Friday, Oct 29, 2010  --  "Blood Money" confirms abortionists do not care about women

The documentary "Blood Money" has been shown on a limited basis, but I got an opportunity to see it last night.  "Blood Money" is very informative, and excellent for a wide range of ages.  This movie provides strong evidence that abortion providers do not care about the welfare of women, but are driven solely by greed. 

The film reveals the methods used to sell abortions, even to women whom they know are not pregnant.  Standard medical procedures for maintaining cleanliness and sterilization of instruments are blatantly ignored to help achieve high patient volume.  Botched abortions are covered up and have led to the death of patients simply through delay in addressing such emergencies.

If you want independent confirmation of this point, consider the 10-year fight waged by Planned Parenthood in Arizona to prevent a law from taking effect that requires abortions to be performed by doctors.  In 2007 it was revealed that Arizona Planned Parenthood employs a nurse who has been performing abortions since 2001.   Finally, a judge has ruled the law can take effect, so hopefully this nurse's abortionist career is over.

Thursday, Oct 28, 2010  --  Attempting to link Pro-Lifers with terrorists?

Another attempt seems underway to connect Pro-Life advocates with terrorist acts, such as conspiracy to murder abortion providers, encouraging such acts, and threats of violence at abortion facilities.  Might there be some political motivations found here?

Katie Couric ran a story on the October 26th CBS Evening News warning of violence against abortion doctors, based flyers being circulated by Operation Save America (OSA) in North Carolina.  OSA founder, Flip Benham, says the new posters are not threatening.  Though they show pictures of abortion providers, the writing says "wanted by Christ" as part of a campaign seeking their conversion.

Meanwhile, efforts to link someone to Scott Roeder's murder of late-term abortionist George Tiller are ongoing under the direction of a Federal grand jury.  It seems that there are people who are just not willing to accept that Roeder acted alone.

Wednesday, Oct 27, 2010  --  Teenager explains the dangers of denying personhood

After earlier videos covering abortion, euthanasia, and explaining why the unborn are truly human beings, Lia Mills is back with a thorough analysis of human personhood and the serous dangers of denying personhood to any subset of human beings, including babies in the womb.

Lia begins by explaining the dictionary definition of person as "a human being."  She then reviews other sources of definitions for person, ending with the complications found in the law.  Her analysis shows the dangers that occur when any group of human beings is denied personhood by government authorities, as follows:

“Personhood has become a fabricated term used by lawmakers to decide who has rights and who doesn't.  Personhood is denied to [the unborn] because they're dependent, because they look different, and because they can't do what older babies, children, and adults can do.”

“Should those in power be allowed to decide which humans are 'persons' and which are not, who gets rights and who doesn't?  Once you allow one group of humans to lose their personhood, every other group's personhood becomes vulnerable and no one is safe.  When will someone else decide that you're not a person?”

Tuesday, Oct 26, 2010  --  Overwhelming death rate of IVF embryos

Last week I covered a European report on the success of a new genetic testing procedure to screen embryos created through in vitro fertilization (IVF).  That report revealed that many IVF embryos have chromosome abnormalities.  This week the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) reported on a study of IVF "efficiency" and concluded that just 7.5 percent of all artificially fertilized embryos go on to become live-born children.

Even this very low rate of success is overstated because it includes "the most optimistic set of assumptions that all the frozen embryos will eventually be used."  In fact, most frozen human embryos are more likely to be used in research or abandoned.  How many people who consider IVF are given these sorry facts about the high failure rate?  Where is informed consent?

Allowing human intervention in the creation of human beings is folly at best, and given all the human lives lost in the process, IVF is a serious moral issue, even before the actions to select specific characteristics for babies that are now being attempted.

Friday, Oct 22, 2010  --  Saving babies from abortion through visible, but simple, actions

As reports filtered in, the number of babies known to be saved from abortion through the prayer and visible witness of 40 Days for Life vigils jumped from 317 on Day 27 to 427 by Day 32.  During that same period of time, the Pro-life Day of Silent Solidarity took place on October 19th at schools across the nation.

