Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Planned Parenthood

Cecile-Richards-627

19 key numbers Republicans used to question Planned Parenthood

(Daily Signal) The fight over Planned Parenthood reached a boiling point Tuesday on Capitol Hill when Cecile Richards, president of the organization, testified before Congress about how the group uses its federal taxpayer dollars.
Richards fiercely defended Planned Parenthood from partisan allegations made by House Republicans, which she called “outrageous, “offensive” and “categorically untrue.”

“The latest smear campaign is based on efforts by our opponents to entrap our doctors and clinicians into breaking the law — and once again our opponents failed,” Richards said in her testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The hearing was called by Chairman Jason Chaffetz in light of “disturbing” videos emerged this summer detailing tissue procurement from aborted babies. Yet, during the hearing, members spent little time addressing the videos.
Instead, Republican lawmakers focused their questioning on Planned Parenthood’s finances and how it spends its $528 million taxpayer dollars.
“Does Planned Parenthood really need federal subsidies? Does it need federal dollars?” asked Chaffetz, a Republican from Utah. “As far as I can tell, this is an organization that doesn’t need federal subsidies.”
Democrats, on the other hand, defended the organization and called out Republicans for taking their fight against Planned Parenthood too far.
“You threatened to shut down the government you ousted your speaker and now you want to set off yet another select committee to investigate,” Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Va. said. “Do you really want to do this? Do you really want to align yourself with radical extremists?”
But Republicans didn’t back down, and spend the next five hours peppering Richards with questions over the services Planned Parenthood provides, their travel and party expenses, employee salaries and “co-mingling” of 501c(3) and 501c(4) funds.
Here is a summary of the key points addressed in today’s hearing.
Employee Salaries
Chaffetz questioned Richards about her $590,928 salary in 2013, and her combined income of more than $2.7 million from 2009 to 20013.
“Planned Parenthood is an organization with massive salaries,” Chaffetz said.
They also raised concern over reports that over 40 of Planned Parenthood’s executives earned $200,000 or more over the years 2009 to 2013.
Those include:
  • $459,827: employee at affiliate for Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota
  • $439,107: employee at Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic
  • $398,779: employee at Planned Parenthood of Southern New England
  • $387,269: employee at Planned Parenthood of Mar Monte
Democrats shot back, criticizing Republicans for “attacking a woman for making a good salary.”
“My colleagues like to say there’s no war on women,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va.
Look at how you’ve been treated as a witness. Intimidation, talking over, interrupting, cutting off sentences, criticizing you because of your salary. How dare you? Who do you think you are? Making a professional salary as a head of a premier national organization, and daring to actually make decisions as the head of that organization? Lord almighty, what’s America coming to? The disrespect, the misogyny rampant here today tells us what’s really going on here.
Rep. John Duncan, Tenn., pushed back, telling Richards, “Surely you don’t expect us to go easy on you because you’re a woman.”

Travel and Party Expenses
Republicans also raised issue with the amount Planned Parenthood spends on travel, galas, and real estate. According to their report, the organization spent more than $5 million on travel on 2013, some of which was spent on first class or charter travel.
“For the record, I do not travel first class,” Richards said.
Republicans also pointed to “blowout parties” where reports say affiliates hosted a “Chocolate Champagne” fundraiser, for example. They also claim Planned Parenthood spent $43.8 million to purchase corporate office space two blocks from Madison Square Garden in New York City.
“The taxpayers are funding over 40 percent of Planned Parenthood—they just have a right to know how this money is being spent,” Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., told Richards (emphasis The Daily Signal’s).

Richards responded to this sentiment by downplaying the government’s role in funding Planned Parenthood, stating, “We don’t get a big check from the government.”
“We, like other Medicaid providers,” she added, “ are reimbursed for services.”
According to reports, the majority of federal funds Planned Parenthood receives come from reimbursements from specific health services provided through Medicaid. These reimbursements make up 41 percent of Planned Parenthood’s entire funding.
‘Co-mingling’ of Health Care and Advocacy Work
In addition to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which provides services to women through its nearly 700 health clinics and affiliates, the organization has a lobbying arm called Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which advocates specific legislation and politicians who support those policies.

According to the Chairman’s memorandum, “Planned Parenthood has given the Planned Parenthood Action Fund $21,576,629 in grants,” and tax returns “indicate that both Planned Parenthood and its affiliates share employees, facilities, equipment, mailing lists and other assets” with the lobbying arm.

Republicans took issue with the structure of the two organizations, alleging taxpayer dollars “subsidize” these political affiliates, which routinely backs Democrat politicians.
“This is advocacy, lobbying, it’s get out the vote,” Chaffetz said. “It’s the co-mingling of funds that bothers us. That’s what we’re concerned about.”
Richards denied any wrongdoing, but said part of her salary is derived from Planned Parenthood Action Fund, and told Republicans she would provide the committee with more information on the matter.

Sending Money Overseas
Republicans also requested more information about Planned Parenthood’s overseas funding.
According to his report, Planned Parenthood sent more than $32.1 millionoutside the U.S. over the past five years. One of those locations was the Democratic Republic of Congo, which Chaffetz said could be a serious issue, since the U.S. has sanctions on the country.
“They’re so flush with cash they started giving money overseas,” Chaffetz said, sarcastically.
Richards responded she would follow up on this matter with more information, but said the organization is committed to investing women’s health services in developing countries.
Planned Parenthood Services
Republicans press Richards on a number of its services, including why breast cancer screenings declined by nearly 50 percent from 2009-2013 according to reports.
“How many of your affiliates have mammogram machines?” asked Rep Mia Love, R-Utah.
“We do not have mammogram machines at our health centers and we’ve never stated that we did.”
Instead, Richards said the organization provides manual breast cancer screenings and refers women who need a mammogram to other clinics.
According to Richards, Planned Parenthood performs about 300,000 abortions each year, which makes up up 3 percent of all health services at the clinics.
Republican lawmakers pressed Richards on these numbers, asking how the organization derived that statistic.

One affiliate lawmakers cited reported receiving $1.4 million from abortion services, making up 28 percent of that affiliate’s entire revenue.
“If 2.7 million women are served according to your testimony…and [Planned Parenthood] annually provided 327,000 abortions last year according to your report…I do the math…that comes up to 12 percent. So how do you get three percent?” asked Rep. Mark Meadows, R-NC. (Emphasis The Daily Signal’s.)

“Some people come to us more than once for different services,” Richards responded.
When asked if stripping Planned Parenthood of its taxpayer dollars would affect its abortion services, Richards said, “I can’t think of a specific impact.”
However, she said the proposal to defund the organization, “would deny people on Medicaid the ability to go to a provider of their choice, and many of them do go to Planned Parenthood for a variety of different reasons.”

In response, Republicans cited the 13,000 federally-qualified health care clinics, arguing they can provide better, more comprehensive care to women.
Editor’s Note: This article was first published at The Daily Signal on September 29, 2015, and is reprinted here with permission.

Source: LiveAction News

Media iBias and Lies

fretz

MSNBC’s attempt to tarnish undercover Planned Parenthood videos backfires

Walter Joshua Fretz who lived 19 weeks.
Walter Joshua Fretz, who lived 19 weeks. (Credit: Lexi Fretz & F2 Photography)
As Cecile Richards was testifying on Capitol Hill and letting many of Planned Parenthood’s secrets out, MSNBC attempted to chip away at the reputation of the Center for Medical Progress, whose undercover videos have exposed Planned Parenthood’s illegal fetal organ sales. Their efforts failed.
MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts interviewed Lexi Fretz, a photographer and mother who shared images of her son Walter, born prematurely at 19 weeks, on Facebook. One of the photos of Walter was used in a Center for Medical Progress video, depicting what a child at approximately 19-20 weeks looks like.
Lexi’s photos of her son have now saved countless lives and helped change people’s minds about abortion.

