services” is very clever. For example: An abortion is a “service.” And so is one condom. So if you have an abortion and receive five condoms and a pack of pills when you walk out the door, Planned Parenthood records that they provided you with seven “services.”  This is how Planned Parenthood is able to claim that 90% of their services are preventive (furthermore, it’s arguable that their “preventive” services don’t do much preventing — see the lowest-ranked condoms on this Consumer Reports list). In reality, Planned Parenthood revenue is driven by abortion, which is in no way “preventive” care.
Myth:

Reality:
Planned Parenthood ends more than 330,000 lives each year in abortion. Don’t be fooled by Planned Parenthood’s misleading logic that their birth control business lowers the rate of unplanned pregnancy. It doesn’t, as evidenced by the fact that a majority of women who come to Planned Parenthood with unintended pregnancies were on birth control when conception occurred.
Myth:

Reality:
The only way a woman could lose access to the type of breast exams Planned Parenthood provides is if she lost her own hands. Because manually feeling for lumps is all PP can do for you – and that’s something women can (and should) do for themselves at least once a month. Sorry Planned Parenthood: you can keep your dirty hands to yourself.

Source: LiveAction News

Read this One

 

Which pro-choice phrase should be banned in 2015?

  Kristi Burton Brown 

share

Annually, TIME hosts a “word banishment poll” in which the magazine asks its readers to vote on a word that should be trashed.

So, as we near the end of 2015, write in the comments below to let us know which pro-choice phrase you think is most ridiculous or better yet, a blatant lie. For my part, it’s going to be hard to choose, pun intended.

1) “Termination” of Pregnancy

Since pregnancy is also “terminated” (or “ended”) through birth, this is a deceptive way to describe abortion. Truthfully, abortion is a violent, cruel termination that often involves the sucking of fetal spines and the pulling apart of fetal bodies, limb by limb. Seems that honesty would require a more accurate description.

 2) “Reproductive Justice”
This phrases amounts to an odd myth. I’ve dedicated an entire article to explaining why here. Suffice it to say that fancy words do not a moral murder make.
 3) “Care. No Matter What.”
As I wrote in a previous article for Live Action News:

It’s always been obvious that Planned Parenthood’s new and improved slogan, “Care. No matter what.” didn’t apply to all human beings. (Who could claim that sucking a baby’s spine from his body, ripping her limbs apart, stabbing poison into his heart, or ending her life in other violent ways is “caring”?)
But, it’s becoming ever more obvious that America’s abortion giant doesn’t care about helpless, vulnerable women either.

You can read about how Planned Parenthood sends minor children back to their rapists here.

4) “Product of Conception”
Well, I guess we’re all really just walking “products of conception,” when it comes down to it. Way to dehumanize and belittle the true value of life.

5) Abortion “Care”
Under what form of humanity do we call taking the lives of innocent, helpless children “care”? Under what standard of decency do we call ripping babies from their mothers’ wombs “care”? No matter the reasons, subjecting a human being to a cruel and violent death is anything but “care.”

6) “It’s my body!”
Except that it’s not. Is the mother’s body being sucked into a tube during an abortion? Are her hands, feet, and little legs lying piecemeal on a silver tray after an abortion? Do her hands clench and startle during an abortion? Does her body swim away, in utero, from the abortionist’s tools? Is  her face forever frozen by the terror of being hunted, attacked, and killed in a former place of peace?
7) “If you don’t have a uterus…”
Those who cry, “If you don’t have a uterus, zip it!” to pro-life men, are lightning fast to declare men who support abortion “bro-choice.” They celebrate pro-abortion men, even though many of them are caught abusing women and forcing abortions on them. Shaming men who want to save the lives of their children, is a real outrage. (For men who want to save their child from abortion, go here. And for women who are being abused or pressured by a bro-choice man, go here.)

 8) “If you don’t want an abortion…”
Abortion supporters sure are good at telling people who don’t agree with them to close their mouths. So instead of saying, “If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one,” why aren’t whole crowds of people saying, “If you don’t want to rape a woman, don’t,” or, “If you don’t want to participate in human trafficking, don’t hire a prostitute”? Hmmm…maybe it’s because if we know something is wrong, we should do something about it – something more than merely being personally opposed.

