Leatherneck Blogger

Posts Tagged ‘Planned Parenthood

Abortion Activist Wants to “Humanize” How She Aborted Her Baby

leave a comment »

By Micaiah Bilger
LifeNews.com
March 23, 2017

When abortion activists talk about “humanizing” abortion, they are not talking about unborn babies. They mean getting rid of anything that makes abortion seem bad.

One of the key goals of the 1 in 3 Campaign is to normalize abortion through storytelling. The group encourages women to tell their abortion-positive stories publicly to help “end abortion stigma.”

The group’s name is based on a false statistic that claims one in three women will have an abortion in her lifetime. Abortion advocacy groups often use the statistic to claim that abortions are normal medical procedures for women in society. But in 2016, the Washington Post fact checker described the statistic as entirely “inaccurate.”

Vocative, which supports abortion, featured one woman’s story this week to highlight the 1 in 3 Campaign’s upcoming lobbying event in Washington, D.C. Vocative’s Tracy Clark-Flory wrote that the woman, Candice Russell, wanted to share her story to “humanize the issue of abortion.”

I would hear people talk about abortion in the media, but none of the stories were my story. They were mostly middle-class white women with wanted pregnancies — very valid but heartbreaking tales of the ‘good abortion,’” Russell told Clark-Flory. “But the reality of abortion is that a lot of the folks that are accessing care are low-income women of color with stories that looked like mine.

Russell began telling her abortion story late last year. She said she was struggling to make ends meet when she discovered that her birth control had failed and she was pregnant.

Writing for Glamour, Russell said she knew that having an abortion was “right” for her; but when she called an abortion facility near her home in Dallas, Texas, she was told that there was a two-and-a-half week wait.

Because she already was 12 weeks along, Russell said she was afraid that any delays could put her past the 20-week abortion cut-off in Texas. Instead of considering parenting or adoption, Russell decided to take out a loan, lie to her boss and fly to California to have her unborn baby aborted.

Vocative defended Russell’s abortion this week, writing: “Over the next two years, she was thrown into a cycle of debt while trying to pay off the money she had borrowed. Ultimately, she paid around $5,000 for the $450 loan — all to obtain basic, timely reproductive healthcare.”

Debra Hauser, a spokesperson for the 1 in 3 Campaign, added,

Too often the political has overpowered the personal in the fight for abortion access, and now more than ever we cannot afford to remain silent and let stigma invade the conversation around a procedure that one in three women will have in her lifetime.

Abortion activists’ attempts to “humanize” abortion really are about de-humanizing babies in the womb. They describe an abortion as basic health care and avoid talking about what an abortion actually is and does.

They don’t want there to be talk about the unborn baby, basic biological facts about human development, potential abortion risks and women who regret their abortions. These things put abortion in a bad light by exposing it for what it really is. An abortion destroys a unique individual human being’s life before birth.

Shame and stigma are associated with abortion, not primarily because of cultural attitudes toward women, but because of the basic moral belief that the intentional killing of an innocent human being is wrong.

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

March 26, 2017 at 07:00

Gorsuch Defends Hobby Lobby’s Pro-Life Values: “Sincerely-Held Religious Beliefs Cannot be Abridged by the Government”

with one comment

By Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com
March 22, 2017

Under tough questioning by pro-abortion Democrats during day two of his confirmation hearings, Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch defended the pro-life values of Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor. This was the second time Gorsuch defended Little Sisters and Hobby Lobby.

Pro-abortion Illinois Senator Dick Durbin questioned Gorsuch about his role in a case defending those companies from being forced by the Obama Administration to pay for abortion-causing drugs in their employee health care plans.

In the exchange below, Gorsuch defended them saying that “sincerely held religious beliefs cannot be abridged by the government” without a very very compelling reason and that no such reason existed for the Obama Administration to make them fund abortions.