In an interview with Live Action in March, Fretz said:
For someone who survived so few minutes outside of me, he’s left such an impact, more than I ever could. For someone so tiny, he’s touched so many. I hope he keeps educating the world and the masses as to what the preborn looks like on the inside – that it’s not just a blob – it’s not a clump of cells.
But Roberts must not have been aware of this. He asked Fretz, “How do you feel about Walter’s picture being used to discredit Planned Parenthood?”
Fretz replied, “Well, my husband and I are actually extremely pro-life so we were a little shocked at first and surprised […] but we are extremely proud of our son and the path that the Lord has put us on, just to help. I mean, he has saved many, many unborn lives.”
Fretz than shared stories of people walking out of abortion appointments, or finally learning what a preborn child looks like thanks to Walter’s photographs. She also told Roberts – who kept referring to Walter as ‘stillborn’ – that Walter was born alive, with a beating heart, and lived for a few moments.
Roberts then said:
I know that Walter’s story is very precious for you and your family. This has been really distorted out of context in this larger political conversation. Have you felt betrayed in any way by Walter’s life being used and mischaracterized in such heavy — and in some ways mischaracterized political debates?
Fretz replied:
I was a little surprised at first. Not being directly asked. But at the same time, […] our lives are in God’s hands. My and husband are trusting God and the ultimate perfect plan and if this is happening, we are trusting that He is going to take care of us and use Walter for His good.
Roberts again pressed Fretz, asking her if anyone from CMP reached out to ask for permission to use Walter’s image in the “anti-abortion video”. Fretz confirmed that no one had asked for permission. Roberts repeated again that no one from CMP had reached out to tell Fretz that CMP would be using Walter’s image to attempt to defund Planned Parenthood. Fretz confirmed this.
Then Roberts asked Fretz if she expects an apology from CMP and  Fretz shocked him with her reply:
No. I have talked to them directly and we’ve cleared the air and my husband and I are fine that it’s being used.
That’s when Robert ended the interview.
But the best moment from the interview with Fretz was her quote about being pro-life. She told Roberts, and all MSNBC viewers:
I just believe that every child should have a chance, a chance to be alive, to make a difference. We had so many little lives being lost and thrown away each day and I wish so much that my son was here. We miss him and the short time we had was precious with him. But I know his purpose; his purpose was to help to educate the world as to what a child really looks like. You know, you say fetus, baby, whatever you want to call it, he was very much alive. And I just believe that every, every little baby should have a chance.

Source: LiveAction News

Value of Ultrasound


 

Woman sees ultrasound, realizes she’s pregnant with “a little person”

By Sarah Terzo
DSbaby9From a woman who was being tested to see if her baby had Down syndrome or another handicap; she had been considering abortion if the baby was discovered to be disabled. She’s describing what she saw on the ultrasound:
“I was on this incredible high, like I saw the head and the little shoulders and then I came home and I suddenly crashed because I thought, there was this little person, I mean, it looked like a little person. And I was more upset than I’d ever been because what would I do? You know, would I have an abortion? Because here I’ve seen it, and it looks like a little person.”
Rayna Rapp “Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: the Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America” (New York: Routledge, 1999) 129
Editor’s note. This appeared at clinicquotes.com.

Source: NRLC News

Abortion, Congress and the Pope


 

When President Obama says protect ‘least of these’ he excludes millions of children

Editor’s note. These are excerpts from the remarks of Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ during floor debate today on HR 3495, the Women’s Public Health and Safety Act. For more on HR 3495, see here.
Cong. Chris Smith (R-NJ)
Cong. Chris Smith (R-NJ)

Mr. Speaker, last week Pope Francis admonished a joint session of Congress to follow the Golden Rule—to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”—and said that the Golden Rule compels us to “protect and defend human life at every stage of development,” and that “it is wrong to remain silent and look the other way.” At the White House welcoming ceremony earlier in the day, President Obama spoke of protecting the “least of these” taken from Matthew’s Gospel chapter 25.
Yet every day, Planned Parenthood dismembers or chemically poisons to death approximately 900 unborn babies—the “least of these”— and hurts many women in the process.
Subsidized by half a billion taxpayer dollars annually, Planned Parenthood kills a baby every two minutes—and has terminated the lives of over seven million infants since 1973—a staggering loss of children that equates with twice the number of every man, woman and child living in the state of Connecticut.

So I rise in strong support of HR 3495—the Women’s Health and Public Safety Act—authored by our distinguished colleague Sean Duffy to give states the authority to defund Planned Parenthood.
States should have the freedom to choose who they subsidize and why. But the President has denied that option to at least six states including Texas, Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, Alabama and Arkansas—the latter three states moved to defund in the wake of the recent undercover videos by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP).

Now, because of the CMP videos, we know Planned Parenthood is also trafficking in baby body parts—turning babies into human guinea pigs while making the abortion industry even richer.
Although much of the media continues to ignore this scandal, Planned Parenthood’s meticulously crafted fa├žade of care and compassion has been shattered. Caught on tape, Planned Parenthood’s top leadership—not interns or lower level employees—show callous disregard for children’s lives while gleefully calculating the financial gain.

Which begs the question: do Americans understand the violence done to children in Planned Parenthood clinics? Have congressional colleagues—has President Obama, who says we must care for the “least of these”—watched the videos yet?
In one clip, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Senior Director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Medical Services and a late term abortionist herself says on camera: “We have been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, I am not going to crush that part. I am going to basically crush below, I am going to crush above, and I am going to see if I can get it all intact…I would say a lot of people want liver; and for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they will know where they are putting their forceps.”
In other words, crush the baby to death, but do it in a way that preserves organs and body parts for sale.

Planned Parenthood Medical Directors’ Council President Dr. Mary Gatter appears on a video nonchalantly talking about utilizing a “less crunchy” abortion method—again to preserve baby body parts. Regarding the price tag for baby body parts she says: “let me just figure out what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then its fine, if it’s still low, then we can bump it up. I want a Lamborghini.”

Planned Parenthood’s National Director for the Consortium of Abortion Providers Deborah VanDerhei says “we’re just trying to figure out as an industry…how we’re going to manage remuneration because the headlines would be a disaster.” Concern for making money and avoiding bad press—no concern whatsoever for the child victim. …
I suspect that if the President watches at least one of the videos, he’d at least demand real answers concerning Planned Parenthood’s inhumane behavior and violence directed at the “least of these.” Or at least I hope he would.
Mr. Speaker, the videos have again brought into sharp focus the fact that some babies actually survive abortion.

Dr. Savita Ginde, Vice President and Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains, confesses that “Sometimes, we get – if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure then they (the baby) are intact… .” A fetal tissue broker describes watching a “fetus…just fell out.”
It just fell out. It, the baby, fell out, she says. And then what happened to that baby?
Tragically, we know what happens to these victimized babies—they are killed and some have their organs stolen.
The Women’s Public Health and Safety Act gives states the choice to protect the “least of these.”

Source: NRLC News

Goverment Funding of Planned Parenthood


 

Five Takeaways from House Oversight Committee hearing on PPFA’s governmental funding

By Dave Andrusko
JasonChaffetz4In a nearly five hour long hearing, PPFA President Cecile Richards today sparred with critics on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and basked in praise from supporters. Here are five takeaways from the hearing which centered on taxpayer funding of the largest abortion provider in the United States. As was noted early and often, government funding makes up 41% of PPFA’s $1.3 billion in revenues.
#1. After watching every minute, it’s easy to understand why Ms. Richards was paid a tidy sum of $590, 928 in 2013. Regardless of how a given question was initially asked, and no matter how many different ways it might have been asked subsequently, her answers went as far as she wanted them to go and no further. When she was repeatedly non-responsive, Richards would smile and tell the questioner that Richards and the questioner must agree to disagree, the clear implication being the questioner was incapable of understanding plain English.

