RU486

 

FDA greases the skids for greater use of chemical abortions

By Dave Andrusko
Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D., NRL Director of Education & Research, knows as much as anyone in the pro-life community about the two-drug abortion technique, RU-486. That’s why before you read these remarks, please read his story responding the Food and Drug Administration’s decision today to relax safety standards and modified the protocol for chemical abortions that had been in place since September of 2000.

Since it’s late in the day, my comments will be brief and to the point and center on how the early news stories were almost a parody of the way the media has for sixteen years+ either minimized the dangers of the mifepristone/misoprostol combination or ignored them altogether.

For example, not until the very last paragraph is there even a hint in the Washington Post story about the 14 deaths associated with the use of RU-486, not to mention that 2,209 “Adverse Events” that had been reported to the FDA as of five years ago! Adverse events is a blanket term that covers everything from the need for blood transfusions to endometritis, pelvic inflammatory disease, and pelvic infections with sepsis (“a serious systemic infection that has spread beyond the reproductive organs,” according to the FDA).

And of course not a syllable about how incredibly painful RU-486 abortions are. But that wouldn’t advance the narrative.

The New York Times, bless their corrupt souls, went back in time to resurrect the absurd and scientifically illiterate conclusion that an RU-486 abortion “induces miscarriage.”
The Post’s explanation was more turgid but equally unenlightening:

It blocks the production of progesterone, a hormone that prepares the lining of the uterus for a fertilized egg. A day or two after taking that drug, the woman takes the second drug, misoprostol, which causes the uterus to contract and expel the pregnancy.

We are not talking about a “fertilized egg” but a new human being. A “pregnancy” is not “expelled” but an unborn baby.

Why was the Abortion Industry jubilant? As Dr. O’Bannon explained, “It is obvious that the FDA’s new protocol serves only the interests of the abortion industry by expanding their base of potential customers, increasing their profit margin, and reducing the level of staff and amount of resources they have to devote to the patient.”

How so? It expands the time it can used from 49 days after the woman’s last menstrual period to 70 days. And by changing the protocol so that there is a higher dosage of the cheaper misoprostol (a prostaglandin) than the far more expensive mifepristone (brand name Mifeprex), more cash goes directly into the abortion clinic’s coffers.

We’ll write more about this very unfortunate development, which takes effect immediately, tomorrow. I cannot do better than end with Dr. O’Bannon’s conclusion:

It is clear whose interests it is the FDA is serving. It isn’t the women, and it isn’t the babies.

Source: NRLC News

Life is Beautiful

 

Baby given less than a 1% chance of survival returns home with her mother

One of Northern Ireland’s most premature babies is finally able to return home from hospital with her mother

Baby Meabh was born at just 23 weeks weighing barely a pound

Fionnuala McArdle was just 23 weeks pregnant when her daughter was born on October 9 last year. Her baby weighed just over a pound (480g) and doctors at the Royal Maternity Hospital’s neonatal unit gave her between a zero and one per cent chance of surviving. Fionnula’s daughter was also born with pneumonia and surrounded by toxic fluids.
Fionnuala named her daughter Meabh, which is an Irish name meaning the cause of great joy. Appropriately enough, Meabh’s name is thought to originate from the great warrior queen Mabh of Connacht.
True fighter
Little Meabh has certainly proven herself to be a true fighter over the past five months, as she’s gone through four operations, including a major heart operation and two on her eyes.
But with the help of medics, she’s pulled through – and has now been discharged from hospital to return home with her mother.
Her mum Fionnuala recalls Meabh trying to grasp her hand in the hours after she was born, and says she knew then that her baby would survive.
“I just loved her”
Fionnuala told UTV: “When I looked at her and she was so fragile, she really was badly bruised and she just looked so sick, but I just loved her.
“It was scary because she was so small. She was the size of my hand. It was just [like] ‘how are you here’?”
Meabh’s story is all the more incredible when you consider that abortion is legal in Britain up to 24 weeks of pregnancy – meaning that babies like Meabh are being aborted in mainland Britain.
“The most amazing moment of my life”
It’s been a long road to health, but Fionnuala says she will never forget the moment when she was able to hold her beautiful child at last, for just a few moments, five weeks after she was born.
“It was literally about a minute, if even, because she couldn’t handle it,” Fionnuala continued.
“She was still on a ventilator at the time so she was put straight back in. But it was the most amazing minute of my life.”
“Over the moon”
Meabh still faces an uphill struggle – she still requires oxygen, is being tube fed and may have health problems in later life. But for now Fionnuala is just rejoicing that just last week she finally was allowed to bring her baby home.
“Absolutely over the moon, I finally felt like a proper mother because I was able to take the baby home,” she said.
Editor’s note. This appeared today on the website of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.

Source: NRLC News

Trump and Abortion

 

Trump says “there has to be some form of punishment” for women who have abortions, later in the day issues statement saying he wouldn’t punish women

By Dave Andrusko

Donald Trump and Chris Matthews

No media figure has sharper knives than MSNBC’s Chris Matthews so when Donald Trump sat down today to tape a town hall-style meeting with the host of Hardball he could’ve expected Matthews to try to pin him down on issues that to date Mr. Trump has avoided being specific about.
The full program will be aired tonight. But when Trump said (in response to a hypothetical about what he would do if abortion was no longer legal) “there has to be some form of punishment, yeah” for women who have abortions, MSNBC broke in its programming to air a clip from the exchange.
The position of Mr. Trump, a recent pro-life convert, as expressed to Matthews, is diametrically at odds with that of NRLC’s, the leader of the mainstream pro-life Movement.

NRLC’s objective is to save babies, to use legislation to stop abortionists, not punish women. As NRLC President Carol Tobias said today in a statement:

In adopting statutes prohibiting the performance of abortions, National Right to Life has long opposed the imposition of penalties on the woman on whom an abortion is attempted or performed. Rather, penalties should be imposed against any abortionist who would take the life of an unborn child in defiance of statutes prohibiting abortions. National Right to Life-backed state and federal legislation, such as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and the Dismemberment Abortion Ban, is targeted at stopping abortionists.

After the clip aired, Mr. Trump’s campaign issued a statement. It read

“If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman. The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed — like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions.”