DURBIN: “I’d like to go, if I can, for just a moment, to this famous case which you and I discussed at length, Hobby Lobby. I still struggle all the way through this, and it was a lengthy decision, with trying to make a corporation into a person. Boy, did the court spent a lot of time twisting and turning and trying to find some way to take RFRA and to say that Congress really meant corporations like Hobby Lobby when they said person. It was dictionary law and so many different aspects of this. What I was troubled by, and I asked you then, I’ll ask you again, when we are setting out as that court did to protect their religious liberties and freedom of the Green family, the corporate owners, and their religious belief about what’s right and wrong when it comes to family planning, and the court says, that’s what we’ll decide it what the Green family decides when it comes to health insurance. You made a decision that thousands of their employees would not have protection of their religious beliefs and their religious choices when it came to family planning. You closed the door to those options in their health insurance, and by taking your position to the next step, to all those who work for closed-in corporations in America, 60 million people had their health insurance and their family planning and their religious beliefs denigrated, downsized to the corporate religious belief, whatever that is. Did you stop and think when you were doing — making this decision about the impact it would have on the thousands and thousands if not millions of employees if you left it up to the owner of the company to say, as you told me, there is some kind of family planning I like and some I don’t like?”

GORSUCH: “Senator, I take every case that comes before me very seriously. I take the responsibility entrusted in me in my current position very grave. I think if you asked the lawyers and judges of the 10th Circuit, am I a serious and careful judge, I think you will hear that I am. I’m delighted to have an opportunity to talk to you about that decision. As you know, in RFRA, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress was dissatisfied with the level of protection afforded by the Supreme Court under the First Amendment to religious exercise. The court in a case called Smith v. Maryland written by Justice Scalia said any neutral law of general applicability is fine. That doesn’t offend the First Amendment, so laws banning the use of peyote, Native Americans, tough luck, even though it is essential to their religious exercise, for example. This Congress decided that that was insufficient protection for religion. And in a bill sponsored by Senator Hatch, Senator Kennedy, Senator Schumer when he was in the House, wrote a very, very strict law. And it says that any sincerely held religious beliefs cannot be abridged by the government without a compelling reason, and even then, it has to be narrowly tailored, strict scrutiny, the highest legal standard known in American law, OK?”

 

Scientifically Clueless Pro-Abortion Legislator Wants to Fine Men for Masturbating as “Act Against Unborn Child”

with one comment

By Micaiah Bilger
LifeNews.com
March 13, 2017

A Texas state lawmaker’s new pro-abortion bill is doing what she created it to do – get attention.

The “satirical” Texas House Bill 4260, sponsored by state Rep. Jessica Farrar, would fine men $100 for masturbating and require the state to publish an informed consent booklet for men seeking a vasectomy, Viagra or a colonoscopy, among other things, according to The Hill.

The bill is Farrar’s protest to the abortion regulations passed in Texas in the past few years. She claims it would put the same restrictions on men that Texas abortion laws do on women.

“Although HB 4260 is satirical, there is nothing funny about current health care restrictions for women and the very real legislation that is proposed every legislative session,” Farrar, a Democrat, wrote on Facebook. “Women are not laughing at state-imposed regulations and obstacles that interfere with their ability to legally access safe healthcare, and subject them to fake science and medically unnecessary procedures.”

Her bill, which has no chance of passing, would prohibit ejaculation outside either a vagina or medical facility, in what it describes as an “act against an unborn child, and failing to preserve the sanctity of life,” according to the Independent. It also would provide conscience protections for doctors who do not want to perform a vasectomy or prescribe Viagra because of “personal, moralistic or religious beliefs.”

“What I would like to see is this make people stop and think,” Farrar told The Texas Tribune. “Maybe my colleagues aren’t capable of that, but the people who voted for them, or the people that didn’t vote at all, I hope that it changes their mind and helps them to decide what the priorities are.”

But pro-lifers say Farrar is the one who is isn’t thinking. Her bill ignores basic biological facts about human life and abortion.

As Daily Wire contributor Harry Khachatrian commented on Twitter:

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

 

Democrats’ argument for abortion: “stabbing an unborn baby in the head & sucking out its brains is the same thing as masturbating.” Smart!

