+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Two More RU-486 Infection Deaths Announced by CDC
by Chris Gacek
October 1, 2010
October 1, 2010
Do I like getting caught?
1 week ago
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Friday, October 1, 2010
Two More RU-486 Infection Deaths Announced by CDC
Seriously, folks, isn't it time to stop using women. Women, isn't it time to stop being used. Isn't it time that women are not human guinea pigs for pharma and Planned Parenthood? And, now, the FDA is about to release yet another abortion pill. You know how it is when you (if you) ever take your first drag off a cigarette and you cough really hard.....your body is telling you something. That smoke does not belong in there. And, neither does a pill to cause an abortion. It's an unnatural and dangerous substance to the body...both bodies, the woman's and the unborn child's. Two new deaths from an FDA approved drug.....
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Let’s Get our Facts Straight about Tiller and Anti-Abortion Violence
Wednesday June 3, 2009
Commentary: Let’s Get our Facts Straight about Tiller and Anti-Abortion Violence
Commentary by Brian Clowes, PhD - Human Life International, Research Manager
June 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Along with everyone else at Human Life International and throughout the legitimate pro-life movement, I strongly condemn the murder of abortionist George Tiller in Kansas. The Fifth Commandment does not read "Thou shalt not kill, except for abortionists."
Not only is it wrong to respond to people like Tiller with the ultimate anti-life act of murder, it also sets the entire pro-life movement back as good, committed leaders have to scramble to distance themselves from an act that they never called for and which is obviously antithetical to their philosophy and work. Pro-abortion legislators seize on the opportunity to call for laws restricting legitimate pro-life activities such as sidewalk counseling and picketing, knowing the whole time that such legislation will do nothing to hinder a maniac with a gun. And, worst of all, thousands of people who would otherwise have joined the pro-life movement will continue to sit on the sidelines, believing the media lie that we are violent.
Pro-lifers should indeed condemn the murder of George Tiller. But we should not play permanent defense as the nonsense snowballs and the unfair attacks against the pro-life movement multiply. Here are some facts that should be taken into consideration by all people of good will, especially those whose responsibility it is to report on this story.
1) George Tiller is the first abortionist to be killed in eleven years. If you think that's a "trend,” or an “epidemic” as some have said, you're just not a serious person.
2) All of the posturing going on in the pro-abortion movement over the safety of abortionists is a ruse. There are four times as many hairdressers and 150 times as many convenience store clerks murdered as there are abortionists. Where is the “pro-choice” grieving over them?
3) George Tiller made his money performing late-term abortions, which often involves the killing of a viable human being. According to Kansas state statistics, he killed 395 viable third-trimester babies in one year – 2001 – all for “mental health” reasons (which, as we know, is the category for all elective abortions). Not one of those abortions was for a mother’s physical health or for a medical emergency. Americans overwhelmingly believe this disgusting practice should not be legal. If any objective journalist were to look into his practice they would see that most people, and all sane people, are appalled by what happened in his clinic every day.
4) Tiller has been tried on criminal indictments for multiple abuses of his practice, including breaking state laws requiring another medical doctor to verify that certain patients' lives were at risk before performing late-term abortions. This man was no hero or saint, and his being held up as a martyr says more about pro-abortionists than it does about those they are trying to condemn.
5) Abortionists are not only widely considered an embarrassment to the medical profession, but they are much more likely to commit violence than to suffer violence. You may be surprised to learn that more than a dozen abortionists have been convicted of murder and manslaughter ― of their wives, of their patients, and even of other abortionists. Yet you never hear about these killings in the press (see http://www.abortionviolence.com/ for documentation). Abortionists are more likely to kill than to be killed.
6) Whenever an abortionist mutilates, kills or molests a woman, the “pro-choice” movement always rushes to his defense, as they did for Brian Finkel, the Arizona abortionist who was sent to prison for 35 years for 22 counts of sexual abuse. So much for caring for women!
7) The pro-life movement is the most peaceful social movement in the history of this country. Most other social movements, including the unionization movement, the pro-abortion movement, the homosexualist movement, the animal rights movement, and the environmental movement have all demonstrated much greater violence. So where is the outcry over the violence committed by these movements?
During the predictable surge of publicity over Tiller's murder, we must remember that abortion itself is the most cowardly form of murder, committed against the most helpless and innocent of all of God's people, the unborn. We must also remember those who have died, but who are ignored by the media and the pro-abortionists ― the hundreds of women who have died of so-called "safe and legal" abortion, and the hundreds of other women who have been murdered by their boyfriends or husbands because they would not abort their children (see http://www.abortionviolence.com/ for documentation).
Let's not be bullied or silenced by those who are trying to tar the whole pro-life movement by cynically exploiting the murder of George Tiller. Let's instead reply with facts which add context to the "abortionists are heroes, pro-lifers are violent" narrative that the "mainstream" media seems too willing to parrot.
Not that I expect the media to suddenly start reporting the truth of abortion. If they did that, there would be no legal abortion in the first place. But we can try, and the facts are on our side. Let's pray, too, for the soul of George Tiller, his family, and his murderer, as well as for the conversion of all pro-aborts that they see how destructive abortion is for all human life, not just the child who is killed and the mother who is wounded.
One thing you can do is forward this information and the address of the abortion violence Web site to your friends so that we can reach those of good will ― those who aren't just mindlessly screaming bloody murder but who can actually think and listen to reason ― and show them that the story they've been told about supposedly "violent" pro-life activists is just that ― a story.
+++++++++
Commentary: Let’s Get our Facts Straight about Tiller and Anti-Abortion Violence
Commentary by Brian Clowes, PhD - Human Life International, Research Manager
June 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Along with everyone else at Human Life International and throughout the legitimate pro-life movement, I strongly condemn the murder of abortionist George Tiller in Kansas. The Fifth Commandment does not read "Thou shalt not kill, except for abortionists."
Not only is it wrong to respond to people like Tiller with the ultimate anti-life act of murder, it also sets the entire pro-life movement back as good, committed leaders have to scramble to distance themselves from an act that they never called for and which is obviously antithetical to their philosophy and work. Pro-abortion legislators seize on the opportunity to call for laws restricting legitimate pro-life activities such as sidewalk counseling and picketing, knowing the whole time that such legislation will do nothing to hinder a maniac with a gun. And, worst of all, thousands of people who would otherwise have joined the pro-life movement will continue to sit on the sidelines, believing the media lie that we are violent.
Pro-lifers should indeed condemn the murder of George Tiller. But we should not play permanent defense as the nonsense snowballs and the unfair attacks against the pro-life movement multiply. Here are some facts that should be taken into consideration by all people of good will, especially those whose responsibility it is to report on this story.
1) George Tiller is the first abortionist to be killed in eleven years. If you think that's a "trend,” or an “epidemic” as some have said, you're just not a serious person.
2) All of the posturing going on in the pro-abortion movement over the safety of abortionists is a ruse. There are four times as many hairdressers and 150 times as many convenience store clerks murdered as there are abortionists. Where is the “pro-choice” grieving over them?
3) George Tiller made his money performing late-term abortions, which often involves the killing of a viable human being. According to Kansas state statistics, he killed 395 viable third-trimester babies in one year – 2001 – all for “mental health” reasons (which, as we know, is the category for all elective abortions). Not one of those abortions was for a mother’s physical health or for a medical emergency. Americans overwhelmingly believe this disgusting practice should not be legal. If any objective journalist were to look into his practice they would see that most people, and all sane people, are appalled by what happened in his clinic every day.
4) Tiller has been tried on criminal indictments for multiple abuses of his practice, including breaking state laws requiring another medical doctor to verify that certain patients' lives were at risk before performing late-term abortions. This man was no hero or saint, and his being held up as a martyr says more about pro-abortionists than it does about those they are trying to condemn.
5) Abortionists are not only widely considered an embarrassment to the medical profession, but they are much more likely to commit violence than to suffer violence. You may be surprised to learn that more than a dozen abortionists have been convicted of murder and manslaughter ― of their wives, of their patients, and even of other abortionists. Yet you never hear about these killings in the press (see http://www.abortionviolence.com/ for documentation). Abortionists are more likely to kill than to be killed.
6) Whenever an abortionist mutilates, kills or molests a woman, the “pro-choice” movement always rushes to his defense, as they did for Brian Finkel, the Arizona abortionist who was sent to prison for 35 years for 22 counts of sexual abuse. So much for caring for women!
7) The pro-life movement is the most peaceful social movement in the history of this country. Most other social movements, including the unionization movement, the pro-abortion movement, the homosexualist movement, the animal rights movement, and the environmental movement have all demonstrated much greater violence. So where is the outcry over the violence committed by these movements?
During the predictable surge of publicity over Tiller's murder, we must remember that abortion itself is the most cowardly form of murder, committed against the most helpless and innocent of all of God's people, the unborn. We must also remember those who have died, but who are ignored by the media and the pro-abortionists ― the hundreds of women who have died of so-called "safe and legal" abortion, and the hundreds of other women who have been murdered by their boyfriends or husbands because they would not abort their children (see http://www.abortionviolence.com/ for documentation).
Let's not be bullied or silenced by those who are trying to tar the whole pro-life movement by cynically exploiting the murder of George Tiller. Let's instead reply with facts which add context to the "abortionists are heroes, pro-lifers are violent" narrative that the "mainstream" media seems too willing to parrot.
Not that I expect the media to suddenly start reporting the truth of abortion. If they did that, there would be no legal abortion in the first place. But we can try, and the facts are on our side. Let's pray, too, for the soul of George Tiller, his family, and his murderer, as well as for the conversion of all pro-aborts that they see how destructive abortion is for all human life, not just the child who is killed and the mother who is wounded.
One thing you can do is forward this information and the address of the abortion violence Web site to your friends so that we can reach those of good will ― those who aren't just mindlessly screaming bloody murder but who can actually think and listen to reason ― and show them that the story they've been told about supposedly "violent" pro-life activists is just that ― a story.
+++++++++
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Pop Can Baby Miracle Baby 12.5 oz.
June 2, 2009
The "Pop Can" miracle baby
taylorrideout.jpgWPXI in Pittsburgh reports on the smallest baby ever to survive at Magee Women's Hospital:
At birth baby Taylor Rideout weighed just 12.5 oz. and was just 10 inches long....
"She's a fighter," said Taylor's mother Brittany Rideout.