Source: NRLC News

Chemical Abortion

 

FDA expansion of abortion pill use still does not necessarily mean chemical abortion is safer

By Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D., NRL Director of Education & Research
Many suspected that today’s announcement by the FDA was a long time coming. Despite a record of at least 14 known deaths, and thousands of women suffering significant adverse events, the FDA relaxed safety standards and modified the protocol for mifepristone/misoprostol chemical abortions that had been in place since September of 2000.

The FDA, responding to a request by the U.S. distributor of the drug, has modified dosages, changed the administration, reduced the number of visits, expanded the prescriber pool, and extended the time frame where the drugs may be used. Though applauded by the abortion industry, the documentation demonstrating the impact on women’s safety has not been made publicly available.
Certainly, none of the modifications is of any benefit to the unborn child.
For women, the mifepristone/misoprostol combination comes with significant cramping, bleeding, and other gastrointestinal side effects (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea) that are expected parts of the chemical abortion process.

While it may be claimed that these side effects are supposed to be reduced with the new protocol, chemical abortions simply do not occur without significant bleeding, cramping, etc. That these side effects are similar to signs of ruptured ectopic pregnancy, serious infection, or may be the prelude to significant hemorrhage that could be missed by patients or even doctors expecting these as part of any chemical abortion would still appear to be a problem under any protocol.
In the end, it is obvious that the FDA’s new protocol serves only the interests of the abortion industry by expanding their base of potential customers, increasing their profit margin, and reducing the level of staff and amount of resources they have to devote to the patient.

It is clear whose interests it is the FDA is serving. It isn’t the women, and it isn’t the babies.

Source: NRLC News

RIP

 

Mother Angelica Founders of the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) Dies Easter Sunday at 92

By Ernest Ohlhoff
Mother Angelica, whose vision for a global Catholic television network was unprecedented, will be mourned by millions of people whose lives have been touched by her indomitable and God-centered spirit.

Mother Angelica made “pro-life” the cornerstone issue in all aspects of EWTN’s programming.
“A great pro-life visionary has gone to God,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “But the work Mother Angelica started has had a tremendous impact on the world and will continue to do so. EWTN is a great friend and ally to pro-life people of every faith. We are deeply grateful for her love and caring for all God’s children.”
Born Rita Antoinette Rizzo in Canton, Ohio, in 1923, Rita’s parents divorced when she was 6 years old. She and her mother lived on the edge of poverty, moving frequently. As a teenager, Mother Angelica experienced lengthy and serious health ailments. She prayed fervently for nine days and was cured. That experience led her to God.
On August 15, 1944, at the age of 21, she entered the Poor Clares of Perpetual Adoration in Cleveland, Ohio.

With only a high school education, no television experience, and only $200 in the bank, Mother Angelica officially launched the Eternal Word Television Network on August 15, 1981. She served as EWTN’s first Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. It was a long hard road and Mother Angelica faced bankruptcy several times. But she refused to allow paid advertisements to fund EWTN, relying solely on viewer donations.

In 1981 when Mother Angelica launched EWTN, it had approximately 20 employees. Today, EWTN’s staff of nearly 400 employees prepares and transmits 24-hour-a-day programming to more than 264 million homes in 144 countries. In addition, its religious network broadcasts terrestrial and shortwave radio around the world, operates a religious goods catalog, and publishes the National Catholic Register and Catholic News Agency, among other communication enterprises.
Mother Angelica is living proof that one determined person, with God’s grace can change the world.

Source: NRLC News

Brazil,Zika and Abortion

 

Women on Web temporarily suspends sending abortifacients to women in Brazil

By Dave Andrusko
The Los Angeles Times is reporting that the pro-abortion organization Women on Web has been almost completely unsuccessful in shipping chemical abortifacients to women in Brazil.
According to a highly sympathetic story written by Ann M. Simmons and Claire Rigby, Women on Web has temporarily shelved the program which promised women they would receive free misoprostol and mifepristone in the mail.
Simmons and Rigby write that the group says it has sent “dozens of packages” to women in Brazil but only two women received them. The packages which have been confiscated by Brazilian authorities.
The abortifacients were requested by women who thought they might have been exposed to the Zika virus which has been associated with, but not proven to cause microcephaly, a condition in which babies are born with undersized heads with subsequent health problems.
According to the Times’ story

Authorities acknowledge that they are confiscating abortion drugs sent in the mail because the medicines are banned in Brazil.

The Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency said it was illegal for individuals to receive misoprostol — an abortive substance best known in Brazil by the brand name Cytotec — in the mail.

“Packages are checked when they arrive at the post office, and if medications are discovered they are forwarded to us,” said Carlos Dias Lopes, an agency press officer.

Misoprostol and mifepristone have legitimate, non-abortifacient properties which is why The World Health Organization lists them on its Model List of Essential Medicines that “satisfy the priority healthcare needs of the population.”
However, as Simmons and Rigby note, there is an annotation

“where permitted under national law and where culturally acceptable.” It also notes that usage of these drugs requires “close medical supervision.”

As NRL News Today has reported previously, pro-abortion forces are engaged in an all-out campaign to change protective abortion laws in Latin America. For example, earlier this month, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad AL Hussein said, “Laws and policies that restrict access to these [reproductive health] services must be urgently reviewed in line with human rights obligations in order to ensure the right to health for all in practice.”
But for the second time, a recent poll shows a majority of Brazilians oppose abortion for women infected with the Zika virus, according to Brazil’s Folha de Sao Paulo newspaper, results of which were picked up by CNSNews.com.

58 percent of Brazilians said that pregnant women infected with the Zika virus should not be able to have an abortion, while 32 percent thought the woman should have the option of an abortion, and 10 percent said they had no opinion.