 

9:24 AM – 13 Mar 2017 · Toronto, Ontario

 

It is disingenuous for Farrar to equate male masturbation and ejaculation to the intentional killing of a human life through abortion. A man’s sperm and a woman’s eggs are not separate, individual new life. Only when they are put together do they become a human being – a separate, living human entity with his or her own unique DNA. This is well established science.

“A sperm has twenty-three chromosomes; even though it is alive and can fertilize an egg, it can never make another sperm,” former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop wrote in 1979. “An egg also has twenty-three chromosomes, and it can never make another egg. Thus, we have sperm that cannot reproduce and eggs that cannot reproduce unless they get together.

“All that makes up the adult is present as the ovum and the sperm are united – the whole genetic code,” Koop continued.

Pro-lifers do not want to end abortion because we want to control women’s bodies, as Farrar implies. Pro-lifers want to end abortion because it destroys the life of an innocent human being inside the woman’s body. Ending abortion is not about regulating something that has the potential to become a life. It’s about protecting an actual, unique, irreplaceable human life from being destroyed.

Abortionist Sifted Through Dismembered Aborted Baby: “Now Where’s Your Little Arm?”

with one comment

Liveaction
LifeNews.com
March 7, 2017

A new video provides a shocking look inside the abortion industry. Featuring interviews with former Planned Parenthood staffers, the video presents a look at how abortion clinic staff view unborn children.

Compiled by LiveAction, the video includes testimonials from a former Planned Parenthood manager and nurse describing in detail what happens immediately following abortions in the “products of conception” lab where abortionists sift through the dismembered body parts of the babies they just killed.

The gruesome process these women describe exposes not only the barbarism of abortion, but also that Planned Parenthood isn’t aborting “clumps of cells” or “products of conception” – euphemisms the abortion industry often uses to mislead women about how developed their babies are – but rather children with beating hearts at just three and a half weeks old.

Nurse Marianne Anderson describes how one abortionist sifted through dismembered body parts and talked to them as if they were live children. “Now, where’s your little arm?” he asked.

Former Storm Lake, IA, Planned Parenthood manager Sue Thayer witnessed the abortion process and the aftermath numerous times:

  • “I remember standing there looking at that, and I said, ‘Why are there three arms?’ You know, and we’re looking, and the gal training me said, ‘Twins – it was twins.’ And I said, you know, ‘Do you tell the mom that she had twins?’ And she says, ‘No, it usually just upsets them.’”

Former Indianapolis, IN, Planned Parenthood nurse Marianne Anderson describes the callous disrespect abortionists showed the deceased children in the lab:

  • “He would sometimes talk to [the aborted child], saying – I’ll never forget him saying, ‘Now, where’s your little arm? I didn’t see – I’m missing this arm.’ And he would sift through it, trying to find the pieces, make sure he had everything. And then he’d say – I remember him saying, ‘Oh, there you are! Now, where’s the head and where’s this?’… There was another doctor who also visited… He really seemed to kind of get into it. He – I’ll never forget the first day he was there – and he goes, ‘Look at this – this is so cool!’”

 

Democrats Kill Bill to Protect Babies Born Alive After Botched Abortions

with one comment

By Micaiach Bigler
LifeNews.com
March 6, 2017

New Mexico House Democrats blocked a bill Thursday that would have required doctors to provide life-saving medical care to babies born alive after botched abortions.

The Democrat-majority state House committee voted to table the bill in a 3-2 party line vote, The Albuquerque Journal reports.

The bill, sponsored by Minority Whip Rod Montoya, a Republican, would have required abortion practitioners and other doctors to try to preserve the life and health of a baby born alive after a botched abortion. The bill also would have required the same protections for babies born in miscarriages and natural births, according to the report. It would have made it a first-degree felony to intentionally kill an infant born alive after one of these procedures.

“This is not an abortion bill,” Montoya said. “This is a human rights bill for infants who are born alive – whether it’s following an abortion, a miscarriage or a natural birth.”

Here’s more from the report:

The House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee heard emotional testimony and debate for about two hours – as supporters of the legislation described the horrors of botched abortions and the killing of infants.

But in the end, the committee’s three Democrats voted to table the bill, preventing it from proceeding through the Legislature.