Please see the rest of the story at http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2009/06/miracle_baby_su.html
The "Pop Can" miracle baby
taylorrideout.jpgWPXI in Pittsburgh reports on the smallest baby ever to survive at Magee Women's Hospital:
At birth baby Taylor Rideout weighed just 12.5 oz. and was just 10 inches long....
"She's a fighter," said Taylor's mother Brittany Rideout.
Please see the rest of the story at http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2009/06/miracle_baby_su.html
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Notre Shame, For Shame Obama, For Shame Media
Never have I ever heard more obvious double-speak than I have heard during Obama's speech at Notre Dame commencement. Never. Also, never have I heard more shameful an attitude toward life. It is equal only to the Pres of Iran saying there was no such thing as a Jewish holocaust. Pathetic and even more pathetic that so many people have bought into these lies about what pro-life is and the absolute scientific and psychological damage to the mother, not even considering the torture to the child. TORTURE !
Example...
The media as well as President Obama *deliberately* say "stem cell research* to make people believe that Catholics are against stem cell research which is a complete and total lie and anywhere on the internet can you find that out. There is a deliberate effort to eliminate the word "embryonic" by the media, by Obama, and by Father Jenkins in his allowing this lie to be said at Notre Dame.
The facts of the futility of embryonic stem cell cures is also available on the internet easily found. As well, the cures from regular stem cell research not only is in excess of SEVENTY cures but also easily found on the internet.
Shame on Obama for lying and shame on Fr. Jenkins for assisting in this lie. They BOTH know the truth and they are bought and sold. One thing they both have very much in common....lies.
And another lie...I am anti-abortion, Obama says, but yet now wants us to pay for abortion in other countries including the one child policy in China. Of all the money Obama promises he excludes any type of program that will help mothers of unwanted pregnancies. Obama pulled the funds for the mothers! Hello...are you listening?
If ever there were a forked tongue, Obama and Jenkins have exactly that.
I have to really wonder how educated our educated really are that people believe what was said by Obama at Notre Dame as truth. Our educated at one of the most notable universities have absolutely no clue what double speak is or how to recognize it. Obama has the cattle prod and the young people seem to be ready to to buy into it. Time to take a much closer look at "education."
Case in point. You can show a 3 year old a picture of a pre-born baby at 3 months and that 3 year old child will say, "that's a baby!" I have much more confidence in the intelligence of my 4 year old grandson than I now have in Obama or in Jenkins or in anyone who applauded the lies at Notre Dame.
It's a hard hard decision women have to make, says Obama. And he is really heart felt about what they go through. Really? And that's why he refers to a woman with an unwanted pregnancy as being "punished?" Hello? Are you listening? Punished? A child is a punishment for what? So...kill it ? Kill what we don't want is the answer?
Great...let's use that as a rule for society. Let's kill what we don't want. OH?? You don't think that's ok? Why? Because you can't actually see the person you kill in the womb? Is it any less killing because you cannot see the baby? Ok...the answer is NO and not just "no" but "hell no." Believe it or not, rationalize it to fit your needs, describe your sad situation...it's the killing of a human being.
A pepperoni pizza is a pepperoni pizza no matter how badly you want it to be a NY strip steak. And abortion is murder no matter how badly you wish to dismiss that fact.
It's your body you can do what you want? Really. Let's think about that. There is a test that is given to see if someone in an accident is brain dead. No brain waves? The person is dead. So tell me exactly WHY the pro-aborts put all the money they can into preventing these same tests from being done on the pre-born baby EVEN.....EVEN....at the earliest stages of pregnancy. Ok, you guessed it. Because there ARE brain waves.
Your body? Is there one heart or two? Is there one nervous system or two? Are there only 2 legs and 2 arms and no head because it's YOUR body you want to kill? Ah, no...don't think so. Another lie...the heart beats at THREE weeks. Wanna know the double speak given about that? "It's not a heart beat..it's heart "motion". Hello? Are you listening?
The media...........if you don't hear it, you think it isn't happening? Oh, think again. You think when they say that Catholics object to stem cell research that that is true? You are being lied to 100%. And it is deliberate. So, think again. Catholics DO promote stem cell research because it is NOT the destruction of human life. I challenge you to find the truth of "adult stem cell cures" and the futility of embryonic stem cell research.
Check out the Discovery Channel and any other programs that like to walk us through surgeries. Check the made-for-TV-movies/CSI programs/etc to see every kind of gory detail of blood and guts but do you EVER see an abortion? Why is that? It's the most common surgery in the United States...in fact, the world...but you have never seen it ! Are you listening?
Forget religion? If that bothers you then just check the scientific facts about the unborn. I challenge you to do just that. Not convinced? Go to the website of http://www.priestsforlife.org and look at the pictures of aborted babies.
Look, if you don't want to look, you already know it's murder. If you do look, and you are pro-abort, then I am convinced you won't be after you see it. America won't outlaw abortion until America sees abortion. And that, my dear, is a fact. If you don't want to look because you already know it's murder, then you are desperately trying to rationalize some type of genocide as "ok" as long as it doesn't interrupt your life. Hey...I know a lot of 2 year olds who disrupt life. Should we kill them? No?? Why not?? Just because you can SEE them? Oh. Listen. Up. You can see the unborn.
Look at the pics and you will see the reality of genocide.
It's not YOUR body being pulled apart limb from limb. It's not YOUR body being burned to death. It's not YOUR body that has the brain sucked out of your head. So, it obviously is NOT your body that you choose to kill. And...do you value your freedom more than you care about murder? Ok then..................do this........
Have the baby and let the baby live !!!!! Let the baby live with an adoptive family who can't have a baby that you so desperately want to kill to be rid of.
SHAME on Obama. SHAME on Jenkins. SHAME on anyone who chooses to abort when adoption is ALWAYS an option.
Wait !! Saving you the trouble of searching for pictures of aborted babies ! I knew you would thank me for this so here is the link: http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/index.aspx#galleries
If you already know abortion is murder, you won't look. If you are convinced that abortion is ok.. I dare you! And then come back after you see the pics and leave me a comment on what you saw. Please do that. I will look forward to your pro-abortion ideas after you look.
Example...
The media as well as President Obama *deliberately* say "stem cell research* to make people believe that Catholics are against stem cell research which is a complete and total lie and anywhere on the internet can you find that out. There is a deliberate effort to eliminate the word "embryonic" by the media, by Obama, and by Father Jenkins in his allowing this lie to be said at Notre Dame.
The facts of the futility of embryonic stem cell cures is also available on the internet easily found. As well, the cures from regular stem cell research not only is in excess of SEVENTY cures but also easily found on the internet.
Shame on Obama for lying and shame on Fr. Jenkins for assisting in this lie. They BOTH know the truth and they are bought and sold. One thing they both have very much in common....lies.
And another lie...I am anti-abortion, Obama says, but yet now wants us to pay for abortion in other countries including the one child policy in China. Of all the money Obama promises he excludes any type of program that will help mothers of unwanted pregnancies. Obama pulled the funds for the mothers! Hello...are you listening?
If ever there were a forked tongue, Obama and Jenkins have exactly that.
I have to really wonder how educated our educated really are that people believe what was said by Obama at Notre Dame as truth. Our educated at one of the most notable universities have absolutely no clue what double speak is or how to recognize it. Obama has the cattle prod and the young people seem to be ready to to buy into it. Time to take a much closer look at "education."
Case in point. You can show a 3 year old a picture of a pre-born baby at 3 months and that 3 year old child will say, "that's a baby!" I have much more confidence in the intelligence of my 4 year old grandson than I now have in Obama or in Jenkins or in anyone who applauded the lies at Notre Dame.
It's a hard hard decision women have to make, says Obama. And he is really heart felt about what they go through. Really? And that's why he refers to a woman with an unwanted pregnancy as being "punished?" Hello? Are you listening? Punished? A child is a punishment for what? So...kill it ? Kill what we don't want is the answer?
Great...let's use that as a rule for society. Let's kill what we don't want. OH?? You don't think that's ok? Why? Because you can't actually see the person you kill in the womb? Is it any less killing because you cannot see the baby? Ok...the answer is NO and not just "no" but "hell no." Believe it or not, rationalize it to fit your needs, describe your sad situation...it's the killing of a human being.
A pepperoni pizza is a pepperoni pizza no matter how badly you want it to be a NY strip steak. And abortion is murder no matter how badly you wish to dismiss that fact.
It's your body you can do what you want? Really. Let's think about that. There is a test that is given to see if someone in an accident is brain dead. No brain waves? The person is dead. So tell me exactly WHY the pro-aborts put all the money they can into preventing these same tests from being done on the pre-born baby EVEN.....EVEN....at the earliest stages of pregnancy. Ok, you guessed it. Because there ARE brain waves.
Your body? Is there one heart or two? Is there one nervous system or two? Are there only 2 legs and 2 arms and no head because it's YOUR body you want to kill? Ah, no...don't think so. Another lie...the heart beats at THREE weeks. Wanna know the double speak given about that? "It's not a heart beat..it's heart "motion". Hello? Are you listening?
The media...........if you don't hear it, you think it isn't happening? Oh, think again. You think when they say that Catholics object to stem cell research that that is true? You are being lied to 100%. And it is deliberate. So, think again. Catholics DO promote stem cell research because it is NOT the destruction of human life. I challenge you to find the truth of "adult stem cell cures" and the futility of embryonic stem cell research.
Check out the Discovery Channel and any other programs that like to walk us through surgeries. Check the made-for-TV-movies/CSI programs/etc to see every kind of gory detail of blood and guts but do you EVER see an abortion? Why is that? It's the most common surgery in the United States...in fact, the world...but you have never seen it ! Are you listening?
Forget religion? If that bothers you then just check the scientific facts about the unborn. I challenge you to do just that. Not convinced? Go to the website of http://www.priestsforlife.org and look at the pictures of aborted babies.
Look, if you don't want to look, you already know it's murder. If you do look, and you are pro-abort, then I am convinced you won't be after you see it. America won't outlaw abortion until America sees abortion. And that, my dear, is a fact. If you don't want to look because you already know it's murder, then you are desperately trying to rationalize some type of genocide as "ok" as long as it doesn't interrupt your life. Hey...I know a lot of 2 year olds who disrupt life. Should we kill them? No?? Why not?? Just because you can SEE them? Oh. Listen. Up. You can see the unborn.
Look at the pics and you will see the reality of genocide.