Source: NRLC News

Birth

 

A baby’s life, no less sacred before birth than after birth

By Maria Gallagher, Legislative Director, Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation
Editor’s note. This appeared in the March edition of National Right to Life News at www.nrlc.org/uploads/NRLNews/NRLNewsMarch2016.pdf. You can read the entire 41-page edition there and then forward selected stories or the entire issue using your social networks.
Recently, a friend of mine, ever-sunny Robin, was all set to serve as a volunteer on a women’s retreat weekend. Then she learned that her beloved grandchild in utero, Quinn, had to be delivered by C-section the next morning.
She left the retreat, bound for her daughter-in-law’s side. And she left behind a group of faithful women who were praying fervently that Quinn would journey safely into the world.
The retreat was jam-packed with talks and activities, but when we had a few moments to pause, we, the team members, prayed again for the young lady’s blessed arrival.
A few hours later, a team member glanced at her phone and quietly informed those around her “We have a baby.”
We logged onto Facebook and there, in all her five-pound glory, was the girl we had been praying for—stunningly beautiful, preciously pink, uniquely lovely, and unashamedly and completely loved by the grandmother who held Quinn in her arms.
While I was filled with joy and wonder at seeing Quinn’s breathtaking face, I couldn’t help but think of some politicians—most notably Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders—and what they’d said at a Fox News Town Hall in Detroit: they support abortion even at the latest stages of pregnancy.
While Quinn’s remarkable family members were greeting her with open, loving hearts, two candidates for President were callously defending the brutal practice of late-term abortion.
It’s entirely possible that these same politicians would ooh and ahh if they saw Quinn’s photo on Facebook. And yet, they remain committed to a political agenda which allows abortion up to the moment of birth.
Quinn’s life is no accident—and neither is the life of any unborn child. There is purpose and reason for her life. And perhaps her worth is all the more apparent, given the struggle her mother faced in giving birth to her.
She comes at a time when political candidates can blindly and blandly dismiss children in the womb, assigning them no rights—as if these public officials had the power to determine a child’s worth. No matter how powerful they believe they are, no matter the height of the office they hope to hold, assigning value to human beings is beyond their rightful authority.
Quinn was no less sacred before birth as after birth. Sure, we can see her sunlit face now, when before, with the ultrasound, she would demurely turn her face away.
But she is no more human now than she was when snugly living inside her mother’s body. She is the same person—only older and more exposed to the world—a world that she will forever change, just through her very being.
When Hillary Clinton and Sen. Sanders talk about “women’s rights,” they forget about the rights of those little women in the womb, who are every bit as deserving of respect as a President, a premier, or a king.
I am convinced that someday women will be able to look at a baby picture and not have to think about the babies who never got a chance to see their grandmother’s faces—the babies that Roe v. Wade cast away.
Roe v. Wade will be no more.
The next generation will guarantee it.

Source: NRLC News

Very Touching

 

Mom writes letter to unborn baby after they survive Brussels’ Terrorist attack

By Dave Andrusko

Sneha Mehta wrote a letter to her unborn child after surviving the terrorist attack at the Brussels Airport.

Each day the death toll from last week’s terrorist attacks in Brussels grows. As of this morning, the number killed in the attacks at the airport and the metro station had risen to 35. At least another 270 people were injured.
Amidst this tragedy there was a life-affirming ray of hope. On Friday CNN reported about Sneha Mehta and her husband, Samsee, who , according to Don Melvin, “had just flown in from Abu Dhabi to Brussels on Tuesday when bombs went off in the airport and the ceiling started falling on their heads.”
Thanks to their knowledge of the airport’s layout and the kindness of strangers–a terrifically helpful cab driver who not only drove them to the hospital but calmly talked to them the whole way– the 16-week pregnant Sneha made it to Sint Augustinus hospital, where “there was a beautiful moment”:

The ultrasound exam showed that the baby — the Mehtas don’t know yet whether it is a boy or a girl — appeared to be healthy and content, safe in the womb, sucking its thumb.

When they got back home to Antwerp, “Sneha felt she had to write a letter to her baby,” Melvin wrote.

Maybe it will be unsealed when the child is 16. Maybe later. She hasn’t decided yet.

But she needed an outlet. And she needed, she said, to write the letter while the feelings were fresh and raw — to capture them before they faded.

CNN reproduced the beautiful letter, which we are posting below. It is must reading. The letter begins, “Hi, Sweetheart”:

“I don’t know if we already acknowledged this with you in person, but when you were 16 weeks old, mum and dad were in an explosion at Brussels Airport.

“And no matter where humanity is today, I just want to tell you that life is a wonderful thing, and the world is really full of remarkable people.

“You didn’t just give mum and dad faith and reason to live, you gave the awareness and presence of mind like never before.

“I felt more alive than I ever have, and I knew I had to protect you, so I was calm, composed and fully aware that we will survive.

“When we reached Sint-Augustinus emergency, and we saw you oblivious and sucking at your thumb at the ultrasound, and doing your general acrobatics, all the mistrust, hate and angst for the terrorist attack vaporized.

“I do hope with all my heart that you are born into a better world, and if not, then you do absolute best to make it that.

“You are absolutely precious to us, and have already been a hero today. I guess the world has sent so much love and hope your way, you owe your life to reciprocating that goodness.

“May you always be brave and healthy. We love you beyond words.

“Mum and Dad”

Source: NRLC News

Sex Selection and Abortion

If the United Nations had their way, a little girl would be dead

  Adam Peters 

 

In August, a little girl is going to see her first birthday. For most people, that’s a reason to celebrate. For some UN “human rights experts,” it’s cause for “regret.”
The girl was was born in Paraguay to an 11 year-old rape survivor, and her conception wasn’t known until she was 21 weeks along.

While the baby’s grandmother demanded that she be aborted, Paraguayan authorities refused; the law only permits abortion when a mother’s life is at risk, and doctors determined that wasn’t the case.  Further, a public health official pointed out that late-term abortion can itself be fatal, a fact too many women have experienced.

Apparently the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) wasn’t concerned. Several of its figures condemned the decision, including the organization’s expert on torture. Amnesty International brought up torture as well, claiming that letting the girl live would be “tantamount” to it.
If these groups are really concerned about torture, then they should look at what they were arguing for.
Research by Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand at the University of Tennessee indicates a fetus can feel pain by 20 weeks–a week before this girl’s life was discovered. Dr. Anthony Levatino performed over 1200 abortions during his career, and in the video below, he explains what one involves at 21 weeks.

After the amniotic fluid is removed, the abortionist uses a sopher clamp — a grasping instrument with rows of sharp “teeth” — to grasp and pull the baby’s arms and legs, tearing the limbs from the child’s body. The abortionist continues to grasp intestines, spine, heart, lungs, and any other limbs or body parts. The most difficult part of the procedure is usually finding, grasping and crushing the baby’s head. After removing pieces of the child’s skull, the abortionist uses a curette to scrape the uterus and remove the placenta and any remaining parts of the baby.

