Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Aftermath of Abortion


What are the psychological consequences of abortion?

The pro-abortion world recently went crazy over a published study that made a rather outstanding claim. According to the study, 95% of women do not regret their abortions. Abortion advocates could not wait to trumpet the results of this study, excitedly proclaiming that this “proved” women don’t ever experience guilt and that post-abortion syndrome does not exist.
But unfortunately for the pro-abortion lobby, the overwhelming majority of scientific literature does not back up the results of the this new study. In fact, the majority of the literature has found that women who undergo abortion do experience negative psychological consequences.

The outstanding scientific journal “Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences” has just published (July 2013) an important study on the psychiatric and psychological consequences of abortion on women, entitled “Abortion and subsequent mental health: review of the literature”. This study analyzed all scientific trials published since 1995, that evaluated the psychological and psychiatric health of women who had had an abortion, compared with those who had either given birth to a baby or those who had had a miscarriage. The authors retrieved 30 studies that took into account depression, anxiety disorders (e.g. post-traumatic stress disorder) and substance abuse disorders in the studied women. A detailed and thorough table that describes every study, with particular attention to women’s age, scale used for assessment, results, and type of the study.
The studies were categorized according to the pregnancy outcome (childbirth, unplanned childbirth or miscarriage) compared with abortion. The results were very interesting and gave new light to the phenomenon of abortion.
a- On 19 studies that compared abortion versus childbirth, 13 showed a clear risk for at least one of the reported mental problems in the abortion group versus childbirth, five papers showed no difference. Only one paper reported a worse mental outcome for childbearing.
b- Some studies compared abortion versus unplanned pregnancies ending with childbirth (this approach is important, since an unplanned childbirth may be a reason for abortion fearing psychological trauma): four studies found a higher risk in the abortion groups and three no difference.
c- Last, authors analyzed those 9 studies that compared abortion versus miscarriage (both ending with fetal loss): three studies showed a greater risk of mental disorders due to abortion, four disclosed no difference and in two, short-term anxiety and depression were higher in the miscarriage group, while long-term anxiety and depression in the abortion group.
What emerges from this analysis is that it seems difficult to argue that abortion has no psychological or psychiatric consequences: no study – with just one exception – in 30, showed that abortion consequences are lower than childbearing, even in the case of “therapeutic” abortion or in the case of unplanned childbearing.
This is not altogether surprising news; pro-life advocates have long known that abortion comes with many risks. A higher incidence of mental health disorders is just one of them.
So why did the authors of the study that thrilled abortion activists find so few incidences of regret? Well, one needs only to look at the study itself.

First, and most glaringly, the study only found that women did not feel any regret in three years. That does not tell us that women never experience regret. A long-term study, which followed the women throughout their lives over five, ten, or 15 years would be much more telling.
Second, the participant characteristics stand out as concerning. Almost half of the participants have had prior abortions, and almost half of them also reported not having any stigma towards abortion. Over 35% of them also reported choosing abortion for financial reasons, a situation which likely would not have changed in just three short years. A large number also reported that they had social support for their decision.

Combine the facts that a large number of the women in the study have had multiple abortions, are pro-abortion, the people around them are pro-abortion, and are experiencing financial difficulties, and it’s not entirely surprising that the authors got the results that they did.

The study is not an accurate representative of average American women by any means. Women who have prior abortions are particularly less likely to experience regret, because if they regretted their abortions, they wouldn’t keep having them. Women who identify as pro-abortion, and who are surrounded by people who are likewise pro-abortion – who tell the post-abortive woman that she made the right choice – are also quite obviously less likely to say that they feel regret or guilt. Meanwhile, the number of first-time abortion seekers in the study is much lower – and those are the women who arguably would be most susceptible to regret.

When you compare one study with iffy data to the overwhelming majority of the scientific literature, it isn’t hard to figure out what to believe.

The simple fact of the matter is that abortion does indeed carry risks, and those risks include negative psychological consequences. If abortion activists want to keep claiming that they’re “pro-woman,” then perhaps they should stop lying to women at every turn about what they will be risking if they have an abortion.

Source: LiveAction News

More on Planned Parenthood

crunchy gatter

The “self-deceiving rationalization” of Planned Parenthood

A striking feature in all three undercover videos released by the Center for Medical Progress is the callous way in which abortion workers discuss the parts of babies they have killed or have been complicit in killing.
Callous is generally defined as being cold or hardened to something; this is what we see with these abortion doctors. They discuss “tissue” and “intact specimens” as if they were discussing blood taken from the arm of a conscious patient.

In the first video, Dr. Deborah Nucatola talks casually about aborting viable fetuses and getting that tissue:
From my perspective, I think it’s not going to be reasonable to be collecting at a site that does not have the capability to go farther up in to the 2nd trimester. It doesn’t mean that the facility needs to go all the way up to 24 weeks every time but, to be able to at least say we can go up to 12 and 16, 12 and 18 would probably be better, for the age protocols that require later gestational tissue, 18 weeks is kind of the lowest range, 18 to 20, 24 for certain things. So, if we could get up to 18, that would make it worth it to be operating at that site. (Transcript, page 5)
It’s like she’s discussing data instead of babies. She does actually mention death – in a way:
Because if you induce a demise before the procedure, nobody’s going to say you did a “live”—whatever the federal government calls it. Partial-birth abortion. It’s not a medical term, it doesn’t exist in reality. So some people use it to avoid providing a “partial-birth abortion.” Others use it because they actually think it makes the tissue softer and it makes it safer and easier to do the procedure. Is there data for either of these? No. Because number 1, the Federal Abortion Ban is a law, and laws are up to interpretation. (Transcript, page 39)
Nucatola not only notes how to bypass the law, but remarks on how to kill babies (“induce a demise”) while doing it, as matter-of-factly as if she is talking about the annual budget.
The doctor in the second video, Mary Gatter, also shows a callousness as she discusses prices – making her now infamous Lamborghini comment:
Well, it’s complicated by the fact that our volume is so low too. I mean, are you looking at 8 and 9 week specimens or only 2nd trimester specimens? (Transcript, page 10)
Gatter repeatedly refers to babies as “specimens.” But, like Nucatola, she borders on referring to a baby as a person—one to dismember:
Under twelve weeks, it’s a D&C, over twelve weeks it’s a D&E, whether you do all with suction or dismemberment. I have written documentation from ACOG describing D&E even though you’re doing suction. So, it’s totally a billing issue. The technique we use at thirteen weeks is the same suction technique we use at eleven weeks. (Transcript, page 14)
And then she makes her other now-infamous comment about “less crunchy” abortions, referring to manual vacuum aspiration, which can be more dangerous and painful for women, but which she says will yield “whole specimens”:
And then, if we want to pursue this, mutually, I talk to Ian and see how he feels about using a “less crunchy” technique to get more whole specimens. (Transcript, page 22)
The latest video shows Dr. Katharine Sheehan, Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Pacific Southwest, casually mentioning fetal procurement agencies who do “big government collections” (of babies). And Dr. Savita Ginde, Vice President and Medical Director of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, comments about how the kidneys are intact in a pie tray of baby parts. “Because if I looked at that, I’d be like, that’s good to go”  – as a medical assistant says, “five stars” in the background, laughing. She goes on to discuss the selling of fetal parts: “I think a per item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.”
All of these doctors once took the Hippocratic Oath, which says, in part, “Above all, I must not play at God. I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability.” And yet they have forgotten the humanity of the preborn baby.
M. C. Kaveny writes in “Appropriation of Evil: Cooperation’s Mirror Image,”  a sobering statement about the power of desensitization of evil and profit from abortion:
An additional danger is present.  Individuals involved in any of the above actions can become desensitized to the sanctity of life.  This is particularly true if one has become accustomed to benefits flowing from the performance of an action that foreseeably but unintentionally results in the death of a human being.  If one is profiting from abortion, even remotely, it might be tempting to decide against taking steps to eliminate it.
A potentially more serious problem to be faced is an interior one—how to justify profiting from a grave evil already committed by another.  The cooperator “might simply develop an elaborate scheme of self-deceiving rationalization.” (Theological Studies 61 [2000], 288-306. )
Clearly these physicians have become desensitized and appear to have developed “self-deceiving rationalization.” There’s no other way one could discuss a slaughtered baby and his or her body parts so callously otherwise.