It's not YOUR body being pulled apart limb from limb. It's not YOUR body being burned to death. It's not YOUR body that has the brain sucked out of your head. So, it obviously is NOT your body that you choose to kill. And...do you value your freedom more than you care about murder? Ok then..................do this........
Have the baby and let the baby live !!!!! Let the baby live with an adoptive family who can't have a baby that you so desperately want to kill to be rid of.
SHAME on Obama. SHAME on Jenkins. SHAME on anyone who chooses to abort when adoption is ALWAYS an option.
Wait !! Saving you the trouble of searching for pictures of aborted babies ! I knew you would thank me for this so here is the link: http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/index.aspx#galleries
If you already know abortion is murder, you won't look. If you are convinced that abortion is ok.. I dare you! And then come back after you see the pics and leave me a comment on what you saw. Please do that. I will look forward to your pro-abortion ideas after you look.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
And *We* Pay For This Insanity Thanks To Obama
Render Unto Caesar? I don't really think this is our obligation in any way shape or form. Asking us to pay for this?? No words can I think of to describe the insanity of this.
+++++++++++++++++++
Chinese officials force paid surrogate mothers to have abortions
Guangzhou, China, May 2, 2009 / 07:43 am (CNA).- Echoing other reports of coercion in enforcement of China’s one-child policy, Chinese authorities have reportedly forced mothers to abort their children in a crackdown on the country’s underground surrogate pregnancy industry.
One U.S. investigator of China's one-child policy said the alleged coercion was “not surprising.” In the latest incident, Reuters reports that three young surrogate first-time mothers were discovered by authorities hiding in a communal flat in the southern Chinese city of Guangzhou. District family planning and security officers broke into the apartment, corralled them into a van and drove them to a district hospital where they were compelled into a maternity ward.
"I was crying 'I don't want to do this'," a 20-year-old woman called Xiao Hong told Reuters. She was pregnant with four-month-old twins.
“But they still dragged me in and injected my belly with a needle,” she said, reporting that the incident took place in late February.
She said the government officers had forced her thumbprint onto a consent form before carrying out the abortion.
Another surrogate mother, a 23-year-old from a village in Sichuan province, said officers made her take pills and then surgically removed her three-month-old unborn child while she was unconscious.
"I was terrified," she said to Reuters.
The official Guangzhou Daily newspaper quoted district family planning officials as saying the women were unmarried and acting as “illegal” surrogates. The paper also reported that the mothers had agreed to undergo “remedial measures” in accordance with the law.
Official media coverage critical of surrogacy has led some observers to expect more action against the practice in the future.
According to Reuters, underground networks of surrogacy agents, hospitals and doctors have grown in recent years as wealthy infertile Chinese couples hire surrogates to produce babies for them.
The surrogates are often confined to secret flats for most of their pregnancy to avoid detection. Medical staff at public hospitals and health clinics who are part of the surrogacy network discreetly perform fertility, obstetrics and childbirth procedures.
Surrogacy has been on the rise globally. India in particular has become a center of surrogacy for infertile and homosexual Western couples.
In China, prospective surrogate mothers are paid between 50,000 to 100,000 yuan ($14,460) per pregnancy by some businesses, attracting many women from poor rural areas. The average per capital income for rural households is around $600. An estimated 25,000 surrogate children have been born in China.
A March investigation by the Population Research Institute (PRI) reported that the one-child policy and coercive abortion had links to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). The UNFPA claimed to have mollified the one-child policy and to have “played a catalytic role in introducing a voluntary reproductive health approach in China.”
Colin Mason, Director of Media Production at PRI, had conducted the investigation. In March he told CNA that coercive measures undertaken by the government are “worse now than ever.”
"Crippling fines, intense pressure to be sterilized, the flagrant display of quota information, and even the seizure of ‘illegal children’ by the government are commonplace," Mason continued. "The UNFPA insists that its presence has led to the removal of these measures. It has not."
Under President Barack Obama’s recent omnibus spending bill, the UNFPA is slated to receive $50 million in U.S. funding.
During the George W. Bush presidency, the UNFPA was denied a reported $235 million because of investigations linking it to coercive abortion practices in China. Funding for such groups is banned under the Kemp-Kasten Amendment.
CNA spoke about coercive abortions in China with PRI’s Colin Mason in a Friday phone interview.
He reported that he didn’t run into “that many” cases of forced abortion.
“It’s not something people are willing to talk about when they think will get into trouble,” he said.
However, he said the law is clear that any couple with a child over the policy limit will be fined a certain amount, “five to seven times the yearly wage.”
The policy also encourages such couples to “opt” to be sterilized, but Mason explained “the law made it clear that that’s not really an ‘option.’”
Responding to the report about one woman being coerced to sign a consent form before her alleged forced abortion, Mason told CNA “That doesn’t surprise me at all.”
“It’s entirely possible that that happened,” he said.
“The UNFPA claims that they essentially eradicated coercion. That’s clearly not the case.”
“Based on what I saw, the government will go to any length it thinks it needs to.
“The tragedy is not only that this is going on but that Americans are so ignorant about it. The Chinese are trying to keep this a well-kept secret, and to certain extent Western aid groups are aiding and abetting it by keeping it under the radar.
“They realize that if the international community is made aware of this situation, they would be horrified.
“We in the West, even in this media age, know so little about it.
“We keep hearing more stories, we keep being surprised.
“Anything at this point shouldn’t surprise us.
“The idea that things are getting better in China is complete nonsense,” he told CNA, saying his opinion was based on the ease with which he discovered cases of coercion in China.
+++++++++++++++++++
Chinese officials force paid surrogate mothers to have abortions
Guangzhou, China, May 2, 2009 / 07:43 am (CNA).- Echoing other reports of coercion in enforcement of China’s one-child policy, Chinese authorities have reportedly forced mothers to abort their children in a crackdown on the country’s underground surrogate pregnancy industry.
One U.S. investigator of China's one-child policy said the alleged coercion was “not surprising.” In the latest incident, Reuters reports that three young surrogate first-time mothers were discovered by authorities hiding in a communal flat in the southern Chinese city of Guangzhou. District family planning and security officers broke into the apartment, corralled them into a van and drove them to a district hospital where they were compelled into a maternity ward.
"I was crying 'I don't want to do this'," a 20-year-old woman called Xiao Hong told Reuters. She was pregnant with four-month-old twins.
“But they still dragged me in and injected my belly with a needle,” she said, reporting that the incident took place in late February.
She said the government officers had forced her thumbprint onto a consent form before carrying out the abortion.
Another surrogate mother, a 23-year-old from a village in Sichuan province, said officers made her take pills and then surgically removed her three-month-old unborn child while she was unconscious.
"I was terrified," she said to Reuters.
The official Guangzhou Daily newspaper quoted district family planning officials as saying the women were unmarried and acting as “illegal” surrogates. The paper also reported that the mothers had agreed to undergo “remedial measures” in accordance with the law.
Official media coverage critical of surrogacy has led some observers to expect more action against the practice in the future.
According to Reuters, underground networks of surrogacy agents, hospitals and doctors have grown in recent years as wealthy infertile Chinese couples hire surrogates to produce babies for them.
The surrogates are often confined to secret flats for most of their pregnancy to avoid detection. Medical staff at public hospitals and health clinics who are part of the surrogacy network discreetly perform fertility, obstetrics and childbirth procedures.
Surrogacy has been on the rise globally. India in particular has become a center of surrogacy for infertile and homosexual Western couples.
In China, prospective surrogate mothers are paid between 50,000 to 100,000 yuan ($14,460) per pregnancy by some businesses, attracting many women from poor rural areas. The average per capital income for rural households is around $600. An estimated 25,000 surrogate children have been born in China.
A March investigation by the Population Research Institute (PRI) reported that the one-child policy and coercive abortion had links to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). The UNFPA claimed to have mollified the one-child policy and to have “played a catalytic role in introducing a voluntary reproductive health approach in China.”
Colin Mason, Director of Media Production at PRI, had conducted the investigation. In March he told CNA that coercive measures undertaken by the government are “worse now than ever.”
"Crippling fines, intense pressure to be sterilized, the flagrant display of quota information, and even the seizure of ‘illegal children’ by the government are commonplace," Mason continued. "The UNFPA insists that its presence has led to the removal of these measures. It has not."
Under President Barack Obama’s recent omnibus spending bill, the UNFPA is slated to receive $50 million in U.S. funding.
During the George W. Bush presidency, the UNFPA was denied a reported $235 million because of investigations linking it to coercive abortion practices in China. Funding for such groups is banned under the Kemp-Kasten Amendment.
CNA spoke about coercive abortions in China with PRI’s Colin Mason in a Friday phone interview.
He reported that he didn’t run into “that many” cases of forced abortion.
“It’s not something people are willing to talk about when they think will get into trouble,” he said.
However, he said the law is clear that any couple with a child over the policy limit will be fined a certain amount, “five to seven times the yearly wage.”
The policy also encourages such couples to “opt” to be sterilized, but Mason explained “the law made it clear that that’s not really an ‘option.’”
Responding to the report about one woman being coerced to sign a consent form before her alleged forced abortion, Mason told CNA “That doesn’t surprise me at all.”
“It’s entirely possible that that happened,” he said.
“The UNFPA claims that they essentially eradicated coercion. That’s clearly not the case.”
“Based on what I saw, the government will go to any length it thinks it needs to.
“The tragedy is not only that this is going on but that Americans are so ignorant about it. The Chinese are trying to keep this a well-kept secret, and to certain extent Western aid groups are aiding and abetting it by keeping it under the radar.
“They realize that if the international community is made aware of this situation, they would be horrified.
“We in the West, even in this media age, know so little about it.
“We keep hearing more stories, we keep being surprised.
“Anything at this point shouldn’t surprise us.
“The idea that things are getting better in China is complete nonsense,” he told CNA, saying his opinion was based on the ease with which he discovered cases of coercion in China.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Notre Dame and a Woman's Choice
This, a beautiful story by a Notre Dame student who faced an unexpected pregnancy, the choice options, and the strength and conviction to make that choice. It is my pleasure to share this with anyone who happens upon this blog hopefully that is will touch anyone in this situation or knows someone who is....or will be. God bless Lacy Dodd and daughter, Mary.