The witness for life of students who took a vow of silence, many placing tape over their mouths, generated reports of 34 babies saved from abortion.  Their silent act to represent the voices of millions of unborn children killed by abortion led other students who already had abortions scheduled to change their minds.

Sidewalk counselors at an Austin Texas abortion facility are helping a 16-year-old girl overcome her own parents, who are trying to force her to get an abortion she does not want.  A court has issued a temporary restraining order against the parents, with an October 28th court date to determine if the restraining order will be made permanent.  Witnessing for life is making an impact.

Thursday, Oct 21, 2010  --  Sharing the truth about abortion in campaign ads

Pictures that reveal what abortion actually looks like are almost always censored by both print and electronic media.  However, a Pro-Life candidate for a U.S. House of Representatives non-voting seat from the Dictrict of Columbia has found a way to put the visual image of abortion on television.

Missy Smith is airing advertisements on four local stations during daytime television in which she declares her opposition to the abortion holocaust while showing several images of the bodies of abortion victims.  In a second ad, Smith describes development of the baby in the early weeks of gestation, and condemns her opponent's support for their legal destruction.

Federal law requires stations to air the spots," stated Jerry Fritz, general counsel for Allbritton Communications, which owns the local ABC affiliate, pointing to a 1996 case in which a D.C. appeals court ruled in favor of a Georgia Pro-Life candidate with a similar message.

Given the very high abortion rate among Washington, D.C. residents, Smith is using this opportunity to educate them about what abortion really is.  Pray that these efforts make an impact.

Wednesday, Oct 20, 2010  --  Euthanasia's slippery slope, but not for animals!

Advocates of assisted suicide and euthanasia are always pushing the "right to die" to new boundaries.  The leader of Switzerland's leading assisted suicide organization recently said that he wants family members of patients who commit suicide to have the right to kill themselves also.

What?  You read that right.  Ludwig Minelli, president of "Dignitas" stated, "The partner should be allowed to have a prescription for these drugs even when they are not terminally ill.  In such cases the partners are often a similar age and one does not want to remain without the other."

Governor Pat Quinn has not gone on record with a position on assisted suicide, but his pro-abortion and pro-civil unions positions suggest that he would likely follow other members of his party who do support the assisted suicide laws of Oregon and Washington state, following the "right to choose" philosophy.

Isn't it ironic that Quinn has blasted his election opponent for initially sponsoring a bill to allow animal shelters to euthanize multiple animals at one time.  Quinn suggests that going beyond euthanasia of one animal at a time is unacceptable.  Wouldn't it be nice if such respect for life was applied in cases of human life?  Apparently, Quinn has more compassion for stray dogs and cats than for babies in the womb.

Tuesday, Oct 19, 2010  --  New evidence of IVF abnormalities

I have previously addressed the issue of the many babies lost during in vitro fertilizations (IVF) attempts.  Now we have some new evidence about the scope of this problem, revealed during the announcement of a "solution" to the situation.

Luca Gianaroli, chairman of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), and Cristina Magli, an embryologist from Bologna, Italy, announced their success in a study of a genetic testing procedure called "comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) by microarray."  Their announcement came after two women gave birth to healthy children following screening of their embryos using this technique.

Confirmation of the scope of babies lost came when Gianaroli said in a statement that, "We have learned from more than 30 years of IVF that many of the embryos we transfer (into the womb) have chromosome abnormalities."  He further revealed that two out of every three embryos implanted into a woman’s womb during the IVF procedure fail to develop into a pregnancy, often because of genetic abnormalities.

Of course, this new CGH screening procedure will not reduce the loss of human life during IVF, but just guarantee abnormal embryos are rejected earlier in the process, behind the scenes where the parents never know about all of their dead children sacrificed in search of healthy embryos.  The "experts" will be treating human life as a commodity all the more using the CGH procedure.

