Pro-life news brief 8-1-14

by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat

  • Another Texas abortion clinic closes its doors:

    A women’s clinic in North Austin closed its doors Thursday because it can not comply with the House Bill 2 standard of an ambulatory surgical center, Whole Woman’s Health said….

    The Austin Whole Woman’s Health Clinic had 10 employees and two doctors. Its license officially expired at the end of last month.

    The company’s CEO told KVUE’s partners at the Austin American-Statesman that renovations to create larger operating rooms, a sterile ventilation system and other changes could cost up to $2 million, and they didn’t have the money to make the changes.

  • In Illinois, a pregnant teenager and her boyfriend have been charged in the death of her mother. The boyfriend claimed he killed the mother because she wanted his girlfriend to have an abortion.

gammy-3_2993376c

  • An Australian couple has abandoned a twin boy they paid a surrogate to carry because the child has Down Syndrome. When they learned about the baby’s diagnosis (he also has a congenital heart defect), they asked the surrogate mother to have an abortion. She refused, citing her Buddhist beliefs. The Australian couple, however, took the boy’s twin sister, who does not have Ds, leaving the surrogate mother to foot the bill for the little boy and his medical care:

    “They told me to have an abortion but I didn’t agree because I am afraid of sin,” Mrs Pattharamon told Fairfax Media. She said abortion was against her Buddhist beliefs.

    Mrs Pattharamon had the baby via a surrogacy agency in Bangkok and never met the couple.

    “I asked the agency ‘Did I have to sleep with the man?’ I was an innocent young girl and I don’t know about this business,” she said.

    “The agent told me: ‘We are going to make a glass tube baby,’ but I didn’t understand. My husband agreed because we didn’t have money to pay our debt and I didn’t need to have sex with another man.”

“Pro-choice”: When a euphemism becomes a euphemism

Pro-choice euphemism for pro-abortion

In January 2013 came news that shocked both sides of the abortion debate: Planned Parenthood had determined the term “pro-choice” was no longer helpful and recommended abandoning it.

This news really was titanic. “Pro-choice” was the abortion movement’s self-chosen descriptive term for over 40 years. To abandon it was to abandon an identity, surely unnerving to activists on the street, who found cover and solace in the euphemism. NARAL Pro-Choice America

And I imagine hundreds of groups with “pro-choice” as part of their moniker - say, for instance, NARAL Pro-Choice America – were livid at Planned Parenthood for announcing this edict regardless of dissent. It had to be embarrassing to read in the news one’s name was passé.

On the pro-life side, the announcement was gratifying. We have fought the term “pro-choice” forever as obvious code for “pro-abortion,” hounding the other side with that question: What exactly is wrong with being pro-abortion? Perhaps we simply wore proponents of “choice” out; they grew tired of always being on the defensive.

On the other hand, I, for one, was also a bit unnerved, waiting for the other shoe to drop. What would be the new and improved euphemism for us to battle? But as of yet “[n]o pithy phrase has replaced pro-choice,” according to a July 28 New York Times piece, “Advocates shun ‘pro-choice’ to expand message.”

But the article did give more insight as to why the abortion industry is deserting the term “pro-choice,” albeit heavily spun:

Yet advocates say that the term pro-choice, which has for so long been closely identified with abortion, does not reflect the range of women’s health and economic issues now being debated.

Reason #1: “Pro-choice” has over the course of 41 years ironically come to mean “pro-abortion.” So the euphemism has become a euphemism.

Nor, they add, does it speak to a new generation of young women, who tell pollsters that they reject political labels….

“The labels we’ve always used about pro-choice and pro-life - they’re outdated and they don’t mean anything,” said Janet Colm, 62, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund of Central North Carolina…. “I used to be a one-issue voter” - pro-choice – “but I think most younger people today aren’t.”…

Reason #2: There is a pro-abortion intensity gap, particularly among young female voters. A May 2014 Gallup poll agreed, finding “more pro-life voters than pro-choice voters saying they will only back candidates who share their views, 24% vs. 16%.” This translates to a 3-point advantage when the number of voters for both sides is taken into consideration. Thus, the abortion lobby has to broaden its net, lumping abortion with more popular “reproductive justice” issues, like free contraception.

Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America [said] “I just think the ‘pro-choice’ language doesn’t really resonate particularly with a lot of young women voters.”…

But by 2010 some abortion-rights activists began to sense in their outreach to young women, whose support was needed not only for the midterm elections but for the movement’s future as well, that the term pro-choice was virtually meaningless. That was confirmed by postelection polls and focus groups that women’s organizations and Democrats commissioned to understand what went wrong.

Among the findings, according to several people familiar with them: Many young women, when asked whether they were pro-choice or pro-life, said pro-life. Yet they supported the Roe ruling. Explaining the contradiction, Ms. Laguens said these self-described pro-life voters were “talking about their personal decision-making, for themselves, and not about what they want to push on others.”

But such results also showed the weakness of the pro-choice label, advocates and pollsters said.

Reason #3: Quite simply, the pool of young replacement abortion proponents is shrinking. There are several reasons for this, not the least of which is attrition.

pro-life, not pro-choice generation - anti-abortion

[Top photo, via New York Times, is of a "Pittsburgh rally in 1974, at a time when abortion-rights groups began favoring the term choice"; bottom photo via walkforlifewc.com]

Pro-life blog buzz 8-1-14

pro-lifeby Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli

  • Suzy B links to an article in the New York Times discussing their efforts to teach politicians and pro-lifers in the public eye how to frame discussions on abortion and life issues.

StL-ambulance-07102014

  • ProLifeBlogs features Operation Rescue’s post regarding Planned Parenthood of St. Louis’ choice to make ambulance calls to a private service (despite slower response time than 911) in order to prevent pro-lifers from obtaining 911 call information under the Freedom of Information Act. Prior to this, Operation Rescue had been given a heavily redacted report of a PP ambulance call from the St. Louis Fire Department, which resulted in OR filing a lawsuit. Planned Parenthood’s decision puts the safety of women second to protecting their own supposedly “safe” image, as this particular clinic has had 26 known incidents in the past five years.
  • At National Review, Michael J. New discusses the decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down a Mississippi admitting privileges law, pointing out the court’s odd reasoning and asking if the sole abortion clinic in MS could ever be closed based on their reasoning, even for health and safety violations:

    The oddest part of the majority decision is that the court cited the Supreme Court’s 1938 Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada as precedent. Instead of admitting African Americans into the University of Missouri Law School, the state gave them a voucher they could use to attend law school elsewhere. The Supreme Court ruled that this violated the equal-protection clause, stating that “a state may not shift its equal protection duties to another state.”

    This is the first time the Gaines has been cited in an abortion case, and it’s easy to see why: The case is a very poor parallel. The main difference is that running a law school is a function of the state; providing abortions is not. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey have given women a right to an abortion. However, they did not mandate that states had to provide abortions. If the last abortion clinic in Mississippi closed on its own, the state would not be obligated to start opening them up itself….

    It would be unfortunate if Mississippi’s Department of Health would be unable to completely enforce various health and safety rules because of this ruling.

  • Saynsumthn’s Blog says Life Dynamics, Inc. has launched a national litigation plan “to educate attorneys on how they can help stop the scandal of family planning centers covering up for men who rape children.”

netrootsnationpanel

  • At The Vine, Breeanne Howe writes about her experience attending a forum entitled, “Does God Love Women Who Get Abortions?” at a Netroots Nation convention. Netroots is known as a “progressive” online and in-person forum for using technology to influence public debate. Given that Democrats booed the idea of any inclusion of God in their official platform, Howe thought the topic would be interesting – and it was. She says the forum’s title question was the only thing the panel seemed to get right: yes, God loves women who have abortions. Howe also exposes the less-than-Christian views espoused by the purported Christians on the panel, along with the fact that abortion advocates are finding it necessary to change their euphemisms for supporting abortion:

    When I arrived, panelist Carolyn Meagher (who isn’t sure she buys the resurrection story!), of First Congregational United Church of Christ (a self-described progressive, inclusive, spiritually alive servant community), was speaking about how churches seek to keep women down. She called it “Kitchen, Church, Kids” which she for some reason shortened to KKK and then equated with Nazi Germany. So to recap, five minutes into the panel the traditional church had been compared to Nazis. We were obviously at the start of an interesting ride….

    My suspicion about Meagher was confirmed at the close of the panel. Democrats have a habit of changing their language when the current language is found out by the majority. In other words, once people understand they are talking about killing babies they need to use different words – as if saying it another way makes it something different. So in ending, Meagher reminded the audience that the term “reproductive justice” should be used instead of pro-choice. In that way they can justify baby murder as a human right.