+++ +++ +++
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1402
Notre Dame, My Mother
By Lacy Dodd
Friday, May 1, 2009, 12:00 AM
For many members of the Notre Dame Class of 2009, the uproar surrounding the university’s decision to honor Barack Obama with this year’s commencement address, and to bestow on him a doctorate of laws, has provoked strong feelings about what the ensuing conflict will mean for their graduation.
I know how they feel. Ten years ago, my heart was filled with similar conflicts as we came closer to the day of my own Notre Dame commencement and my commissioning as an officer in the United States Army.
You see, I was three months pregnant.
That March, I had gone—alone—to a local woman’s clinic to take a test. The results were positive, and I was so numb I almost didn’t grasp what the nurse was getting at when she assured me I had “other options.” What did “other options” mean? And what kind of world is it that defines compassion as telling a young woman who has just learned she is carrying life inside her that she has the option to destroy it?
When I returned to campus, I ran to the Grotto. I was confused and full of conflicting emotions. But I knew this: No amount of shame or embarrassment would ever lead me to get rid of my baby. Of all women, Our Lady could surely feel pity for an unplanned pregnancy. I recalled her surrendered love to God’s invitation to become the home of the Incarnate Word. “Let it be done to me according to thy word,” she had said. In my hour of need, on my knees, I asked Mary for courage and strength. And she did not disappoint.
My boyfriend was a different story. He was also a Notre Dame senior. When I told him that he was to be a father, he tried to pressure me into having an abortion. Like so many women in similar circumstances, I found out the kind of man the father of my child was at precisely the moment I needed him most. “All that talk about abortion is just dining-room talk,” he said. “When it’s really you in the situation, it’s different. I will drive you to Chicago and pay for a good doctor.”
I tried telling him this was not an option. He said he was pro-choice. I responded by informing him that my choice was life. And I learned, as so many pregnant women have before and since, that life is the one choice that pro-choicers won’t support.
Still, I count myself lucky. I was raised by a mom and dad who marched for life—and who walked the walk when I needed them. However much I may not have wanted to embarrass them with my pregnancy, amid my troubles I always knew I had a priceless gift: a family that would welcome into their hearts the life that God had put in my womb.
I also had the advantage of a good and loving friend, Sara, who reminded me that her mom was a counselor at the Women’s Care Center in South Bend. It was this Women’s Care Center that provided me with the encouragement that everything was going to be all right. They educated me on my pregnancy, and they provided me with information on how to stay healthy.
So, without my boyfriend’s support, I graduated from Notre Dame on schedule with a bachelor’s degree in American Studies. I earned my ROTC commission as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army. I returned to my parents’ home in Florida, having been granted a delay from active duty. I sought and received advice and loving counsel from Kimberly Home, a pregnancy resource center in my hometown. And I prepared to give birth to the human being who has given me the greatest and most unexpected joy in my life.
Because I was to be an unmarried mom (in the Army no less), I felt compelled at least to research adoption through Catholic Charities. A counselor at Kimberly Home guided me through the decision process and provided me with referrals. Kimberly Home connected me with other women of unplanned pregnancies who had gone through closed as well as open adoptions. It was helpful and caring.
After much prayer, I came to terms with the fact that this baby was a gift I had already chosen to accept. With the support of my family, I would make it work. Through the State of Florida Child Support Enforcement Agency, I obtained a court order for my daughter to receive child support from her father.
And then a miracle came: On All Saints Day 1999, I gave birth to baby Mary. Her name is no accident. This Mary was living inside me while I walked the campus of a university dedicated to a woman who is mother of us all, and it was Mary Our Mother who gave me courage when I was afraid of what would lie ahead. Mary teaches us always to be open to seeking the will of God in our lives, no matter what it is, and never to be afraid of God’s will. God’s will may contain suffering, but God’s will also brings peace and joy. When we place ourselves at God’s disposal, he will do great things for us.
Those great things included the precious moment when my father came to meet his granddaughter on that glorious day she was born. He took one look at Mary in my arms and said to me, “This is your gift for making the right decision.” At that moment, I realized my little girl and I would be forever blessed.
Notre Dame is a special place, but it is not immune to the realities of modern life. There are students who face unplanned pregnancies, and—most tragically—women who think their only option is abortion. Statistics show that one out of every five women who have an abortion is a college student; many of these women cite the fear that they will not be able to complete their education as a primary reason. On campuses all across this country, abortion is the status quo. We need to change that with an unambiguous stand for life, and Notre Dame needs to be in the lead.
There have been many things written about the honors to be extended to President Obama. I’d like to ask this of Fr. John Jenkins, the Notre Dame president: Who draws support from your decision to honor President Obama—the young, pregnant Notre Dame woman sitting in that graduating class who wants desperately to keep her baby, or the Notre Dame man who believes that the Catholic teaching on the intrinsic evil of abortion is just dining-room talk?
Lacy Dodd is a member of the Notre Dame Class of 1999 and a proud mother. She also serves on the board of Room at the Inn, a Charlotte-based nonprofit now working to build at Belmont Abbey America’s first campus-based maternal care facility for pregnant college students.
+++ +++ +++
I recomment this website for information you can trust on Religion, Culture, and Public Life: http://www.firstthings.com/
+++ +++ +++
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1402
Notre Dame, My Mother
By Lacy Dodd
Friday, May 1, 2009, 12:00 AM
For many members of the Notre Dame Class of 2009, the uproar surrounding the university’s decision to honor Barack Obama with this year’s commencement address, and to bestow on him a doctorate of laws, has provoked strong feelings about what the ensuing conflict will mean for their graduation.
I know how they feel. Ten years ago, my heart was filled with similar conflicts as we came closer to the day of my own Notre Dame commencement and my commissioning as an officer in the United States Army.
You see, I was three months pregnant.
That March, I had gone—alone—to a local woman’s clinic to take a test. The results were positive, and I was so numb I almost didn’t grasp what the nurse was getting at when she assured me I had “other options.” What did “other options” mean? And what kind of world is it that defines compassion as telling a young woman who has just learned she is carrying life inside her that she has the option to destroy it?
When I returned to campus, I ran to the Grotto. I was confused and full of conflicting emotions. But I knew this: No amount of shame or embarrassment would ever lead me to get rid of my baby. Of all women, Our Lady could surely feel pity for an unplanned pregnancy. I recalled her surrendered love to God’s invitation to become the home of the Incarnate Word. “Let it be done to me according to thy word,” she had said. In my hour of need, on my knees, I asked Mary for courage and strength. And she did not disappoint.
My boyfriend was a different story. He was also a Notre Dame senior. When I told him that he was to be a father, he tried to pressure me into having an abortion. Like so many women in similar circumstances, I found out the kind of man the father of my child was at precisely the moment I needed him most. “All that talk about abortion is just dining-room talk,” he said. “When it’s really you in the situation, it’s different. I will drive you to Chicago and pay for a good doctor.”
I tried telling him this was not an option. He said he was pro-choice. I responded by informing him that my choice was life. And I learned, as so many pregnant women have before and since, that life is the one choice that pro-choicers won’t support.
Still, I count myself lucky. I was raised by a mom and dad who marched for life—and who walked the walk when I needed them. However much I may not have wanted to embarrass them with my pregnancy, amid my troubles I always knew I had a priceless gift: a family that would welcome into their hearts the life that God had put in my womb.
I also had the advantage of a good and loving friend, Sara, who reminded me that her mom was a counselor at the Women’s Care Center in South Bend. It was this Women’s Care Center that provided me with the encouragement that everything was going to be all right. They educated me on my pregnancy, and they provided me with information on how to stay healthy.
So, without my boyfriend’s support, I graduated from Notre Dame on schedule with a bachelor’s degree in American Studies. I earned my ROTC commission as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army. I returned to my parents’ home in Florida, having been granted a delay from active duty. I sought and received advice and loving counsel from Kimberly Home, a pregnancy resource center in my hometown. And I prepared to give birth to the human being who has given me the greatest and most unexpected joy in my life.
Because I was to be an unmarried mom (in the Army no less), I felt compelled at least to research adoption through Catholic Charities. A counselor at Kimberly Home guided me through the decision process and provided me with referrals. Kimberly Home connected me with other women of unplanned pregnancies who had gone through closed as well as open adoptions. It was helpful and caring.
After much prayer, I came to terms with the fact that this baby was a gift I had already chosen to accept. With the support of my family, I would make it work. Through the State of Florida Child Support Enforcement Agency, I obtained a court order for my daughter to receive child support from her father.
And then a miracle came: On All Saints Day 1999, I gave birth to baby Mary. Her name is no accident. This Mary was living inside me while I walked the campus of a university dedicated to a woman who is mother of us all, and it was Mary Our Mother who gave me courage when I was afraid of what would lie ahead. Mary teaches us always to be open to seeking the will of God in our lives, no matter what it is, and never to be afraid of God’s will. God’s will may contain suffering, but God’s will also brings peace and joy. When we place ourselves at God’s disposal, he will do great things for us.
Those great things included the precious moment when my father came to meet his granddaughter on that glorious day she was born. He took one look at Mary in my arms and said to me, “This is your gift for making the right decision.” At that moment, I realized my little girl and I would be forever blessed.
Notre Dame is a special place, but it is not immune to the realities of modern life. There are students who face unplanned pregnancies, and—most tragically—women who think their only option is abortion. Statistics show that one out of every five women who have an abortion is a college student; many of these women cite the fear that they will not be able to complete their education as a primary reason. On campuses all across this country, abortion is the status quo. We need to change that with an unambiguous stand for life, and Notre Dame needs to be in the lead.
There have been many things written about the honors to be extended to President Obama. I’d like to ask this of Fr. John Jenkins, the Notre Dame president: Who draws support from your decision to honor President Obama—the young, pregnant Notre Dame woman sitting in that graduating class who wants desperately to keep her baby, or the Notre Dame man who believes that the Catholic teaching on the intrinsic evil of abortion is just dining-room talk?
Lacy Dodd is a member of the Notre Dame Class of 1999 and a proud mother. She also serves on the board of Room at the Inn, a Charlotte-based nonprofit now working to build at Belmont Abbey America’s first campus-based maternal care facility for pregnant college students.