#2. Richards was asked by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) about the video PPFA produced after the first undercover video was released by the Center for Medical Progress 
ww.youtube.com/watch?v=dZUjU4e4fUI]. In their official rebuttal, Richards saidOur top priority is the compassionate care that we provide. In the video, one of our staff members speaks in a way that does not reflect that compassion. This is unacceptable, and I personally apologize for the staff member’s tone and statements.

What “statements” had Dr. Deborah Nucatola made to the CMP investigators for which Richards felt the need to apologize? Richards simply refused to answer. Instead she rewrote history.
What she’d been talking about was that it was “Inappropriate to have a clinical discussion in a non-confidential setting in a nonclinical setting.” (This, by the way, could have been said about a number of other Planned Parenthood officials as they haggled over prices for baby body parts.) Asked repeatedly what the “statements” were, Richards continued to duck, feint, and evade. Eventually she recycled a line from the video–that “it did not reflect the compassionate care PPFA gives.”
#3. A lot of numbers came out in the hearing that to a less confident and self-assured (and politically-wired) CEO would have been extremely unnerving. Not just the hefty salaries a number of PPFA executives are paid (40 executives were paid over $200,000 for the years 2009-2013), or the $14,000 dollars a day Planned Parenthood spends on travel, or the $34.8 million it spent to purchase corporate office space two blocks from Madison Square Garden. Richards was unfazed.
When it was noted that PPFA had an endowment of more than $100 million (various affiliates have their own endowments), Richards said that was or would be used to build new clinics or provide additional health services to women. This evasion was important. Committee members showed how PPFA annually has considerably more revenue than expenses and could have provided every health service every single service to every single woman without federal money.
Richards dusted off the old abortion is just 3% of the services PPFA provides. But, as Richards said repeatedly, PPFA serve 2.7 million clients, if there are roughly 327,000 abortions, how can Richards say that abortion constitutes 3% of its services? (It’s more like 12%.)
Richards slid off into the usual, usual about repeat visits. But even the Washington Post Factchecker has seen through that charade.

And one question Richards skated by over and over: how many affiliates receive a majority of their revenue from abortion–and who are they?
#4. Richards was asked by Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) what should be done if a baby survives an abortion. She paused and said she had never heard of such a circumstance happening, which, to put in the politest terms, is impossible to believe. She then quickly added none (no babies surviving) that she was aware of at a PPFA facility. “We don’t provide abortions after viability.”
Another evasion, since live births can occur a month or more before “viability.”
Moreover, Richard’s claim warrants scrutiny. As NRLC’s director of Education Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon wrote in 2013 , “The truth is that Planned Parenthood clinics advertise and perform abortions well into the second trimester, even up to 24 weeks (with hints it can ‘help’ if the woman is even more advanced).”

Note that a recent New England Journal of Medicine study found that 23% of infants are surviving at an 22 weeks of pregnancy (20 weeks after fertilization) with treatment.
#5. Give pro-abortion Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee their due. In their world to ask Cecile Richards exactly what she meant and ask if she would she agree to provide certain information was “disgraceful,” evidence of misogyny, beating up on a woman, “insensitive,” an “offensive approach” filled with “badgering” rhetoric.
Meanwhile, of course, committee Democrats had no trouble lambasting committee Republicans for aligning themselves with “radical extremists who manipulate the facts.” Nor were they shy about insisting the committee’s “integrity” had been compromised by even having this hearing. And, they mimicked Richards’ self-serving claim that the committee’s inquiry was not, in the end, about Planned Parenthood, but was an attack the 2.7 million women who receive “health care” from Planned Parenthood.

But committee chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) ended by summarizing the areas the committee still had questions about. There were plenty.

Source: NRLC News

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Really?

Carly Planned Parenthood protest

Planned Parenthood supporters throw condoms at Carly Fiorina event

GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina was campaigning at a tailgating event for the Iowa Hawkeyes on Saturday when Planned Parenthood supporters decided to disrupt her event.  While the protesters’ actions were certainly less than classy, they were not all that surprising.
ABC News reported that Planned Parenthood supporters showed up in their trademark pink garb. During the event they shouted out their tagline, “Women are watching and we vote.” Some Fiorina supporters yelled back, “So do we.”

At one point, the Planned Parenthood supporters even threw condoms at the crowd. A patient from Planned Parenthood, Cindy Shireman, also made her way over to Fiorina to confront her, claiming Fiorina doesn’t support women’s health.

Fiorina grasped her hand and offered right back that she, of course, does support it.
Fiorina is pro-life. Recently though, she came under fire from Planned Parenthood and the mainstream media after calling out the abortion giant for harvesting the brain of a baby born alive from an abortion. Fiorina was describing a video released by the Center for Medical Progress.
A Super PAC which supports Fiorina also released a campaign ad regarding the incident.
ABC reporter Jordyn Phelps tweeted images of the protesters, who looked fired up and ready to disrupt, as well as of the condoms thrown.

Planned Parenthood bills itself as a non-profit, trusted health care organization. They also receive taxpayer dollars. And while counter-protesters show up at events all the time, there are proper ways to act. Perhaps Planned Parenthood’s supporters missed that memo.

Planned Parenthood seems obsessed with sex and birth control of all kinds. But what is worse is they also butcher babies, as Fiorina reminds us, and then profit from such a barbaric act. Perhaps disrupting a campaign with their angry and wild antics shouldn’t be all that unexpected.

Source: LiveAction News

Women's Health- The Truth

healthclinics_ADF_1250-1250x650 (1)

New website shows women have more choices besides Planned Parenthood for low-cost health care

National legal nonprofit, Alliance Defending Freedom, has spearheaded an effort to give women the full facts on low-cost health care options. Despite Planned Parenthood’s insistence that women need the abortion giant, ADF’s newly launched website – GetYourCare.org – proves something else entirely.

Women truly do have options, over 13,000 of them. GetYourCare.org gives women the tools to locate a comprehensive, low-cost health center in their own area.

On Tuesday morning at 7:30 ET, U.S. Representatives Diane Black and Marsha Blackburn joined ADF attorneys and other pro-life, pro-women advocates, to announce the launching of GetYourCare.org. ADF’s press release explains:
The site provides a national map that displays the locations of all centers currently eligible for federal funds, with other types of centers to be added as time goes on.
GetYourCare, ADF
The press release continues:
“Thousands of low-cost health providers – offering a wide range of women’s services, like breast cancer screenings and preventative care – can be trusted with our hard-earned money,” said ADF Director of Alliance Relations Alison Howard. “These federally qualified health centers offer many of the same services as Planned Parenthood and include many more services Planned Parenthood is not licensed to do: immunizations, mammograms, cardiovascular blood tests, diabetes and glaucoma screenings, radiological services, and prenatal care, for example.”
“They typically offer the full range of women’s health services without all the scandal of Planned Parenthood, which has been associated with covering up the sexual abuse of minors, committing fraud with taxpayer money, and profiting off of the sale of baby body parts,” Howard added. “It can’t be trusted, so it shouldn’t be funded.” (#DefundPP)

GetYourCare.org is a resource made available by the pro-women and pro-life movements of America. The site explains that its goal “is to give women everywhere in America access to information about the thousands and thousands of quality health care options women have.”