 9) “1 in 3” Campaign
One way pro-choicers try to normalize abortion is by claiming that, over the course of their lifetimes, 1 in 3 women will have an abortion. They claim this should stop the “shame and stigma” surrounding abortion. Here’s the problem (in addition to the 1 in 3 claim being wrong): just because many people do something doesn’t make it right. If we believe that, we basically believe in mob rule. Whether one man or two million men were rapists, would it affect the wrongness of the act?

A baby at only 7 weeks.

10) “Potential Life”
Ok, this one wins in my opinion. An unborn child, at no time, is merely a “potential life.” This phrase is baffling and unscientific. Countless medical textbooks inform us that, from the moment of fertilization, a new, whole, separate, unique, human being’s life has begun. There’s no “potential” about it; it simply is. “Potential life” doesn’t grow, move, and develop in a mother’s womb; real, actual life does that.

Source: LiveAction News

Planned Parenthood -Another Myth

 

Myth that 1 in 3 women have abortions persists despite hard evidence to the contrary

  Lauren Enriquez

share

The latest in a pro-choice effort to normalize and de-stigmatize abortion among women is the 1 in 3 Campaign. It’s set up the same way as Not Alone; women share stories of why they’re happy they had abortions. The 1 in 3 Campaign‘s entire premise is that abortion is normal and good because 1 in 3 women will have an abortion in their lifetime.

But, here’s the thing: that’s not true.

Some pretty basic math demonstrates that the real number – far from being the over 33% required to claim “1 in 3 women will have an abortion” – is under 28%. Here’s the breakdown:
The current abortion rate in the Untied States (with the most recent data coming from 2011) is 16.9 abortions per 1,000 women ages 15-44. This information comes from the pro-abortion research organization, the Guttmacher Institute.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 45% of these abortions are repeat abortions, meaning that they are not an individual woman’s first abortion; she has had at least one other abortion in the past. This means that 55% of abortions are first-time abortions.

We must count the first-time abortions each year to figure out how many unique women in total will undergo the abortion process in their lifetime. To do so, we take 55% of the 16.9 per 1,000 total abortion rate. This gives us 9.295 first-time abortions per 1,000 women annually.Based on the 15-44 age range, there is a 30-year span included in the Guttmacher statistics. 30 years times 9.295 = 278.85, or 279 women out of 1,000 who will have at least 1 abortion in their lifetime. 279 of 1000 = 27.9% not 33%.A new website called Not1in3 is working to debunk the myth that 33% of women will have an abortion in their lifetime.  The website is an initiative of Secular Pro-Life, and is endorsed by many other pro-life organizations. They state:

Yesterday’s abortion statistics are not ironclad rules that dictate the lives of tomorrow’s young women. In the mid-1990s, abortion researchers predicted that nearly half of American women would have an abortion at some point in their lives. Thankfully, that prediction turned out to be wrong.

This history demonstrates that Americans can successfully come together to prevent abortions, and that’s exactly what is happening. When looking at abortion statistics in context, it is readily apparent that the “1 in 3″ claim is inflated. That’s great news for everyone, pro-life or pro-choice, who cares about young women in America!

Go here to read the 2011 study that gave rise to the misinformation upon which the 1 in 3 myth is based. Then, visit Not1in3 to find out what the authors of that study have stated in hindsight about its inaccuracy.

Despite the authors’ own admission that their projections were flawed, pro-choice organizations and their allies in the media have continued to trumpet the misnomer of “1 in 3.”

Source: LiveAction News

Great News

Key Sponsor of New Jersey Bill Legalizing Assisted Suicide Withdraws Support

by Jennifer Popik, JD 

New Jersey State Senator Joseph Vitale (D-Middlesex), the powerful chairman of the Senate Health Committee who had been the prime sponsor of a doctor-prescribed suicide bill, announced that he has withdrawn his support for the measure.
Vitale told online news source NewJersey.com

“I initially supported the idea of the bill and signed on. After a time, I had more questions and concerns than answers. So I thought it was honest to remove my name and continue to think about it.”

State Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) agreed to sponsor the measure in the upper house after Vitale withdrew. The bill recently passed out of the New Jersey Assembly with the minimum 41 votes needed.
However, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R) has gone on record saying he opposes any so-called “death with dignity” assisted suicide bill.