+++ +++ +++
I recomment this website for information you can trust on Religion, Culture, and Public Life: http://www.firstthings.com/
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Legal Abortion on Sharp Decline Among Independents, Liberal and Moderate GOPers
Press Releases
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 30, 2009
CONTACT: Joy Yearout (703) 380-6674 or jyearout@sba-list.org
NEW PEW POLL
The ‘Blame Social Conservatives Crowd First’ is Wrong: Pro-Life Stand is a Winning Issue
Latest Pew Poll Finds Support for Legal Abortion on Sharp Decline Among Independents, Liberal and Moderate GOPers
Washington, D.C. – In response to today’s release of polling data from the Pew Research Center, Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser offered the following statement:
"The blame social conservatives first crowd rests its premise on sand. No matter what losses conservatives suffer, their mantra is the same: ‘social issues are driving folks away.’ As the polling data released by the Pew Research Center proves, the ‘blame social conservatives’ habit is the very definition of cognitive dissonance. There is a compelling, sharp decline in support for legal abortion over the last eight months. The largest numbers of converts to the pro-life cause have been self-identified independents and liberal to moderate Republicans – the very voters who decided last year’s Presidential election. If Republicans want to improve their electoral performance, standing on the side of Life is one of the best decisions they can make.”
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press was conducted from March 31-April 21 among 1,521 adults. Highlights include:
· Overall support for legal abortion down 8%. The proportion saying abortion should be legal in all or most cases has declined from 54% last August to 46% this month.
· Support for abortion declined by 24% among moderate and liberal Republicans. The Center reported 67% of liberal and moderate Republicans said abortion should be legal in August 2008. In this month’s survey, that number had fallen to only 43%.
· Support for abortion declined by 11% among independents. The Center reported 55% of independents said abortion should be legal in August 2008. In this month’s survey, that number had fallen to 44%.
The Susan B. Anthony List is a nationwide network of Americans, over 156,000 residing in all 50 states, dedicated to mobilizing, advancing, and representing pro-life women in politics. Its connected Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in the political process.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.sba-list.org is a very good add to your list of e-letters/alerts. Please consider that.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 30, 2009
CONTACT: Joy Yearout (703) 380-6674 or jyearout@sba-list.org
NEW PEW POLL
The ‘Blame Social Conservatives Crowd First’ is Wrong: Pro-Life Stand is a Winning Issue
Latest Pew Poll Finds Support for Legal Abortion on Sharp Decline Among Independents, Liberal and Moderate GOPers
Washington, D.C. – In response to today’s release of polling data from the Pew Research Center, Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser offered the following statement:
"The blame social conservatives first crowd rests its premise on sand. No matter what losses conservatives suffer, their mantra is the same: ‘social issues are driving folks away.’ As the polling data released by the Pew Research Center proves, the ‘blame social conservatives’ habit is the very definition of cognitive dissonance. There is a compelling, sharp decline in support for legal abortion over the last eight months. The largest numbers of converts to the pro-life cause have been self-identified independents and liberal to moderate Republicans – the very voters who decided last year’s Presidential election. If Republicans want to improve their electoral performance, standing on the side of Life is one of the best decisions they can make.”
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press was conducted from March 31-April 21 among 1,521 adults. Highlights include:
· Overall support for legal abortion down 8%. The proportion saying abortion should be legal in all or most cases has declined from 54% last August to 46% this month.
· Support for abortion declined by 24% among moderate and liberal Republicans. The Center reported 67% of liberal and moderate Republicans said abortion should be legal in August 2008. In this month’s survey, that number had fallen to only 43%.
· Support for abortion declined by 11% among independents. The Center reported 55% of independents said abortion should be legal in August 2008. In this month’s survey, that number had fallen to 44%.
The Susan B. Anthony List is a nationwide network of Americans, over 156,000 residing in all 50 states, dedicated to mobilizing, advancing, and representing pro-life women in politics. Its connected Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in the political process.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.sba-list.org is a very good add to your list of e-letters/alerts. Please consider that.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Grassroots For Crisis Pregnancy Centers
Two million red envelopes went to D.C. for the unborn. Now, a wonderful idea can be seen at http://purpleenvelopeproject.blogspot.com/ a grassroots effort to help crisis pregnancy centers. Go for it !
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Rightwing Extremism - Pigeon-Hole to Silence
Today's News & Views
April 16, 2009
Lumping Pro-Lifers In With "Rightwing Extremism"
Part One of Two
By Dave Andrusko
Editor's note. Part Two
reviews Bernie Goldberg's delightful book on how the mainstream media covered Obama. Please send your comments on either or both parts to daveandrusko@gmail.com.
If you're a veteran of this the grassiest of grassroots movements, you know that part of the drill for the Pro-Life Movement is to be linked to whomever it is a given commentator is using to try to pigeonhole and marginalize us. You can't just be opposed to the wanton slaughter of defenseless unborn babies. You have to be in cahoots with [fill in the blank]. This recurrence is as predictable as swallows returning to Capistrano.
That does not mean there is an ounce of truth to it. It does mean that smear tactics are a perennial hazard that we face.
My email box is filled with links to the recently published Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report on "Rightwing Extremism" which, in an evidence-free footnote, included pro-lifers.
When you read something this stupid you are tempted either to overreact or ignore it altogether. Let me try a middle-of-the-road approach.
Just a few words about the overall report produced by DHS's Office of Intelligence and Analysis. The full title is "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."
I skimmed the report the first time through, then read it closely a second time. And then, just to be sure I wasn't missing something, I read it a third time. I needn't have put in that much time. One page into the nine-page report and a fourth-grader could have figured out that the authors had come with a pre-determined conclusion.
Its reasoning is painfully, embarrassingly shoddy and supportive evidence of actual threats non-existent. It's entirely speculative--about what might happen if "x" or "y" comes to pass. A conversation over the water cooler carries as much weight and would be much more balanced.
So how did the report arrive at the conclusion that rightwing extremism "may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration"? Let's back up a second to see how we got swept in.
The report bifurcates "rightwing extremism" into hate groups and those that are "mainly anti-government."
Do pro-lifers hate "particular religious, racial, or ethnic groups"? Of course not, and there is not a shred of evidence in the report that suggests we do. In fact, it is the Abortion Industry that targets minority communities.
How about "antigovernment"? Coursing through the veins of every pro-lifer is an abiding faith in the capacity of government to change. That's why we are active in all 50 state legislatures and in the halls of Congress.
I guess even the dim-witted authors of "Rightwing Extremism" grasped that we fit neither of these categories. So they just lumped us in by employing the all-purpose "may" word. Again, not a word to explain why pro-lifers should be tarred with the extremist brush.
From the earliest days of the Obamamania phenomenon, the "mainstream media" has let us know in unsubtle and unmistakable ways that it is close to un-American to criticize what he proposes or what he stands for. We have never allowed that to stop us from opposing the policies of any man who carries water for the Abortion Establishment with both arms. Nor will we.
I don't do paranoia. But I do believe that "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
Part Two
www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/index.html
April 16, 2009
Lumping Pro-Lifers In With "Rightwing Extremism"
Part One of Two
By Dave Andrusko
Editor's note. Part Two
reviews Bernie Goldberg's delightful book on how the mainstream media covered Obama. Please send your comments on either or both parts to daveandrusko@gmail.com.
If you're a veteran of this the grassiest of grassroots movements, you know that part of the drill for the Pro-Life Movement is to be linked to whomever it is a given commentator is using to try to pigeonhole and marginalize us. You can't just be opposed to the wanton slaughter of defenseless unborn babies. You have to be in cahoots with [fill in the blank]. This recurrence is as predictable as swallows returning to Capistrano.
That does not mean there is an ounce of truth to it. It does mean that smear tactics are a perennial hazard that we face.
My email box is filled with links to the recently published Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report on "Rightwing Extremism" which, in an evidence-free footnote, included pro-lifers.
When you read something this stupid you are tempted either to overreact or ignore it altogether. Let me try a middle-of-the-road approach.
Just a few words about the overall report produced by DHS's Office of Intelligence and Analysis. The full title is "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."
I skimmed the report the first time through, then read it closely a second time. And then, just to be sure I wasn't missing something, I read it a third time. I needn't have put in that much time. One page into the nine-page report and a fourth-grader could have figured out that the authors had come with a pre-determined conclusion.
Its reasoning is painfully, embarrassingly shoddy and supportive evidence of actual threats non-existent. It's entirely speculative--about what might happen if "x" or "y" comes to pass. A conversation over the water cooler carries as much weight and would be much more balanced.
So how did the report arrive at the conclusion that rightwing extremism "may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration"? Let's back up a second to see how we got swept in.
The report bifurcates "rightwing extremism" into hate groups and those that are "mainly anti-government."
Do pro-lifers hate "particular religious, racial, or ethnic groups"? Of course not, and there is not a shred of evidence in the report that suggests we do. In fact, it is the Abortion Industry that targets minority communities.
How about "antigovernment"? Coursing through the veins of every pro-lifer is an abiding faith in the capacity of government to change. That's why we are active in all 50 state legislatures and in the halls of Congress.
I guess even the dim-witted authors of "Rightwing Extremism" grasped that we fit neither of these categories. So they just lumped us in by employing the all-purpose "may" word. Again, not a word to explain why pro-lifers should be tarred with the extremist brush.
From the earliest days of the Obamamania phenomenon, the "mainstream media" has let us know in unsubtle and unmistakable ways that it is close to un-American to criticize what he proposes or what he stands for. We have never allowed that to stop us from opposing the policies of any man who carries water for the Abortion Establishment with both arms. Nor will we.
I don't do paranoia. But I do believe that "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
Part Two
www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/index.html
Monday, April 13, 2009
Pro-Abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Says Foreign Law OK for Legal Decisions
Pro-Abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Says Foreign Law OK for Legal Decisions
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- In comments that signal enormous concerns for the pro-life movement, pro-abortion Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has conducted an interview with the New York Times in which she explains why she believes the rulings of foreign judges should be considered in interpreting US constitutional and statutory law. The concern for the pro-life community is that the use of foreign laws and rulings by international courts could promote abortion and euthanasia in the United States by relying on courts and laws that more strongly support those practices. "Why shouldn't we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?" she asked. She added that the failure to engage foreign decisions had resulted in diminished influence for the United States Supreme Court. The Canadian Supreme Court, she said, is "probably cited more widely abroad than the U.S. Supreme Court." There is one reason for that, she said: "You will not be listened to if you don’t listen to others." Wesley J. Smith, a bioethics attorney and euthanasia watchdog responds: “We are supposed to care whether Canadian rulings--which hew sharply to the left--are cited by foreign judges more than those of the US Supreme Court? We are supposed to care if another country's courts interprets its laws and constitution the way we do ours? Our judges are supposed to be diplomats to make other countries feel we respect their views? Baloney. This is an excuse for a power grab.” Smith says Ginsburg and her pro-abortion colleagues want to “remake society according to their own personal views.” He concludes: “The foreign cases that the former head of the ACLU Ginsberg cites will only be the ones with which she agrees--generally from Western Europe or Canada, that reflect her leftist views.