“Better choices for women are usually right around the corner. Alternative women’s health options are on average less than five miles away from the nearest Planned Parenthood,” Howard explained. “According to Planned Parenthood’s own statistics, fewer than 2 percent of women ever step into a Planned Parenthood facility in a given year. There are better choices for women’s healthcare than Planned Parenthood who’s president, Cecile Richards is called before congress Tuesday morning to explain the scandals surrounding her organization. Our tax money should fund those better choices.”

The website’s sponsors include Alliance Defending Freedom, Charlotte Lozier Institute, Concerned Women for America, Family Research Council, Live Action, March for Life, March for Life Action, Pregnant on Campus, Pro-Life Future, Susan B. Anthony List, Students for Life, CitizenLink, Americans United for Life, and The Radiance Foundation.
Take 10 minutes to watch 11 short, informative videos, explaining Planned Parenthood’s deceptions here.

Source: LiveAction News

40 Days for Life

After 40 Days for Life

40 Days for Life expecting more miracles in its fall campaign

As the fall campaign for 40 Days for Life kicked off this week, the organization reminded people of the power of prayer in the fight to end abortion.
The fall 40 Days for Life campaign will continue through November 1, and organizers are believing for more miracles like the one they saw in Bryan/College Station, TX, the home of 40 Days for Life.  A Planned Parenthood there has since been closed, and is now the new headquarters for 40 Days for Life–and will include both a lab and clinic for a local pregnancy center and “medical services provided by two former abortionists who had conversions and have become outspoken pro-life advocates.”

Campaign Director Shawn Carney tells this story with pictures more than words, in his latest update when he says:
These photos show the former Planned Parenthood abortion center in Bryan/College Station, Texas — the site of the first-ever 40 Days for Life campaign back in 2004 … This is the kind of story only God can write … and yet it’s not an isolated occurrence.
archive-bryan2a
After 40 Days for Life
After 40 Days for Life
new-sign-3
While this Texas Planned Parenthood is probably the most notable of the 40 Days for Life victories, it’s certainly not the only one. Carney reports that since the first campaign locally in 2004 in Brayn/College Station, TX and then the national campaign launch in 2007, 60 different abortion facilities have been closed in places that 40 Days for Life held prayer vigils.
The current campaign has 307 locations, and they welcome people to join them in peaceful prayer for the ending of abortion.

In its short history, the long list of results is remarkable and also includes, “650,000 volunteer participants in 579 cities across 30 nations, 10,331 lives saved from abortion, 118 workers who have had conversions and quit the abortion industry,” in addition to the 60 closed abortion facilities.

Source: LiveAction News

Down Syndrome


 

Parents choose life for daughter diagnosed prenatally with cancer and Down syndrome

By Nancy Flanders
abigail5On August 6th, Erika and Stephen Jones welcomed their second daughter into the world. But as joyous of an occasion as it was, it brought with it a bit of fear and uncertainty. Baby Abigail had been diagnosed prenatally with not one, but two health conditions.

At their 18-week ultrasound, the family was told there was strong likelihood that Abigail had Down syndrome. A follow-up blood test proved that she did.
“Initially, we were shocked and scared, mourning the loss of a ‘normal’ baby,” wrote Mrs. Jones in a blog post. “But God quickly worked on our hearts and His peace surpassed our fear. We were soon very excited and honored to have a child with special needs.”
But as their fears were lifted and they began to accept the diagnosis of Down syndrome, doctors had more news for them to take in. The 30-week ultrasound revealed a mass growing in Abigail’s brain. It was a rare cancerous tumor that was replacing the baby’s brain matter.
“Our hearts were broken and our minds weighted with questions and fear of the unknown to come,” wrote Mrs. Jones.

As the pregnancy progressed, so did the tumor – and doctors offered little hope.
“Leaning on the grace and perfection of our God, we knew little Abby’s life had a purpose, no matter how long or short it was,” explained Mrs. Jones. “We pray continually for her healing, but our faith in God was/is not based on Abigail’s healing. God is not a god that responds to our plans and how we want things to work out. Our faith is in the loving Father that His plans are bigger than ours and those plans will bring people to eternity. Sometimes the things He needs to bring others to eternity may cause us to walk through tremendous pain but we need to focus joy of the eternal and not the pain of the temporal.”

Because the mass had grown so large, Abigail was born via C-section. Doctors told the family that she might not live long after birth, but Abigail has done well enough to be able to go home.
Her tumor is not treatable because of how aggressive it is, and chemotherapy could kill a baby her age. In addition, doctors would not be able to remove it all with surgery. Abigail is at home with her parents and big sister with the help of pediatric hospice.
“This situation is tragic and unbelievably difficult,” wrote Mrs. Jones. “[…] We don’t want to lose our daughter. We want to see her laugh, dance, fight with her sister, ride a bike, go to school… we want to see her life. […] Our hearts are broken and ache for the time that we don’t have. We stand on this – our God is good.”

Abigail likely has just weeks or months to live. But her family is spending that time loving her fully, knowing that her life has value and meaning. Enjoying her for every moment she has and every second they are given.
Editor’s note. This was first published in http://liveactionnews.org/parents-choose-life-daughter-diagnosed-prenatally-cancer-syndrome/ and is reprinted with permission.

Source: NRLC News

Legislation Pending


 

NRLC urges Congress to support the Women’s Public Health and Safety Act (H.R. 3495)

Dear Member of Congress:
circlesandflamereThe National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of state right-to-life organizations, urges you to support the Women’s Public Health and Safety Act (H.R. 3495), sponsored by Congressman Sean Duffy, when it comes before the House of Representatives on September 29.

According to a Government Accountability Office report released March 20, 2015, PPFA received $344.5 million in federal funds over three fiscal years (2010-2012), and another $1.2 billion in funding from Medicaid (a combination of state and federal funds), for a three-year total of $1.5 billion from federal programs.

PPFA is also the nation’s largest provider of abortions. Over one-third of all abortions in the U.S. are performed at PPFA-affiliated facilities – indeed, one senior Planned Parenthood official boasted in 2014, “We have 40 percent of the [abortion] market in the whole country.” PPFA now defines abortion as a “core” service, which means that PPFA requires every PPFA affiliate to provide abortions. For additional up-to-date information on the extent of Planned Parenthood’s involvement in abortion, see: www.nrlc.org/communications/ppfamediabackground/

Longstanding objections to the massive federal funding of PPFA have been reinforced by recent widely publicized undercover videos, which illuminate involvement by some PPFA affiliates and executives in the harvesting and selling of baby body parts. These highly troubling videos have triggered ongoing investigations by multiple congressional committees and by authorities in many states.

H.R. 3495 would make it clear that federal law does not prevent a state from, at its option, excluding organizations that provide elective abortions from the Medicaid program. We urge you to support this vital legislation. NRLC intends to include the roll call on passage of H.R. 3495 in our scorecard of key pro-life roll calls of the 114th Congress.