All this is taking place in the aftermath of 29-year old cancer patient Brittany Maynard’s highly publicized suicide. Compassion and Choices, a national assisted suicide advocacy group, is hard at work in New Jersey and other states, using Maynard’s tragedy to advance its legislative agenda.
However, in state after state, reactions such as Vitale’s have been common. Frequently support for legalizing assisting suicide, initially very high, drops when debate and advertising points out the broad effect and likely abuses associated with legalization bills and referenda.

Among the factors that give pause to many when they become better known are that under such legislation, before a doctor prescribes a lethal prescription, there is no requirement for a psychiatric evaluation. Further, despite the so-called requirement that a patient must be terminally ill, many patients are living far beyond the six months they supposedly have left. In addition, heirs with a financial interest in the suicide victim’s death are authorized to serve as witnesses to verify that the victim’s request for the lethal prescription was voluntary and competent.

And should any dispute arise, it is difficult to go back and see if the law is even being followed. Doctors not only self-report their participation, the bills actually require that the death certificate be falsified to list a disease, not suicide, as the cause of death.

Documentation on how supposed safeguards are failing can be found here.
Over the past 20 years, despite well over one hundred legislative efforts and many ballot initiatives, assisting suicide advocates have only been successful in only a few states.

Three states have statutes that explicitly allow doctors to prescribe lethal doses to terminally ill patients (Oregon, Vermont, and Washington). Montana’s highest court ruled that consent is a defense to a charge of homicide, arguably thwarting prosecutions in cases of assisting suicide. In New Mexico, a lower court decision that protective laws violate the state constitution is on appeal. – and two courts permit the practice (Montana courts found there to be no policy against it in the state. A second District court decision striking the state ban on assisting suicide is currently being appealed in New Mexico.)

This year, as in years past in New Jersey, a very broad coalition of organizations ranging from disability rights groups to state medical societies, as well as right to life groups, have mobilized to oppose legalization. They point out that members of vulnerable groups–including the elderly, those with disabilities, and those suffering from mental illness–are not protected from being pressured to agree to commit suicide.

LifeNews Note: Jennifer Popik is a medical ethics attorney with National Right to Life. This column originally appeared in its publication National Right to Life News Today.

Source: LifeSite News

Assisted Suicide

 

Assisted Suicide Causes PTSD

By Wesley J. Smith

Wesley Smith

In a way, this may be a hopeful sign. A study in European Psychiatry shows that 20% of close friends or family who witness assisted suicide develop post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). From the study:

Of the 85 participants, 13% met the criteria for full PTSD (cut-off≥35), 6.5% met the criteria for subthreshold PTSD (cut-off≥25), and 4.9% met the criteria for complicated grief. The prevalence of depression was 16%; the prevalence of anxiety was 6%.

CONCLUSION:

A higher prevalence of PTSD and depression was found in the present sample than has been reported for the Swiss population in general. However, the prevalence of complicated grief in the sample was comparable to that reported for the general Swiss population. Therefore, although there seemed to be no complications in the grief process, about 20% of respondents experienced full or subthreshold PTSD related to the loss of a close person through assisted suicide.

By way of comparison: 11 percent of American soldiers serving in Afghanistan have PTSD, and 20% of Iraq veterans. So, witnessing assisted suicide would appear to be equivalent in upset to serving in war zones. Perhaps that will give the suicidal pause before they order the pills.
Of course, the suicide pushers at Compassion and Choices aren’t bothered in the least, sending “counselors” to give advice in many cases. Indeed, C & C acts as death matchmaker or otherwise helps facilitate more than 80% of all assisted suicides in Oregon.

But, you know, normal people react to the awful nature of what is done. That’s healthy, and as I said, in an ironic way, perhaps a cause for hope that the death tide will ebb.
Editor’s note. This appeared on Wesley’s great blog.