Source: LiveAction News

Defending Planned Parenthood- Really??????

Screen Shot 2015-07-28 at 1.15.02 PM

Abortion group defends Planned Parenthood: Pro-lifers are ‘militant extremists’ and killers

In an emergency e-mail appeal to supporters with the subject line “This is an emergency (Planned Parenthood),” the president of NARAL Pro-choice America, Ilyse G. Hogue, called for action to save the abortion giant.
The donation e-mail blast was packed full of Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards’ rhetoric. Hogue begins:
Planned Parenthood is under attack.
The nation’s largest provider of reproductive health care is facing a highly coordinated smear campaign by militant extremists — and now anti-choice members of Congress think this is their chance to destroy Planned Parenthood.
It’s all hands on deck to save Planned Parenthood and stop the wave of attacks on abortion rights coming at us.

Clearly, NARAL is as desperate as Planned Parenthood to deflect the reality that over 320,000 babies are slaughtered in Planned Parenthood abortion mills every year. In fact, it’s so desperate, it’s using libelous lies that echo Richard’s slanderous comments on ABC News Sunday.
Hogue writes:
In recent days, three heavily edited, secretly recorded videos have been released by a group linked to clinic bombings and the murders of doctors.1 The latest video just came out this morning. There have also been reports that Planned Parenthood’s internal databases have been hacked.2
It’s an all-out assault on one of the most important reproductive health providers in America.
Quite the contrary. Actually, it is an all-out assault to try to cover up the truth, beginning with Hogue’s footnoted sources.  She tries to attribute a mainstream publication to support her lies that the Center for Medical Progress is associated with a couple lone rangers who are clearly not pro-life, and exhibited violence against doctors and clinics. There are several problems with this assertion. The obvious one is that it is a complete lie. As Live Action detailed after Richards’ interview on ABC:
She’s alluding to Dr. George Tiller, the late-term abortion doctor who was murdered in church by a man who acted independently. Scott Roeder, who killed Tiller, would call Operation Rescue on the phone (as any member of the public can do), but he was not part of their group. Operation Rescue’s Troy Newman, sits on the board of CMP, so the abortion giant is trying to tie CMP to murder.
However, in telling that lie, Hogue deceives again. Her footnote to that accusation is this story from the New York Times, where no mention is made of Daleiden being tied to bombings and murders. The truth is Daleiden has never been involved in violent activity against abortionists. Perhaps Hogue assumes by adding official looking footnotes and sources, no one will bother to read. But the source she cites doesn’t actually support what she argues.
Screen Shot 2015-07-28 at 7.10.23 PM
Her second accusation implies that Daleiden’s group had something to do with Planned Parenthood’s website being hacked. Again, her source doesn’t support this. It simply states that “anti-abortionist activists claimed to have hacked Planned Parenthood’s database.” And the story’s only sources are abortion advocates anyway. But Hogue is so desperate that she is attempting to link anything she can.
She does manage to tell the truth when she says tissue donation is legal. Of course, selling tissue, profiting off tissue, and altering abortion techniques to get “whole specimens” isn’t legal, but that is not mentioned in NARAL’s desperate emergency plea for money.
Hogue then lets readers in on the NARAL battle plan, for which she needs money.
  • We’re flooding Congress with patch-through-style phone calls and petition signatures to make sure every single Planned Parenthood supporter has their voice heard.
  • We’re demanding investigations into the illegal activities of the activists behind the videos — including whether they broke the law by secretly recording Planned Parenthood staff without consent.
  • Our team of policy experts are all over Capitol Hill educating members of Congress on the facts.
So why the emergency? Hogue writes, “these attacks against Planned Parenthood came out of nowhere, and we didn’t budget for the huge fight we’re now facing.”
Considering how much money Planned Parenthood makes every year, it would seem Planned Parenthood would have enough money to fight its own battle. But, then, how would NARAL profit off of this?

Source: LiveAction News

Pro-Abortion Hillary


Even though Mrs. Clinton’s numbers are tumbling, political analysts still convince themselves she will likely be the next President

By Dave Andrusko
Pro-abortion Hillary Clinton
Pro-abortion Hillary Clinton

Political prognostications can usually be said to fall into two broad categories. “Givens” that are virtually impenetrable to change and those “givens” which over time (and given enough evidence) will begin to shift.

Since most reporters (to put it politely) lean liberal and pro-abortion, one of the givens that will be most resistant to change is that there are too many pro-life Republicans running for President, thus making it more difficult for one to emerge early enough as the clear leader to run an effective campaign.

But, on second thought, there is a third category: givens that come full circle. First they are conventional wisdom on steroids, then they need a temporary re-evaluation, but then they reestablish themselves as gospel truth.

In that category I would place the presidential fortunes of pro-abortion former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Almost since Barack Obama was re-elected, “everybody knew” she would be the Democrats’ nominee in 2016.

But anyone who has followed her career with even the slightest skepticism knew that her popularity would take a swoon once she officially entered the race. She is not a particularly likable human being and she hates the media with a passion, even when she is treated a hundred times better than a Republican, with the same baggage, would be treated.

So that brings us to two recent stories. The first is by Charlie Cook, writing in the National Journal.
Cook looks at some of the numbers rolling in and the seemingly nonstop controversy over (take your pick, there are many). He asks now that “the USS HRod” may be beginning to take on water, what is “Plan B” for Democrats?
Or as Cook puts it more colorfully,
Is there an emergency “break the glass” option if real questions of Clinton’s electability arise? It seems extremely unlikely that any one issue could bring Clinton down, but what if she begins to suffer ‘death by a thousand cuts’?

  Cook then peruses the Democrats’ bench (hint, it is very thin) yet comes to the conclusion that , short of some national security catastrophe, Hillary is still the odds on favorite to win. (Cook belongs to the demography is destiny camp.)

The headline on Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza’s column is “4 poll numbers that should unnerve Hillary Clinton.” Her popularity numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire are extraordinarily low. Her favorable/unfavorable is down 23% in Iowa and 20% in New Hampshire.
Then there are the two national polls. Gallup’s lead paragraph includes this:

Hillary Clinton’s rating has slipped to 43% from 48% in April. At the same time, Clinton’s unfavorable rating increased to 46%, tilting her image negative and producing her worst net favorable score since December 2007.