Source: NRLC News

Monday, September 28, 2015

The Reality of Abortion Clinics

woman-thinking-sad-licensed

Abortion clinics skip counseling, coerce vulnerable women into political activism

Many post-abortive women have talked about the lack of thorough counseling in the clinics where they had their abortions.  Women have described the abortion process as an “assembly line.”  Stories of rushed, biased, and nonexistent counseling are sadly common.
Even abortion clinic workers have admitted that they spend very little time counseling women. A big reason for this is that counseling takes up time and slows patient flow at the clinics. Slower patient flow means fewer abortions, which means less profit for the clinic.
As one pro-choice author said in her book The Regulation of Sexuality: Experiences of Family-Planning Workers:
 … As the clinic director was fond of pointing out, counseling did not generate revenue for the clinic; being seen in the medical room did. Perhaps the greatest problem with slowdowns [counseling sessions that took longer than average] was the risk of annoying doctors.
Jenny Higgins, a pro-choice clinic worker who does abortion counseling, says:
Sometimes even counseling was done in groups to save time, ten or fifteen women sitting in a circle… At other times I was strictly limited to a five-minute counseling session for each patient.
So, knowing that abortion clinics tend to offer little time counseling to begin with, it is disturbing to learn that some clinics actually use “counseling” time not to explore a woman’s decision, screen her for potential post-abortion problems, or give her information about the abortion procedure.  Instead, they indoctrinate her on the pro-choice cause and coerce her into pro-choice activism.
Former abortion clinic worker Lorraine LaNeve stated, in a conference for former abortion providers:
I started my job functioning in all the duties of a nurse. First, by preparing the clients in the waiting room by medicating them with Valium and then influencing my captive audience to write letters to the elected officials pleading that abortion should remain a woman’s right….
LaNeve admits to manipulating drugged women into writing letters supporting the pro-choice cause. These women, under the influence of Valium, were easy to coerce into pro-choice activism. It is appalling to consider that the women are manipulated in such a way. It is even more appalling to realize that these letter writing sessions replaced “counseling” at the clinic.  There was not time enough to counsel women, but there was time enough to coerce them into political activism.
Pro-choice author Marian Faux, who wrote a book about abortion that profiled pro-choice and pro-life activists, wrote about how one clinic utilized its “counseling sessions”:
… [T]he counselors have also been using the counseling sessions to talk to women about the fact that legalized abortion is now threatened and what they can do to preserve the right to choose. Women are given post cards they can fill out and mail to their elected officials asking them to support pro-choice [causes]. The clinic also prints flyers that educate women about the abortion right.
Women at abortion clinics, drugged and very often emotionally traumatized, are extremely vulnerable to this kind of manipulation by clinic staff.  The needs of these women are do not seem to be respected in any way. When counseling becomes indoctrination, women are poorly served. If a crisis pregnancy center were to take a woman in crisis, administer drugs, and influence her to write pro-life letters before she would be allowed to leave, pro-choicers would be up in arms, and rightly so.  This kind of unethical behavior only shows the lows to which the abortion industry will sink.

SZource: LiveAction News

Free Speech -Only For Some?

silenced

What about my free speech?

So let’s talk about free speech rights. Under the First Amendment of our Constitution, our freedom of speech rights as United States citizens are guaranteed: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” On Constitution Day last week, as I’m sure many of you know, there was a free speech board set up outside Centennial, one of the academic buildings on my college campus.

As a United States citizen celebrating my free speech rights, I wrote a pro-life message about how I believe Planned Parenthood should be defunded. The next day, as I walked by the board, I saw that my post had been crossed out. So much for a free speech board.

Then, this Thursday, Students for Life, of which I’m a member, chalked pro-life messages around the campus mall and hung up dozens of flyers that had several different “defund Planned Parenthood” messages in Davies and Centennial. We hung these flyers up in areas designated specifically for organizations.

The next day, as I was walking through first floor Davies, I noticed that every single flyer on that level, of which there were about thirty, had been taken down. To top it off, somebody had written rude messages directly underneath our chalking, and had attempted to smear out our messages. So much for a designated free speech area.
Now let’s talk about tolerance. There seems to be a lot of confusion going around as to what tolerance actually is. First, let me tell you what it’s not. Tolerance isn’t agreeing with everyone or everything. In fact, that’s one of the farthest things from the actual definition of tolerance. To practice tolerance, you first have to disagree with somebody or something. Tolerance is disagreeing with somebody or something and then putting up with them or it anyway. As Chris Stefanick, a Catholic speaker, has said, “You don’t tolerate a beautiful, sunny day. You tolerate the rain.”

I’m not writing this article to persuade anybody to be pro-life. I’m not asking you to agree with me. I guess I’m not even asking you to respect my views. All I’m asking is for you is to tolerate my free speech rights.

Source: LiveAction News

Think Pink-Not if You Want to Save Babies

Planned-Parenthood-logo

Planned Parenthood is ‘pinkwashing’ its scandals with #PinkOut Day

Planned Parenthood is still reeling from the baby body parts scandal, and so far, all of their attempts to make it go away have failed. Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards will be testifying before Congress on September 29. The House of Representatives has voted to defund Planned Parenthood, along with multiple states that have already stripped them of funding. Even more states have opened investigations into Planned Parenthood, and several Congressional investigations have been launched as well.
So what is Planned Parenthood’s newest strategy to make it all go away? They’ve just announced #PinkOut Day, on September 29. Supporters are asked to wear pink, turn their profile pictures on social media pink, attend #PinkOut rallies in their area, and — of course — to donate money to Planned Parenthood.

They’re essentially trying to “pinkwash” the issue away.

Planned Parenthood is trying to make this an issue of an attack on women’s health care by “anti-abortion extremists.” It’s another obfuscation of the actual issue at hand: Planned Parenthood is breaking multiple laws. They’ve been caught illegally selling fetal body parts. They’ve been caught performing illegal partial-birth abortions. And they’ve been caught admitting that they manipulate abortion procedures so as to better procure body parts to sell — also illegal. People are rightly infuriated to know that Planned Parenthood is killing babies born alive after abortions in order to make a profit off of their body parts, that preborn babies are being ripped limb from limb when they’re able to feel pain, and then being sold.

But Planned Parenthood doesn’t want people to think about these horrors; instead, they try to make it all about health care, when the reality is that Planned Parenthood is not truly a health care provider. In fact, health clinics outnumber their abortion mills by huge numbers. Thanks to Cecile Richards’ leadership, health care has plummeted at Planned Parenthood, while its total revenues have increased. Prenatal care, breast exams, cancer screenings, pap smears, adoption referrals — all have decreased drastically over the years, while abortion has steadily increased, even though Planned Parenthood is seeing fewer clients.

Planned Parenthood wants to hide behind clever hashtags, urging followers to celebrate their abortions and to cover up the horrors of has been uncovered with the color pink. But does wearing pink make any of it go away? Does turning a profile picture pink suddenly mean that the evidence of Planned Parenthood’s lawless behavior has vanished? Would people be less horrified by the video of Planned Parenthood executives talking about how clinics make a “fair amount of income” off of the body parts of aborted babies if the executives were wearing pink?
Planned Parenthood can try to pinkwash it all away, but America will not be fooled, and, as recent protests have shown, it’s not going to just disappear… no matter how many pro-abortion activists they can convince to wear pink.

Source: LiveAction News

Pro-Abortion Hillary Clinton


 

Clinton ramps up defense of Planned Parenthood in meeting with Des Moines Register editorial board

By Dave Andrusko
Pro-abortion Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton
Pro-abortion Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton
The headlines earlier this week were all about how Hillary Clinton had broken her silence and announced her opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline during a campaign stop in Des Moines, Iowa.
But from the single-issue pro-life perspective, the truly interesting development was how she continues to ratchet up her defense of Planned Parenthood in an interview with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register.
A questioner asked Clinton to expand on her criticisms of what GOP presidential contenders said about Planned Parenthood in the second Republican debate. As NRL News Today reported, they were unstinting in their critique of the nation’s largest abortion provider and repeatedly cited the ten undercover videos taken by the Center for Medical Progress.
To the pro-abortion former Secretary of State, this was just “the Republicans trying to inflame their base against Planned Parenthood.” Let’s quote what Clinton said and then respond.
“I defend, and I will continue to defend, Planned Parenthood, because services that Planned Parenthood provides are broad, and necessary for millions of American women. Five hundred thousand breast screening exams. A lot of other screening programs that are carried out. Family planning and contraception, testing for HIV AIDS.
And the Republican have made it clear in recent years that they are not only opposed to abortion, which they have been for quite some time, they’re increasingly opposed to family planning and contraception. This is a direct assault on a woman’s right to choose health care. Forget about abortion, which is something that a limited number of Planned Parenthood facilities perform, with not a penny of federal money.
The money they want to cut off…is money that goes to health services. That is why it’s important that we continue to try to educate the public and draw a very clear line in defense of Planned Parenthood.”
Three quick points. First, the videos used to “inflame the base”—are these the same videos of which Clinton said during a sit-down interview in late July with the New Hampshire Union Leader, “I have seen pictures from them and obviously find them disturbing”?
That would be yes.
Second, pro-abortionists always act as if Planned Parenthood is the only health provider. If federal funding is suspended for one year, that money would be rerouted elsewhere. And PPFA does have a choice: it could discontinue providing elective abortions.