Jay Leno Hosts Fundraiser for Pro-Abortion Group
NBC Talk Show Host Jay Leno Under Fire for Hosting Fundraiser for Pro-Abortion Group
![]()
New York, NY (LifeNews.com) -- Late-night NBC talk show host Jay Leno is coming under fire for plans to host a fundraising event later this month for a prominent pro-abortion organization. A pro-life group is taking Leno to task for announcing that he will host a dinner for the Feminist Majority Foundation. As the king of late night comedy, Jay Leno has few living peers and he is watched and beloved by millions of American viewers. To Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, that makes it more difficult to understand why he would support a group that Perkins says works against the interests of pregnant women. “On April 29th, Jay Leno and his wife are hosting a fundraiser for the Feminist Majority Foundation, a radical pro-abortion group that not only advocates for abortion on demand, but also for the closing of pro-life pregnancy centers,” Perkins tells LifeNews.com. Earlier this month, FMF sent an e-mail to its 400 college campus affiliates asking the young abortion advocates to launch protests against their local crisis pregnancy centers. As Perkins said to LifeNews.com, FMF wants young women who are most likely to get pregnant and consider an abortion to “protest against facilities that dare to offer women alternatives to abortion and the support they need to choose life.” Perkins and the Family Research Council are calling on pro-life advocates to contact Leno and NBC executives telling them they plan to boycott is program until either Leno backs out of the planned speaking engagement or apologizes. ACTION: Contact NBC CEO Jeff Zucker at jeff.zucker@nbc.com or 212-664-2830. You can mail the Jay Leno program c/o NBC, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10112. To send an email to the Leno program, go to:
http://www.nbc.com/The_Tonight_Show_with_Jay_Leno/about/contact.shtm
http://www.lifenews.com
http://www.nbc.com/The_Tonight_Show_with_Jay_Leno/about/contact.shtm
http://www.lifenews.com
Friday, April 10, 2009
June 20, 2008
Who's Roe?
Who's Roe?
Who was the Jane Roe of the infamous 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision, legalizing abortion on demand?
She was Norma McCorvey, and according to Catholic News Agency she has made "her first-ever television commercial to lament her role in the case."
There are things you may not know about McCorvey. Find out by viewing the ad, produced by Virtue Media:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/06/whos_roe.html
Norma McCorvey A.k.a. Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade Affidavit
Affidavit of Norma McCorvey
The "Roe" of Roe v. Wade
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
| TEXAS JUSTICE FOUNDATION 8122 Datapoint, Suite 812 San Antonio, Texas 78229 (210) 614-7157 AEP/0301 Attorney for Amicus Curiae Norma McCorvey | Anne O'Conner, Esq. 509 Stillwell Corner Rd. Freehold, NJ 07728 (732) 303-0440 AK/4721 Local Counsel for Norma McCorvey |
DONNA SANTA MARIE, et al. Plaintiffs vs. CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN, et al | Civil Action No. 99-2692 (GEB) Affidavit of Norma McCorvey
|
Norma McCorvey, being of full age deposes and says:
1. "My name is Norma McCorvey, and I reside in Dallas, Texas. I was the woman designated as "Jane Roe" as plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the United States. On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that it was unconstitutional for my state to prohibit doctors from performing abortions.
2. Because of my role in Roe v. Wade, how that decision came about, and my experiences working at abortion clinics, I can provide the Court with information and a perspective unavailable from other sources. I have a compelling interest in this litigation. My case was wrongfully decided and has caused great harm to the women and children of our nation. I have an interest in stopping that harm and I have an interest in disclosing the facts which expose the weakness of the underlying assumptions which led to that incorrect decision.
3. Virtually the entire basis for Roe v. Wade was built upon false assumptions. No meaningful trial to determine the real facts was ever held. The misrepresentations and deceptions that plagued Roe v. Wade are presented to this Court to show why there is a dire necessity for a trial to ensure that the true facts regarding the nature of abortion and the interests of women are heard. These facts, which were neither disclosed to me in 1970 nor to the plaintiffs of this case before they had an abortion, are critical for understanding the issues involved. They point out the deficiencies not only of the procedure in Roe v. Wade, but in the Court's decision which was rendered in a vacuum devoid of findings of facts. Consequently, we obtained a decision in Roe v. Wade based upon what abortion advocates wanted women to be able to do, not what women were truly capable of. In this case, witnesses and accurate, current, relevant scientific evidence are available to this Court, on all relevant fact issues. In 1973, in Roe, that evidence was neither offered nor available. We now have the benefit of twenty-seven years of experimentation. Such absence of evidence led to both a factually and legally unsound decision.
4. While the experience of being Jane Roe over the past twenty-seven years has been very difficult, my life has been filled with hardship from the beginning. Although I was an emotionally abused child, and a sexually abused teenager, I believe the worst abuse was inflicted by the judicial system. In retrospect, I was exploited by two self-interested attorneys. Worse, the courts, without looking into my true circumstances and taking the time to decide the real impact abortion would have upon women, I feel used me to justify legalization of terminating the lives over thirty-five million babies. Although on an intellectual level I know I was exploited, the responsibility I feel for this tragedy is overwhelming. Because the courts allowed my case to proceed without my testimony, without ever explaining to me the reality of abortion, without being cross-examined on my erroneous perception of what of abortion really is, a tragic mistake was made by the courts, a mistake that this Court has the opportunity to remedy.
5. Prior to my pregnancy with the "Roe" baby, I gave birth to two other children. My first, a daughter, was adopted by my mother. It is difficult to part with my child, yet I have always been comforted by the fact that my daughter is alive and cared for. My second daughter was raised by her father, a young intern at Baylor Methodist Medical School. He was kind enough to want to get married and make a home, but I wasn't ready for that kind of commitment. Later, when I became pregnant with the "Roe" baby, I was really in a predicament. My mother expressed her disapproval of my having given birth out of wedlock. She told me how irresponsible I had been. My mother made it clear that she was not going to take care of another baby.
6. Certain that I was pregnant, I waited for a while before I went to the doctor. While I was waiting to be examined, I questioned the ladies there about whether they knew where a woman could go to have an abortion. A lady told me where an illegal clinic was located and told me that it would cost $250.00. Following our discussion, I told the doctor that I wanted to have an abortion, but he refused stating that abortion was illegal. He didn't believe in abortion and gave me the phone number of an adoption attorney.
7. When I had saved about two hundred dollars, I took a cross-town bus to the illegal clinic, which turned out to be a dentist's office that had been closed down the previous week. For some reason, I felt relieved yet angry at the same time. All my emotions were peaking; first, I was angry, then I was happy, and then I'd cry. From the abortion clinic, I took the bus to my dad's apartment and decided to speak with the adoption attorney. The adoption attorney set up the meeting and referred me to Sarah Weddington, the attorney who represented me in Roe v. Wade.
8. Although Weddington and I were about the same age, our lives were quite different. She was a young attorney, and I was homeless and lived in a park. Unconcerned about politics, I sold flowers and an underground newspaper describing the types and availability of illegal narcotics. I am not proud of my jobs. At the time I sought simply to survive.
9. Following the adoption attorney's introduction, Weddington invited me out to dinner. I agreed. At our initial meeting, I met with Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, her friend. Both Weddington and Coffee had recently finished law school and they wanted to bring a class action suits against the State of Texas to legalize abortion, not nationally. We discussed the case over a few pitchers of beer and pizza at a small restaurant in Dallas.
Weddington, Coffee, and I were drinking beer and trying to come up with a pseudonym for me. I had heard that whenever women were having illegal abortions, they wouldn't carry any identification with them. An unidentifiable woman was often referred to as Jane Doe. So we were trying to come up with something that would rhyme with "Doe". After three or four pitchers of beer, we started with the letter "a" and eventually we reached "r" and agreed on "Roe". Then I asked "What about Jane for the first name?" Janie used to be my imaginary friend as a child. I told them about her and how she always wanted to do good things for people, and it was decided -- I became Jane Roe, by the stroke of a pen.
10. The young lawyers told me that they had spoken with two or three other women about being in the case, but they didn't fit their criteria. Although I did know what "criteria" meant, I asked them if I had what it is that it took to be in their suit. They said yes, "You're white. You're young, pregnant, and you want an abortion." At that time, I didn't know their full intent. Only that they wanted to make abortion legal and they thought I'd be a good plaintiff. I came for the food, and they led me to believe that they could help me get an abortion.
11. During our meeting, they questioned me, "Norma don't you think that abortion should be legal?" Unsure, I responded that I did not know. In fact, I did not know what the term "abortion" really meant. Back in 1970, no one discussed abortion. It was taboo, and so too was the subject of abortion. The only thing I knew about the word was in the context of war movies. I had heard the word "abort" when John Wayne was flying his plane and ordered the others to "Abort the mission." I knew "abort" meant that they were "going back". "Abortion", to me, meant "going back" to the condition of not being pregnant. I never looked the word up in the dictionary until after I had already signed the affidavit. I was very naive. For their part, my lawyers lied to me about the nature of abortion. Weddington convinced me that "It's just a piece of tissue. You just missed your period." I didn't know during the Roe v. Wade case that the life of a human being was terminated.
12. After our meeting, I went to my father's apartment and began to drink alcohol heavily. I was depressed with my plight in life. I tried to drown my troubles in alcohol. Shortly thereafter I even attempted suicide by slitting my wrists. When my father questioned me about what was troubling me, I responded that I was pregnant again. When he asked me what I was going to do, I responded that I was thinking about having an abortion. He inquired, "What is that?" I said, "I don't know. I haven't looked it up yet."
13. Shortly thereafter, Weddington and Coffee presented the affidavit for my signature at Coffee's office. I told them that I trusted them and that I did not need to read the affidavit before I signed it. I never read the affidavit before signing it and do not, to this very day, know what is written in the affidavit. Both Weddington and Coffee were aware that I did not read the affidavit before I signed it. At no time did they tell me that I had to read it before they accepted my signature. I told them that I trusted them. We called ourselves "the three musketeers." I know now that is one place where I went wrong. I should have sat down and I should have read the affidavit. I may not have understood everything in the affidavit and I would have probably signed it anyway. I trusted the lawyers.