[Photos via Operation Rescue, The Vine]

Pro-life daily vid: Abortion does not look like Emily’s Letts’ video

emily-letts-abortionby Kelli

Emily Letts, who claims to have filmed her own abortion at her employer, Cherry Hill Women’s Center, is the topic of a new rebuttal video released by the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. CBR says Letts and her abortion clinic employer “created their YouTube video as a disingenuous sales pitch.” The group’s intent in releasing this rebuttal is “to ensure women are not deceived regarding the humanity of their baby or the inhumanity of the abortion which Cherry Hill Women’s Center is trying to sell them.”

CBR wrote in an email:

Elizabeth Barnes, Executive Director of the Cherry Hill Women’s Center and the Philadelphia Women’s Center, is Ms. Letts’ co-conspirator in this abortion industry infomercial. She is also on YouTube proclaiming that “… we need to see more images in the media of women who choose abortion and it provides them a pathway to a new and better life.” CBR replies that what we actually need are more images in the media of dismembered babies for whom abortion provided a barbaric end to life.

The video contains footage from an actual abortion procedure juxtaposed with Emily Letts’ remarks after her abortion.

WARNING: Extremely graphic; contains nudity.

YouTube Preview Image

Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.

[HT: Jill; photo via theolivebranchreport.com]

Pro-life daily vid: Big sis doesn’t want baby brother to grow up

by Kelli

Big sister Sadie seems to be overwhelmed at the realization that babies – namely, her little brother – don’t stay little for very long.

YouTube Preview Image

Moms and dads understand your grief, Sadie. Our children grow up too quickly! (But a hundred is still a long way off.) :)

Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.

[HT: Carla]

Manager of closed abortion clinic complains about “lack of gratitude”

abortionlegalby Kelli

One of four remaining clinics that provide abortions in Kansas has closed amid a hostile political climate and financial challenges.

Its outgoing manager said Monday the decision was also prompted by a “lack of gratitude” from a young generation of women who take its abortion services for granted.

~ The Wichita Eagle, July 28

Sure, a woman’s main concern on a day-to-day basis may not be abortion rights. Her main concern may be basic healthcare for herself and her kids, or something else. But she has the luxury of abortion rights not being her main concern because it’s been an absolute guaranteed right in this country for 40 years. That means every woman in this country under the age of 40 never had to worry about getting an illegal, unsafe abortion….

That’s a long time to get lulled into a sense of security that that right is never going away — and therefore we don’t need to make its protection a priority….

~ Carla Hall, bemoaning the fact that women are taking their “abortion rights” for granted, The Los Angeles Times, July 29

[HT: Troy Newman; photo via ThinkProgress.org]

TX/MS: Same court renders opposite rulings on same law in two states

Mississippi abortion clinic remains open

This past March a three-judge, all female panel from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a Texas statute requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of an abortion clinic.

[Read the rest of this entry...]

Pro-life vid of day: Duggars say, “Life is beautiful”

UPDATE 7/31 1:20p, JLS note: I’ve been schnuckered. According to starcasm.net and Slate.com, the Duggar video below was made to promote Tennessee’s Amendment 1, when it wasn’t. All I had to do was look at the date of the original video, September 10, 2012, and I would have known. But I was in too big a hurry when forwarding it to Hans. So I’ve reworked the title of this post and removed the erroneous information. I’m sorry, my bad.

Duggars-Pro-Life-Anti-Abortion-Shirts-490x245by Hans Johnson

The Duggar family is known for promoting their Christian family values on their popular reality show 19 Kids and Counting.

[Read the rest of this entry...]

Pro-abortion Pelosi invokes Baby Jesus for illegal immigrants

by Carder

pelosi

Those who have read “The Word,” know that Jesus was not a refugee, never did anything illegal, and, more importantly, is God. Mary, an unwed teenager (whom Pelosi most likely would have encouraged to abort Baby Jesus) was returning to Bethlehem with her betrothed Joseph for a census. There was no violence; just no room in the inn.

Moses was one of few boys who lived when the King of Egypt ordered all newborn boys be killed to reduce the Hebrew population.

In fact, both Baby Jesus and Moses would not exist in America today if the infanticide policies Pelosi and President Obama support were legal. There would be no need to support the illegal trafficking of children (which had been well orchestrated many months prior) because these children could be killed instead.

If Pelosi truly cares about these children, she can provide them with housing on any of her many properties and pay for their basic needs out of her own pocket of over $30 million.

~ bblankley contradicting House member Nancy Pelosi’s statements equating the lives of Jesus and Moses with the need for compassion towards the thousands of illegal immigrant children at the US/Mexican border, RedState, July 28

Pro-life blog buzz 7-29-14

pro-lifeby Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli

  • A Culture of Life says STDs are showing an increasing resistance to antibiotic treatments:

    It’s a constant race with the bugs. We develop a new antibiotic, and after a while, we see the first signs of resistance appearing. Then the resistance spreads, until finally that antibiotic becomes useless. Then it’s time to move to the next antibiotic, if one exists. Earlier this month the [New Zealand] Herald reported that this is happening with Neisseria gonorrhoeae, the cause of gonorrhoea. And there are no more antibiotics left to treat it….

    Often STDs are described as being easy to treat or cure. That’s not consistent with the advice about infectious diseases from outside the ‘sexual health’ area. How often do hospitals advise visitors to stay away if they are sick? Yet in the ‘sexual health’ area, the advice is to just use condoms….

    Anyone in public health would see that as irresponsible.

    But the ‘just wear a condom’ advice is given particularly to young people who are consistently the worst at using condoms, and who are the most vulnerable to catching STDs.

  • At National Review, Michael J. New responds again to Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig, who believes women should receive government funds to carry their pregnancies to term. However, she apparently objects to women receiving help from pregnancy resource centers because she believes that this only “increas[es] the population of single mothers and undermin[es] norms against pre-marital sex.” (Apparently, government welfare doesn’t?) New disagrees, and also says that despite Bruenig’s claims, economics may not play as large a role in a woman’s decision to abort.
  • American Life League’s Judie Brown discusses how society has descended into “a multitude of errors” due to the assumption that we can “play God” with human life in the areas of birth control, abortion, and IVF.
  • Big Blue Wave highlights a much-touted study showing that preborn children can learn nursery rhymes in the womb. Researchers are quoted as saying that this study “push[es] the envelope earlier” as to when children can learn, with one stating, “It is really before they are even born.” The more we learn, the more we discover how complex these so-called “clumps of cells” really are.

explain-difference-1

  • At Live Action, Calvin Freiburger responds to a divorced-from-reality post at RH Reality Check, in which writer Andrea Grimes objects to labeling Christian citizens and lawmakers “the American Taliban.” Why the objection? Because she feels this is insulting… to Muslims. Freiburger unleashes some sanity on her ridiculous assertions:

    I cannot imagine reading a more complete, more self-centered, more embarrassing lack of perspective within the next year. Prohibiting abortions, tightening medical regulations, and respecting Americans’ right to choose what they subsidize constitute “extremist Christian theocracy” on par with what you’d find in the Middle East….

    Translation: Either let us kill children here, or you’re just as bad as those who kill children over there. Either let us fine out of business anyone whose benefit packages don’t conform to our morality, or you’re in the same category as those who kill people for having socially-disapproved sex.

    Suicide-bombing churches. Stoning women for alleged adultery. Bans on teaching girls and employing women. Genital mutilation. Dropping walls on gays. Ethnic cleansing. Executing apostates from Islam. Prison time for selling unapproved books. Turning villages to ash.

    This is just a sampling of the hell the Taliban put millions of people through. What real patriarchy, real misogyny, real oppression, real theocracy, real homophobia, real morality police, and a real War on Women look like. What it’s really like to live without choice or privacy.

    Andrea, why don’t you do a Google Image Search for “Taliban victims” and get back to us on whether the results remind you of a pro-life demonstration?

[Photo of Holly Fisher and Reem Saleh Al-Riyashi via National Review Online]

facebooktwittergoogle_plusrssyoutubeinstagrammail
Help us meet our financial goal!

Who Is Jill Stanek?

Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.

Read Jill's full bio »
What the Media says »

willie_parkerThere’s more than one way to understand religion and spirituality and God. I do have belief in God. That’s why I do this work. My belief in God tells me that the most important thing you can do for another human being is help them in their time of need.

~ Abortionist Dr. Willie Parker reconciling his practice with his religious beliefs as an abortion ministry, Esquire via Patheos, July 31

Comments (25)
Stanek Top 20