If that isn’t torture, it’s tough to imagine what is.
Many seem to think an abortion prevents further psychological harm, but there’s little evidence to support that. In fact, a study published in the British Medical Journal said abortion was associated with an elevated risk of suicide.
Then again, some abortion proponents aren’t too concerned about rape survivors or their emotional well being. When Jennifer Christie refused to abort her son after being raped, she was called “stupid,” “brain damaged,” “f–ked in the head” and “an a–hole” for not killing him. One woman said via email, “I want to hurt you.”

Last August, a healthy baby girl was delivered via cesarean section without complications. If the OHCHR and Amnesty International had gotten their way, she’d be dead. So might her mother.
Both these groups say they’re opposed to capital punishment. We can debate whether the death penalty is ever appropriate, but here’s something you’d think we could agree on: a little girl shouldn’t die for her father’s crimes. That we can’t is what’s truly regrettable.

Source: LiveAction News

Baby Bodies

 

Fetal tissue researchers cry ‘witch hunt’ over Select Panel investigating harvesting

  Susan Michelle 

A recent New York Times article on the investigation into fetal parts research by the House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives includes many pro-abortion comments which try to paint the committee as witch hunters rather than as legislators doing their jobs.
The paper’s bias continues as it liberally quotes pro-abortion propaganda and implies that if the committee were to subpoena medical research companies and obtain names of fetal tissue researchers that it might spark violence in the industry.  Ilyse Hogue, president of the pro-abortion group NARAL, said:

If heaven forbid an act of violence does occur as a result of this list being compiled, the chair of this committee and her G.O.P. colleagues will be complicit in that violence.

And one of the committee’s Democrats, Jerrold Nadler (NY), actually implied it was the committee threatening lives, rather than those who cut up babies. He said:

It’s one step further than McCarthyism, because McCarthy just threatened people’s jobs. They’re threatening people’s lives.

But the committee chair, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (TN) said:

We all are concerned for individual safety. It’s important to note that we have to have the names of some of the individuals who are carrying out these practices in order to investigate the practice.

The abortion industry is notorious for justifying its secret-keeping ways, always claiming they would be in danger if people knew the names of those working in these facilities. Citing fringe instances of those who claim to be against abortion violence but inflict violence, such as the Colorado Springs shooting last year, the abortion industry falsely portrays peaceful pro-lifers as a danger to them.
And if pro-lifers are not portrayed as violent, then they are portrayed as hindering medical research that may help others live. Lawrence Goldstein, who has received funding from Planned Parenthood for research and also has obtained fetal parts from the abortion organization, testified in the hearing this month, and is known for his work experimenting on baby brains. He insists that cures for diseases and vaccines to prevent them cannot exist without his experiments on dead babies.
The Times reports:

Larry Goldstein, scientific director of the Sanford Consortium for Regenerative Medicine in La Jolla, Calif., told the committee at its first hearing on March 2 that a project to cure multiple sclerosis had been halted because it had “basically seen supply of fetal material dry up completely.”

While Goldstein may infer pro-lifers have potentially prevented multiple sclerosis from being cured, the fact is that no actual cures have come, which is okay with him as long as he gets to keep researching. As Live Action reported:

Stunningly, Goldstein defended the “exploration” of baby brains. He said that because researchers don’t know the area of the brain that is affected by certain diseases, it is therefore vital to “explore the landscape.” And while there have been no answers for medicine from this research, Goldstein insisted it was worth exploring, saying, “We’re going to give it a good solid try.”

Goldstein also asserted that his work was necessary for important work such as a vaccine for the Zika virus. While he was in the lab giving it a “good solid try,” news came out that a 100% efficacious vaccine for the Dengue virus (related to the Zika virus) had been created–without the use of fetal tissue. He also said in the March 2 hearing that he was “uncomfortable with the law of the land” that prevents the buying and selling of fetal parts.
He’s not the only one uncomfortable with the law of the land, obviously, since committee Democrats and pro-abortion workers all think they should be above investigation. The subpoenas needed to be issued, the committee noted, because when the committee requested information from them, the paper reports, “[m]any of the universities and organizations blacked out names and other identifying information before submitting hundreds of pages of research documents in response to the committee’s earlier requests for information.”
When a federal committee requests information to conduct an investigation and organizations refuse to provide it, it’s not out of line for the committee to then issue subpoenas in response to their refusal. This is not “McCarthyism” or any other ploy to harm or expose fetal tissue researchers. It’s a federal committee doing its job, which is what the public elected them to do.  The committee has unanswered questions about practices that might violate federal law. Those members of Congress should be under fire if they did not investigate.
The New York Times comments, “Tissue and organ harvesting can seem a gruesome business to laymen.” The truth is, it is terribly gruesome to extract a baby and cut him or her in pieces, identifying parts and sending them to research labs. There isn’t much more gruesome.  The paper also says, in a standalone paragraph, without comment:

In the March 2 hearing, Ms. Blackburn cited Nazi medical experiments, the killing of Chinese prisoners for organs and the Tuskegee syphilis experiment as presenting similar ethical issues.

And that’s exactly why this committee is doing its job–so a practice couched with medical terminology doesn’t become the next Nazi medical experiment. If, as abortion advocates claim, they are innocent of all wrongdoing and following the law, then it should be of no consequence for them to cooperate and answer questions. Their reluctance is indicting, whether a federal indictment follows or not.

Source: LiveAction News

Pro-Abortion Hillary

 

Pro-abortion PAC targeting young women in effort to support Hillary Clinton

  Rebecca Downs 

Red Alert Politics has covered Hillary’s loss with millennial voters, including young women, quite a bit. Hillary is likely to become the Democratic nominee for the general election. Thus, in a move which seems to be out of desperation, her pro-abortion supporters have turned to targeting young women for their votes. The move is also complicated because so many young people are pro-life. 

EMILY’s List, the group behind the effort, operates under the general veil of  being “the nation’s largest resource for women in politics” while its sole aim is to only elect pro-abortion, Democratic women.
On March 13, the group announced that rabidly pro-abortion and pro-Hillary actress and writer Lena Dunham would co-chair a “Creative Council” to reach out to millennials:

2016 provides an unprecedented opportunity to create lasting change. Not only do we have women running all the way up to the top of the ticket for the first time ever, millennials will outnumber boomers at the ballot box. Latinas will vote in unprecedented numbers. And unmarried women will decide the fate of the White House and the Senate, which will shape the Supreme Court for generations.