Monday, Oct 18, 2010  --  Implications of Nebraska's fetal pain law

Can you imagine a Pro-Life law taking effect without a court challenge from abortion providers?  Has that ever happened?  It just happened in Nebraska with a first-in-the-nation law that prohibits abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy on the basis that unborn children feel pain.

Janet Crepps, deputy director of Center for Reproductive Rights, claimed "We will file a challenge to this unconstitutional law when the circumstances are appropriate."  Still, it is very unusual for such a challenge to be delayed until after the law takes effect.

With Nebraska being the home of notorious late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart, is he waiting to challenge the law based on a client with some specific circumstances?  He did not have any such hesitancy to challenge the state's partial-birth abortion ban in 2000. 

Has he become less aggressive after the Supreme Court upheld a national ban on partial-birth abortion that Congress passed during the Bush administration?   Will he comply with the new Nebraska law banning abortions at 20 weeks until "the circumstance are appropriate" for a lawsuit?  Will other states see this as a good opportunity to pass similar laws?

Friday, Oct 15, 2010  --  Turning campaign speech into a criminal offense?

The fact that abortion funding can occur under ObamaCare is supported by many evaluations of the health care bill from a long list of organizations, including United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Family Research Council, National Right to Life Committee, Americans United for Life, Ohio Right to Life, and numerous other organizations. 

However, an attempt to put that information on an election billboard in Ohio has produced censorship of the ad and a possibility of criminal charges under a rarely-employed Ohio statute under which it is a violation to make "a false statement concerning the voting record of a candidate or public official."

With all the outlandish claims being made against candidates in ads around the nation that are going unchallenged under such laws, the ruling of a three-member panel of the Ohio Elections Commission of "probable cause" is based on politics rather than facts.  Even with some disagreement on the consequences of the health care law's effect on abortion funding, to find probable cause of a criminal offense while this debate continues is outrageous.

The candidate who brought the charges could make a counter-claim in his ad, just as many other candidates are doing.  Denying free speech in the campaign through abuse of such a law is certainly contrary to an open election process and sets a dangerous precedent.

Thursday, Oct 14, 2010  --  Sanity vs insanity: which camp do you choose?

Abortion proponents are holding a "Rally to Restore Sanity" on October 30th in Washington, D.C.  Possible slogans to be used for this rally include: "Restore Sanity: Vote Pro-Choice!" and "Just Another Sane, Pro-Choice Voter" and "Sanity is Voting Pro-Choice!" and  "Pro-Choice is the Sane Choice."

Jill Stanek observes, "Killing babies is sane, saving their lives is insane? Voting for politicians who support laws and funding to kill babies is sane, while voting for politicians who try to save babies is insane?"  Now if that is not enough to get you to jump from the insane Pro-Life camp to the sane pro-abortion camp, how about some dirty little secrets of what actually goes on at abortion facilities?

Jill Stanek recently interviewed Abigail, a young woman who was forced by her feminist mother to act as a deathscort at the abortion facility where she worked as a nurse.  Asked if the clinic aborted women who weren't pregnant, Abigail stated, "Yes" and added that the clinic owner often joked, "Anyone who wants an abortion can have one, whether she's pregnant or not!"  Abigail also revealed that late-term pregnancy was never a roadblock to obtaining an abortion, just "dial down" the due date.

Of course, to generate abortion customers it is necessary to find women who at least think they are pregnant under undesirable circumstances.  For that purpose, abortion advocates constantly suggest they want to reduce business by claiming that more government-funded birth control and more birth-control education are needed to prevent unwanted pregnancies. 

The facts reveal that teens have received the message and have both access to and knowledge of birth control, but pregnancies and abortions go up rather than down.  Since birth control is not really all that reliable, getting more teens involved in casual sex produces the real result that abortion providers are looking for -- more customers. 

Apparently, the only people who are actually insane are the ones who believe abortion proponents are trying to reduce abortions, so it is sane for them to be "pro-choice" and ignore all the babies that are being killed when birth control fails.