  CNN’s poll results are no better. Clinton’s “favorability rating is net negative among registered voters nationally: 49% have an unfavorable view while 44% have a positive impression.”
Cillizza goes through a host of explanations why Clinton’s numbers have tumbled only to conclude that she’s likely to prevail anyway. Why? Because all politicians these days are unpopular so in the end traditional measures of popularity (that at least half the electorate has a favorable impression of you) may not matter.

If so, they might choose “experience and readiness to do the job at hand,” which, in Cillizza’s eyes, is Hillary Clinton’s calling card.

Without going through Mrs. Clinton’s eight years in the U.S. Senate and her role as Secretary of State, is it really so obvious (or obvious at all) that she has the “experience and readiness” to do the job better than a host of Republicans who have served much longer in public office and/or have executive experience as well? Really?
What am I missing? Oh, that most reporters and columnists will always want a pro-abortion Democrat to be President.

Source: NRLC News

Shades of the Holocaust


The third PPFA undercover video: From talking about the trade in baby body parts to actually seeing them

By Dave Andrusko
babyfeet   Let me begin by strongly encouraging you to first read NRLC’s response to the third video distributed by The Center for Medical Progress in its ongoing series of undercover interviews with high-ranking Planned Parenthood associates.

In the first two videos we learned a great deal about just how desensitized Drs. Deborah Nucatola and Mary Gatter have become. To make jokes about intact baby body organs and Lamborghinis between bites of salad and sips of red wine documents how far into the abyss you can fall.
The third CMP video, released this morning, apparently includes footage shot at  the “pathology laboratory” of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM) in Denver.

The video begins by warning that “Some viewers may find this content disturbing.” Assuming you are not an employee of PPFA–and perhaps even some of them–watching the baby’s remains spread out so as to determine which parts are intact enough to be sold is enough to make you lose your lunch. But if we don’t look–and spread the word–then evil wins.

In Video #3, we’re being taken from the abstract to the concrete. We don’t just hear about the grisly traffic in baby body parts. We actually see various body parts from the remains of an “11.6 week” aborted unborn child.
There is intact neural [brain] tissue. And referring to an intact kidney, a medical assistant quips, “5 Stars.”
As the day proceeds, we doubtless will hear variations of the usual PPFA talking points. All have one purpose: to take our eyes off of what is taking place–and not just at Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains.
We have two other related posts today. I hope you will read all four and distribute them far and wide.

Source: NRLC News

Do No Harm?????


Doctors speak out about abortions and their struggle to perform them

By Cassy Fiano
abortion-tools-672x372How does a person who pledges to “first, do no harm” justify actively taking a person’s life on a regular basis? How can a doctor switch back and forth between healer and executioner?

The July issue of the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology explored how this affects residents, as they grappled with the moral implications of performing abortions. Four residents were profiled, and each of them struggled with a variety of questions. When does life begin? How can I justify harming a preborn child? What would God, my parents, or my friends think? Here, we see that even residents who choose to continue performing abortions are not truly comfortable and at peace with that decision.

Resident 1:
Increasingly, I have found myself caught up in an endless array of rhetorical questions. Is there not a more profound difference between 10 and 20 weeks than between 20 and 30? If my first task as a physician is to do no harm, how can I justify harming a fetus? I do not pretend to know the answers to these questions, but given what I perceived to be an abyss of ambiguity, I chose not to provide elective terminations.

Resident 2:
After my first morning of early abortions, we performed an 18-week termination. Seeing the fetus on an ultrasound scan and then watching it as we did the procedure really shook me to the core. I thought maybe I had made the wrong choice, and I could not stop thinking about what my family would think if they knew what I had done.
Later that week we had an informal gathering of residents who had struggled with abortion training. It became apparent that others shared similar feelings. Many of us felt more comfortable with early abortions and struggled with second-trimester cases.

Resident 3:
Abortion is a necessary procedure that I feel morally obligated to make available to my patients. The future of this service hinges on our society’s ability to support its practice, prevent undesired pregnancy, and ensure the safety of abortion providers. I have worked through my own internal struggles, but these broader societal issues will shape how I practice in the future.

Resident 4:
I am a Born Again Christian, and I believe that life begins at conception. I believe that since I do not have the power to create life, I do not have the power to take it. I am proud of my choice and do not apologize for it, but that was not always the case.

I love obstetrics and gynecology — the breadth and depth, the bonds between patients and providers, and the lifelong relationships that are formed. However, I once heard someone say that an ob-gyn who did not provide terminations was not offering their patients the best, most complete care. Initially I shrugged this off as her opinion and deemed it irrelevant to me and to what my practice would become. But as I replayed that statement in my mind, I began to wonder, would I be providing the best care to my patients if offering terminations conflicted with my personal beliefs and passions? Would my patients feel judged and unsupported if I told them that I could not provide a service that they needed? Could I be truly impartial in my counseling?

It takes a certain level of cognitive dissonance to be both a doctor and an abortionist. And while decades ago it may not have been as much of an issue, our scientific knowledge has advanced; it has undoubtedly become harder and harder for doctors to quiet their doubts. With the advent of ultrasound technology, the humanity of the preborn has become unmistakable. We understand embryology and fetal development better now than ever before, so despite the abortion industry’s shoddy science, we know that a preborn baby’s heart is beating just three short weeks after conception, and that brain waves can be measured not long after. We know that at the moment of conception, the baby has a completely separate DNA strand. Never before has it been so difficult to ignore the reality that the baby being ripped apart in an abortion is, in actuality, a living human being, completely separate from his mother.

It’s no surprise, then, that residents— doctors in training — struggle with the decision to perform abortions. Even established abortionists aren’t able to put a good spin on it, with notorious late-term abortionist Susan Robinson saying that other doctors see abortionists as “the lowest of the low”, and Warren Hern saying that abortionists, instead of being respected, are made to feel irrelevant. Combine the lack of respect and prestige with ever-increasing science backing pro-life principles, it’s not surprising that fewer and fewer medical students are learning how to perform abortions. The ones that do learn are reportedly shunned.

It’s hard to take an oath to do no harm and yet, do immense amounts of harm every single day. And no matter how much the abortion lobby tries to paint a pretty picture, the reality is much more grim—so much so, that even doctors who perform abortions and say they’re proud to do so can’t quite make their doubts go away.
Editor’s note. This appeared at and is reprinted with permission.

Source: NRLC News

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Beautiful Stories


Parents share on Facebook why they refused abortion and chose life for their children

Popular photoblog Humans of New York recently shared two true stories about people who chose life instead of abortion. Facebook users responded in droves, with over one million likes and more than 29,500 shares between the two stories.

The comments have exploded, passing 13,000 – many with people sharing their own choices for life and the children they were blessed with as a result.
The most recent of the life posts from Humans of New York details a couple who got up and walked out of their abortion appointment, even after filling out the paperwork:
The other Humans of New York post shows a young man whose mother helped him see that a pregnant girlfriend was an opportunity for him to step up to the plate and act like a man – and like the father he already was – instead of shirking responsibility. Real fathers act to save and love their children. (If you’re a man who’s wondering what to do about the potential abortion of your child, go here.)

Here are some of the stories people shared in response to the two Humans of New York posts. There are an amazing number of women who cancelled their abortion appointments the very day they were scheduled – some even while they were in the clinic or on the table.
At every moment, we can choose life!