Source:  NRLC News

Pregancy and Ultrasound

 

Mother describes ultrasounds of her son, questions abortion

A woman discusses her pregnancy and ultrasound

“… What is a sonogram? A picture, produced by sound waves. It is a factual thing, a part of reality, difficult to manipulate. Which doesn’t mean that it doesn’t involve emotion. When I saw James’s [her son’s] first sonogram, at 4 ½ months, I fell hopelessly in love. I could hardly feel him moving inside me yet, and I had been worried, after my miscarriage, that there would be something wrong. But on the screen my husband and I saw a perfectly round head, beautiful spinal cord, legs kicking, and hands grasping.. As we watched, the baby (we didn’t know the sex) opened its hand and proceeded to suck its thumb… What makes a sonogram so dangerous and emotionally troubling for abortion advocates is the obviousness of a separate life inside a woman’s body, not an appendage. The fetus seems so happy in its own little world, so safe and unconcerned in a close, warm womb were all its needs are automatically met.

The view of the womb we get from a sonogram illuminates what ought to be the safest time in a human’s life. Instead, the sanctuary of the womb is invaded routinely, with the support and even encouragement of society. The Planned Parenthood clinic across the street from our apartment offers abortions up to 16 weeks – just about the age of James’s first photo, which I have lovingly placed in his first photo album. In the sonogram, he held his hand with his thumb out and his fingers tucked in; he still holds his hand that way. In my womb he was active at night and had hiccups several times a day; he still does. His sonogram was simply an introduction to the person we are getting to know. How can doctors deliberately tear our little beings who are able to move around and suck their thumbs? And how can their mothers allow it?

Now that I have James, I see myself quite differently. I have someone who thinks the world of me! I have someone who, as long as he lives, will be able to say “my mother…” and mean me! I have someone who must be put first, and that is a relief. And I have someone who, God willing, will live beyond me, which makes the world seem a more comfortable place. And right now I have an adorable baby who smiles melts my heart a perfect release brings tears of joy. I wouldn’t have missed this experience for anything.

From Maria McFadden “Motherhood in the 90s: to Have or Have Not” Brad Stetson, editor The Silent Subject: Reflections on the Unborn in American Culture (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1996)117-119
Editor’s note. This appeared at ClinicQuotes.

Source: NRLC News

Abortion, Sadness and Consequences

 

1970s Rocker’s memoir tells of being haunted by her abortion, regretting her abortion, but defends “right” to abortion anyway

By Dave Andrusko
Back in late April, I ran across a blurb for a forthcoming book, “Clothes, Clothes, Clothes, Music, Music, Music, Boys, Boys, Boys,” the memoir of Viv Albertine.
As I said at the time, I didn’t have a clue who she was. Turns out Albertine was the star of the 1970s all-girl punk band, “The Slits,” a group that was hugely influential in breaking through in a very much male-dominated industry.

Albertine had an abortion in 1978 “rather than give up her career,” as publicity blurb for the book puts it. In the years to come Albertine tried IVF treatments eleven times and “lost two babies before finally becoming mother to a little girl in 1999.”
In the book, she writes, “I didn’t regret the abortion for 20 years. But eventually I did and I still regret it now. I wish I’d kept the baby, whatever the cost. It’s hard to live with.”
Well today I ran across a long excerpt from the book in which she described her abortion. What else do we learn?

To begin with Albertine is remarkably articulate and brutally honest. When she becomes pregnant, she tells us that her “mum” offered to help raise the baby and, if not that, suggested adoption as an alternative. Read the following section and how Albertine (looking back at her much younger self) recalls what she was thinking… the rationalizations she employed

Mum suggests adoption, but I think that’s crueller than death. That’s my opinion. To burden a child with abandonment and rejection right from the start. A living death. All or nothing, that’s me. I choose nothing. Nothingness for baby. I think this is a responsible decision. I will not countenance any other option.

“Nothingness”—a desire for emotional numbness–is the unmistakable theme that runs through her very sad and very revealing account. Before she leaves for the abortion clinic, Albertine calls her boyfriend to tell him

that I’m pregnant and I’m off to the hospital to deal with it on my own. He offers to come with me but I don’t want him to. I don’t want to feel anything. If he’s there I might feel something.

The day after her abortion

I can’t sleep. I think about the terrifying power that women and mothers have. We don’t need to fight in wars. We have nothing to prove. We have the power to kill and lots of us have used it. How many of you boys have ever killed anyone? I have. I’ve killed a baby. It doesn’t get much worse than that. Maybe your mother has secretly used her power to kill in the past and not told you. Maybe she even thought about doing it to you. It’s a secret and a burden she carries with her.