Coming from a pro-abortion group like EMILY’s List, it’s safe to assume how they think Latinas and other women should and will vote. Unmarried women more often vote for Democrats, and EMILY’s List only endorses Democratic candidates.
Dunham is joined by Paul Bernon as her co-chair, who is a producer and EMILY’s List board member. They know that discussing abortion for what it really is is a losing issue, and so they’re turning to dressing it up from a cultural and entertainment perspective, with original emphasis:

We need to reach these voters now in order to make sure they turn out in November,  producer and EMILY’s List Board Member Paul Bernon said. And our beltway-focused political dialogue is not the way to do it. So we’re reaching out to influential entertainers and industry executives who can speak to the rising American electorate and communicate the stakes in 2016.

Dunham isn’t the only Hillary supporter who has become involved this election cycle. Wendy Davis is a former Texas state senator and failed gubernatorial candidate who rose to fame for filibustering a 20-week abortion ban in Texas, which was ultimately passed.
On March 14,  Davis announced her pro-abortion initiative to reach young women, “Deeds Not Words.” Davis evoked suffragette Alice Paul in her initiative. Davis likely thought she was clever to do so during Women’s History Month. Paul, and other suffragettes, were pro-life though. Susan B. Anthony List and Feminists for Life are organizations named after that very fact.
Such history seems to be lost on Davis though. From the Houston Chronicle:

“Let me propose a new wave of action — of feminist action. In the next few weeks, I will be launching a new initiative, “Deeds Not Words,” inspired by Alice Paul’s motto,” Davis said.

Paul is regarded as one of the leaders of the early 20th century women’s suffrage movement, and organized a number of marches and public disruptions, leading to the 19th amendment being passed in 1920.

Davis, the one-time Democratic nominee for Texas governor, called young women to honor Paul and other female activists by using the rights that these women fought for.

And yet right after evoking a pro-lifer, Davis speaks about her pro-abortion views:

“We all know how good it felt to stand up and win that small battle for women’s rights in June of 2013,” Davis said. “But we also know that awful bill passed with a majority of votes, just a few days later. Permanent change can only come when we make it happen, at the ballot box.”

That “small battle for women’s rights” didn’t just involve a filibuster, but initially blocking the vote because it was prevented from taking place on time. There were pro-abortion protesters chanting “Hail, Satan,” bringing in used tampons and feces to throw at elected officials, and forcing peaceful pro-lifers into lockdown once the bill was passed.
The so-called “awful bill” was supported by a majority of Texans and Americans, including women.
The initiatives also include targeting sexual assault on campus, equal pay, paid family leave and affordable education. Pro-abortion initiatives are still a part of Deeds Not Words though, with “reproductive justice” and “women’s health care.”

Source: LiveAction News

More on Planned Parenthood

 

Houston Planned Parenthood joins lawsuit against Center for Medical Progress

  Danny David 

In January, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, along with several California Planned Parenthood affiliates, filed a suit against the Center for Medical Progress, alleging the pro-life group violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Planned Parenthood also claims that the Center for Medical Progress “committed fraud, trespassed on private property, illegally and secretly recorded footage and invaded the privacy of Planned Parenthood employees.”

Melissa Farrell, discussing how to “cook the books” to make it appear as if Planned Parenthood is not profiting from the sale of fetal tissue

Now, Houston’s Planned Parenthood affiliate has joined the suit. The case centers around undercover videos filmed by the Center for Medical Progress, which show Planned Parenthood officials discussing the sale of fetal body parts. One of the videos was filmed at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast Houston.

Melaney Linton, president of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, criticized the videos as outright lies…

Extreme anti-abortion politicians who want to ban abortion have invoked these lies to fuel their efforts to pass extreme restrictions on access to reproductive health care… These extreme anti-abortion activists acted illegally and then spread lies about our care.

But the Center for Medical Progress argues that Planned Parenthood is the group at fault, and is attempting to turn blame on the Center for Medical Progress for exposing them. In a statement, the Center for Medical progress defended themselves:

Planned Parenthood is under investigation by the United States Congress and multiple law enforcement agencies, while their business is drying up and the public is turning against their barbaric abortion for baby parts trade. Now they are filing a frivolous lawsuit in retaliation for CMP’s First Amendment investigative journalism that has done nothing more than tell the truth about Planned Parenthood’s lawless operations.

This last-ditch move of desperation is going to expose all of the sordid dealings of the California Planned Parenthood affiliates to the light of the legal system and the public will see them for the corrupt abortion and baby body parts profiteers that they really are.

Farrell, discussing illegally altering abortion procedures to obtain more intact fetal specimens

Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast’s director of research in Houston,  Melissa Farrell, admitted on CMP’s undercover video that her research department “contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization here” and stated during price negotiations that it was easy to make it look like Planned Parenthood wasn’t actually profiting from the sale of fetal body parts:

Yeah and so if we alter our process, and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, then we can make it part of the budget, that any dissections are this, and splitting the specimens into different shipments is this. It’s all just a matter of line items.

Source: LIVEAction News

Extreme Position

 

Hysterical reactions to Missouri parental notification bill exposes extremism of abortion advocates

  Calvin Freiburger 

One of the surest ways to tell if somebody’s an extremist is to see whether their words are proportionate to what they’re discussing. Pro-lifers, for instance, believe that killing a pre-implantation embryo via abortifacient drugs and killing a developed, pain-capable fetus by partially delivering her and stabbing her skull are equally wrong, but we can see clear differences in the moral intentions of those who support one versus the other.

Pro-aborts tend to recognize no such distinctions, and the latest manifestation of that tendency is a doozy. At the Daily Kos, Bimmerella Zone freaks out that the latest abortion bill to pass the Missouri House of Representatives has “only ONE reason” to exist—“shaming teens”—and has the effect of making them “second class citizens.” Democrat state Representative Genise Montecillo calls it “absolutely cruel.” Her fellow Democrat Stacey Newman said it forced teens to follow pro-lifers’ “religious beliefs.”