Third, speaking of “draw[ing] a very clear line,” Clinton blurs every line in her here, there, and everywhere defense of PPFA. The issue is not, as noted above, family planning. It’s abortion, no matter how many times Clinton wants to pretend as if abortion and “health care” are synonymous.
As we have documented dozens of times there is a long-standing mutual admiration society between Clinton and Planned Parenthood. As a reminder, we’re reposting the article written by NRLC’s Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon when Clinton officially announced her candidacy.
Planned Parenthood, Hillary Clinton, and abortion—three peas in a deadly pod.

Source: NRLC News

Premature Babies


 

More babies born extremely premature are surviving, study finds

By Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D. NRL Director of Education & Research
Editor’s note. This appeared in the September digital edition of National Right to Life News at www.nrlc.org/uploads/NRLNews/NRLNewsSept2015.pdf. Please pass along this and other stories to your friends using your social media networks.
prematurebaby7A new government study finds that odds of survival have increased over the last twenty years for babies who are born extremely premature.
“Trends in Care Practices, Morbidity, and Mortality of Extremely Preterm Neonates, 1993-2012,” appeared in the September 8, 2015, edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The study followed treatments and outcomes associated with 34,636 infants born at 22 to 28 weeks gestation (measured from a woman’s last menstrual period, or LMP, so the fetal age would be about two weeks less).
The study reviewed hospital records for extremely premature babies born at 26 academic centers participating in the Eunice Kennedy Shiver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. [1]
The study complements a study published in May in the New England Journal of Medicine. That study looked at the survival and outcomes of almost 5,000 babies born before 27 weeks gestation at 24 hospitals from 2006 -2011.

The results from the JAMA study were, likewise, extremely encouraging.
In 1993, 70% of babies born at 28 weeks or earlier survived. That number had risen to 79% by 2012.
Survival increased most significantly for babies born at 23, 24, and 25 weeks, who saw their survival to discharge rates go from 28% to 33%, 52% to 65%, and 68% to 81%, respectively, over that same time period.

Survival rates for babies born at 26-28 weeks were up as well in 2012. They reached highs of 87% for babies at 26 weeks and 94% for children born at 27 or 28 weeks.
Rates for children born at 22 weeks were up as well, though survival remained rare. Just 6% in the study survived in 1993, but it had gone up to 9% by 2012. Only a handful of babies in the study were born at this stage (relative to the numbers born at later gestations), but generally low survival rates are one reason why doctors try to take whatever medical steps they can to delay birth as long as possible.

The 20 authors of the study were also encouraged that higher numbers of the older preemies (27 and 28 weeks) were not only surviving but being discharged from the hospital without any major problems.

Increases in survival and reductions in major morbidity are attributed to improvements in care for these infants. Beyond measures to delay birth and give time for further development, neonatal departments were doing different things to help preemies breathe, for example, giving mothers steroids before birth to stimulate fetal lung development, using less invasive or aggressive measures with newborns like tracheal intubation, ventilation, and chest compression, or employing greater use of surfactants that help the babies’ lungs function. When a baby did have to be delivered early, Cesarean deliveries appeared to help the births be physically less traumatic for the children.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), there were about 450,000 preterm births in 2012. Up until 2006, the percentage of births that were preterm in the United States had been increasing at least as far back as 1981. The current rate, though, of 11.4% (for 2012) represents the lowest percentage in 15 years.

There are thought to be many possible causes of preterm births, some known (smoking, alcohol, drugs), others not. Researchers looking at data from dozens of studies from many countries covering multiple years have identified abortion as a significant risk factor associated with many preterm births, especially those very early preterm (most recently, see June 2015 NRL News).
As abortions have declined, and particularly those surgical abortions that may physically damage a woman’s reproductive system, the number of preterm births might also be expected to decline, as the data appears to show.

One good thing about this new study is that it demonstrates that with treatment, these babies’ lives can be and have been saved. If babies can make it to 22 weeks LMP (20 weeks fetal age), it may not be easy, but parents of early preterm babies do not need to be told that their situations are hopeless.
Nevertheless, there are locations in the United States where babies this same age can still be legally aborted. Even after the embarrassing expose’ of its fetal tissue “donation” practices, Planned Parenthood continues to advertise its willingness to perform abortions at 23 or 24 weeks at clinics in California and New York.

Others go even further. In the very first video from the Center for Medical Progress, Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s Senior Director of Medical Services, helpfully offers the name of one of the “providers who go beyond 24 weeks.”
These babies are obviously human and clearly alive. This recent study shows us that because abortion is legal, the difference between those babies who live and those who die is not a matter of medical technology, but of our attitude towards human life.

[1] The article was authored by more than twenty neonatologists and pediatricians from institutions all over the United States. The lead author was Barbara J. Stoll of the Department of Pediatrics at the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta.

Source: NRLC News

Thursday, September 24, 2015

Gosnell


 

The aggrieved innocence of Kermit Gosnell and pro-abortion congressional Democrats

By Dave Andrusko
3801flyerwebConsider this stunning quote from Kermit Gosnell in a phone interview that will be part of a soon to be released documentary about the West Philadelphia abortionist convicted of three counts of first-degree murder:
“My youngest son asked me, ‘Dad, did you do these horrible things that are in the newspaper?’ And I said, ‘Alex, I don’t want to lie to you. I really have to do a lot of reading to feel comfortable that I, in fact, was on solid ground in my thoughts and my approaches.”
So where would a man serving consecutive life sentences for deliberating aborting babies alive and then slicing their spinal cords go for affirmation that he was on “solid ground”?
For Gosnell, the Bible!
Gosnell went on to say (in a clip first heard at TheBlaze.com)
“And until I really completed my first Genesis to Revelation reading of the Bible — which I did since I was incarcerated — I really didn’t feel as comfortable as I am. I think it’s Genesis 2:7, expresses the breath of life as the beginning of life, that God breathed breath — breathed life — into Adam.
“The Bible, to me, is very clear that life does not happen until breath.”
“I very strongly believe in my innocence and there are many people who believe that … who come to me and say that, ‘How could you be this terrible person and people are coming to you for 40 years.” The story just doesn’t make sense.”
(Genesis 2:7 reads: “Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”)
Gosnell’s appropriation of Genesis for his own twisted purposes reminded me of pro-abortion congressional Democrats, including such noted theologians as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) They purport to know more about what their Catholic faith says regarding abortion than the church does, possessing a firmer grasp than, say, the Pope. More about that in a moment.
The Gosnell documentary– “3801 Lancaster: American Tragedy”—expands on a short film about the Gosnell case, entitled 3801 Lancaster, which we wrote about on numerous occasions. According to Director David Altrogge and Producer Jennifer Brown, the documentary, which opens November 10, “chronicles one of the most controversial cases of the decade and features exclusive interviews with Gosnell in addition to detectives, police officers, jurors, and victims. A trailer that included excerpts from the Gosnell interviews premiered online on September 21st and immediately went viral.”
Gosnell’s Apologia Pro Vita Sua is fascinating on many levels, beginning with the similarities between a man who aborted hundreds, probably thousands of babies who were clearly viable, and many Democrats in the House and Senate. For starters, both have a sense of aggrieved innocence.