One other particularly telling quote. She meets a guy, Jeannot, who crushes her confidence with a dismissive putdown and then offers her heroin.

I laugh it off but inside I’m crushed. I have no confidence. It’s been sucked out of me with the baby. Jeannot offers me heroin. I’m tempted. Not because I want to forget what I’ve done, or because I’m so down, even though both are true, but because I’ve lost my identity. I haven’t a clue who I am. I feel like a nothing. But I know without a doubt, if I take heroin now, I will destroy the tiny morsel of myself that is left, I will be lost forever.

She will subsequently have plenty of trouble with drugs but this time she says no. She describes looking out her hotel window and considering the tradeoffs:
So this is what I’ve chosen over a baby: the Slits [her band], gigging, hotel rooms, music, self-expression, loneliness. It was the right decision – wasn’t it? I wish I was at home with Mum.
As I wrote back in April, Albertine ends on a semi-defiant note. Having said all of the above (how “I wish I’d kept the baby, whatever the cost. It’s hard to live with”), she ends, “I still defend a woman’s right to choose. To have control over her own body and life. That cannot and must not ever be taken away from us.”

Really? Is that her head speaking? Is that her heart speaking?
I think it is neither.

Source: NRLC News

Adoption

 

Adoption: A loving, life-saving, realistic option

By Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D., NRL Director of Education & Research
November is National Adoption Month, and I hope that you’ve read some of the compelling personal stories that have been published here over these past few weeks. If you want to get a good idea of some of the joys – and challenges – that await adoptive parents, the accounts in National Right to Life News Today are a great place to start.

To get a good idea of the broader picture, to understand why pro-lifers feel adoption is such a loving realistic, life-saving alternative to abortion, let’s flesh out those personal accounts with some basic information and statistics about adoption in the U.S.
Surveys and studies on adoption aren’t as frequent as research in some fields. However a few government statistics and a comprehensive national survey of adoptive parents in 2007 found out a number of important things.

According to figures from the 2007 National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH), the 1.8 million adopted children in the U.S. comprise about 2% of America’s child population. About a quarter of these represent international adoptions, with nearly equal amounts representing private domestic adoptions (38%) or adoptions from foster care (37%).

About a quarter are adopted by relatives, and close to a third (32%) are adopted at birth or at least placed for adoption at one month or less.
Infant adoption has become rarer since 1973. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Adoption USA Chartbook, prior to 1973, about 8.7% of never married women who gave birth made a plan for adoption. However that dramatically dropped to 1% in the 1990s.
While the HHS Chartbook mentions the role of reproductive technology such as in vitro fertilization giving childless couples the chance to conceive on their own, the abortion deaths of millions of babies who could have been available for adoption also surely played a role.

There is great openness to adoption in the American public. A 2002 survey of women aged 18-44 found 33.1% considering abortion with 23.2% of those actually taking steps to adopt a child. An adoption activist writing in 2008 said that there were more women seeking to adopt unrelated children than there were foster children awaiting adoption (Katz, Washington Post, 11/8/08).
A surprisingly high percentage, 39%, of adoptions involve children with special health needs. Race or ethnicity does not appear to be a significant barrier either, with 40% of parents adopting children of a different race, ethnicity, or culture.

People interested in adoption may be intimidated by potential costs, but this does not have to be prohibitive. Though some adopting parents do indeed face costs of $10,000 or more, at least half pay less than $5,000, with 29% paying nothing at all, according to the Chartbook.
While many of those paying little or nothing to adopt are relatives, this does not necessarily represent all those paying lower fees. Twenty-two percent of those parents adopting children who are not related did not pay anything either.

About 80% of parents adopting children after 1997 filed for federal adoption tax credits that went into place that year, and about 13% of adopted children had a parent who reported receiving some financial assistance from their employer.
With pre-planned infant adoptions, typically adopting parents cover necessary medical and legal fees.
Private agencies, some of them religious, can be helpful in facilitating adoptions, guiding would be parents through the process. They can not only help with legal paperwork but assist in making the match and working out the transition.