Woah, it must be pretty bad if people who disagree can see only malice and theology instead of decent and secular motivations behind it. So what does this demonic legislation do?
It strengthens Missouri’s current parental consent law, which requires minors to get the permission of one parent for an abortion, by requiring that the second parent be notified (not give consent) as well.
Seriously, that’s it. It doesn’t reduce a teenager’s likelihood of getting an abortion in any other way. It doesn’t tighten the state’s relatively-weak parental bypass option, which does not require a judge to base his decision on specific criteria or the “clear and convincing evidence” standard. It just requires that both parents know that their child is making such an irreversible, life-altering decision.
But this is absolutely unthinkable to pro-aborts (and yet, they continue insisting they’re “pro-choice, not pro-abortion”). They expect us to believe they cannot conceive of a single reason both Mom and Dad deserve to know. Hey, I just thought of one: cases like this one documented by my Live Action colleague Carole Novielli, in which a California man took his thirteen-year-old daughter to Planned Parenthood—twice—to abort the babies he impregnated her with. Planned Parenthood didn’t report either incident, despite knowing that, at the very least, statutory rape had occurred. Only after her older sister (whom Dad was also molesting) went to the police did the abuse stop.

Considering Planned Parenthood was worse than useless in protecting her (Carole’s links, as well as Live Action’s undercover investigations, show this sort of thing is not uncommon), requiring both parents to know what’s going is an obvious check against a rapist father—the very sort of abusive parent the bill’s foes claim to be protecting children from—using secret abortions to continue raping his daughters under their mother’s nose.

Missouri ACLU director Jeffrey Mittman at least presents an argument: “No bill can account for every family dynamic that would lead a parent to decide that it is unsafe and unwise to involve the other in such a personal decision.” But that’s why the bill expressly does not apply to parents who’ve been found guilty of child abuse, neglect, substance abuse, or sex offenses, or is the subject of a protection order.

It’s true that no law can fully predict or compensate for every possible variable in individual cases. But we can do much better than the status quo, which when dominated by pro-aborts doesn’t even try to protect women and girls from the physical and mental danger of “safe” abortions, the abortion industry’s disregard for their welfare, or the sinister uses to which abusers can put abortion.

Source: LiveAction News

No Middle Ground

 

Harvard Law Record fails at finding ‘middle ground’ on abortion

  Calvin Freiburger 

In addition to dedicated pro-lifers and dyed-in-the-wool abortion advocates, the abortion debate is full of people who want to have it both ways—they want to distance themselves from the moral discomfort of abortion more stridently than “I’m personally opposed, but…” yet they don’t want to commit themselves to fighting its advocates or outright prohibition. On a number of occasions in my own life, I’ve met people whose politics are quite dogmatic in most respects but go out of their way to stress they dislike abortion—while still content to do nothing about it.
At the Harvard Law Record, Colin Ross attempts to stake out a more sophisticated middle ground, curiously declaring abortion “the moral wrong we must not ban.” He calls abortion a “monstrous problem,” both because of “the lives it may take” and “because it pits two bitterly opposed camps against each other, in a seemingly ever-escalating war, in which both sides are largely right about the goals and principles they hold most dear.”
Has Mr. Ross managed to square a circle so many before him have tried to and failed? Let’s find out.
First, he attempts to show “room for serious doubt that, in the moment after fertilization, a member of the human family has been created.” But his examples aren’t nearly as serious as advertised:

That same fertilized embryo could yet split into two to produce twins. Did a person just die and two more take up residence?

Perhaps, or perhaps the original survived and reproduced asexually in some way. We may not know the answer, but it doesn’t follow that it wasn’t a person beforehand. As others have pointed out, cutting a flatworm in half and the parts becoming two flatworms doesn’t mean what you started out with wasn’t a flatworm. What matters is that all the criteria by which science defines a living human organism—species, growth, reproduction, metabolism, response to stimuli, genetic composition—are all satisfied as early as the zygote stage.

A huge number—as many as 80%—of all embryos die when they are just days old, before they can even be implanted in the uterus. As one commentator has asked, “Is Heaven Populated Chiefly by the Souls of Embryos?”

This is a sheer fallacy. How does a group’s high rate of naturally-occurring death have any bearing on what they are? A human being who lives only briefly is still a human being. This is utterly irrelevant to the factual question of what the preborn are, and irrelevant to the moral question—someone’s likelihood of dying naturally is not a justification for deliberately killing him or her.

Fortunately, Ross sees that the baby’s personhood soon becomes much clearer as he or she develops, and even has a grim reminder for pro-aborts who deny it: what if the “benefits” you say women derive from abortion “are built upon millions of dead human persons”? But then he chastises “the pro-life movement [for] fasten[ing] blinders to itself is in thinking that this moral answer morally necessitates a blanket abortion ban”:

Before Roe, abortions were still pervasive in the United States. For decades, hundreds of thousands of fetuses were aborted every year. Added to this toll over the years were the thousands of women who died in dangerous abortions. Illegality makes things dangerous.

Judging by how many support upholding abortion based on this falsehood, I’d say historical revisionism makes things even more dangerous. Live Action regulars know that even before Roe, Planned Parenthood officials admitted that illegal abortion numbers were vastly smaller than PP’s modern scaremongering, that the vast majority of illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians in good medical standing, and that the sharp drop in illegal abortion deaths was thanks to chemotherapy and antibiotics, not legalization.

The prosecution of doctors means that most competent doctors flee the field. Without competent doctors to perform abortions, women turn to the only ones left: the incompetent and the unlicensed. Crack down harder and deter even those and women will turn to dangerous self-help. The bottom line: ban all abortion and women will die.

Couple things: (1) the “most competent doctors” aren’t as competent—or ethical—as advertised; (2) the worse abortionists are enabled by abortion industry’s own watchdogs choosing to let them run wild; (3) the “dangerous self-help” argument’s primary evidence has been debunked.

Around the world today, tens of thousands of women die each year from unsafe abortions. Those deaths would drop drastically and rapidly if abortion were made legal, and they have done so in countries that have done so […] Economic security, not abortion prohibition, is the best predictor of low abortion rates. Cultural and moral norms, and access to and education about effective birth control, also play large roles. But it is not at all clear that laws do.