Vonalina Cake – “I cancelled mine the morning of the appointment…my boy is 17 now and 6ft 2 and a bit.”
Daf Guillen – “I was 16 and pregnant and also went to an abortion clinic. They did an ultrasound and turned the screen away from me. The doctor said I wasn’t allowed to see because it might make me change my mind. I started crying, sat up and said “I think I just did, I’m keeping my baby” now my son is almost 9 years old and I don’t know what I’d do without him”

Erica Roberts Crownover – “My first child is adopted and she’s almost 3 months old. Her birth mom is one of the bravest people I know and she had made two appointments to go to an abortion clinic, but the both times she couldn’t go through with it. I’m forever grateful to her for giving us what we struggled for years to have.”

Adia Wrapstostayhome Holt – “My boyfriend wanted me to get an abortion with our daughter. I went to the abortion clinic. I had the ultrasound and everything to tell how far along i was. But in Louisiana you have to wait 24 hours to actually have the procedure. I am so thankful for that because i couldn’t do it. My daughter will be 5 on Sunday. I am sooo happy i didn’t have the abortion. She saved me. I was acting reckless. Doing things had no business doing. I honestly know that she saved my life.”

birth, mom, baby
Nicole Helderlein – “My mom kicked me out when I told her I was pregnant. She took my car and told me she wouldn’t support me. 7 years later and I stand on my own, support myself and my daughter. Sometimes we find our strength out of necessity. Keep your head up and just do right by your child.”
Matthew Davis – “Hey man, I was surprised at 20 that I was going to be a Dad. I was scared shitless. That was 15 years ago and my parents were all super supportive. Now my daughter and listen to similar music and she is artistic and cooler and smarter than I ever was. I wouldn’t trade fatherhood-with all its challenges-for anything in the world.

Let me tell you something. Whether your Mom is old school tough or new wave soft, she loves you. Being a Man and manning up to being a FATHER to another human being is honestly the toughest, smartest, coolest, and most badass adventure upon which you can embark. You get to mold someone’s mind and heart and teach another human being how to be. What will you teach them? Weakness? Absence? No, I doubt that. I think that you will teach that small person about your manly strength, your intelligence, your passion, persistence, and your love. And I encourage you to do so. You will find great personal reward in this endeavor. And there is plenty of support out there. I have faith in you. I don’t even know you, but somehow I believe in you. If you want advice, let me know privately.”

Journey with Daddy
Sharlotte Mazoe – “Was in that exact position at 17. However, I was alone at the abortion clinic. Changed my mind at the last minute, and now she is 24 and the best friend i’ve ever encountered. She looks out for me, very protective of me and she is my biggest cheerleader. Can’t imagine what life would have been like without her. My dear, cherish every moment you have with her. I salute you both for taking that decision at such a young age. Bless you!”
Anne Shirley – “Even when she was a single cell, she had a life worth living, defending, protecting. The baby everyone told me to abort is 18 and heading to college, and her dad and I have been married 19 years. LIFE is beautiful!”

Soraya Atkinson – “I was 16 when I fell pregnant & my mum swore to me if I didn’t abort she’d never speak to me again. He’s almost two and they are inseparable! I live independently, study and have a happy healthy happy boy. Best decision I ever made was to not listen to my mum. A grandmothers love is so different to any other. She’ll thank you one day.”

Sarah Powell – “I had my first child at 17. I graduated high school 7 months later with my class. I went to college that fall. By the time I graduated 8 years later, I had 2 more kids. I now have 6, a bachelors degree, a husband, and a great paying job. We are happily middle class, own our home and a business. A child too soon isn’t a death sentence.”

birthparents (2)
Judy Boudreau – “I was 38 when I got pregnant. My husband didn’t want kids but when I said I couldn’t go through with an abortion we decided to go for it. Unfortunately I had a miscarriage, but my husband said “let’s try again … I got used to the idea of having a rugrat.” So at age 40 and again at 43, I had 2 beautiful baby boys who have made my life so beautiful that I cry thinking of the alternative.”

Kari Botts – “I was 18 when I told my mom and dad I was pregnant. My mom rose from her chair and immediately hugged me. It took my dad 3 days to say anything to me. But he finally did. Now my son is 17 and he is the best choice I ever made! I married a man who has raised him as his own and loves him as his own.”

Amanda Szela – “I got pregnant after my boyfriend and I had been dating 9 months – I was 23 and living in my own, but I was still nervous to tell my parents. I was so anxious waiting for their response and then my dad said ‘if everyone waited until they were ready to have a baby, no one would ever have babies…’
It was the best response. We are now married, my daughter is 4.5yrs old and we have a 6 month old baby boy.”

Laura Grace – “My mom made me “man up” too!!! I was 18 when I got pregnant, had my son at 19. My mom would NOT watch my son unless I was going to school, work, or a doctors appointment!
My son will be 17 in February and wants to join the Air Force to become a para rescue jumper…I couldn’t be prouder!!
It will all work itself out!!!”
Mother Theresa
Amanda Nicole – “I got pregnant at the age of 21. My parents were really cool about it. I had thought they would of kicked me out. My boyfriend at the time wanted nothing to do with me when I told him. Now I’m 22, in school to be in the medical field, I’m working part time and I have a beautiful baby girl named Olivia. My life has completely changed and it’s all for the better. The first time you see your baby on the ultra sound I knew I had to be the best person I could be. I love my baby girl more than anything. She’s the best thing that could of ever happened to me. Be the best you can and your child will love you more than you know. The love of a child and those moments where you see them smile is worth any sleepless nights and any aggravation you may have. Good luck to you and your girlfriend.”

Nicole McEacharn Potts – “I was 17 and pregnant and briefly considered the same. But now he’s 20 and he’s a US Marine and I could not be more proud of him. We did good.”

Roman St Pierre – “That’s amazing sir! I’m a young father myself. I have an amazingly beautiful daughter that is over two years old now. I don’t regret one single second not going forward and being with my now fiancé, and being with her every second of her pregnancy. Congratulations. It looks like your doing just fine as a father!”
(Photo credit: Julie, Dave, and family on Flickr)
(Photo credit: Julie, Dave, and family on Flickr)
Deb Fowler Dunn – “When my twenty-something daughter got pregnant I asked her if she’d consider getting an abortion. At the time she was addicted to opioids and with a total loser. That was four years ago. She’s been clean of drugs nearly 2 years, has her own apartment, supports herself and her son without the baby-daddy’s help and we have the most precious 3 year old grandson. I’m glad she knew better than Mom.”

Terri DeWolf Mark Booth – “Good for you guys! I did the same thing 37 years ago. Never regretted it! He’s a handsome, wonderful man.”
"My gorgeous mom chose life. Here she is with the daughter she loves."
“My gorgeous mom chose life. Here she is with the daughter she loves.”
Many Facebook posters congratulated these parents on choosing life, hoping that many more would do the same:
Carolina Garnica – “*standing ovation* that’s what I call ‘courage’”
Wendy Brenneman – “This should be a flier in every abortion clinic. So glad you chose life!”

Christina Miller Hirst – “Never heard of a woman who regretted not having an abortion.”

Robyn Hefferan  – “How many others wish they had listened to that small voice?”