For example, in inviting the filmmakers to speak with him, Gosnell had only one condition. As he wrote in a letter, “If you are able to consider that my particular circumstances are exemplary of a larger and more important issue, you will have my full attention and cooperation….Sincerely, Kermit Barron Gosnel
l.”
From the beginning, Gosnell professed his innocence. Now he has attached to his standard retort—if I was so bad, why did people from the neighborhood come to me for decades—a misreading of biblical texts. Thus he really didn’t do “these horrible things that are in the newspaper.”
The pro-abortion congressional Democrats—the self-professed champions of women (except for those in the womb)–are as thoroughly dehumanized as Gosnell. This makes it possible for them to have no qualms about voting against bills to extend federal legal protection to babies who are born alive during abortions, to protect pain-capable unborn children from experiencing excruciating pain as they are killed, and to prohibit abortion techniques that use steel tools to tear apart a well-developed unborn child by brute force. To them the unborn is just a something that is in the way, a nuisance “used” by “extremists” (that would be us).

Whatever the rationale, whether it be Gosnell’s bizarre defense that the same baby who can be taken out of her mother’s womb to have corrective surgery and then placed back insider her mother is not “life” until she breathes, or the Democrats’ insistence that defending these children is no more than a “partisan attack on women,” the outcome is the same: the abandonment of children to the tender hands of the Planned Parenthood and Kermit Gosnells of this world.

Source: NRLC News

Pain Capable and the Vote


 

Senate vote on Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act “not a defeat, but a stepping stone towards victory”

By Dave Andrusko
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Yesterday 42 United States senators—40 Democrats and two Republicans—voted against advancing the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. At his snarky best, Senator Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) dismissed the attempt to make the Senate actually vote on H.R. 36 as a “show vote designed to honor the political wish lists of extremists.” Let’s consider for a moment what actually happened yesterday and what it may portend.

First, while 54 senators (51 Republicans and three Democrats) voted to take the bill up for debate, 60 votes were required. That’s the way the Senate now works on “controversial” legislation.
What was it that we “extremists” wanted the Senate to vote on? What “extreme” legislation did H.R. 36 represent?
Here’s how Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the chief Senate sponsor of the legislation, characterized the Senate’s action (or inaction) in a statement issued Tuesday:
“America is at her best when she’s standing up for the least among us,” said Graham. “Even though we were not successful, this votes marks an important milestone when it comes to protecting the unborn. We took the first vote in the Senate and were able to see where every Senator stands. Today, the battle begins working to bring more supporters to our cause.
“There are only seven countries that allow wholesale abortions at the 20-week period including China and North Korea,” said Graham. “We should no longer be part of that club.”
At the age of 20 weeks or five months post-fertilization, scientific evidence tells us an unborn child can feel pain. Pain medication is administered directly to the unborn child in second-trimester fetal surgery, in addition to anesthesia. The unborn child shows physical, chemical, brain and stress responses demonstrating pain at this stage of development.
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is based on science, has overwhelming public support, and is necessary to protect unborn children from painful, and untimely deaths.
But when something that ought to have been moved along for a vote doesn’t, it’s easy to be disheartened. That is why Sen. Graham’s last paragraph is so important to remember:
“I view today’s vote as the start of a journey, much like the one we used to pass the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban into law,” concluded Graham. “The sooner this legislation becomes law, the better. We are on the right side of history.”
Passing legislation that is supported by the American people will nonetheless always be tough sledding when pro-abortion members of Congress are extremists times ten on abortion. But it can be done, it has been done, and it will be done again.
Consider the very commonsensical parameters of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. It extends general protection to unborn children who are at least 20 weeks beyond fertilization (which is equivalent to 22 weeks of pregnancy — about the start of the sixth month).

And no matter how many deniers there are on the Democratic side of the aisle, there is abundant evidence that by this point in development (and probably earlier), the unborn child has the capacity to experience excruciating pain during typical abortion procedures.
As NRLC said in a letter to the Senate

It is now commonplace to read about evidence that, by 20 weeks fetal age and even earlier, an unborn child responds to many forms of stimuli, including music and the mother’s voice. Claims that the same child is nevertheless insensible to the violence done to her body during an abortion should engender strong skepticism. Abortions at this stage are performed using a variety of techniques, but most often by a method in which the unborn child’s arms and legs are twisted off by brute manual force, using a long stainless steel clamping tool.

Anything else? Yes. The bill spells out the procedural requirements that abortionists must follow when performing an abortion, including seeking to preserve the life of the child whenever this is feasible. The bill also creates specific requirements for the protection of infants who are born alive during these late abortions.
Get that? If the child survives a late abortion, the abortionist is not free to ignore the baby, to leave the baby to die unattended and without care.
Pro-Life Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
Pro-Life Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa)

Opponents of H.R. 36 stated, as if it were fact, that babies cannot survive at this stage. But Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Ia.) quoted from a Washington Post article, ‘‘That babies can survive at 22 weeks gestational age has been known for 15 years.’’
Sen. Grassley also addressed the canard that such abortions are “extraordinarily rare.”

Some jurisdictions with the most lax abortion policies don’t even collect data on the stage of pregnancy when an abortion is performed, while other jurisdictions may have reporting requirements but are not really enforcing those reporting requirements. Because data on late-term abortions is not widely available, it is hard to know what hard evidence really exists to support the claim. We do know that several hundred doctors, and well over 200 facilities across the United States, offer abortions after 20 weeks of fetal age.

We’ll be posting more about the Senate’s deliberation, so let me close with two quotes from NRLC President Carol Tobias.

One-fourth of premature infants now survive when born at this stage – and there is strong evidence that they experience great pain, as they are torn limb from limb in late abortions.
And
Today’s majority vote is not a defeat, but a stepping stone towards victory.

Source: NRLC News

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

RU 486 RU Crazy


 

RU-486 at 15: An Infamous Anniversary

By Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D., NRL Director of Education & Research
RU486Come September 28, it will 15 years since the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced official approval for the abortifacient RU-486 to be sold in the United States. For millions of American women and their aborted children, it is not an anniversary to celebrate.

Before approval, RU-486 was heralded as an innovation that would “change the industry” and offer women a safe alternative to surgical abortion. Experience has shown that while the packaging and presentation are different, the end product is still the same – the loss of an innocent human life – and women have been exposed to a whole new set of physical dangers, risks that have also taken their own lives.
From the Abortion Industry’s point of view, all that matters is that percentage of chemically-induced abortions has increased. Though it started slowly, the numbers of chemical abortions has grown steadily increased, from about 70,500 in 2001, the first full year these were available, to 239,400 in 2011.
Thus chemical abortions represent nearly a quarter (22.6%) of all abortions performed in the United States.
For the rest of us, there are many other major concerns.
A “new” chemical abortion method
The RU-486 chemical abortion is actually a two-drug technique, one to kill the baby, the other to induce contractions to expel the dead baby. There are multiple steps involved, occurring over several days. It is bloody and painful.
In the FDA approved protocol, which the abortion industry has striven to avoid from day one, a pregnant woman, no more than 49 days past her last menstrual period (LMP), comes to the clinic. She is screened for possible red flags that would disqualify her (e.g., allergies to the drugs, chronic adrenal failure, bleeding disorders), receives counseling about what to expect. If all is clear, she takes three RU-486 pills (also known as mifepristone) there in the doctor’s office under the supervision of the physician.
This drug blocks progesterone and thus shuts down the baby’s life support system providing nutrition and hydration for the quickly developing child.
Under the FDA protocol, the woman then would come back two days later and take two tablets of misoprostol, a prostaglandin which, over the next few hours, stimulates powerful uterine contractions to expel the now emaciated baby. This part of the process can be exceedingly bloody and painful, in addition to being psychologically difficult as the mother encounters her aborted child.
This does not always happen right away. While about half of the women expel their dead baby within the first four hours, some women take a day, or even several days to abort. A certain percentage do not abort at all.
A third visit 14 days after the first confirms whether or not the abortion has occurred. If not, clinics seek to have the woman undergo a surgical abortion to complete the process.