Opponents of the bill said that laws and medical standards are already in place covering how to handle abortion and other procedures.

Dr. Sandra Penn, a physician for more than 30 years, urged the committee to avoid “political interference” in medical care.

On Sunday, the state House committee rejected two more abortion-related bills, New Mexico Politics reports. One bill would have prohibited abortions after 20 weeks when strong scientific evidence indicates unborn babies can feel pain. The second would have required that a parent or guardian be notified before a minor has an abortion.

Both bills failed in 3-2 party line votes, according to the report.

Though abortion advocates sometimes deny it, babies are born alive after failed abortion attempts. Nurse Jill Stanek became a nationally-known figure after she testified to Congress about finding a baby who was born alive after a botched abortion and left to die at a Chicago-area hospital.

Stanek’s experience shocked and horrified millions of people, and her testimony helped to pass the Born Alive Infants Protection Act under President George W. Bush.

A new federal bill, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, introduced by U.S. Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, would strengthen these protections.

In February 2016, LifeNews reported a baby was born alive after a botched abortion at a late-term abortion facility in Phoenix, Arizona. The baby later died at the hospital.

A 911 audio file, obtained by NBC 11 in Arizona, confirmed that the abortion clinic staff saw the 21-week baby was alive and breathing before it died. Reports did not indicate whether the baby was a boy or girl.

One of the nurses said she saw the baby move more than 10 minutes after it was taken from the womb, according to KPNX 12 News. When the nurse took the baby to weigh it on a scale, she said she saw it move and struggle to breath. “Oh my God, this fetus is moving,” she said, according to police.

LifeNews has documented dozens of cases of babies who were miraculously born alive after failed abortions. Melissa Ohden, Gianna Jessen and Claire Culwell are just a few examples. The three women are strong pro-life advocates who speak across the country about how their lives are valuable, even though they almost were killed in the womb by abortionists.

In March 2016, Ohden shared her story during a U.S. Senate Judiciary hearing, and urged lawmakers to support the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

“What I would hope that comes out of this is not only that more children like me are protected and given proper medical care when we survive, but that women receive education,” Ohden told CNSNews.com following her testimony. “Let’s talk about the truth, the truth behind how children feel pain, the truth about what abortion does, the truth of what abortion is.”

Trump administration and Congress seek to slash UN funding in wake of new anti-Israel action

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
March 3, 2017

“Classifying the IDF, one of the most professional and responsible military forces in the world, alongside terrorist groups like ISIS and Boko Haram is an absurdity.”

And more than an absurdity: it’s a monstrous injustice, and it clearly demonstrates the perfidy of the United Nations, which at this point is little more than a tool of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The U.S. shouldn’t just slash funding to it, but defund it altogether, withdraw from it, and expel it from New York.

“Trump Admin, Congress Seek to Slash U.N. Funding in Wake of New Anti-Israel Action,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, March 2, 2017:

The White House and Congress are considering slashing U.S. funding to the United Nations in light of its most recent effort to declare the Jewish state’s fighting forces a chief violator of children’s rights, according to multiple conversations with U.S. officials.

The U.N. is working to add the Israeli Defense Forces, or IDF, to a list of entities such as terror groups that are responsible for inhumane acts against children.

The move would be just the latest anti-Israel salvo by the U.N., which caused controversy late last year when, with the backing of the Obama administration, it moved to condemn Israel for building homes for Jewish people in Jerusalem.

The latest action against Israel would add the IDF to the Watchlist on Children and Armed Conflicts, which would designate the Jewish state’s fighting forces as one of the worst offenders of children’s human rights in the world. Other groups and entities on the list include terrorist entities and forces that kill children en masse.

The move has prompted outrage in the White House and on Capitol Hill, where multiple U.S. officials told the Washington Free Beacon that they will no longer stand by as the U.N. singles out Israel for criticism. The effort to counter what they described as the U.N.’s anti-Israel bias is likely to include cutting a large portion of U.S. funding to the organization.

One senior White House official familiar with the Trump administration’s thinking on the matter told the Free Beacon that the president and his senior-most advisers are sick of seeing Israel treated as a pariah by the U.N.