Source: NRLC News



“Such a gray softness can be but one thing. It is a baby, and dead”

By Dave Andrusko
mortal-lessons-cover  As we’ve done for the last two weeks, we will be offering multiple posts today on the controversy, which shows no signs of waning (just the opposite), over two secretly recorded videos in which two high ranking Planned Parenthood officials blasély conversed about intact hearts and lungs and livers and skulls.
Many people, including me, have attempted to convey why these conversations recorded by The Center for Medical Progress have created such a whirlwind of controversy. Ross Douthat, a columnist for the New York Times, offered his insight in a column “Looking Away From Abortion” that ran Sunday.
I’m going to fold his very helpful thoughts into another post. But I want to thank him for beginning with an excerpt from an essay that appeared in a book by Dr. Richard Selzer published in 1976. We’ve written about a different essay in “Mortal Lessons: Notes On The Art Of Surgery” on several occasions. (I’m reposting that one which goes back all the way to 1993. Of everything I’ve written in the last 34 years, it is my all-time favorite.)
What Selzer saw is as good an example of the shock of recognition as you will ever find. After a garbage truck has left, Dr. Selzer finds “a foreignness upon the pavement.” But the “it” is not an “it” at all, but fetal body parts which a hospital
“mixed up with the other debris” instead of being incinerated or interred. “It is not an everyday occurrence. Once in a lifetime, he [the hospital director] says.
  (You have to read much further into Selzer’s essays to appreciate its sheer soul-chilling impact.)
The bag containing the babies’ remains had fallen off the garbage truck and broken open. It was very important to the hospital director that Selzer understand what had happened—and to himself as well, it appears. He laid out that “aborted fetuses that weigh one pound or less are incinerated. Those weighing over one pound are buried at the city cemetery.”
Why the need for the meticulous detail? Selzer speculates that it is an attempt to offer a rationale—an assurance—that contrary to your lying eyes, the world has not gone crazy. The director’s explanations are to assure us so that
Now you see. It is orderly. It is sensible. The world is not mad. This is still a civilized society…
But Selzer DID see, in the only way that matters.
“All at once you step on something soft. You feel it with your foot. Even through your shoe you have the sense of something unusual, something marked by a special ‘give.’ It is a foreignness upon the pavement. Instinct pulls your foot away in an awkward little movement. You look down, and you see… a tiny naked body, its arms and legs flung apart, its head thrown back, its mouth agape, its face serious. A bird, you think, fallen from its nest. But there is no nest here on Woodside, no bird so big. It is rubber, then. A model.  A joke. Yes, that’s it, a joke. And you bend to see. Because you must. And it is no joke. Such a gray softness can be but one thing. It is a baby, and dead.
As he ponders what he has seen and heard—and what it means — Selzer concludes
But just this once, you know it isn’t [sane and sensible]. You saw, and you know.
  At least in the first two videos we have not seen baby body parts. But we have seen into the heart of darkness.
As you listen to Dr. Deborah Nucatola, senior director for medical services for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Dr. Mary Gatter, president of the Medical Directors Council of PPFA, you might truly begin to understand for the very first time the banality of evil.
How behavior that almost defies imagination can be carried out on a mass scale by ordinary people so utterly desensitized that they can cheerfully talk over salad and red white wine about what they are doing to helpless unborn babies.

Source: NRLC News

Planned Parenthood


What happens when Planned Parenthood is no longer the “good guy”?

By Dave Andrusko
150721-Gatter-Screen-Grab-01 It’s hardly unfair to say that New York Times is enraged each and every time a piece of pro-life legislation is introduced (let alone passed). The only time the Times is happy when pro-life Republicans talk about abortion is when a GOPer has trouble articulating what he or she means to say which makes it possible for the Times to announce, “Ah hah! Another campaign in the never ending war on women.”

So you can only imagine how angry most of the reporters, virtually all of the columnists, and the entire editorial board is when it is pro-abortion Democrats’ who are largely at a loss for words—in other words on the defensive. That is the current situation as one of the Democrats most important allies—Planned Parenthood—is in the middle of turbulent seas and taking on a lot of water.
So you get headlines like this: “Republicans Alter Script on Abortion, Seeking to Shift Debate.” Which is another way of saying how dare pro-life Republicans talk about the extremism not only of PPFA but also the Democratic Party. You are supposed to act like a piñata—and like it.
So when they talk about their kids and grandkids and ultrasounds and all the things unborn children can do, it’s all reading from a ”script.” Which is not to be confused with the White House (and Hillary Clinton) which hews to the PPFA line, syllable for syllable.
But it is not pro-life Republicans who are altering the script on abortion but prominent Planned Parenthood officials. Even if you’ve only seen the short version of the videos and skimmed the complete transcripts, you’re stunned by the callous and cavalier way Drs. Deborah Nucatola and Mary Gatter talk about  harvesting baby body parts.
The lone pro-life New York Times columnist, Ross Douthat, wrote about the mounting controversy over the weekend. As always he is very much worth reading.

He especially debunks the false parallelism that PPFA and all abortionists trot out: all surgery is bloody and abortion is surgery so if no one gets upset by removing a gall bladder, why get upset by removing an unborn baby in parts—or intact?
Pro-abortionists tell us, “It’s unsettling, yes, but just because it’s gross doesn’t prove it’s wrong.” Douthat responses

Which is true, but in this case not really true enough. Because real knowledge isn’t purely theoretical; it’s the fruit of experience, recognition, imagination, life itself.
And the problem these videos create for Planned Parenthood isn’t just a generalized queasiness at surgery and blood.
It’s a very specific disgust, informed by reason and experience — the reasoning that notes that it’s precisely a fetus’s humanity that makes its organs valuable, and the experience of recognizing one’s own children, on the ultrasound monitor and after, as something more than just “products of conception” or tissue for the knife

  The Abortion Lobby talks as if all that matters is process—how a diseased tissue or an “unwanted” child—is removed. But it’s more than that, which even an elementary capacity to see beyond WHAT is being done to see to WHOM it is done will demonstrate.    We don’t bond with our appendix or walk our liver down the aisle.
But because PPFA is “at the heart of respectable liberal society,” Douthat writes, it is very difficult to “start pondering the possibility that [it is] an institution dedicated to a practice that deserves to be called barbarism.” He explains

That’s a hard thing to accept. It’s part of why so many people hover in the conflicted borderlands of the pro-choice side. They don’t like abortion, they think its critics have a point … but to actively join our side would require passing too comprehensive a judgment on their coalition, their country, their friends, their very selves.
True, but for how long? How long will honorable people insist on averting their gaze from what PPFA does just because they are “one of us”?