Live Action has also looked into these claims, finding that “unsafe” abortions have more to do with the medical and health standards in different countries than abortion laws, and identifying clear abortion declines in countries like Poland and Ireland that contradict Ross’s narrative. The New York Times’ Ross Douthat has pointed out that such claims typically fail to compare regions that have enough similar variables to make a reasonable inference; they also ignore that many of the countries regulate abortion more tightly than the US does. And Patheos blogger Marc Barnes has extensively shown that pro-life laws in this country are effective in decreasing abortions. (And all that is before getting into the evidence that even abortions performed carefully and professionally are physically and mentally dangerous for women.)

The pro-life policy path forward is to continue to expand the reach of affordable contraception to all through access and education. The biggest benefit that this approach has over prohibition: it works.

As evidence, Ross cites… a Colorado study that we debunked here, along with the broader meme that contraception is a magic bullet. To summarize, contraception is plentiful and affordable enough that it’s already preventing virtually all the pregnancies it can be reasonably expected to, and so pouring more into the country merely encourages more of the behavior that causes unwanted pregnancy in the first place.
He also finds it “positively mind-boggling,” “says this Catholic,” that pro-lifers oppose forcing religious entities to provide contraceptives. Free exercise of religious conscience is now inconceivable? Really?
Ross’s final bit of advice:

Don’t hold the March for Life at the Supreme Court. Hold it at adoption centers and foster homes across the country. Demonstrate with action that every child will have a welcome place, even if the mother cannot care for him or her. Volunteer time. Pledge to be a foster parent. Pledge to adopt. Pledge to support those who do.

I suppose it’s appropriate to close this out on the most clichéd straw men of all. Is he unaware that pro-lifers already do all of this all the time? Does he have any reason to believe we aren’t already adopting?
While Colin Ross makes more concessions to reality than the average pro-choice apologia, none of them matter in the end. The conclusion is still the same as if it came from any number of abortion activists: pro-lifers need to abandon the core of their policy agenda (evidence be damned); pro-aborts at most need to tweak their rhetoric a bit.
So beware any self-styled voices of reason pushing for this sort of middle ground. When one side has to move and the other doesn’t, the middle is not where they end up.

Source: LiveAction News

Indiana and Down Syndrome Babies

 

Indiana becomes the second state to ban Down syndrome abortions

  Becky Yeh 

On Thursday, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed legislation banning abortions on preborn babies based on fetal abnormalities, such as a diagnosis of Down syndrome. The measure will also prohibit abortions based on the race, sex, or disability of the child.
The Republican governor signed the measure hours ahead of the deadline to act on bills handed to him by the state legislature. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky has already vowed to take legal action to block the law, which is set to take effect in July.

In a statement, Pence called the measure “a comprehensive pro-life measure that affirms the value of all human life.”

“I believe that a society can be judged by how it deals with its most vulnerable — the aged, the infirm, the disabled and the unborn,” Pence said.
Under the law, abortionists who refuse to comply will be held responsible for the wrongful death of the child, and the state medical licensing board may take action. The law also requires aborted babies to be either cremated or buried.

Indiana joins North Dakota, which placed a similar law on the books prohibiting Down syndrome abortions in 2013.

Source: LiveAction News

Pro-Life Feminists

 

7 feminists who were pro-life

  Sarah Terzo 

March is Women’s History Month, a time to remember the women in the past who worked and sacrificed to give today’s women many of the rights we take for granted.
Early suffragists such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony paved the way for women to become active in politics, but many people don’t know that the most outspoken, vocal, and influential feminists of the 1800s were pro-life.
Here are some quotes from early feminists on abortion:
Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Elizabeth Cady Stanton fought for women’s rights for over six decades. Active in the abolitionist movement and married to a prominent abolitionist, she became frustrated by the anti-slavery movement’s failure to include women as equals. Out of her discontent, and that of other feminists of the time, arose the Seneca Falls convention, widely known as the beginning of organized feminism in the United States. Stanton was an editor of The Revolution, a traveling lecturer, a leader of the national Woman Suffrage Association, and the devoted mother of seven children. Here is an excerpt from an article she wrote on infanticide:

There must be a remedy for such a crying evil as this. But where shall it be found, at least begin, if not in the complete enfranchisement and elevation of women?

Source: “Child Murder” by Elizabeth Cady Stanton The Revolution 1 (10): 146 – 147 (March 12, 1868)
Read more quotes from Elizabeth Cady Stanton on abortion here 
Sarah F. Norton
Sarah Norton was a traveling lecturer who is perhaps best known for her activism aimed at winning admittance for women to Cornell University. She was a contributor to The Revolution, as well as other feminist publications. Here is an excerpt from an article in which she referred to a case where a woman died after her partner gave her poison to abort their child:

Here we find that a husband has been procuring poison for his wife and prospective offspring! Not with any wish to kill the wife perhaps, but as the chances are 5 to 1 against every woman who attempts abortion, he could not fail to realize the danger. Had this scheme been successful in destroying only the life aimed at, what could’ve been the man’s crime – and what should be his punishment if, as accessory to one murder he commits two?

“Tragedy – Social and Domestic” by Sarah F Norton Woodhull and Claflin’s Weekly, November 19, 1870
Read more by Sarah Norton here 
Victoria Woodhull

Victoria Woodhull was the first woman to declare her candidacy for president in 1870 as a way of raising awareness for women’s suffrage. She made a speech in front of the U.S. Congress advocating suffrage, and was one of the first female stockbrokers on Wall Street. Woodhull and her sister started their own feminist newspaper wherein appeared an article entitled “The Slaughter of Innocents” jointly written by both sisters. From the piece:

… Wives deliberately permit themselves to become pregnant of children and then, to prevent becoming mothers, as deliberately murder them while yet in their wombs. Can there be a more demoralized condition than this?… We are aware that many women attempt to excuse themselves for procuring abortions, upon the ground that it is not murder. But the fact of resort to so weak an argument only shows the more palpably that they fully realize the enormity of the crime .

Read more of this article here. 
Maddie H. Brinckerhoff
Maddie Brinckerhoff was a popular lecturer in the Midwest who advocated women’s suffrage and other women’s rights causes. Because she spoke about the issue of “voluntary motherhood,” along with a number of other feminists of the time, her words have led to some confusion.
When early feminists use the term “voluntary motherhood,” they did not mean abortion or contraception. Rather, they were referring to the right of women to abstain from sexual intercourse in marriage, and the duty of men to respect women’s right to refuse their advances. In this way, they argued, women would have control over whether or when to be mothers. Brinckerhoff, who advocated voluntary motherhood, was against abortion and wrote in The Revolution:

When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society – so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged.

