Abortion

 

Former clinic worker, abortion activist: “We created a monster”

By Sarah Terzo

Joan Appleton

Before her tragic death in 2012, former abortion clinic nurse Joan Appleton traveled the country speaking out against abortion. She gave her testimony at different events, and her speeches were recorded and distributed. Her journey from abortion worker to pro-life activist has some similarities to that of well-known clinic worker-turned-pro-lifer Abby Johnson.
Appleton was a member of the National Organization for Women, a pro-abortion feminist group, and when she took the job at the Commonwealth Abortion Clinic, she was happy to be working there. As she explained:

I thought that I had a wonderful opportunity as a nurse and as a firm believer in choice to be able to actually practice my political beliefs.

I looked at it as a gift, so I went about working hard at the (Abortion) Clinic for four years and remained active within NOW.

Appleton believed that abortion was good for women – that it helped them pursue their goals and dreams and allowed them to lead fulfilling lives. But as former abortion patients came through the doors of the clinic with emotional problems caused by their previous abortions, she began to realize that her lofty goal of helping women was falling far short of reality.

I often saw women who were injured emotionally by abortion. However, my supervisor told me, “if she’s having a problem after her abortion, it’s because she was having a problem before her abortion.”

She was also struck by how much trouble women had with making the decision, how much they agonized over it.

One of the things that kept bothering me even while I was head nurse in the clinic, was why it was such an emotional trauma for a woman and such a difficult decision for a woman to make, if it was a natural thing to do. If it was right, why was it so difficult? I had to ask myself that all the time. I asked myself too, I counseled these women so well, they were so sure of their decision, why are they coming back after me now, months and years later, psychological wrecks.

Even though Appleton counseled the women very carefully, making sure they were satisfied with their decisions before they went in for the operation, they were expressing guilt and regret. Despite her best efforts, women were coming back emotionally hurt. Appleton says:

I thought when I was counseling women, I was preparing them. I was preparing them, I was helping them through a difficult situation so they could go on with their lives. I told them that they were the most important person on this earth, that nothing was more important than them. And once we see you through this difficult situation, once this is over you can go about your life, you now have the freedom, you can go to college. Guess what folks, it didn’t happen. And I had to stop and say, what’s going on? Why isn’t this happening? Instead you’re going out, you’re getting pregnant again, you’re getting diseases, how am I helping you? And those are the questions that were gnawing, gnawing, and gnawing on me.

Discussions about the emotional harm of abortion were taboo at the clinic and at the pro-choice events Appleton went to:

We deny, we in the pro-choice movement and in the abortion industry, deny that there is anything like postabortion syndrome, yet it is real, and they do come back, and I couldn’t deny their presence, and the numbers were increasing, and I kept asking, why?

Appleton also became disillusioned with the doctors who worked at the clinic:

The doctors that we used were primarily physicians who were starting out in practice and would do abortions until they had enough money to open their own private practice. Or they were physicians who didn’t have such a hot practice and did abortions to pay for their medical malpractice insurance.

I never, ever had a doctor in the five years I was there who did abortions because he believed it was the right of the woman. It was not what was foremost in his mind. I’m not saying that they don’t exist, but you certainly can’t prove it by me or by my clinic.

She came to the conclusion that the clinic was run more like a business and less like an altruistic organization dedicated to helping women.
Then Appleton had an experience that shook her deeply – she saw an abortion performed on an ultrasound screen.

It was, we did first trimester, this was late first trimester, probably early second trimester, really … 13.7 weeks. Give or take. I can’t remember offhand what the specific problem was, but we wanted to do the abortion by ultrasound, to make sure that we did indeed get the entire, all the baby. The terminology was that we wanted to make sure we had the entire pregnancy. I handled the ultrasound while the doctor performed the procedure, and I directed him while I was watching the screen. I saw the baby pull away. I saw the baby open his mouth. I had seen Silent Scream a number of times, but it didn’t affect me – to me it was just more pro-life propaganda. But I couldn’t deny what I saw on the screen. After that procedure, I was shaking, literally, but managed to pull it together, and continue on with the day.