“The Israeli Defense Forces are among the most humane, professional armed forces on the planet,” said the official, who was not authorized to speak on record. “Israel has been aggressively refining its protocols to minimize civilian casualties—so much so that after the 2014 conflict in Gaza the United States sent a delegation to study their best practices.”

The White House official signaled that the Trump administration would pursue a vastly different approach to the U.N. than its predecessor.

The Obama administration came under criticism from the pro-Israel community on numerous occasions for failing to defend Israel adequately in the face of international criticism. This culminated in a flurry of anger late last year when the Obama administration, in one of its final official acts, permitted the U.N. to officially chastise Israel in a break with decades of U.S. policy.

“In a region where the use of civilians, including children, as human shields is routine, singling out Israel for condemnation is, in a word, ridiculous,” the White House official said. “If the United Nations’ Watchlist on Children and Armed Conflict has nothing better to do with the United States taxpayer dollars that fund it than engage in a vendetta against our ally Israel, perhaps we should rethink that support.”

Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill.), a vocal defender of Israel, expressed disappointment in the U.N.’s latest action. He told the Free Beacon that Congress is prepared to reduce U.S. financial support for the U.N., which comprises a significant share of the organization’s operational budget.

“The United States Congress is already taking a serious look at United Nations funding levels in light of a number of recent actions unfairly targeting Israel,” Roskam said. “Classifying the IDF, one of the most professional and responsible military forces in the world, alongside terrorist groups like ISIS and Boko Haram is an absurdity.”

“If the U.N. goes through with this,” Roskam said, “the calls for reduced funding will grow even louder.”…

This Abortionist is Personally Lobbying Legislators to Kill Babies in Late-Term Abortions

with one comment

By Macaiah Bigler
LifeNews.com
March 3, 2017

In February, the Pennsylvania Senate passed a bill to prohibit abortions after 20 weeks when strong scientific evidence indicates unborn babies can feel pain. The bill also would prohibit brutal dismemberment abortions, commonly performed in the second trimester, which involve tearing apart the baby in the womb, limb by limb.While polls indicate public support for these limits, abortion activists like Lisa Perriera are working hard to keep these abortions legal in Pennsylvania.

An abortion practitioner at the Philadelphia Women’s Center, Perriera recently spoke with The Huffington Post about the legislation, calling pro-life lawmakers’ reasoning “malarkey.”

The liberal news outlet reports:

The legislation’s supporters argue that certain abortion procedures are “inhumane” and unsafe. They also say fetuses can feel pain by the 20-week mark, although medical research disputes that assertion.

Perriera, who also does advocacy work as a board member of the Women’s Law Project, a Pennsylvania-based women’s rights group, dismissed the logic of conservative lawmakers trying to justify abortion restrictions.

“These laws are always couched in the way that they are there to make things safer for women, and that is just malarkey,” she said.

Sari Stevens, Pennsylvania Planned Parenthood’s chief lobbyist, also blasted the pro-life legislation, claiming that pro-lifers are ignoring medical facts.

Perriera told the news outlet: “It is a safe medical procedure that I know how to do. If a woman is asking me to have a procedure, and that’s the right choice for her, who is a legislator to tell me that she shouldn’t be able to have that safe medical procedure?”

Abortion never is safe for the unborn child, however. And there is strong scientific evidence that unborn babies feel pain at 20 weeks or earlier, despite what abortion activists claim.

Notably, a number of groups have pointed to serious ethical issues with the study abortion activists often use to claim unborn babies don’t feel pain until much later. Both the New York Times (“Study Authors Didn’t Report Abortion Ties”) and USA Today reported ethical issues with the study in 2005.

The science of fetal pain is well-established. Dr. Steven Zielinski, an internal medicine physician from Oregon, is one of the leading researchers into fetal pain. He first published reports in the 1980s to validate research showing evidence for unborn pain.

He testified before Congress in the past that an unborn child could feel pain at “eight-and-a-half weeks and possibly earlier” and that a baby before birth “under the right circumstances, is capable of crying.” Researchers also have found that unborn babies respond to touch as early as six weeks.