Source: NRLC News

Pain and the Unborn Baby


Medical Expert Confirms Unborn Children Feel Excruciating Pain During Abortions

  Charlotte Lozier Institue 
On May 12, 2015, David A. Prentice, Ph.D., Vice President and Research Director of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, was invited to speak on the science of fetal pain on Point of View radio talk show. On May 13, 2015 the United States House of Representatives passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
The full transcript is below:
Ms. Penna Dexter:
We want to talk about fetal pain […] because this bill is so much stronger. It actually bans abortions after twenty weeks, and that’s because – I don’t think there’s a doubt now that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks?
Dr. David Prentice:
The science is pretty conclusive at this point. And there are always going to be people, especially those in favor of abortion, who will say, “Oh that really doesn’t happen, and they’ll throw up a smokescreen. And what they usually do is they refer to an old study back in 2005 that was published actually by people who had associations with Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.
But the real science – and there’s some new things in fact, that have come out in the last few months – but the science pretty conclusively demonstrates: Young babies still in the womb at 20 weeks after conception, and probably even earlier, do indeed feel pain, and in fact, may feel more intense pain than a newborn or an adult
Ms. Dexter:
And that is because [of] their development?
Dr. Prentice:

Source: LifeSite News
Exactly, they have a higher density of nerve receptors. Like you said, your skin is not very thick at that point, but there is another aspect.
There are certain pathways that sort of tone down pain. If I hit my thumb with a hammer, I’m going to feel it because the pain sensation goes up to my brain, but there is also a return path to try and tone that down. That doesn’t even start to develop until about the time that you’re born, so you don’t get this dampening of the pain.
In fact, there was a study done, reported just a couple weeks ago, where they were looking at pain experience of newborns – just between one and six or seven days old and adults, and the headlines were, “Babies feel pain like adults and they feel it more intensely.”
The study actually looked at regions of the brain associated with pain using very sophisticated technology and comparing not really pain, just sort of like you’d take the end of a pencil and press it against the bottom of this baby’s foot, a little bit of pressure, a little sensation there.
A lot of the babies even slept through this whole procedure, but they were in this functional MRI machine, very sophisticated technology, and then they would do the same thing to adults to see how they responded.
Eighteen of the twenty pain regions lit up in babies, eighteen of the twenty that are the same as adults, and at four times as sensitive. So again, you don’t develop this feedback loop to shut down pain until right about that time, and it takes even several months after birth for it to start to mature.
Now, wind back the clock to five months after conception, you’re a little past halfway through development in moms womb. You don’t even have that feedback loop at all; it’s not starting until months later in your life – and now the pain is very intense. We don’t know exactly how much, but much more intense for the small amount that you might feel as an adult.
Ms. Dexter:
So one of the arguments that’s made is that at twenty weeks the baby doesn’t have a mature cerebral cortex. What do you say to that argument?
Dr. Prentice:
Well, if your listeners aren’t up to speed on brain anatomy, the cortex is sort of the outermost part that is, in terms of your conscious thoughts and so on, it’s the last part of the brain to develop.
There is indication that some of that neuronal material in your brain is already present, starting to be formed certainly by twenty weeks after conception, but it also turns out that that’s not the most important part of your brain for pain perception.
There’s another deeper layer that forms early in your brain called the thalamus, deep inside your brain. It forms even earlier in development – probably about 8 to 12 weeks is when you start to see it forming, and those nerve tracks already connect to the thalamus by the time you are 20 weeks after conception, or after fertilization.
In fact, there are individuals who are born without the cerebral cortex, and they feel pain. We know that for a fact.
So, you don’t need that cortical layer to actually feel pain. What you need are these deeper parts of the brain and simply the neural tracks for sensation. And those are definitely formed, intact, and responding by twenty weeks after conception.
Ms. Dexter:
That argument that no mature cerebral cortex, and that’s necessary for perception of pain, that’s one of your smokescreen arguments that you’ve been talking about?
Dr. Prentice:
It is definitely a smokescreen.baby66
Ms. Dexter:
If a scientist starts using terminology that you don’t really understand, then you get intimidated.
Yes, people start throwing out these technical terms…In fact, it wasn’t until probably the last ten or fifteen years that doctors really thought newborns even experienced pain, so they would be doing lots of procedures on them after birth and they didn’t think that they could even receive pain at that point in time.
Fast forward to where we are now, and starting about that time, fetal surgery started to come into vogue, where they are actually doing operations on these little ones while they’re still in the womb.
I know your listeners have probably seen that famous photo of the little hand reaching out of the womb grabbing the doctor’s finger. Little Samuel Armas, he was operated at an age about that same time, about five months after conception … He was operated on while he was still in the womb. And [these fetal surgeons] know that these little ones feel pain. They see the responses, there is plenty of evidence for that.
They give anesthetic and pain medicine directly to the unborn baby, it’s not relying just on an anesthetic for mom. In fact, it’s interesting, I came across one of the studies where they were talking about the success of doing these operations while the little babies are still in the womb, and they talked about how they address, beforehand, the mom…
Ms. Dexter:
It’s sort of amazing to me that the intent that the adults in the world have for this baby have everything to do with whether or not their pain is controlled because at that point, when they are operated on, they are getting anesthesia. But if they are being aborted, they are going to feel the entire pain of that awful abortion, correct?
Dr. Prentice:
Yes, that’s true, and it is just an attitude. It’s how we view this little one; it’s the same person in there, but it’s just how we view their worth to us.
We were talking about fetal surgery, where the surgeons recognize that this is an issue. I mean these are their patient’s number one –
Ms. Dexter:
The unborn baby is their patient?
Dr. Prentice:
That’s right. They’re going on to do this surgery on an unborn baby while still in the womb at five months or even earlier in their development. There have been a few surgeries even earlier, but they recognize that this little patient, at that point in their life – still in the womb – can experience pain.
In fact, it’s interesting: the leading clinical anesthesia textbook says it’s clear that these little unborn babies can experience pain as early as 16 weeks after conception, definitely by twenty. [It says] that these little unborn babies – they  use the medical term “fetus” – that they are a patient, and that it is critical to administer anesthesia directly to them.
I was going to read you, this is what fetal surgeons tell the mother before they are going to go ahead and do the surgery. Listen to the almost tenderness here. It says:
“You’ll be given general anesthesia, and that anesthesia will put your baby to sleep as well. In addition, during the prenatal surgery your unborn baby will be given an injection of pain medication as well medication to ensure the baby doesn’t move during the surgery.”
Again, these are little patients, very tender ones, and as we said they can experience pain even more intensely than you or I do. [It’s] this attitude – that these are little persons of worth that we need to handle compassionately. They’re doing surgery for all sorts of types of conditions now.
There’s a special fetal surgery wing, for example, at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia that has done over 1,200 of these operations. There are now almost a dozen or more special fetal surgery wings at major hospitals around the country. Again, it’s recognizing that these are patients and not some item to be discarded.
Ms. Dexter:
It’s so interesting that this huge hospital that does these surgeries is in the same town where Kermit Gosnell existed for years. It’s sort of the contrast between good and evil and life and death isn’t it?
Dr. Prentice:
Right there within the same city. How shocking, in fact.
Ms. Dexter:
Tell us about the Charlotte Lozier institute, I know that the last time I talked to you, you were at FRC, and I know that you all work so closely together really all on the same page on these issues, but tell us just about your position there and what that organization is about.
Dr. Prentice:
Sure, what the Charlotte Lozier institute is the education and research arm of the Susan B. Anthony List, and your listeners have probably heard of that organization.
What we do at Charlotte Lozier is we are focused on science, we’re focused on statistics for life. We are trying to put this information together so that Marjorie can use a bullhorn to get the truth out there. So that Members of Congress, state legislators, or other scientists or experts – when they speak to the media, the public, or to their colleagues – can get the real facts out there.
For so many years the prolife groups relied on the Guttmacher Institute for the “facts” about abortion. That’s a real contradiction, isn’t it, because Guttmacher of course is a spin-off from Planned Parenthood, the biggest abortion provider in the nation. Should we have relied on those people? Probably not, but they were the only game in town.
Well, there is a new game in town and the Charlotte Lozier Institute intends to give the prolife, objective viewpoint of the real facts about life from conception until natural death so that people have the facts and can use them.
Ms. Dexter:
When Roe v. Wade was decided, they acted like there was some sort of a question about life and that this was a real baby. Prolifers knew, anybody who was a believer, a Christian, or had faith knew this was life because God created this life in the womb and we knew all that. But they were able to get away with [that question of life’s beginning when] they made [the Roe v. Wade] decision, and now because of the science – again the science – has shown us what’s there from such an early stage.
I’ve got two grandchildren on the way and I’ve been able to see the sonograms, and they are much clearer than the ones when I had my children. It’s so clear and obvious, the humanity is just obvious and clear now, and I think we are a little behind the curve almost in getting this fetal pain ban passed.
Dr. Prentice:
We probably are, and it’s a matter that we need to keep educating people about the truth and the humanity of these little ones. You are right. It’s gone from back in those dark early days where we were told this was a blob of tissue to now these 4D ultrasounds where you can see the little one in there smiling and waving at you as they do somersaults. I mean, it is amazing.
That brings up another point too, another study from just last week. What do the courts look at in terms of this issue of abortion? That term “viability” often shows up. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Acts are not meant, at the federal or state level, to weigh in on that issue of viability and survival outside the womb. They are meant to show the humanity of that unborn child.
But even in terms of viability, the New York Times of all places reported last week on a new scientific study out in the New England Journal of Medicine and their focus was on survival of these little ones. Very, very premature babies, some as early as, yes five months after conception, lining up just exactly with what these bills are going for, twenty weeks after conception. They are talking about how a number of these little ones even that early survive, and – lo and behold – if you actually intervene, care for them, and try to keep them alive many many, more of them survive.
It would seem to be common sense that, yes, if we actually do something to help you breathe or live, you’ll survive. I just want to point out that these are little lives. That there is humanity of this little person, and we need to focus on that and preserve those lives.
To listen to the audio:
LifeNews Note: Reprinted with permission from the Charlotte Lozier Institute.