The industry alters the protocol
Bowing to pressure from the industry, the FDA scrapped more stringent requirements that might have mandated ultrasounds and surgical training to handle complications, requiring only that a prescribing physician/abortionist be able to date pregnancies and refer a woman to qualified surgical backup.
Despite the hype and all the promises of new, simple, safe abortions, doctors found the new process complex and cumbersome. The abortion industry’s early dream of using the drug to make abortion more mainstream went largely unrealized. Few doctors added the drug to their practices, with most the business coming from abortion clinics merely adding the chemical method to their practices.
Sensitive to the resistance, the abortion industry tinkered with the protocol, trying to make the process less onerous, not for the mother, but for the clinic. First, they reduced the dose of mifepristone from three pills ($90 a pill) to one, doubled the dose of the cheaper misoprostol (a dollar or so a pill). This saved abortion clinics a lot of money and increased their profit margin.
Second, they eliminated the second visit entirely. The woman took the misoprostol at home and administered it to herself vaginally, rather than by mouth.
The industry claimed this was to help reduce painful side effects like nausea and diarrhea, but it was hard to miss that this freed up office space and time for the clinics as well.
The industry found the FDA’s 49 day cutoff date too restricting as well. It advised prescribers that the drugs could be used at 8 or 9 weeks LMP, or more.
Clinics also interpreted the FDA’s mandate that the drug be offered under a physician’s supervision rather loosely, so that pills dispensed under the authority of a regional abortionist might qualify. This enabled abortion giant Planned Parenthood to begin offering chemical abortions at many of its smaller, more lightly staffed clinics without surgical facilities.
Death plays no favorites
It was not long before reports of problems began to surface. Danco, the U.S. distributor of the drug (made in China), was forced to send out a letter in April of 2002 informing doctors that the FDA had learned of six women developing serious complications after taking the drugs, including two who died.
Three women suffered ruptured ectopic pregnancies and one of these women died. Two women suffered serious bacterial infections. One of those women died. One of the six–a 21 years old woman–had a non-fatal heart attack three days after taking her pills.
Doctors were cautioned to watch out for ectopic pregnancy. The abortifacient drugs do not abort ectopic pregnancies.
These turned out to be only the tip of the iceberg. Over the next few years, thousands of “adverse event reports” flooded the FDA, with news of hundreds of women hemorrhaging, dealing with serious infections, suffering from ruptured ectopic pregnancies. More than a dozen women died, and there were more deaths associated with use of the drug outside the United States. And that was of 2011!
In 2002 when a beautiful young teenager from California named Holly Patterson died of C. sordellii, what was supposed to an exceeding rare infection, the media took notice and questions began to be raised. The FDA and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) convened a meeting in May of 2006 to investigate a sudden rash of such infections.
An inadequate government response
Evidence from researchers clearly showed a link between the drug-induced abortion process and the infections, and a sudden jump in the number of fatal C. sordellii infections since the abortion pill’s introduction in 2000. The government chose to look away, identifying pregnancy, not chemical abortion, as the risk factor!
The government demanded no immediate changes. It allowed previous modifications made to the label before the meeting, with additional warnings, and earlier advisory letters sent out to doctors by the distributor, to stand. Those letters gave cautions but denied any causal link, and the drug remained on the market.
Some prescribers (Planned Parenthood) modified their protocol to add antibiotics prophylactically (before the abortion) or to stop recommending vaginal self-administration (theorized as one way the bacteria was introduced). However, for the most part, the industry took this as vindication that they were not at fault.

Details are sketchy with the government and media largely losing interest with the “problem solved,” but injuries and deaths have continued to be associated with use of the drugs here in the U.S. and elsewhere.
An April 2011 FDA report requested by a U.S. Senator found more that 2,200 “adverse events” associated with use of the mifepristone/misoprostol combo with 14 known deaths in the U.S. and at least five more in other countries. Deadly infections killed eight of the 14 in the U.S.

Doctors keep their distance with web-cam abortions
The industry has responded by trying to expand use of the drug further. Planned Parenthood’s monster Midwest affiliate, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, pioneered the “web-cam” abortion in Iowa. The abortionist is linked via a computer to would-be abortion patients at small storefront clinics that might be a hundred miles away or more.
After looking at her record and asking a few questions, the abortionist clicks a button that releases a locked drawer containing the pills at the woman’s location. She takes the mifepristone there and then takes the misoprostol home to administer to herself later.
She can call a hotline if she has any problems and go to her local Emergency Room for treatment if needed. She is never in the same room as her abortionist and he never actually physically examines her.
Abortion clinics in other states have sought to follow Iowa’s lead. But pro-lifers have pushed back, passing laws that reinstituted the original FDA protocol or mandated the doctor’s physical presence. These have met with mixed success so far, with some operational, others under some stage of judicial review. An effort by the Iowa Medical Board to put in place rules to protect patient safety and prohibit web-cam abortions were thwarted by the state supreme court earlier this year.
Increasing numbers in a declining market
The promotion of web-cam abortions and chemical abortions in general is just one prong of the abortion industry’s wider effort to expand the pool of abortion “providers” in a down market. Abortions have fallen from a peak of 1.6 million a year in 1990 to just over one million as recently as 2011. The number of practicing abortionists has also fallen, from a high of 2,818 in 1982 to 1,720 in 2011.
It is expected that the drop-off in “providers” would have been more significant if not for the new abortionists added with the introduction of RU-486 after 2000. The industry has made up for some of its losses not just with web-cams that allow one abortionist to “practice” in several locations at once, but by persuading states such as California to authorize nurses, midwives, and physician assistants to perform surgical or chemical procedures.
The less space, equipment, training, or responsibility required to perform a chemical abortion, the easier it for the industry to establish new abortion centers and find someone to facilitate these abortions.

As noted at the beginning, a lot of women have bought the sales pitch and have taken the drug. One reporter put the number of American women who have used it at 2 million (U.S. News & World Report, 9/15/15). Their experience, however, has not always matched the hype.
Making abortion more abundant, but not safer

A young mom named Angie “live tweeted” her RU-486 abortion in February 2010, hoping to “demystify” the process for others. As her arduous nightmare played out over the course of the next 11 days (she had originally expected the process to take 4-8 hours) – “Stupid cramps. Aren’t we done #livetweetingabortion yet?” – Angie showed no remorse. But, inadvertently, her example served as more of a negative than positive advertisement.

The industry will keep pushing these drugs, though. One international group, Women on Waves–unsuccessful in getting Irish and Polish women to motorboat out to its “Abortion Ship” anchored in international waters to have chemical abortions–has taken to stunts like flying “abortion drones” across the border and having non-pregnant women take the pills to protest the laws there.
The international abortion lobby has always seen chemical abortion as one of the ways to bring abortion into less developed countries where abortion may not be legal, just as they’ve seen RU-486 as a way to bring abortion to communities in the U.S. where it is not wanted and no respectable doctor wants to do them.

In 15 years, millions of babies have lost their lives due to this medical “innovation,” and so have too many of their mothers. It is an anniversary to mourn.

Source: NRLC News