The 2007 NSCH survey found that adopting parents were likely to be married, to be educated, to live in safe neighborhoods and to have health insurance. The children in those homes were more likely to be read to, to attend church, and to participate in extracurricular activities. Those parents overwhelmingly describe relationships with their children as “very warm” and say that they would make the same decision again.

There are challenges and conflicts in any relationship, but adoption appears to offer significant benefits for everyone involved.

Adopting parents, obviously, have the joy, challenge, expense, and reward of loving and raising a child, watching him or her succeed, stumble, and eventually grow into responsible adulthood.
Adoption can be good for single mothers facing crisis pregnancy situations as well, offering them a viable alternative if they are unable or unwilling to raise their children themselves. Pregnant mothers who allow their child to be adopted are more likely to finish school, obtain a higher level of education, attain better employment, avoid public assistance, and achieve greater financial stability.
Adoption affirms the unborn child’s right to life, allowing each baby to enter the world as a blessing for another family. Adopted children do well in school and show high levels of self-esteem, optimism, social competency, feelings of security. They are less likely to be depressed, use alcohol, and engage in vandalism, theft, group fighting, and use weapons. [1]

In this month celebrating adoption, let us honor and thank those many women and men who have stepped forward, opened their hearts, and given these kids a chance.
[1] This material from a literature synthesis by Patrick Fagan, of the Marriage & Religion Research Institute, in an 11/29/10 report “Adoption Works Well.

Source: NRLC News

Abortion and Those Who Do Them

 

The abortionist as hero: Part One

By Dave Andrusko

Abortionist Carol Ball
(Katie Falkenberg / Los Angeles Times)

If you’re looking for even a smidgeon of balance in an abortion story, arguably the last place you might look is the Los Angeles Times. Their commitment to the abortion agenda is as complete as their stories are one-sided.

I bother to mention that because even some of the most in-the-tank-for-abortion publications will drop in a hint or two that abortion is not easy, not merely a “medical procedure,” and not a walk in the park. But not the Los Angeles Times.

Today and tomorrow we’ll be talking about two profiles of abortionists who are among the last in their respective states still “practicing.” The first is Carol Ball who is the medical director for Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota.
According to the Times’ Maria L. LaGanga, Ball splits her time among Planned Parenthood’s headquarters in St. Paul, Minnesota, Duluth, Minnesota, and the Sioux Falls, South Dakota abortion clinic. So what do we learn—aside from the overriding point that all the pro-life legislation passed is pointless, costly, and annoying to patients and abortionists alike?
Actually, if you read superficially, that’s pretty much it. But if you look deeper, here are five takeaways:

#1. Ball flies in several times a month because for the past decade they’ve been unable to find a doctor willing to pollute his skills by performing abortions. That may irritate her to no end, but the message is that South Dakota is a strongly pro-life state.

#2. In South Dakota there are plenty of speed bumps so abortionists can’t rush a woman through pell-mell. There is a 72 hour time for reflection, which to LaGanga (channeling Ball) dismisses as accomplishing nothing more than making women come back to the abortion clinic twice and pay lots for gasoline. Worse than that (for Ball), South Dakota law requires a woman to first visit pregnancy help center before having an abortion so she can hear about options available “to help her maintain her relationship with her unborn child.” That doesn’t fit the Planned Parenthood playbook which is to get the woman into the abortion clinic as soon as possible and complete the abortion at the first possible moment. Thinking is frowned upon.

#3. One woman who was coming back for the second time told LaGanga

“It’s hard enough to make the decision to come here once, but to have to come back here three days later? I don’t know; it’s difficult,” she said. “But I made the decision. It’s not the time. We live in an RV. I don’t have a job. I’m 36. And I smoke.”

Why was it “hard enough” in the first place? And, in this context why mention that she smokes? I think we know why.

#4. Talk about dehumanizing—and inaccurate descriptions.

Ball is one of six physicians who fly in to do both surgical and medical procedures here for patients who, under state law, cannot be more than 13 weeks and six days pregnant. During a surgical abortion, which takes about 10 minutes, the patient is given a local anesthetic before the uterus is suctioned out. This method is used for women who are between six and 14 weeks pregnant.