14. My lawyers never discussed what an abortion is, other than to make the misrepresentation that "it's only tissue". I never understood that the child was already in existence. I never understood that the child was a complete separate human being. I was under the false impression that abortion somehow reversed the process and prevented the child from coming into existence. In the two to three years during the case no one, including my lawyers told me that an abortion is actually terminating the life of an actual human being. The courts never took any testimony about this and I heard nothing which shed light on what abortion really was.
15. In 1972, Sarah Weddington argued in the courts, presumptuously on my behalf, that women should be allowed to obtain a legal abortion. The courts did not ask whether I knew what I was asking for. The abortion decision that destroyed every state law protecting the rights of women and their unborn babies was based on a fundamental misrepresentation. I had never read the affidavit and I did not know what an abortion was. Weddington and the other supporters of abortion used me and my circumstance to urge the courts to legalize abortion without any meaningful trial which addressed the humanity of the baby, and what abortion would do to women. At that time, I was a street person. I lived, worked, and panhandled out on the streets. My totally powerless circumstance made it easy for them to use me. My presence was a necessary evil. My real interests were not their concern.
16. As the class action plaintiff in the most controversial U.S. Supreme Court case of the twentieth century, I only met with the attorneys twice. Once over pizza and beer, when I was told that my baby was only "tissue". The other time at Coffee's office to sign the affidavit. No other personal contacts. I was never invited into court. I never testified. I was never present before any court on any level, and I was never at any hearing on my case. The entire case was an abstraction. The facts about abortion were never heard. Totally excluded from every aspect and every issue of the case, I found out about the decision from the newspaper just like the rest of the country. In a way my exclusion, and the exclusion of real meaningful findings of fact in Roe v. Wade, is symbolic of the way the women of the nation and their experiences with abortion have been ignored in a national debate by the abortion industry. It is what the abortion industry thinks is good for women which is presented. Not the reality of their experiences.
17. Later in life I was confronted with the reality of Roe v. Wade. My personal Involvement in Roe v. Wade was not my only experience with abortion. Unskilled and uneducated, with alcohol and drug problems, finding and holding a job was always a problem for me. But with my notoriety, abortion facilities, usually paying a dollar an hour more than minimum wage, were always willing to add Jane Roe to their ranks. My medical training as a respiratory therapist at Baylor University was my only medical training, but I always could work at an abortion facility. Always in control, I could either make the women stay or help her leave. My duties were similar to those of a LVN or an RN, such as taking patients' blood pressure and pulse and administering oxygen, although I never took any statistics or temperatures. Basically, I would stand inside the procedure room, hold the women's hands, and say things to distract them by saying, "What is the most exciting, or happiest period of your life?" Meanwhile, the abortionist was performing what is represented as a "painless" procedure and the women were digging their nails into me in an effort to endure the pain.
18. I worked in several abortion facilities over the years. In fact, I even worked at two clinics at the same time, and they were all the same with respect to the condition of the facilities and the "counseling" the women receive.One clinic where I worked in 1995 was typical: Light fixtures and plaster falling from the ceiling; rat droppings over the sinks; backed up sinks; and blood splattered on the walls. But the most distressing room in the facility was the "parts room". Aborted babies were stored here. There were dead babies and baby parts stacked like cordwood. Some of the babies made it into buckets and others did not, and because of its disgusting features, no one ever cleaned the room. The stench was horrible. Plastic bags full of baby parts that were swimming in blood were tied up, stored in the room and picked up once a week. At another clinic, the dead babies were kept in a big white freezer full of dozens of jars, all full of baby parts, little tiny hands and feet visible through the jars, frozen in blood. The abortion clinic's personnel always referred to these dismembered babies as "tissue." Veterinary clinics I have seen are cleaner and more regulated than the abortion clinics I worked in.
19. While all the facilities were much the same, the abortion doctors in the various clinics where I worked were very representative of abortionists in general. The abortionists I knew were usually of foreign descent with the perception that the lax abortion laws in the United States present a fertile money-making opportunity. One abortionist, in particular, would sometimes operate bare-chested, and sometimes shoe less with his shirt off, and earned a six-figure income. He did not have to worry about his bedside manner, learning to speak English, or building a clientele.
20. While the manners of the abortionists and the uncleanliness of the facilities greatly shocked me, the lack of counseling provided the women was perhaps the greatest tragedy. Early in my abortion career, it became evident that the "counselors" and the abortionists were there for only one reason - to sell abortions. The extent of the abortionists' counseling was, "Do you want an abortion? Ok, you sign here and we give you abortion." [sic]. Then he would direct me, "You go get me another one." There was nothing more. There was never an explanation of the procedure. No one even explained to the mother that the child already existed and the life of a human was being terminated. No one ever explained that there were options to abortion, that financial help was available, or that the child was a unique and irreplaceable. No one ever explained that there were psychological and physical risks of harm to the mother. There was never time for the mother to reflect or to consult with anyone who could offer her help or an alternative. There was no informed consent. In my opinion, the only thing the abortion doctors and clinics cared about was making money. No abortion clinic cared about the women involved. As far as I could tell, every woman had the name of Jane Roe.
21. Typically, most of the women would cry as soon as the suction machine was shut off, or, at some point. Sometimes I thought that they realized what had been done to their babies. Once, I heard a woman call her mother and say, "I just killed my baby. I'm so glad you never killed me!"
22. The doctors always hid the truth from the mothers. I would say about eighty-percent of the women would try to look down during the abortion and try to see what was happening. This is the reason the doctors would start with the scalpel: to make sure there was just blood and torn up "tissue" for the women to see. Specifically, I remember one woman who came in for an abortion, a pretty, sweet young woman about eighteen years old, with a teddy bear. During the procedure she looked down and saw the baby's hand fall into the doctor's hand. She gasped and passed out. When she awoke and asked about what she saw, I lied to her and told her it didn't happen. But she insisted that she had seen part of her baby. A few weeks later, when she returned for her follow-up exam, she was a changed person: her sweetness had died and had been replaced with an indescribable hardness. I . could not look her in the eye. It took quite a few beers that night to make that particular day go away.
23. In all of the clinics I worked in the employees were forbidden to say anything that could talk the mother out of an abortion. The experience of abortion began to take its toll on me. While the abortionists' counseling was non- existent, my counseling technique gradually became different depending on my mood and the stage of my career. In later years, I would sometimes take all the instruments that were used in an abortion procedure and purposely leave a little of the blood on some the instruments. Laying the instruments out on the little table in front of the woman, I would tell her that, "This is the first instrument that is going to be inserted into your vaginal area." It would have just had a little smudge of blood, and I thought it was very dramatic. In retrospect, I don't even know why I was doing these things. It was as if I was trying to talk these women out of the abortion-- something we were forbidden to do. In other counseling sessions, I would demonstrate the position and warn her that the instruments were sharp, and that if she moved the doctor might slip, and puncture her uterus, and she would bleed to death. In other situations, when a woman asked me how much it cost, I asked her in response how much she wanted to pay to kill her baby. She replied, "They told me it wasn't a baby." I responded, "What do you think it is inside you, a fish?" Other times I would comfort them after the abortion by saying, "It wasn't a baby. It was only a missed period." Sometimes when I managed to make the women unsure, I would offer to refund their money except for the ultrasound.
24. I obviously advocated legalized abortion for many years following Roe v. Wade. But working in the abortion clinics forced me to accept what abortion is. It is a violent act which kills human beings and destroys the peace and the real interests of the mothers involved. This court must do what was not done in Roe v. Wade. It must have a trial and make findings of fact based upon real evidence. Abortion must be publicly defined. The humanity of the child must be determined. The exploitation of the women must be looked at. The health risks must be examined. The abusive practices of the abortion industry must be waived and the mothers' real interests must be considered.
25. After I saw all the deception going on in the abortion facilities, and after all the things that my supervisors told me to tell the women, I became very angry. I saw women being lied to, openly, and I was part of it. There's no telling how many children I helped kill while their mothers dug their nails into me and listened to my warning, "Whatever you do, don't move!" I can assure the court that the interest of these mothers is not a concern of abortion providers.
26. Because I was drunk or stoned much of the time, I was able to continue this work for a long time, probably much longer than most clinic workers. It is a high turnover job, because of the true nature of the business. The abortion business is an inherently dehumanizing one. A person has to let her heart and soul die or go numb to stay in practice. The clinic workers suffer, the women suffer, and the babies die.
27. I respectfully request that this court allow me to act as a friend of the court as this court decides the question presented, including the question of whether it is a violation of the mother's rights if they can't sue the doctors who performed involuntary or uniformed abortions.
Norma McCorvey
A.k.a. Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade
Sworn to and subscribed before me this the 15 day of March, 2000.
http://www.eadshome.com/RoeAffidavit.htm
Take A Second Look at Abortion
http://www.secondlookproject.org/ is the link to a great site for facts. FACTS, not opinion. I recommend you take a walk through this site. Below is a sample of just one small area of all that is there:
| Roe Reality Check | |||
| Download English |  | Download Spanish | |
Brief, informational booklet highlighting 15 basic facts about Roe v. Wade
or its impact.