Monday, July 27, 2015

Life is Beautiful


Miracle baby with rare medical condition gets superhero cape for bravery

Jude Peters is an adorable one-year-old boy living with a disease called rhizomelic chondrodysplasia punctata (RCDP), a rare and fatal form of dwarfism.
Parents Hannah and Sully Peters refused to abort Jude even when doctors pressured them to “terminate and try again.” In an interview with FOX News, Jude’s mother said doctors expected that he would only live a few weeks.

“They told me that he might not be compatible with life outside of the womb,” Hannah Peters said. “Then when he was born, they sent him home on hospice and said he wouldn’t make it a few weeks.”

Baby Jude was diagnosed with dwarfism. His parents are continuing to chronicle his amazing journey.
Baby Jude was diagnosed with dwarfism. His parents are continuing to chronicle his amazing journey.
Jude’s parents Hannah and Sullivan have done an amazing job of sharing the story of their precious son with the world. Their Facebook page, Praying for Jude Sullivan Peters, has close to 29,000 likes, and Hannah’s Instagram has over 19,000 followers. People across the globe have fallen in love with brave little Jude Peters.
Recently Jude received a beautiful cape from Tiny Superheroes, a company that makes superhero capes for children battling illnesses. The children who received the capes are suffering from serious conditions, such as cancer, autism, epilepsy, and heart defects. The tiny cape bearing the child’s first initial is a symbol of their courage and strength.
When Jude received his cape, his father asked their Facebook friends to share a super power they believe Jude has. Amber Tessnear Chapman was one of many who said, “Jude’s super power is being able to make anyone smile.”
judeflys2 Robyn Walshaw said, “Jude has many super powers, some we probably don’t even know about! The biggest is all the love he attracts! We can’t help but love this tiny man even if we don’t know him. “
Arleth Torres Santacruz believes, “Jude’s super powers include: being super cute, being a fighter, being a warrior and somehow finding his way into everyone’s heart!”
Hannah recently shared on social media that she knew Jude was going to impact the world before he was born. She said:
I was told Jude would speak to the nations before he was born. I didn’t know exactly what that would look like until now. I didn’t realize the impact my child could have on people all over the world.
His story hasn’t just brought hope, faith and joy to my life, but to people all over who have never even had the chance to meet him face to face. The countless testimonies we receive from strangers telling us how Jude’s story has brought healing and hope has been such a wonderful blessing to us.
Since the beginning of our journey with Jude, it has been my prayer that The Lord would receive glory, people would be filled with hope and faith in him and that maybe even amongst our greatest battles, our story could speak life, healing, hope and truth. I am blessed and honored that this precious gift has been placed in my hands.  Jude’s story is a constant inspiration to us all! May his life be a reminder that a single child’s bravery – and the bravery of his mom and dad – has the potential to touch hearts around the world.

Source: LiveAction News

Planned Parenthood and More Lies


11 lies Planned Parenthood’s president told America about selling aborted baby parts

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, appeared on TV over the weekend for the first time since the Planned Parenthood scandal broke on July 14.

ABC US News | World News
She sat with George Stephanopoulos of ABC’s “This Week” to answer a few questions. What was true, and what was false?
Let’s review.
CLAIM #1: “This [the Center for Medical Progress’ investigative video project] has been a three-year, well-funded effort…”
FALSE: Well-funded? Does Cecile really want to talk about well-funded? How about Planned Parenthood’s raking in of taxpayer dollars to the tune of over $1.4 million a day? Compare this with the $120,000 David Daleiden says that the Center for Medical Progress received in donations over the course of three years. And then let’s talk about who’s well-funded.

CLAIM #2: “…and of course, highly doctored videos,” “it’s all been edited out,” “very highly edited videos, sensationalized videos”
FALSE: If all CMP had released were the eight or so minute clips, then perhaps Richards would have had a very short peg leg to stand on. However, almost immediately upon releasing the clips, CMP also released the full footage of their discussions with Planned Parenthood’s top doctors. All news agencies and reporters had the full, unedited versions equally available to them. “Highly edited” became rhetorical and pointless the minute the full footage was released.
CLAIM #3: “…by the most militant wing of the anti-abortion movement in this country…” “the folks behind this in fact are part of the most militant wing of the anti-abortion movement that has been behind, you know, the bombing of clinics, the murder of doctors in their homes, um, and in their churches…”
FALSE: Is this really the best she can do? Instead of discussing what her employees were caught doing on tape (discussing the piecing out of babies to a fetal parts dealer), Richards goes for over-the-top, slanderous rhetoric. David Daleiden, the leader of CMP, has been a completely peaceful pro-lifer, in all of his 26 years of life. No one associated with CMP has bombed a clinic or murdered a doctor in their home or church. Richards speaks as though these things are common occurrences, when, in reality, in America’s history of legal abortion one, single abortionist has been murdered in his home (Slepian in 1998) and one in his church (Tiller in 2009). Obviously, Daleiden and CMP (which didn’t even exist until less than three years ago) were not involved. Pro-lifers from every group, including, of course, Live Action, denounce such lone-wolf actions immediately, and it is never a part of what we do.  There is no “militant wing” of the pro-life movement. “Militant” involves being combative, aggressive, extreme, and violent – a much better description of Planned Parenthood’s own practice of ripping babies apart and selling their pieces.
CLAIM #4: What I want to make really clear, George, is Planned Parenthood has broken no laws.”
FALSE: Whoa, Cecile. Perhaps her time would be better spent reading, you know, the actual law instead of trying to put pillowcases over the heads of the American public. Saying “Planned Parenthood has broken no laws,” doesn’t make it so. And this article will take any American through a step-by-step explanation of how Planned Parenthood actually has broken multiples laws and violated federal regulations – by their top doctors’ own blatant admissions.
CLAIM #5: “We have the highest standards.”
FALSE: Oddly, the White House seems to have bought this line from Planned Parenthood. However, if Richards were to talk about real facts instead of making vague claims, the truth would become painfully obvious. Manipulating vulnerable women into signing consent forms is not a “highest standard.” The complete absence of national company policy on fetal tissue “donation” is not a “highest standard.” Showing women a grainy photo of their baby’s ultrasound instead of the real-time image on screen is not a “highest standard.” Using that same real-time image to locate the baby’s heart, liver, and other organs to ensure they are not “crushed” during the abortion (so they can be sold) is not a “highest standard.” Attempting to gain profits in a non-monetary, backdoor way is not a “highest standard.” Shall we go on?
CLAIM #6: “1 in 5 women in this country depend on Planned Parenthood for their healthcare.”
FALSE: “Depend on” is a big claim. In reality, according to Planned Parenthood itself, “1 in 5 women has come to Planned Parenthood…” Some of these women were no doubt like one of my best friends who walked right out the door after Planned Parenthood said they couldn’t help her if she was going to keep her baby. (They did provide her with a referral number to a doctor. It was disconnected.) Great level of dependence there, I tell you.
CLAIM #7: Stephanopoulos: “You say that no Planned Parenthood affiliate has profited from fetal tissue.” Richards: “Correct, correct.”
TRUE/FALSE: This is a hard one. Technically, Richards’ statement is true. She does “say” that no Planned Parenthood affiliate has profited from fetal tissue. But, in reality, (while there are many ways to demonstrate Richards’ sentiment as false), let’s look at one particularly revealing admission made by Dr. Mary Gatter in the full footage of video two:
Heather [from fetal parts buyer, Novogenix] would look at the tissue [at Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles] and take what she required, so logistically it was very easy for us, we didn’t have to do anything. There was compensation for this, and there was discussion if that was legal…
Tip to Mary Gatter and Cecile: No, that’s not legal. Getting compensation for not “hav[ing] to do anything” is called making a profit.
CLAIM #8: “This is actually not about women’s healthcare.”
TRUE: Touché! At last, Richards admits that this whole debacle is not about women’s healthcare. Unless, of course, she thinks that crushing babies in just the right places so as to abort them, but to still preserve their hearts, lungs, and livers for sale, is women’s healthcare. Pretty sure most women would be creeped out by that standard. (And they also probably wish Planned Parenthood had told them their baby had parts, and “lower extremities,” along with a heart, liver, brain, and lungs. Not just a “clump of cells” when we’re talking about a business transaction, now is it?)
CLAIM #9: Stephanopoulos: “Mary Gatter appears to be haggling.” Richards: “Absolutely not.” … Stephanopoulous: “If there’s not financial benefit to the clinics, why are they haggling over the cost?” Richards: “They’re not. The only people that are haggling in these videos are the undercover folks who are absolutely trying to entrap doctors…”
FALSE: We’ll just let a nice chunky clip from the full footage transcript illustrate who was really doing the haggling here:
Buyer: And are we agreed that $100 would keep you happy.
Gatter: Well let me agree to find out what other affiliates in California are getting, and if they’re getting substantially more, then we can discuss it then. … I mean, the money is not the important thing, but it has to be big enough that it is worthwhile.
Buyer: No, no, but it is something to talk about. I mean, it was one of the first things you brought up, right? So.
Gatter: Mhm [After another discussion of price ideas]. … It’s been years since I talked about compensation, so let me just figure out what others are getting, if this is in the ballpark, it’s fine, if it’s still low then we can bump it up. I want a Lamborghini. [laughs]
Buyer: [Laughs] What did you say?
Gatter: I said I want a Lamborghini! [laughs]
CLAIM #10: When Stephanopoulos asked Richards about the money Planned Parenthood charges as a fee for fetal parts, she replied: “It’s not a fee. It’s not a fee. It’s actually just the cost of transmitting this material to research institutions.”
FALSE: Wait… research institutions? In the videos, Gatter and Nucatola were planning out sales with a for-profit fetal parts buyer. They both admitted that Planned Parenthood works with Novogenix, a company, and it’s now well known that Planned Parenthood works with StemExpress, which Richards herself called a “for-profit” company. So yeah, “transmitting this material to research institutions” nothing. It’s more properly called “charging a fee for fetal parts,” also known as making a profit. (Plus, check this out: Nucatola says, “Well, it’s funny because at Planned Parenthood, we don’t consider that research.”
CLAIM #11: Stephanopoulos: “The tapes appear to describe times when the clinics adjust the abortion procedure to better harvest – Richards: “It’s not done.” Stephanopoulos: “-the fetal organs” Richards: “It’s absolutely not done. And I’ve talked to doctors all across the country.” … Stephanopoulos: “It does appear that that’s what’s being described in these tapes.” Richards: “Well, it’s because these tapes have been edited, and they’ve tried to entrap doctors to say things…and Iiiii, listen, I stand behind the healthcare that we provide at Planned Parenthood.”
FALSE: Maybe, just maybe, instead of talking “to doctors all across the country,” Richards should talk to her own. The full, unedited footage of both tapes reveals Nucatola and Gatter explicitly describing how abortion procedures are changed to preserve and harvest baby organs. Nucatola unabashedly admits to modifying abortion procedures personally, because she’s “happy to help” the fetal parts buyers. (Search this transcript for “less crunchy” and “IPAS” and this one for “crush” and “partial-birth abortion.”)
CLAIM #12: Stephanopoulos: “When these doctors are talking about…‘less crunchy’ ways to perform these abortions so that the organs can be preserved, what’s happening there, are they just lying?” Richards: “No. … That’s absolutely, all of this is taken out of context. …” Stephanopoulos: “As long as the procedure is never altered, and you’re stating that unequivocally?” Richards: “That’s right.”
FALSE: Ok, so wait? Mary Gatter isn’t lying when she says “less crunchy” abortions can be performed so babies can be delivered “intact,” and ready for harvesting? I thought you just said modifications of procedure were never done, Cecile. If that were true, than Mary would have to be lying. Except you said she’s not, and, well, she’s not. There’s no “context” in which it would make sense for an abortion doctor to admit to changing abortion procedure unless that is exactly what she does. I might walk back my “unequivocally” if I were you, given the direct words of your Dr. Deborah Nucatola:
So then you’re just kind of cognizant of where you put your graspers, you try to intentionally go above and below the thorax, so that, you know, we’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m going to basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact. And with the calvarium [head], in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it’s not vertex, because when it’s vertex presentation, you never have enough dilation at the beginning of the case, unless you have real, huge amount of dilation to deliver an intact calvarium. So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end. So I mean there are certainly steps that can be taken…
Cecile Richards deserves an award: Most Number of Lies That Can be Told to the American People in Ten Minutes on National Television. Perhaps it’s now easier to understand her belief that “obviously…you know, the most disgusting part of this to me” is that someone “lied.”Yes, it is pretty disgusting.

Source: LiveAction News