Elizabeth was having a medical abortion, which is an option for women who are up to 10 weeks pregnant. Medical abortions, which are a two-part procedure, can be done earlier in a pregnancy. Anesthesia is not required.

On Thursday, she checked in early for an 11:45 a.m. appointment. First, Ball gave Elizabeth a drug to take called mifepristone; it blocks the growth of the placenta. Then the physician sent her home with a drug called misoprostol, which makes the uterus contract and causes it to empty. It must be taken 24 to 48 hours after the first drug. 

The “uterus is sucked out”? Please. The baby’s body is sucked out. “Anesthesia is not required” when she receives the first drug. If you’ve read any of the accounts (from women who did not regret their decision to abort) we’ve published, you know that the pain of a “medical abortion” (a chemically-induced abortion, “RU-486”) is absolutely incredible. They no doubt would have loved an anesthetic. And

#5. It really is like “meat-market style assembly line abortions” (to quote a former Planned Parenthood of Delaware employee). In one day Ball (who described herself as “beat”) performed “five medical abortions” and “12 surgical abortions.”

LaGanga ends her story with this

But the Supreme Court decision striking down the Massachusetts buffer zone weighed heavily. It is an illustration, she said, of a Supreme Court that is hostile to the work she does and the rights of the women for whom she cares.

The SUV neared the airport. Ball gathered her belongings.

“I’m feeling very discouraged,” she said.

But in case we get the wrong impression, LaGanga adds a “hold-your-head-up” afterword:

Still, she will return.

Lots of money in 17 abortions per day? Sure. But Ball is a true believer, having learned at the foot of Jane Hodgson, one of the most prominent early abortionists.

Hodgson put her views in perspective one time when she said in the book “Doctors of Conscience”

I think in many ways I’ve been lucky to have been part of this. If I hadn’t gotten involved, I would have gone through life probably being perfectly satisfied to go to the medical society parties and it would have been very, very dull. I would have been bored silly.

Source: NRLC News

Abortion Pills On Line

Mail-Order Abortions? Activists Break the Law to Sell Women Abortion Pills Online

by Brad Mattes 

Thirteen years ago, a ship sailed from Scheveningen, a Dutch town where Nazis once imprisoned resistance fighters. On deck stood a shipping-container-turned-abortion-den masquerading for legal reasons as “artwork.” Those on board planned to drop anchor where abortion is illegal, bring local women aboard, and head for international waters. There, operating under Dutch law, abortionist Rebecca Gomperts intended to dispense mifepristone and misoprostol. Taken in combination, the drugs induce abortion.
But after being turned away from several ports, Gomperts realized she didn’t need to sail the ocean blue in her death ship. She could sail a much larger ocean: the World Wide Web. Today, from a small office in Amsterdam, Women on Web mails abortion drugs to women in countries where abortion is illegal or tightly restricted. Gomperts believes she’s a champion for women (except unborn women, of course), and the UN backs her up. An official UN document calls on all member countries to legalize so-called “safe” abortion, stating, “Absolute prohibition under criminal law deprives women of access to what, in some cases, is a life-saving procedure.”

Well, except for the baby.
A woman who contacts Women on Web completes an online questionnaire and promises she’s less than nine weeks pregnant. Her message is routed to one of several abortionists—none in the office and none identified by Women on Web—for “consultation.” The abortionist then sends a prescription electronically to a drug exporter in India. Back at the Women on Web “help desk,” a staffer emails the woman with instructions on how to take the pills and what to expect. At no time does a Women on Web client actually have to see a doctor.

The World Health Organization includes the drug combo on its Essential Medicines list, but even WHO knows the drugs can be dangerous. The listing includes this caveat: “Requires close medical supervision.”
Is the woman really less than nine weeks pregnant? Pro-abortion activists often describe pregnant women as “desperate”; might a desperate woman lie? Does she have an ectopic pregnancy, which may show no early symptoms at all, or other underlying medical conditions? Can she read and understand the instructions? What if complications threaten her life?
Here’s Women on Web’s help desk to the rescue: “We cannot judge your situation over a distance, so we advise you to visit your doctor. This is the limitation of the service.” Of course if the woman—now more desperate than ever—does visit her doctor, her secret, illegal abortion will be secret no more. In that case the Women on Web help desk will be glad to send her canned advice on avoiding criminal charges.