Wednesday, Oct 13, 2010  --  Pregnancy care centers attacked by those with a self-interest

How much money do pregnancy care centers make from the mothers they counsel about abortion alternatives?  Not only do they not charge any fees, but in most cases they offer mothers material help as well.  How much money do abortion providers make from mothers who seek abortions?  Abortions are recognized as highly profitable.

When accusations are made that pregnancy care centers are misleading and scaring women into keeping their babies, who is behind these accusations?  Almost always you will find NARAL Pro-Choice America, National Abortion Federation, and Planned Parenthood as the proponents of these claims.  Why should they have any credibility when they have a self-interest in abortion profits?

Can anyone seriously believe that these abortion proponents provide an independent third-party view of the facts surrounding the abortion decision and its implications for mother and baby?  That would be equivalent to accepting the claims of an automobile company about their cars and rejecting the findings of Consumer Reports that question those claims.

Unfortunately, politicians with a pro-abortion agenda are unwilling to recognize the self-interest represented in claims that pregnancy care centers mislead women.  They want to "protect" women by passing regulations that might put pregnancy care centers out of business.  Then women will have no choice but to be misled by abortion providers.

New York City is the latest example.  An ordinance has been introduced that would require pregnancy centers to include information in their ads saying they do not give out the morning after pill or make abortion referrals, and would require them to post signs with these disclaimers at their entrances and in patient waiting and exam rooms.  

If these lawmakers really want to protect women, they should pass an ordinance requiring abortion providers to post signs warning that they are trying to sell abortions so any information they provide on abortion alternatives cannot be relied on and they do not offer any information about the negative effects of abortion.

Tuesday, Oct 12, 2010  --  Former abortion facility leader pleads guilty to fake bomb scare

This story would not likely be covered in the lamestream media.  I could not find any evidence via an Internet search that it was covered, except by Pro-Life outlets.  A former Oklahoma abortion facility director pleaded guilty to faking a bomb scare at that facility.

How many more bomb threats recorded on the National Abortion Federation (NAF) list were actually faked?  Many of them are listed as unresolved.  This list of violent acts against abortion facilities covered many pages in a resource document filled with statistics compiled by the NAF as the basis for a recent law enforcement conference that focused on the application of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. 

Monday, Oct 11, 2010  --  News about exciting adult stem cell successes the media ignores

Family Research Council (FRC) has been reporting the important news about adult stem cell successes for debilitating human conditions, while the lamestream media gets excited about the first claimed use of embryonic stem cells before there is any evidence of success. 

Recent FRC reports on successful adult stem cell treatments include: Spinal Cord Injury, Chronic Heart Failure, Sickle Cell Anemia, Multiple Sclerosis, Corneal Blindness, and Juvenile Diabetes.

Friday, Oct 8, 2010  --  Rockford city government stands behind abortionist

Earlier actions by city officials in Rockford, IL suggested their complete support for the notorious abortionist located there.  Even so, Thomas More Society was negotiating with Rockford officials in an attempt to settle a First Amendment case they brought against Rockford in Federal court (similar to a successful action in Aurora, IL). 

Rockford has ultimately refused to settle the case so it will be continuing to trial.  That might have been expected given the biased application of ordinances in favor of the abortionist and the refusal to allow a mobile ultrasound that would give women a real choice.

Thursday, Oct 7, 2010  --  Deadly result of surrogate motherhood

What happens to the baby being carried by a surrogate mother when the parents reject it because of the probability it has Down syndrome?  Well, in a Canadian case the surrogate mother initially refused to abort the baby, but the pressure from the parents eventually forced her to comply and get an abortion.  Such "complications" demonstrate why surrogate motherhood is an ethical problem.

Wednesday, Oct 6, 2010  --  Planned Parenthood ignoring RU-486 complications?

Planned Parenthood's rollout in Iowa of a protocol labeled as telemed abortions became known earlier this year.  Planned Parenthood of the Heartland (PPH) claims that they have experienced no complications using this protocol that leaves the woman on her own for the RU-486 abortion without ever actually seeing a doctor except for initial instructions through a video screen.