To order full-color print copies, call 1-866-582-0943 and ask for Item #0532.
| #1: | Abortion is legal through all 9 months of pregnancy. |
| #2: | Abortions are rarely done for maternal or fetal health problems, or in cases of rape or incest. |
| #3: | Most Americans actually oppose U.S. abortion law. |
| #4: | Legal commentators who support legal abortion have said Roe is not good constitutional law. |
| #5: | Supreme Court Justices have criticized Roe v. Wade. |
| #6: | The U.S. abortion rate is among the highest of all developed countries in the world. |
| #7: | Most American women do not support Roe v. Wade. |
| #8: | Most abortions are done after the fetal heart has begun beating. |
| #9: | Nearly half of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one. |
| #10: | Even a child who is partially born can be legally aborted. — UPDATED, see note below. |
| #11: | If Roe is overturned, abortion policy will be decided through the democratic process in each state. |
| #12: | Roe has often been cited by state and federal judges to endanger human beings already born. |
| #13: | Abortion is outside mainstream medicine. |
| #14: | Legalized abortion has made it easy for others to pressure women into having abortions. |
| #1 | myth: “High Court Rules Abortions Legal the First 3 Months.”[1] |
| FACT: Abortion is legal through all 9 months of pregnancy. |
In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court ruled that abortion may not be restricted at all in the first trimester.[2] In the second trimester abortion may be regulated only for the mother’s health.[3] After “viability,” abortion may be prohibited except where necessary to preserve the mother’s health. [4]
Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton, defined maternal “health” as: “all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age - relevant to the well-being of the patient.”[5]
Thus, abortion is legal -- and cannot be prohibited -- in the 7th, 8th, or 9th months of pregnancy if any of these reasons is invoked.[6]
“[N]o significant legal barriers of any kind whatsoever exist today in the United States for a woman to obtain an abortion for any reason during any stage of her pregnancy.”[7]
| #2 | myth: Most abortions are done because of maternal or fetal health problems, or in cases of rape or incest. |
| FACT: Abortions are rarely done for these reasons. |
According to an Alan Guttmacher Institute survey,[8] women cite these as the main reason for an abortion in a very small percentage of cases each year:
- 1% “rape or incest”
- 3% “woman has health problem” (physical or mental)
- 3% “fetus has possible health problem”[9]
For all other abortions, the main reason cited is:
- 21% “unready for responsibility”
- 21% “can't afford baby now”
- 16% “concerned about how having a baby could change her life”
- 12% “has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood”
- 11% “is not mature enough, or is too young to have a child”
- 8% “has all the children she wanted, or has all grown-up children”
- 1% “husband or partner wants woman to have abortion”
- 1% “doesn't want others to know she has had sex or is pregnant”
- <0.5%>
- 3% “other”
Under Roe v. Wade, abortions for these reasons or any other reason must be legally permitted.[10]
| #3 | myth: Most Americans favor U.S. abortion law. |
| FACT: Most Americans actually oppose it. |
A recent Harris Interactive poll claims 52% of Americans favor Roe v. Wade and 47% oppose it.[11] But the poll describes Roe as "the U.S. Supreme Court decision making abortions up to three months of pregnancy legal."
That's wrong. The fact is, Roe made abortion legal through all 9 months of pregnancy.[12]
In the same poll, 72% of Americans said abortion should be illegal in the second three months of pregnancy, and 86% said abortion should be illegal in the last three months of pregnancy.
Even support for abortion in the first three months is open to question. In a 2004 Zogby International poll, 61% of Americans said abortion should not be permitted after the fetal heartbeat has begun.[13] This occurs in the first month.[14]
So why do 52% of Americans say they favor Roe v. Wade?
Because they don't really know what Roe did.
| #4 | Roe said the Constitution includes a right to abortion. |
| Yet even legal commentators who support legal abortion have said Roe is not good constitutional law. |
Roe v. Wade is "a very bad decision...because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."[15]
- John Hart Ely, Yale Law School professor
"As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible… [It is] one of the most intellectually suspect constitutional decisions of the modern era."[16]
- Edward Lazarus, former clerk to Justice Blackmun (who authored Roe)
"Since its inception Roe has had a deep legitimacy problem, stemming from its weakness as a legal opinion."[17]
- Benjamin Wittes, Washington Post legal affairs editorial writer
"One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found."[18]
- Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School professor
#5 Supreme Court justices have criticized Roe v. Wade.
"I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment" in Roe v. Wade.[19]
- Justice Byron White
"This Court's abortion decisions have already worked a major distortion in the Court's constitutional jurisprudence…no legal rule or doctrine is safe from ad hoc nullification by this Court … in a case involving state regulation of abortion."[20]
- Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
Roe v. Wade "destroyed the compromises of the past, [and] rendered compromise impossible for the future… [T]o portray Roe as the statesmanlike 'settlement' of a divisive issue…is nothing less than Orwellian."[21]
- Justice Antonin Scalia
Roe v. Wade "was grievously wrong."[22]
- Justice Clarence Thomas
"Roe v. Wade…ventured too far in the change it ordered and presented an incomplete justification for its action."[23]
-Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
| #6 | myth: The U.S. abortion rate is relatively low. |
| FACT: It is among the highest of all developed countries in the world. |
In 1973 the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade deemed "every [abortion] law - even the most liberal - as unconstitutional."[24]
Today the U.S. has the highest abortion rate in the western world, and the third-highest of all developed nations worldwide.[25]
There are 1.31 million induced abortions annually in the U.S., or 3,500 every day.
24.5% of all U.S. pregnancies end in abortion or 3,500 every day; 24.5% of all U.S. pregnancies end in abortion. [26]
| #7 | myth: Most American women support Roe v. Wade. |
| FACT: Most do not. |
Roe v. Wade legalized abortion throughout pregnancy, for virtually any reason[27].
Yet according to a national survey of women published by the Center for Gender Equality, "only 30% think abortion should be generally available."[28]
In fact, most women say abortion should be substantially limited or never permitted:
- 17% said abortion should never be permitted.
- 34% said abortion should be permitted only in cases of rape, incest, and to save the woman's life.[29]
And when asked to rank 12 issues in order of importance for the women's movement, women ranked "Keeping abortion legal" next to last.[30]
| #8 | myth: Most abortions are done before fetal organs are functioning. |
| FACT: Actually, the vast majority are done after the fetal heart has begun beating. |
♦
A fetal heart begins to beat at about 21 or 22 days after fertilization.[31]
That's at about 3 weeks of development.
77% of abortions in the United States are done well after this point.[32]
| #9 | myth: U.S. abortion law has not encouraged the use of abortion as a method of birth control. |
| FACT: Nearly half of all abortions are performed on women who have already had at least one. |
Today, 48% of women having an abortion in the United States have had at least one previous abortion.[33]
In some states the rate of repeat abortions is much higher.
In Maryland, for example, 71.4% of those having an abortion
have already had at least one. And 16.4% have had at least three prior abortions.[34]
PLEASE NOTE: Reality Check #10, first written in 2005, has been updated in light of the Supreme Court’s majority decision in Gonzalez v. Carhart (April 2007).
| #10 | myth: Abortion is legal only when the fetus is in the womb. |
| FACT: Even a child who is partially-born can be legally aborted. |
Partial-birth abortion kills a fetus during the process of delivery.
At first, abortion providers said it was rare, and used only on women whose lives were in danger or whose fetuses were damaged.
But Ron Fitzsimmons, then the Executive Director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted he had "lied through my teeth."[35]
He admitted that most partial-birth abortions are not done for "extreme circumstances" but are "primarily done on healthy women and healthy fetuses."[36]
In 2000 the Supreme Court said states cannot ban partial-birth abortion even with an exception to save the mother's life.
The Court said such a ban violates "the woman's right to choose" established by Roe v. Wade.[37]
UPDATE:
In the April 2007 case, Gonzales vs. Carhart, the Court upheld a federal ban on partial-birth abortion, saying it is not unconstitutionally vague, and does not impose an undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion. The ban defines partial-birth abortion in terms of precise anatomical markers, depending on whether the fetus is delivered head-first or in a breach presentation. A partial-birth abortion is an abortion procedure in which the practitioner:
"(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and
"(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus. ..."
| #11 | myth: If Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion will automatically be illegal in the U.S. |
| FACT: If Roe is overturned, abortion policy will be decided through the democratic process in each state. |
Before Roe v. Wade, all states permitted abortion if necessary to save the mother's life, and some permitted abortion in additional circumstances.[38]
But Roe deemed "every [abortion] law - even the most liberal - as unconstitutional."[39]
As a result, no state can prohibit any abortion at any time during pregnancy.[40]
If Roe is overturned, policy decisions about abortion will be made by the citizens of each state through the democratic process, rather than by courts.
Some states will place limits on abortion, in others there will likely be few limits.[41]
Not until Roe v. Wade is reversed
will the people be able to govern themselves again
on the important public policy issue of abortion.
In 1986, relying on Roe, the Supreme Court invalidated a law intended to ensure care for children born alive during attempted abortions.[42]
In 1983, a U.S. district court invalidated a federal regulation to prevent medical neglect of handicapped newborns in hospitals receiving federal funds. The court said the regulation may “infringe upon the interests outlined in cases such as … Roe v. Wade.”[43]
In 1980, a New York court cited Roe in a “right to die” case, arguing that the “claim to personhood” of a terminally ill comatose patient “is certainly no greater than that of the fetus.”[44]
In 1993, a Michigan judge cited Roe in dismissing criminal charges against Jack Kevorkian and declaring that the state law against assisted suicide was unconstitutional.[45]
And in 1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit relied heavily on Roe and its successor, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in finding a constitutional “right” to assisted suicide.[46]
While some of these rulings were later modified or reversed, they all underscore how Roe v. Wade has been used to argue that ideas of privacy and liberty can trump life itself -- after as well as before birth.
The vast majority (86%) of all U.S. hospitals whether religious or secular, public or private, do not participate in abortions.[47]
71% of abortions in the United States are performed in free-standing abortion-dedicated clinics. Only 5% are performed in hospitals, 2% in physicians’ offices and 22% in other kinds of clinics.[48]
A New York Times Magazine article reports, “The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed by a small group of doctors. (Some 2 percent of OB-GYN’s carry the burden, performing more than 25 per month).”[49]
The medical community’s stigmatization of abortion is acknowledged by Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, which says one of its “primary strategic goals is to eradicate the stigma that has become attached to abortion and abortion providers within mainstream healthcare.”[50]
| #14 | myth: Roe v. Wade empowers women to choose freely whether abortion is their best option. |
| FACT: Legalized abortion has made it easy for others to pressure women into having abortions. |
Not freedom, but “lack of control over one’s life” is associated with high abortion rates, as is “lack of financial and social resources.”[51]
An on-line survey of women who had abortions showed that many women feel pressured by the baby’s father: 85% of fathers offered no encouragement to continue the pregnancy. When women said they wanted to continue the pregnancy, the fathers’ dominant reactions were; “Slightly Upset 60%, Mad 38%, Very Angry 43%”, compared to “Happy .7%.” 73% of fathers suggested an abortion. [52]
80% of the women surveyed experienced guilt, 83% regret, 79% loss, 62% anger, and 70% depression.
Even a website which encourages women to consider abortion “so they can freely decide if it is their choice”[53] elsewhere posts personal stories describing pressure, coercion or abandonment by the baby’s father.[54]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