In 2013 the US Food and Drug Administration began investigating Indian companies that export generic drugs. Why was the FDA interested? Because Indian exporters supply 40 percent of all over-the-counter and generic prescription drugs used in the US, including cancer drugs and antibiotics. Investigators uncovered lapses in safety, false test results and even fake medicines.  Since the investigation began, Women on Web’s drug shipments often have been delayed or lost, but if they are delivered, can women be sure they’re safe? Or even real? WHO estimates that 20 percent of generic prescription drugs made in India are fake.

We’re making great progress in shutting down abortion facilities in the US, and state legislatures have begun to reassert their constitutional right to govern without federal interference. But we must be vigilant. Here at home, where FDA guidelines specifically prohibit drug-induced abortions without a doctor’s oversight, some pro-abortion activists are pushing illegal, self-administered abortion as a way around the closing of abortion facilities.
Early feminists claimed we needed to legalize abortion so it would be safe abortion. Now they appear to have come full circle. As protective legislation is being passed in states to safeguard the health and well-being of women, pro-abortion activists are now advocating illegal abortion to get around them. Apparently their cherished belief that abortion is “between a woman and her doctor” is as expendable as babies’ lives.
LifeNews.com Note: Bradley Mattes is the executive director of Life Issues Institute, a national pro-life educational group. 

Source:LifeSite News

Planned Parenthood

New Orleans City Council Passes Resolution Honoring Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz

by Sarah Zagorski

Apparently the New Orleans City Council thinks aborting future residents of the Big Easy is a good thing.
At a recent gala event for the Planned Parenthood abortion company, New Orleans City Council member LaToya Cantrell delivered a proclamation, signed by the New Orleans City Council, “recognizing Planned Parenthood as a valuable health care resource for the New Orleans community.”
During the event, Planned Parenthood celebrated thirty years of “service” in Louisiana and held a reception at the Pavilion of the Two Sisters in the New Orleans Botanical Garden. The theme of their event was “Building the Foundation: Honoring Our Heroes — the Community Builders.”

In attendance was Dawn Laguens, the executive vice president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America; Melissa Flournoy, the former Louisiana director of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast.
Flournoy, who recently left her position with the abortion giant after attacking a pro-life legislator, commented on their work in the Pelican state. She said, “Louisiana women and families depend on Planned Parenthood for access to vital health care services; and we are grateful that we have been able to serve the women, men, and families in New Orleans for three decades and look forward to continuing to improve the quality of life for Louisianans.”

Then she thanked the supportive community of builders who are helping Planned Parenthood construct a $4.2 million abortion facility on Claiborne Avenue in New Orleans. She said, “We are grateful for the deep support we have from the community builders who are dedicated to the completion of our health center on South Claiborne Avenue; and especially to the women and men of New Orleans who need and deserve high-quality, affordable health care. Together, we can move toward health equity for everyone in New Orleans.”

It’s very interesting that Flournoy claims the organization has “deep support” from builders when in fact construction of the facility is at a standstill.

Originally, Planned Parenthood was supposed to open by the end of 2014; however, due to opposition from pro-life Louisianans, including Louisiana Right to Life and the Archdiocese of New Orleans, their efforts have been stalled. Benjamin Clapper, the Executive Director of Louisiana Right to Life, commented on their lack of progress:

“Planned Parenthood has not made progress in building their abortion facility on Claiborne Avenue since June 26 of this year. They claimed in 2013 that they would be open by the end of 2014. Clearly that’s not the case.  The truth is that their own mistakes of hiring unlicensed contractors have delayed their progress. In addition, subcontractors, especially concrete providers, do not want to work with them because they will destroy innocent babies. Abortions are the reason for their delay.”
The lack of progress on the construction of the abortion facility is a testament to the efforts of Louisianans who won’t be fooled by Planned Parenthood’s rhetoric. Nevertheless, it is critical that pro-lifers continue standing strong because if built, their new facility could perform upwards of 30 abortions a day, increasing the abortion rate in New Orleans and the surrounding parishes.

ACTION: Complain to the New Orleans City Council about its honoring the Planned Parenthood abortion business.

Source:LifeSite News