Is Planned Parenthood's report of no complications believable?  Statistics from 3000 RU-486 abortions in Australia reveal the drugs completely failed in 14 cases and led to emergency surgery in another 110 cases for conditions such as retention of the placenta or retention of aborted baby remains.  Operation Rescue points out the Australia results "represent a 4.1% complication rate requiring surgical abortion or emergency surgery – and this is with the benefit of the oversight of licensed physicians." 

Given the Australian results are reflective of reported complication rates elsewhere in the world, how can PPH have managed to report no complications in their nearly 1,900 remote controlled telemed abortions where a licensed physician only speaks with the patient?  What actually happened to the 78 women who would be expected to have needed urgent medical intervention after some type of RU-486 failure?

Tuesday, Oct 5, 2010  --  Abortionist pulls a gun, but gets arrested

The most common activity of 40 Days for Life on-site vigil participants is prayer.  Just the visual image of a few people praying changes the hearts of a good number of women intent on abortion. They change their minds and leave without getting abortions. 

This loss of business can upset the abortionists.  In rare cases they may express their opinion to the vigil participants.  One abortionist went well beyond that point.  After entering the parking lot at an abortion facility near Charleston, South Carolina, abortionist Gary Boyle approached 40 Days vigil participants and produced a black handgun loaded with 15 rounds.  

One of those threatened by this display of a weapon called 911.  When the police responded,  Boyle was arrested and a judge set bail at $25,000.  That result is certainly commendable given the lack of law enforcement experienced by those who maintain vigils in Rockford, IL and Oakland, CA where intimidation of vigil participants seems to be considered acceptable to local police.

Monday, Oct 4, 2010  --  Another look at the question of when pregnancy begins

The debate about contraception versus abortion usually puts the focus on whether pregnancy begins at conception or implantation.  Christopher Tollefsen, Professor of Philosophy at the University of South Carolina, suggests another viewpoint about the meaning of contraception, pregnancy, and abortion. 

He states, "For contraception is not a practice whose purpose is the prevention of pregnancy, but a practice whose purpose is the prevention of the conception of a new human being."  Under this definition, agreeing that pregnancy begins at implantation does not prevent the recognition that any action that kills a baby after its conception is not contraceptive, but abortifacient.

Often abortion is discussed as "termination of pregnancy."  Tollefsen explains, "It seems more plausible to think that abortion causes the death of an unborn child, and that a “direct” abortion is an intentional killing of the unborn child.  Not only does such a definition avoid the problem cases just mentioned (e.g. “selective reduction” of embryos -- these mothers abort, but remain pregnant), it draws attention to what is wrong with abortion in a way that the “ending of a pregnancy” definition does not.

In summary, the argument for effective clarification of terms is that contraception must prevent conception, not prevent pregnancy, and abortion causes the death of an unborn child, rather than ending of pregnancy.  These clarifications do not allow justification of "contraceptives" that block implantation, since conception has already happened, even if pregnancy is considered to begin at implantation.

Friday, Oct 1, 2010  --  Legal help again required to exercise First Amendment rights

Members of the Pro-Life group Survivors were detained on Monday of this week for holding signs showing pictures of babies victimized by abortions and offering Pro-Life literature to students in front of Nipomo High School, in that central California city.

Attorneys from the Life Legal Defense Foundation contacted the watch commander at the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Department, who agreed that the Survivors members had a right to stand on the public sidewalk and hold their signs. The Survivors team returned to Nipomo High School on Wednesday afternoon, to engage in the free speech activity they attempted on Monday, but this time uninhibited by the threat of arrest.

With further on-site assistance from LLDF staff attorney Allison Aranda, the Survivors team was able to successfully share the Pro-Life message with the Nipomo High School students.  Why is it that so many police and school administrators are immediately ready to deny First Amendment rights on public property near schools?   Would they act in the same manner if an anti-war group took similar actions?