Dr. Colleen A. Malloy, a professor of neonatology at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, told a U.S. Senate committee last year that “anesthesiologists, and surgeons use pain medication” for unborn babies at the 20-week stage, “because it’s supported by the literature completely.”

“I could never imagine subjecting my tiny patients to a horrific procedure such as those that involve limb detachment or cardiac injection,” Malloy added.

At 20 weeks, the unborn child has all the parts in place – the pain receptors, spinal cord, nerve tracts, and thalamus – needed for transmitting and feeling pain, extensive research indicates. The unborn child responds to touch as early as week 6; and by week 18, pain receptors have appeared throughout the child’s body.

“The thalamus, which is the center of pain consciousness in the brain, develops during weeks 8 through 16, and the nerve tracts connecting the spinal cord and thalamus are themselves in place by week 20,” said Randy O’Bannon of National Right to Life. “Like infants, the unborn child cannot speak and describe his or her pain experience, but there are the usual physiological indicators that indicate pain awareness.”

“As early as 18 weeks, an unborn child injected with a needle releases stress hormones, just as adults do when experiencing pain. Hormone levels in those babies decrease when pain-relievers are supplied,” he added. “Studies indicate that anencephalic infants, whose cortex is severely reduced if not altogether absent, experience pain as long as other neurological structures are functioning.”

In 2016, the Family Research Council published an extensively researched document on the science of fetal pain. The report includes more than 30 studies, testimonies, medical evidence and real-life experiences in its exposition of the science of fetal pain as the weeks advance post-fertilization.

This Republican Senator Will Oppose the Bill to Defund Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz

with one comment

By Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com
March 3, 2017

Last month, LifeNews.com profiled a pro-abortion Republican senator who says she will oppose the bill to defund the Planned Parenthood abortion business.

Now another pro-abortion Republican senator says she will also oppose the legislation. Senator Susan Collins of Maine says she wants to split the defunding Planned Parenthood provisions from the bill to repeal Obamacare. If Republican leaders don’t do that, Collins plans to vote against the legislation entirely.

Together, the two pro-abortion Republican Senators could potentially derail the entire process to both repeal abortion-funding Obamacare and defund the Planned Parenthood abortion company.

Republican leaders are still working on the final language of the legislation, but the general thought is Republicans will use the reconciliation budgetary process to pass the bill as they did last time to both defund Planned Parenthood and repealed Obamacare. Pro-abortion President Barack Obama ultimately vetoed that legislation.

Some leading pro-life lawmakers want that exact legislation brought back. But, as the Hill reports, it is a no-go for Senator Collins.

“I don’t think it makes sense to have the defunding of Planned Parenthood linked to this issue at all,” said Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate Republican from Maine who voted against the repeal effort in 2015 because it included language defunding Planned Parenthood.

“If the House Republicans want to bring it up, it should be in a separate bill. I would oppose that bill, but it further complicates the negotiations to have it included in this bill.”

Because Republicans are going to repeal ObamaCare through reconciliation, a special budget maneuver that only needs 50 votes to pass because it can’t be filibustered, they can only lose two votes from their members.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a pro-abortion Republican from Alaska, has already said definitively she won’t support repeal if it includes Planned Parenthood language.

“I, for one, do not believe that Planned Parenthood has any place in our deliberations on the Affordable Care Act,” Murkowski said. “Taxpayer dollars should not be used to pay for abortions, but I will not vote to deny Alaskans access to the health services that Planned Parenthood provides.”

The news is not a surprise. Murkowski has defended the abortion giant Planned Parenthood numerous times. In 2011, she stood up for the abortion group’s taxpayer funding even after undercover videos showed staff at Planned Parenthood assisting alleged sex traffickers in getting abortions and STD testing for the girls they victimize.

Then in 2015, Murkowski joined two other Senators to try to strip a Planned Parenthood defunding provision from a similar Senate bill, according to The Hill.

In January, House Speaker Paul Ryan said the bill to repeal Obamacare also would cut off taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood and other abortion groups. The bill also would redirect tax dollars to federally qualified community health centers to ensure people have access to quality health care.