Read more of Brinckerhoff’s article here. 
Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell 

Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell was the first woman to earn a medical degree. She was active in the suffrage movement and abolitionism. Here she describes the unborn baby and why it should be protected:

Look at the first faint gleam of life, the life of the embryo, the commencement of human existence. We see a tiny cell, so small it may be easily overlooked;…  it is a living cell; it contains a power progressive growth, according to laws, according, towards a definite type, that we can only regard with reverent admiration.
Leave it in its natural home, tended by the rich life of the healthy maternal organism, and it will grow steadily into the human type; in no other by any possibility.

The rest of her description is beautiful – it can be read here 
In her diary, Blackwell wrote about of Madame Restell, a notorious illegal abortionist in New York:

The gross perversion and destruction of motherhood by the abortionist filled me with indignation, and awakened active antagonism. That the honorable term ‘female physician’ should be exclusively applied to those women who carried on this shocking trade seemed to me a horror. It was an utter degradation of what might and should become a noble position for women.

Dr. Charlotte Lozier

Dr. Lozier was another one of the first women doctors in America.  She was active in the fight for equal rights, and The Revolution published an article about what happened when she was approached and asked to perform an illegal abortion. The tone of the article also shows the way that Susan B. Anthony and the other editors of the Revolution regarded abortion:

Dr. Charlotte Lozier of 323 W. 34th St., of this city [New York], was applied to last week by man pretending to be from South Carolina, by the name, Moran, as he also pretended, to procure an abortion on a very pretty young girl apparently about 18 years old. The doctor assured him that he’d come to the wrong place for any such a shameful, revolting, unnatural and unlawful purpose. She proffered to the young woman any assistance in her power to render, at the proper time, and cautioned and counseled her against the fearful act which she and her attendant (whom she called her cousin) proposed.

Susan B. Anthony

What did Susan B. Anthony think about abortion? There is controversy. Anthony’s paper, The Revolution, published a number of editorials against abortion during its run from 1868 to 1872. According to the research of Mary Krane Derr, a lifelong member of Feminists for Life who wrote the book Pro-Life Feminism: Yesterday and Today, The Revolution refused to publish ads for abortifacients. In the late 1800s, pills and pessaries were sold by unscrupulous abortion practitioners through euphemistic ads, labeling these products as for “the remedy of illnesses peculiar to women, ” “restoration of female regularity” and “correction of menstrual suppression.”
These were products that were alleged to cause abortions in women who inserted or took them. The illegal abortionists who placed these ads would then offer crude surgeries to women when their products inevitably failed.
During The Revolution’s run, many newspapers and publications ran ads for such products, and such businesses proliferated even though abortion was technically illegal at the time (see reproductions of some of these ads that appeared in New York newspapers). These ads were lucrative for many newspapers of the time; however, Anthony and her colleagues steadfastly refused to accept them for The Revolution’s entire run.
Anthony is credited by some scholars with writing one of the most powerful anti-abortion articles ever to appear in The Revolution; however, the article was published with only her initial, leading some to argue that it she was not in fact the author. The article, entitled “Child Murder” included the following:

Guilty? Yes no matter what the motive, love of ease, or desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; but oh! Thrice guilty is he who, for selfish gratification, heedless of her prayers, indifferent to her fate, drove her to the desperation which impels her to the crime.

The Revolution, 4(1):4 July 8, 1869
One can also take into account the circumstantial evidence. The Revolution published only editorials against abortion, and unlike other publications, it refused to publish ads for abortifacients. There is some other evidence for pro-life stance by Anthony, as well.
In a speech Anthony made on March 14, 1875, entitled “Social Purity” she said:

The prosecution on our courts for breach of promise, divorce, adultery, bigamy, seduction, rape; the newspaper reports every day of the year of scandals and outrages, of wife murderers and paramour shootings, of abortions and infanticides, are perpetual reminders of men’s incapacity to cope successfully with this monster evil of society.

Here we see that Anthony lumped abortion and with many other social evils. This may give some indication of how she viewed the issue.

Source; NRLC/LiveAction News

     Colorado Planned Parenthood shooter 

 

Ben Johnson 

---

Colorado Planned Parenthood shooter says he’s been found mentally incompetent

abortion , crime , planned parenthood , robert lewis dear

COLORADO SPRINGS, March 18, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – The man who opened fire at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood location the day after Thanksgiving says he has been found mentally incompetent.

Robert Lewis Dear Jr. told local media on Wednesday that a psychiatric examination found that he is unfit to stand trial due to mental illness.
"My lawyer just came to the jail and said, 'Look, it says there on that page, Dr. Gray from Pueblo says that he's incompetent to stand trial,'" Dear told KKTV during a phone interview from the El Paso County jail.
The official report, if it is completed, is to be presented at Dear's court hearing next Wednesday, March 23.

Such a verdict would surprise no one. He believed that he had been a victim of a federal government harassment program that stretched out over years, as secret agents secretly watched his every move, broke into his trailers, and cut holes into his clothes.
His decision to take refuge inside a Planned Parenthood abortion facility, he said, was a "spur of the moment" choice where he hoped to wage a war against the feds.
"I felt like they were going to get me, and so I am going to pick where I am going to make my last stand," he said.

The November 27 shooting injured a dozen people and killed three, including police officer Garrett Swasey, a pro-life Christian pastor.
In his court appearances, Dear's eyes have scanned the room erratically as he rocked back and forth, often shouting short words or staccato phrases over his state-appointed defense attorney, Daniel King.
"I am a warrior for the babies!" Dear shouted at his second hearing on December 9.
King requested a psychological examination after struggling to defend his client in court.
If he is found incompetent to stand trial, Dear will be held in the Colorado Mental Health Institute, located in Pueblo.

If not, Dear said that he hopes to plead guilty and expects to receive the death penalty for his crimes.
He told KKTV this week he wants a “speedy trial” to “help the victims' families."
In previous interviews, he has eschewed any remorse and refused to apologize.
But he told KKTV, "Everybody deserves to have information about what's going on and what caused this tragedy events of everything. But they don't want that to come out because it might embarrass the feds and Obama."

Numerous pro-life leaders condemned the Colorado Springs shooting, saying any violence is incompatible with a life-affirming message.

Source: LifeSite News