But her days in the abortion business were numbered. She could not block the image of that child being torn apart from her mind. She could no longer believe the lie that the abortion industry was dedicated to helping women, and that she was doing good in her job. She left the abortion business behind and never looked back.
Remembering her years at the clinic, Appleton would say:

What have we done? We created a monster, and that we don’t know what to do with it. We created a monster so that we could now be pawns to the abortion industry, those of us women who really, really still believe in women’s rights. Those of us who still believe in care and are pro-woman, who still believe that we are worth something, we are intelligent, we aren’t doormats, we aren’t something to be used, and we used ourselves. We abused ourselves. And most of us won’t accept it, most of us can’t accept it. Most of the people, those who work in the abortion industry, those who really care and believe, can’t accept the bad part, can’t accept the flaws.

Appleton started out as an abortion clinic worker, but she died a pro-life hero. She broke away from the exploitation and cruelty of the abortion industry to become a powerful voice for women and children.
You can read more of her testimony here.

Source: NRLC News

Adoption

 

“The Waiting” celebrates a Prayer answered

By Dave Andrusko
A little over two years ago, I wrote a story I remember to this day…and I’ll bet most of you who read “A Prayer Answered: 100-year-old-Mother reunited with biological daughter” do as well.
Minka Disbrow’s story of courage and faithfulness and forgiveness began in horror—raped as a young girl in 1928—and took an abrupt turn 77 years later–with the beauty of an absolutely unexpected reunion with the child she had reluctantly given up for adoption.
That reunion has produced a new book,” The Waiting” which I’m guessing will find a huge audience. The now 102-year-old Disbrow is “about to appear on national TV and on bookstore shelves across the country,” writes the Orange County Register’s Tom Berg. (Indeed, according to Berg, Disbrow was scheduled to tape an interview with the “Today” Show this morning.)
Here is some of the background we wrote about, courtesy of Amy Taxin’s terrific January 2012 story.

“At 17, she gave birth to a blond-haired baby with a deep dimple in her chin and named her Betty Jane. In her heart, Disbrow longed to keep her. But her head and her mother told her she couldn’t bring an infant back to the farm. A pastor and his wife were looking to adopt a child. She hoped they could give Betty Jane the home she couldn’t. ‘I loved that baby so much. I wanted what was best,’ Disbrow said.”

Disbrow never met the couple nor ever knew their names. But she sent many letters to the adoption agency which faithfully replied with updates until they eventually lost touch with her after a change in management. Disbrow married, led a wonderful life (she had two additional children) but always thought about Betty Jane on her birthday, May 22.
And then, in 2006, Disbrow, a devout woman, prayed

“Lord if you would just let me see her, I won’t bother her, I promise. I just want to see her before I die.”

Through a seemingly improbable series of events, she received a phone call on July 2, 2006, from a man asking if she’d like to speak with Betty Jane. Her name was now Ruth Lee. Taxin wrote

“She had been raised by a Norwegian pastor and his wife and had gone on to marry and have six children including the Alabama man, a teacher and astronaut Mark Lee, a veteran of four space flights who has circled the world 517 times. She worked for nearly 20 years at Walmart — and especially enjoyed tending to the garden area. Lee knew she was adopted her whole life, and grew up a happy child.”

Berg’s story does an excellent job of bringing this remarkable reunion up to date. “’It was like we’d known each other all our lives,’ says Lee, now 84, of Viroqua, Wis.” For the mother’s part,

“It was like we never parted,” says Disbrow. “For 77 years, I prayed for that girl. She never left my heart.”

Although the family are private people, there was such incredible reaction to the mother/daughter reunion (it went viral), “ the family felt obliged to do more.”

Berg ends his story with this powerful conclusion:

“Disbrow’s granddaughter Cathy LaGrow teamed up with best-selling author Cindy Coloma to write ‘The Waiting.’

‘It’s about a mother’s love that carried through 77 years and never abated,’ says LaGrow, of Portland, Ore.

“It’s about more than love, however. It’s about forgiveness. And acceptance.

“’I’m not angry or bitter,’ says Disbrow, who has forgiven the man who raped her. ‘I don’t believe in carrying bitterness. Look what God did. He gave me a second family!’

“On Monday, she’ll tape an interview with ‘Today’ to be aired around Mother’s Day.

“But [last] Friday, she was back at church, folding bulletins as she does each week.

“Cooking, cleaning, volunteering at 102? No way.

“But as Disbrow likes to say, ‘This has given me new life.’

“Who could argue?”

Source: NRLC News

Terri Schiavo the Rest of the Story

Nine years after her death, the “aftermath” of Terri Schiavo continues to be distorted by the New York Times

By Dave Andrusko

Terri Schiavo

If you didn’t follow the terribly tragedy that was the unnecessary death of Terri Schiavo, it might shock you how much misinformation, snarky commentary, and relevant facts that did not make their way into Clyde Haberman’s 1,057-word-long Sunday story, “From Private Ordeal to National Fight: The Case of Terri Schiavo.” If you did, as National Right to Life did, it comes as no surprise whatsoever.
Haberman’s narrative twist is derived his two clever by twenty lead paragraph:
“Her surname in Italian means ‘slave,’ and is pronounced skee-AH-vo. Grim as it may be, the word could apply to Theresa Marie Schiavo, even with its Americanized pronunciation: SHY-vo.”
Naturally, as do all those who defend Terri’s 2005 death by starvation and dehydration, Haberman gives the back of his hand to lawmakers in Florida, the United State Congress, and President George W. Bush for trying to save a woman who long-since estranged husband who was adamant that her feeding tube should be withdrawn and that her parents and siblings would not be allowed to take her home to care for her.
To Haberman, it’s just a big [bogus] “national morality play” that cynical politicians foisted on their “slave,” Terri Schiavo. Better her family fight their battle with her estranged husband out of the public eye.
But the Schindlers were made of sterner stuff than Haberman and did everything humanly possible to save Terri.
Three quick points about the article which is accompanied by a video that is part of what The New York Times pompously calls “Retro Report.” What’s that? It “re-examines leading stories of decades past” as “a thoughtful counterweight to today’s 24/7 news cycle. “ (I could not get the video to download, so I will return to what is said there, hopefully, tomorrow.)
First, if Haberman wasn’t so bent on turning what happen to Terri into his own morality play, he might have recalled that “Schiavo” is her married name. Her maiden name was Schindler. That gives a whole new twist, does it not, to his slave metaphor?
Second,
“Mr. Schiavo wanted to detach the feeding tube that gave her nourishment. Terri never would have wanted to be kept alive that way, he said. The Schindlers insisted that the tube be kept in place.”
Nothing in the story gives the reader even a passing sense of what it is to be starved and dehydrated to death, or that there was scant “evidence” Terri would have wanted her feeding tube removed.
Third, the whole point of this series is not only to view the past, but to see its “legacy” today. Haberman writes
“Larger questions remain, affecting an estimated 25,000 Americans deemed by doctors to be in a vegetative state. Complicating matters are studies like those reported last week by a team in Belgium and earlier by Adrian M. Owen, a British neuroscientist working in Canada. They have found through brain-imaging techniques that residual cognitive capacity may exist in some people classified as vegetative.
“Another issue is what qualifies as death with dignity. Is it allowing a person to go gentle into that good night of Dylan Thomas? Or does providing him or her with tools like a feeding tube allow the person to rage if possible against the dying of the light?”
A major point—perhaps the most important point–of the Lancet study Haberman alludes to is that far too many people are prematurely and incorrectly diagnosed as being in a PVS “and sent to nursing homes where no effort is made to rehabilitate them, and where emerging consciousness might not even be recognized,” to quote from (ironically enough) the New York Times’ coverage of the study. (For our take, see nrlc.cc/1msh0JW.)
For a time Terri did receive rehabilitation, and the whole fight between the estranged husband and the family kicked into overdrive when he decided to stop the rehabilitation therapy.
And, for the record, the family adamantly insists Terri was not in a PVS.
Finally, Dylan Thomas’ great poem is not about going gently into any night, good or otherwise, but fighting until the very end—exactly what Terri’s parents and siblings did on her behalf.
It would almost be impossible to misrepresent the “legacy” of Terri Schiavo any more completely than has Mr. Haberman.

Source: NRLC News

A Father's Love

 

 

 

 

Team Hoyt’s final Boston Marathon a tribute to a son’s potential and a father’s love

by Gina L. Diorio

For those of us who are runners or who follow running, this Monday is not your average Monday: it’s Boston Marathon Monday. And while thousands of runners gather to tackle the epic 26.2 miles, I’d like to draw your attention two runners who will be marking their last Boston together.
I remember the first time I heard about Team Hoyt. It was several years ago, and I was watching coverage of the Hawaii Ironman – some people watch football; some watch baseball; we runners watch races. The coverage was interspersed with profiles of the runners, and that’s where I first saw the story of father-and-son team Dick and Rick Hoyt.

Rick was born in 1962 to Dick and his wife, Judy. As a result of oxygen deprivation, Rick was diagnosed as a spastic quadriplegic with cerebral palsy. Told that Rick had no chance of recovery, his parents were advised to institutionalize him as he would be a ‘vegetable’. But they refused. Instead, they brought him home and determined to give him normal childhood experiences.


At age 12, Rick was able to begin communicating with the help of a speech device. One day, he told his father that he wanted to participate in a 5-mile race to help a teenager who had been paralyzed in an accident. There was one big obstacle, though – Dick was not a runner. Nevertheless, he agreed to push his son’s wheelchair for the entire race. After the race, Rick told his dad, “Dad, when I’m running, it feels like I’m not handicapped.” With that race and that statement, Team Hoyt was born.
For the past 37 years, Dick has pushed, pulled, and carried his son through thousands of races, including marathons, duathlons, and triathlons – including the grueling Ironman, made up of a 2.4-mile swim, 112-mile bike-ride, and 26.2 mile run.

Along the way, Rick graduated from Boston University and moved into his own apartment. His wish? “Hopefully people will look at me as an intelligent person and look past my disabilities,” he says. “I may be disabled but I live a very fulfilling life. I have showed to disabled people that they don’t have to sit back and watch the world go by. They, too, can go to school, get a job, and be included in everyday life.”
When called an inspiration, Dick’s response is simply, “I just love my family and I just want to be the very best father I can be.”
The child who people said should be institutionalized will on Monday race with his father in Team Hoyt’s 32nd and final Boston Marathon. At 73 and 51, respectively, Dick and Rick will continue to compete in smaller races.
Team Hoyt has shown the world the depth of a father’s love and the absolute exquisite beauty of every life. Dick and Rick, we’ll be cheering for you on Monday.

Source: LiveAction News

Killing for Fame

 

Wannabe celebrity Josie Cunningham planning an abortion so she can get on a reality show

by Cassy Fiano

Josie Cunningham is a British model and call girl who famously got a boob job funded by NHS. Cunningham, 23, is already a mother of two and is currently 18 weeks pregnant, either by one of her escort clients, or by a Premier League Footballer. Cunningham is eager for more fame, though, so she announced to the world that she would be having an abortion so she could appear on a reality show.

Wannabe celebrity Josie Cunningham last night confessed the chance of appearing on TV’s Big Brother was worth more than her unborn child’s life.
Puffing on a cigarette and rubbing her baby bump, the controversial model and call girl – who will have her abortion at a clinic this week – said: “I’m finally on the verge of becoming famous and I’m not going to ruin it now.
“An abortion will further my career. This time next year I won’t have a baby. Instead, I’ll be famous, driving a bright pink Range Rover and buying a big house. Nothing will get in my way.”

According to Cunningham, she was on the shortlist to appear on the UK’s version of Big Brother until they found out she was pregnant. So naturally, this means she has to have an abortion.
At first, she said she was excited, because she could get free dental work from the NHS. She got a cosmetic dental procedure done, and then realized that she didn’t want to be famous for her pregnancy. She wants the attention to be on her, so of course the baby has to die. Both the footballer and her client, a surgeon, said they would financially support the baby if she kept it. But she still said no, because she wants to be famous. She has continued to smoke and drink throughout this pregnancy.
Perhaps most heartbreakingly, Cunningham says that she has suffered five miscarriages. It’s hard to understand how someone who could suffer so many losses would be so eager to throw away the life of child she was able to keep.
To their credit, television executives have said that she will not appear on Big Brother, regardless of whether or not she has the abortion.

“Josie is deluded if she thinks this will improve her chances of signing up, which were slim to non-existent to start with,” a source told The Sun.
“How can we work with her — or pay her — if she admits having an abortion to achieve that?”

No worries, though — according to Cunningham, she has another reality show in the works, as well as a documentary. That pesky unborn child of hers won’t get in the way of achieving the fame she so desperately needs. And she may already have gotten it: she’s being called the most hated woman in Britain, perhaps rightfully so. After all, not many people look kindly on women who have abortions for convenience. Even fewer would be enthusiastic about a woman having an abortion just so that she could get her 15 minutes of fame on a reality show.

Source: LiveAction News

Abortion in ObamaCare

 

Staggering $5 Billion in Premium Subsidies to ObamaCare Exchanges that Permit Elective Abortion Coverage – for Starters

By Susan T. Muskett, J.D. Senior Legislative Counsel
Editor’s note. This appeared in the online, digital edition of National Right to Life News for April. You can read this story and all the many other important news items and commentary at www.nrlc.org/uploads/NRLNews/NRLNewsApril2014.pdf.
Based on the number of persons who had enrolled in ObamaCare as of March 1, at least $5 billion in federal tax subsidies will be available to help purchase health plans that cover elective abortion, with the figure sure to increase as additional millions of Americans enroll.

Obamacare provides federal subsidies on a sliding scale for millions of American families whose household income is 400 percent or less of the federal poverty level ($95,400 for a family of four). These subsidies are to be used to help purchase health insurance, and can only be used to purchase a health plan within an ObamaCare Exchange. An “Exchange” is a marketplace for the purchase of health insurance. ObamaCare requires an Exchange to be established in every state by 2014.
ObamaCare allows plans within a state’s Exchange, including federally subsidized plans, to cover all abortion, unless a state passes a law to prohibit such coverage. As of today, 24 states have enacted laws restricting Exchange-participating insurance plans from covering elective abortions.
But taxpayers in those 24 states still will be subsidizing the purchase of abortion-covering health plans in the other 26 states and the District of Columbia, which have not passed such laws – “abortion-covering states” for short.

The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that the federal premium subsidies total $10 billion nationwide, based on federal enrollment data as of March 1, 2014. States with the most liberal abortion laws in the nation are among those receiving the largest share of the federal tax premium subsidies. California alone will receive over $2 billion in federal premium subsidies, New York another $466 million, Washington state another $285 million. (A full listing of the Kaiser Family Foundation’s state-by-state estimates can be found here.)

These figures do not reflect enrollments in Obamacare made on or after March 1, so the totals – both aggregate totals and totals for the largest, abortion-covering states – can be expected to increase sharply as later enrollment figures are analyzed.

A preliminary analysis, beginning with the $10 billion figure and subtracting the subsidies for the 24 states that have restricted elective abortion coverage, leaves an estimated $5 billion in federal tax subsidies that will flow in 2014 to ObamaCare Exchange plans in abortion-covering states.
To make matters worse, these federal premium subsidies are projected to dramatically increase over time. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that these federal premium subsidies will cost over $100 billion per year nationwide by 2018. The CBO’s February 2014 premium subsidy projections for 2015-2024 can be found here.

For the federal government to pay for health plans that cover elective abortion is a sharp departure from decades of federal policy under the Hyde Amendment, the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, and other federal programs. But because the ObamaCare law sharply departed from these principles, billions in tax subsidies now will flow to plans that cover elective abortion – and a lot of it will be paid for with taxes paid by people who live in states whose elected legislatures have made it clear, by enacting laws preventing Exchange plans from covering abortion, that they don’t favor tax-subsidized abortion coverage.
With respect to individual abortion-covering states, there is not sufficient data to estimate what percentage of the subsidies will end up paying for individual health plans that actually cover abortion. That is because information on which individual health plans cover abortion is difficult to obtain in many states – a situation that the Obama Administration has done nothing to remedy (see “Sebelius Continues to Take the Dodge Regarding Abortion Coverage Lawlessness on ObamaCare Exchanges”). But what evidence exists suggests that a major portion of the $5 billion will flow to abortion-covering plans.

In December 2013, Commonweal Magazine reported that “officials in Rhode Island and Connecticut confirmed that on their exchanges customers cannot buy plans without abortion coverage. A representative of Hawaii’s exchange said he thought all plans covered abortion, but couldn’t say for sure.”

The Huffington Post reported in September 2013, that “women in California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington state will have access to health plans to cover abortion, officials from those states told HuffPost.”

Michigan is among the 24 states that enacted legislation restricting abortion coverage by the ObamaCare Exchange plans in their state. Pro-lifers in Michigan were forced to conduct a petition drive to put the bill before the legislature after the governor vetoed similar legislation the first time around, but it proved to be well worth it based on the projected federal premium subsidies that will flow to health plans in the Michigan Exchange. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 126,000 Michigan residents will receive $328 million in federal premium subsidies, as of March 1 enrollment data.

A list of the states that have enacted laws preventing Exchange-participating insurance plans from covering abortions is posted on the NRLC website, here.
(Note: The Georgia legislature also recently passed legislation restricting abortion coverage by plans in their state’s ObamaCare Exchange and as this story goes to print the bill is awaiting the Governor’s signature, which would make Georgia the 25th state.)
Beginning in 2011 and as recently as this January, the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives has repeatedly approved bills that would remove the abortion subsidies from Obamacare, but the Senate Democratic majority has refused to allow votes on such bills.

Source: NRLC News

All About Relationships

 

The power of sustaining relationships for our Movement

By Melissa Ohden
Editor’s note. Melissa is the survivor of a “failed” saline abortion in 1977. She speaks all over the world, including at the last three National Right to Life Conventions where she will again this June. She is a frequent contributor to NRL News and NRL News Today.

Melissa Ohden

Perhaps you may have noticed that I haven’t been writing as much in recent months. There is a reason for this that I would like to share with you.
As much as I am very busy as wife, mother (who is currently pregnant), pro-life speaker, writer (who is currently finishing a book) and advocate, the biggest “obstacle” to my writing has been something else. I’ve been learning a beautiful lesson and, if I may, I would like to pass it along to you.
I’ve been doing a lot of self-reflection on my work which has led me to think about my obligations to others. There are two lessons I’ve drawn and I believe they might be helpful to my fellow pro-life advocates.
1) Pro-life advocacy and work is about relationships.

a. I would not be effective in my pro-life work if I didn’t build relationships with others in the pro-life community. I have the privilege of speaking here and abroad, but the lesson is the same for all of us even if speaking is not a part of our pro-life tasks and even if we never leave our local communities: relationships matter.

b. I would not be effective in my pro-life work if I didn’t seek to continuously nurture these personal and professional relationships.

c. I would not be effective if I didn’t establish relationships with those that I seek to serve. That circle includes women and men currently contemplating abortion, post-abortive men and women and their families who have been devastated by abortion, and survivors of failed abortions (like me) and those who were targeted for abortion.

The reality is that building, nurturing, and continuing these relationships takes time. We can get so busy this foundational truth gets forgotten.
It’s true that the very nature of our work may limit our ability to establish and grow these relationships. But whether you are volunteering for your local pro-life organization, assisting a woman-helping center meet the needs of women with crisis pregnancies, or are involved in a one-time exchange through email or social media, each opportunity presents moments where we can purposefully support and assist others.
Additionally, we should also consider our relationships with others in the pro-life movement. Yes, time and distance separate us, and we may even have different views on issues outside of the issue of life. But that one issue—the protection of innocent unborn life—is the transcendent issue of our day. We must use our time wisely to build relationships with one another. That is why I hope to see many of you at the NRL Convention in Louisville, Kentucky, June 26-28.
2) Pro-life advocacy and work is about fulfilling our role at the present moment in time, and being committed and consistent in that role.
As an abortion survivor, I am given many different “hats” to wear–speaker, writer, advocate, etc. But grassroots pro-lifers also wear many additional “hats” in their roles as parents, siblings, parishioners, and professionals, to name just four.
Each of us is at particular stage in our lives and what we can do now will differ from what we were able to do previously and what we will be able to do in the future. As for me I know through my prayers and the peace that I have with my life and my efforts for all life, that I am doing exactly what I am meant to be doing right now.
I don’t worry with what may be expected of me next week or next year, but focus on the moment at hand, whom I am called to serve, where I am called to be, and I am committed to it. And neither should you.
None of we pro-lifers ever feels they have done “enough.” We have to accept and appreciate that we can’t do it all.
But at the same time the beauty of our Movement is that there is a role for each of us, which will evolve over time. In our own way, each us has, is, and will make a difference, which directly leads me back to point #1: what we do is about sustaining relationships.
Those relationships bring about great support not only to those we serve, but also to all of us as a pro-life community. They enable each of us to focus our individual gifts to our particular calling.
None of us alone can do it all. Collectively we can achieve small miracles.
I know this is easier said than done, but I hope that you allow yourself the same opportunity to reflect on your calling in the Movement, how you focus on relationships and how you focus your individual gifts to the needs at hand.

Source: NRLC News

My Body My Choice

 

“This is my body:” The parallel between motherhood and the Passion of Christ

by Lauren Enriquez

“My body, my choice” is a tired mantra we hear from the pro-abortion community. The argument attending this soundbite is that because the unborn are dependent on their mothers’ bodies for survival, the self-sacrifice of pregnancy and childbirth are not required. Pregnant mothers, they say, should have the right to evict their children under the pretense of “bodily autonomy.”

According to this view, the unborn child is a foreign invader – a parasite – and no woman should be “forced” to have her body serve the needs of another person that she doesn’t want inside of her. Because the other person is dependent on her for survival, it has no say in the matter, and abortion is justified. The argument has more than a few holes, but it’s remained the centerpiece of generation after generation of abortion sophistry.

Two thousand years ago, a famous historical figure made the same statement in the face of self-sacrifice – and for him, it was to the point of death: “This is my body…” But in his case, the statement continued: “…which is given up for you” (Luke 22:19). Jesus did not, when asked to sacrifice himself for others, refuse the stripes that healed and redeemed his children (Isaiah 53:5). Mothers, when they accept the stripes, stretches and scars of motherhood, can claim solidarity with someone who knows the sacrifice of offering his body for the good of another.


Pregnancy, especially when unplanned, is difficult. When another person takes up residence inside of a mother, her whole life becomes undeniably other-centered, and no aspect of her life or her body is left unchanged. Motherhood changes a woman’s identity and her body forever. And here there is another cause for solidarity with the suffering Christ. The self-sacrifice of motherhood — present regardless of whether the child is kept or placed for adoption — has a purpose. All of the best things in life require a struggle, and life itself is only possible because of the struggle of mothers.

The sacrifices of Jesus during the last days of his life encompass and give meaning to the difficulties of motherhood. In his total self-gift to humanity, Christ provided the ultimate paradigm for love — a love which nourishes humanity until the end of time. Understood as participation in this self-gift of Christ, motherhood can be seen as a privilege, not in spite of its difficulties, but because of them. Without the selflessness of mothers — a reflection of the ultimate selflessness of Christ — the framework for love and life on earth would crumble.

“This is my body.” This is my privilege, as a mother: to give it up for you.

Source: NRLC News

Abortion Clinic Regulations

 

Arizona governor Brewer signs HB2284 allowing unannounced inspection of abortion clinics, law similar to statutes in nine other states

By Dave Andrusko

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has signed the Women’s Health Protection Act into law, assuring that abortion clinics are now subject to the same safety and inspection standards as all other health care institutions, such as primary-care or obstetrics and gynecology practices.
Under HB 2284, if there is a reasonable cause to believe a violation has occurred, abortion clinics, like all other medical facilities in Arizona, will be subject to state and county inspection unannounced —without a warrant.

Elizabeth Nash of the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, told AZ [Arizona Republic] Fact Check that nine other states, including Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, and Kentucky, have similar statutes. Nash admitted that none of these laws have been challenged, but parroting a common talking point among the bill’s opponents added, “Arizona is a more likely locale for a lawsuit because it has historically been ‘out front and center in abortion cases.’”

Other parts of the bill, which was signed Tuesday, “make it a misdemeanor for someone to help a minor get around parental consent laws and require facilities that perform abortions to report any live births and subsequent resuscitation efforts,” the Associated Press reported.
Planned Parenthood was not happy. “HB2284 literally opens the door to harassment of women and their health care providers as these women are receiving abortion care,” Bryan Howard, president of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona, told the AP. “We continue to believe that the legislation violates the rules governing abortion clinic inspections to which the state specifically agreed in 2010. It’s on that basis that we expect a legal challenge.”

Pro-lifers note that circumstances are far different from when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down as a violation of the Fourth Amendment an Arizona law that granted the Department of Health Services the ability to perform reasonable cause, unannounced inspections on abortion clinics . The court of appeals talked about an “administrative exception” to the Fourth Amendment. This could allow unnoticed searches for businesses that are closely regulated.
Licensing and regulation of abortion clinics was new then, it is not now. Because abortion clinics must meet various requirements, including mandatory reporting and licensure, they now qualify as closely regulated.
Protests that such inspections are unnecessary ring hollow in the wake of news last week from New York that only a tiny portion of abortion clinics in New York were ever inspected over the previous thirteen years. The State Health Commissioner resigned hours after the opponent of pro-abortion Gov. Andrew Cuomo blasted Cuomo and Dr. Nirav Shah for saying nothing in the 48 hours following a blockbuster story in the New York Post

Source: NRLC News

Gosnell

 

Are Hollywood’s pro-abortion leanings to blame for its aversion to a film about abortionist Kermit Gosnell?

By Andrew Bair
Hollywood usually has no qualms about showing graphic violence or making films about human tragedies. The most recent Oscar winner for Best Picture was 12 Years a Slave, a film about the brutal history of slavery in the United States. Other nominated films also covered difficult topics, like Dallas Buyers Club, which covered the AIDS crisis.

But when it comes to the horrific story of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, abortionist and convicted murderer, Hollywood steers clear.
Film producers Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer have set out on a courageous journey to make a film documenting the unspeakable crimes that took place at Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s Women’s Medical Center abortion clinic in West Philadelphia. After years of butchering women, unborn babies and newborn infants, Gosnell was finally convicted on three counts of first-degree murder in 2013. The Grand Jury report estimates hundreds of babies were delivered alive and then had their spinal cords “snipped” at the hands of Gosnell. [1]

The Gosnell story is one that must be told. It must be told so it never happens again.
The story involves crimes against humanity. Gosnell even joked about one of his victims; “This baby is big enough to walk around with me or walk me to the bus stop.”  His story is built around the exploitation of women, particularly those of lower income. Gosnell could not have done what he did without state negligence, or worse.

The Grand Jury report faulted the pro-abortion politics of Gov. Tom Ridge (R) and, subsequently, Gov. Ed Rendell (D) for essentially eliminating Department of Health inspections of abortion centers. According to the report, “With the change of administration from Governor Casey to Governor Ridge, officials concluded that inspections would be ‘putting a barrier up to women’ seeking abortions.”
Are Hollywood’s pro-abortion leanings to blame for its aversion to a film about Gosnell?
On Fox’s “The Five,” Greg Gutfeld offered this reason for Hollywood’s fear of the Gosnell movie;

“The thing is, I mean, it is a brutal topic. But so is Idi Amin, so is Rwanda, so is the Holocaust. Hollywood has made movies that involved all of those topics. The reason why they don’t do this one is not because the evil is so grotesque. It’s that it’s too close to a moral choice they’ve made. That’s what it’s about. It’s not that like, ah it’s so hard to do something on this man who butchered babies. It’s because it’s too close to the pro-choice mindset.”

The Kermit Gosnell case pulled back the curtain on the reality of abortion. Abortion proponents and their allies in Hollywood do not want to face the simple question, “What is the difference between what happened in Gosnell’s clinic and what other abortionists routinely do to unborn babies?”
A year ago yesterday, reporter Timothy Carney was part of a conference call about Gosnell hosted by pro-abortion blog RH Reality Check. Carney asked, “What is the distinction between what he did, and what a late-term abortionist like, say, LeRoy Carhart does?”
The answer was jarring in its brutality and callousness. “When a procedure that usually involves the collapsing of the skull is done, it’s usually done when the fetus is still in the uterus, not when the fetus has been delivered,” explained Tracy Weitz, associate professor at the University of California, San Francisco.
The entertainment industry appears to be letting its pro-abortion politics stand in the way of the Gosnell story being told. Ironically, it was that see-no-evil attitude that allowed Gosnell’s killing sprees to continue for so many years in the first place.
Has American learned the lessons of the Gosnell tragedy? Or have we continued business as usual for the abortion industry?
[1] According to the Grand Jury report, “The clinic’s employees used the term ‘snip’ to describe the severing of the spinal cord, but this is misleading. Our neonatal expert testified that, because of the bony vertebrae surrounding the spinal cord, it would actually take a bit of pressure to cut all the way through the spinal cord and the bone – even at 23 or 24 weeks gestation. At 29 weeks, on babies such as Baby Boy A, the expert said, ‘it would be really hard.’ The baby, we were told, would feel ‘tremendous pain.’”
Editor’s note. For more about Ann McElhinney’s and Phelim McAleer’s film about Gosnell,  see nrlc.cc/1kEGW58 and nrlc.cc/1itFgdJ.

Source: NRLC