A recent survey found that community health centers not only provide more comprehensive health care than Planned Parenthood, excluding abortions, they also outnumber the abortion group’s facilities by 20 to one.

The U.S. Senate took the first step in paving the way for a vote on defunding the Planned Parenthood abortion corporation in early January. The Senate approved on a party-line vote a budget resolution bill. This repeal resolution is the first step in the process to re-direct Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funding to legitimate health care entities and repeal Obamacare using the budget reconciliation procedure.

President Donald Trump promised to sign a bill that would defund the Planned Parenthood abortion business.

Recent polls also indicate Americans support the defunding efforts. New polling found 56 percent of Americans in battleground states want Planned Parenthood defunded.

ACTION: Contact U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Contact Senator Susan Collins.

UK, Australia Won’t Fund Free Abortions After Donald Trump Defunds International Planned Parenthood

with one comment

By Micaiah Bigler
LifeNews.com
March 2, 2017

The United Kingdom and Australia did not give money to a new global abortion fund this week, despite intense pressure from abortion activists world-wide.

The new “She Decides” abortion fund comes in reaction to U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order prohibiting American taxpayer funding to groups that promote or perform abortions overseas.

USA Today reports representatives from more than 45 countries attended a meeting about the new abortion fund on Thursday in Brussels, Belgium. About a dozen countries and several private donors pledged money, totaling 181 million euros (about $190 million), according to the report.

While the UK and Australia sent representatives to the meeting, neither country promised money.

The Guardian reports:

[The UK’s] decision to send Rory Stewart, a junior minister, rather than Priti Patel, the secretary of state for international development, could be interpreted as a mild snub to the She Decides conference, an event intended by its organisers to be a symbol of solidarity against Trump. Ditto the UK decision not to pledge any additional money, when countries from Norway to the Netherlands are stumping up millions.

Pro-life groups applauded the British government for not giving into the pressure. Life, a UK pro-life group, said the country already has dedicated £200 million pounds to family planning and abortion overseas, and another contribution to abortions would have been tragic.

“We are obviously deeply disappointed that such vast funds are already being spent on overseas abortion and family planning, but relieved to learn that the Government have resisted pressure from the Dutch government to pour further millions of pounds into this new abortion fund,” Life education director Anne Scanlan said in a statement.

Australian ambassador Sharman Stone also attended the meeting Thursday but did not pledge any of her country’s money to the abortion fund, according to The Sydney Morning Herald.

Stone told the pro-abortion world leaders that Australia is a “strong champion” of reproductive health services for women, and pointed out that her government recently dedicated $9.5 million to “sexual health needs” through its own programs.

Stone and the Australian Foreign Minister continue to face pressure to support the abortion fund, despite their decision not to participate, the report states.

No one knows exactly how many unborn babies are aborted every year across the world. Some research groups put the number at about 50 million, but others say the number likely is smaller. It also is not clear how many of those unborn babies were killed in abortions with U.S. taxpayer dollars during the Obama administration.

As LifeNews.com reported, the Mexico City Policy, which Trump reinstated on Jan. 23 by executive order, also was in place during the entirety of the George W. Bush administration. President Barack Obama rescinded it during his first week in office.

Named for a 1984 population conference where President Ronald Reagan initially announced it, the Mexico City Policy made it so family planning funds could go only to groups that agree to not do abortions or lobby foreign nations to overturn their pro-life laws.

The policy does not stop non-abortion international assistance. It ensures U.S. foreign aid will continue to go to health care and humanitarian relief in the millions of dollars. It just will not subsidize abortion overseas.

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

March 4, 2017 at 07:00

Every Doctor Should Discuss An Unborn Baby’s Health Problems Like Ours Did

leave a comment »

By J. D. Rucker
The Federalist
February 24, 2017

When my wife gives birth to our fourth child this year, he will need open heart surgeries as soon as he’s physically able. His heart isn’t like everyone else’s. The aorta and pulmonary artery are connected to the wrong ventricles. On top of that, there’s a hole in the wall separating the ventricles. He cannot survive with the current setup.

My wife and I have always been pro-life. She dealt with abortion advice as a teenager, when doctors told her she was too young to have our first son. That was easy advice to dismiss, even for a pair of teens who knew nothing. But this time was different. The question wasn’t whether we were ready to be parents. This time, the question was whether we wanted our next child to suffer—even if he survives at all.

Our Doctor Gave Us Exactly the Information We Needed

We live in Orange County, California. Despite our state’s reputation as hard-left, we live in one of California’s few bastions of conservatism. There are still liberal elements here, as there are everywhere. As the doctor described our baby’s condition and started running down the risks and challenges that lay ahead for us and our son, I braced myself. I knew our doctor would pressure us to have an abortion.

Except, she didn’t. She didn’t tell us not to have one, either.

She laid out the situation kindly and factually, even drawing pictures of our son’s rare condition so we could better understand what he’s facing. Her physician’s smile told of hope for life, while not hinting at any opposition if we chose a different path. In fact, her only mention of abortion came when she told us the deadline to decide based upon California’s 24-week law.

I could sense no bias one way or another, and I was watching very closely. I don’t believe she could read our thoughts on the matter; I didn’t even have to glance at my wife to know there wasn’t a decision to be made. As far as I could tell, it was the most caring yet utterly neutral presentation of gut-wrenching news I’d ever seen delivered.

Then, she said something that astounded me. “Whatever decision you make will be the right one because it comes from love.”

Medical Neutrality Is Pro-Life

I’ve written countless articles about the pro-life movement and against the idea of “reproductive rights.” I wouldn’t go so far as to say I’m an activist. There are plenty of people who work much harder than I do who deserve that title. But I write what I can. This is the first time I’ve written from personal experience, and it’s the most important perspective I’ve ever held.

If all doctors presented the facts the way our doctor did, fewer preborn children would be killed. Of this, I’m certain.

As a bystander, I’ve tried to think of ways to convince more doctors to be pro-life. It seemed the easiest way to prevent birth defect-motivated abortions was to have more doctors promote the concept of life to their patients. We know that Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion medical organizations push their agenda. Why shouldn’t we get more doctors to push ours?

Doctors Shouldn’t Push An Agenda—They Should Present the Truth

I was wrong. After experiencing it firsthand, I now realize that the way our doctor laid out the facts is the best way to save lives.

It’s very likely that another couple in our situation, hearing the exact same description, may choose to abort. In America, they have that right.

However, I no longer believe that someone willing to abort their preborn child because of this type of birth defect would be swayed by a pro-life message from their doctor. For it to happen would require the doctor to give false hope, or to sugarcoat the future potential hardships.

If pro-life medical professionals start using lies the way that pro-choice medical professionals often do, we will not save more lives. In fact, we could end up causing more abortions because of the lost trust associated with the lies.

This Battle Must Be Won in the Culture, Not the Doctor’s Office

What would happen if pro-life doctors convinced their patients to have children with birth defects by lying or even stretching the truth? Journalists would write about “religious fanatical doctors” spreading falsehoods to help the “anti-abortion movement.” Our attempts to save lives could result in more people discarding the advice of their doctors, because of fear that their doctors are lying.

This isn’t a medical issue. It’s not a political issue, either. Situations like ours are purely cultural. We believe that every life is sacred. If we can make more people believe this, the number of abortions due to birth defects will go down. Pro-life doctors can’t sell their agenda to those predisposed to a pro-choice ideology, any more than a pro-choice doctor could have convinced us to have an abortion. As for the political battle, that can only effectively prevent frivolous abortions-on-demand. Our situation is far from frivolous.

We need doctors who present the facts as the facts. Politicizing birth defect abortions in either direction only antagonizes those of the opposite perspective. This is a battle that will be won on the cultural battleground. These are decisions that must come from love.

JD Rucker is managing editor at The New Americana and co-founder of the Federalist Party. He is a Christian, conservative, and business owner raising a family of five in southern California. You can reach him on Twitter @jdrucker.

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

February 28, 2017 at 06:00

%d bloggers like this: