Pro-life blog buzz 7-12-13
by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli
We welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email Susie@jillstanek.com.
- Action Alert: Saynsumthn’s Blog reports that some Atlanta area hotels are offering discounts to patients of Atlanta Center for Women’s Choice, which is operated by an indicted doctor who aborts up to 24 weeks gestation. Feel free to contact these businesses to respectfully share your thoughts on the matter.
- Secular Pro-Life blogs about an attack on the free speech of pregnancy resource centers in New York City. NARAL objects to EMC Frontline’s ad (pictured left), calling it “intimidating” and “untruthful.” Not sure what exactly is intimidating or untruthful about the ad, but that hasn’t stopped NARAL pal, NY Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, from “introduc[ing] federal legislation that would call on the Federal Trade Commission to regulate such ads and prevent advertisers from making what Maloney is calling false promises.” Could the problem be that NARAL just can’t handle the truth?
- At National Review, Michael J. New discusses the latest decision by the Illinois Supreme Court to allow a 1995 law to stand, requiring parental notification before a minor abortion may be performed. He writes:
At least 17 academic studies, analyzing different states, have found that parental-involvement laws reduce minor abortion rates. - In our last blog buzz, we featured Josh Brahm’s reasons in support of incremental pro-life legislation. Today, The Passionate Pro-Lifer gives her reasons for opposing it:
The babies that have been saved over the past 40 years have not been saved by legislative regulations or incremental abortion bans. They have been saved by faithful counselors calling out to women at the “clinics,” faithful family members and friends holding their loved ones back from the slaughter, and faithful warriors and debaters crying aloud in this culture of death in hopes of changing individual hearts and minds.
- Reflections of a Paralytic is happy to report that Germany is planning a memorial to honor victims of euthanasia under the Third Reich:
Believe it or not, I’ve actually talked to people who think that the Holocaust was just about the extermination of the Jews. As physician assisted suicide of the terminally ill and disabled becomes increasingly more commonly accepted — and practiced — in our country and throughout the world, this is the part of the holocaust that people need much more education on. - At Reproductive Research Audit, Dr. Rebecca G. Oas shows that the Guttmacher Institute is ignoring Uganda’s anti-abortion, pro-family culture in order to push a flawed agenda of abortion and contraception on the country:
If the Guttmacher Institute or the Center for Reproductive Rights were truly serious about saving women’s lives in Uganda, they would not rely on relatively unsubstantiated (and certainly debatable) numbers on abortion-related maternal mortality simply because they are the highest available estimates. To do so would be to risk underestimating the rates at which other complications occur, like hemorrhage or infection or underlying health problems caused by poor nutrition, such as anemia. Furthermore, promoting access to abortion would do nothing to improve the overall status of health care in Uganda, to say nothing of ensuring access to good roads and bridges that are crucial in ensuring prompt medical attention for everyone, including expectant mothers.Ultimately, the focus on Uganda from these pro-abortion groups comes down to one very important fact. As the Guttmacher report helpfully points out in its opening sentence:
Uganda, a country of nearly 35 million (including 8 million women of reproductive age), has one of the highest rates of population growth in the world.
And, what’s more, the Ugandan people don’t seem to share Guttmacher’s view that this is a bad thing.
What is interesting to note is that the pro-aborts in Ireland are not going for a Roe v. Wade, all-or-nothing approach. That would be far too controversial in such a pro-life country. Rather, they are seeking to open the door to abortion through a life of the mother exception — even though an international symposium of medical professionals declared that direct abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother (ironically, the symposium met in Dublin, Ireland).
Jul.12, 2013 3:30 pm |
Blogs |
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.
Gads.
Who would want to stay in a hotel room where a woman might have had an abortion??
Lord shut these hotels down. They are complicit in the killing.
Uggggghhh!!! You are so right Carla I already am not a great fan of hotel beds because of possible bed bug infestations. However if a woman aborted in the room and the room is not properly sanitized the risk of Hepatits B or other blood borne pathogens via contaminated body fluids (not just blood) could be significant. Hepatitis B lives on inanimate surfaces and is much more contagious than HIV because it does not have to be transmitted via person to person body fluid exchange during sexual activity. I say just stripping the bed may not be very effective because body fluids can get sprayed, splashed and trapped in other places as well especially during abortions. Can the hotel ensure that they scrub down and sanitize the room like a hospital birthing room or an OR? Creeps me out.
Regarding the pro-abort incrementalism in Ireland. Like I have said before, you don’t have to intentionally abort babies to save a mother’s life in TRUE healthcare. we never had to. Sometimes the baby would not live because he/she was to fragile or premature to survive but we tried to save both because TRUE healthcare providers go into healthcare to save lives not to kill.
I called the second one on the list Staybridge Suites on Pharr Rd in Atlanta and asked for the manager. Tony came on the phone and said he was the manager. He said these were not discounted rates and the same rates everyone pays. He was not surprised that his hotel was placed on the website offering discounts. He was aware of it but denied the discount. When I asked him why he would want his hotel advertised on the website of an abortion facility he said that was a private matter between him and the clinic and would not discuss it with me. So another case of not truth in advertising I guess.
About the “false advertising” claims against the PRC ads… I’ve tried but I can’t see a single thing false about them. What are they claiming is false?
Coalition for Life’s director in St. Louis was hauled into court on a “false advertisng” charge for a sign offering free pregnancy tests and ultrasounds outside of Planned Parenthood’s abortion mill. The prosecutor had a hard time believing that free really meant free. Despite the director’s sincerity that there is no charge whatsoever to any abortion minded woman, the judge still found him guilty. Apparently, offering free assistance to people is unfanthomable to abortion proponents.
Oh I didn’t see the story on Uganda. Uganda is not a “pro-life, pro-family” culture when they have such violence and discriminatory laws against people who aren’t heterosexual. It’s funny how people like to ignore stuff like that.
“Oh I didn’t see the story on Uganda. Uganda is not a “pro-life, pro-family” culture when they have such violence and discriminatory laws against people who aren’t heterosexual. It’s funny how people like to ignore stuff like that.”
This thread is about to get interesting…
Jack I agree. What is intimidating about that ad? No one is forcing women to go there. They have been trying to shut the cpcs down for decades with little success — in fact there are more than ever now. These attacks may even help us by making them look like mean-spirited bullies.
It shouldn’t be controversial JDC, reasonable people should agree that any country willing to pass laws that might allow the death penalty for gays is not “pro-life”. Shouldn’t be controversial at all.
“It shouldn’t be controversial JDC, reasonable people should agree that any country willing to pass laws that might allow the death penalty for gays is not “pro-life”. Shouldn’t be controversial at all.”
True, it really is simply a matter of basic human decency. Then you meet some of the people that comment at Lifesitenews, and discover that that decency is far from universal.
Well, anyways, it seems that democracy prevailed in Texas tonight. :) That should be something we can all be happy about.
I, uh, got banned from Lifesitenews on three different accounts for saying things like “gays and lesbians have the same human rights that other humans do”, so yeah… that place is really awful.
Edit: Yes, I’m super glad about the Texas law passing. Yeah for babies!
“I, uh, got banned from Lifesitenews on three different accounts for saying things like “gays and lesbians have the same human rights that other humans do”, so yeah… that place is really awful.”
Hey, banning you was just an important step in fighting against the evil gay agenda, or something. I don’t know, but if Lifesitenews does it, it must be pro-family! or something.
At this point, even if the courts ultimately strike down all or most of the law, it still somehow feels better than having it stopped by the thugs in the gallery. Still wouldn’t be democratic though.
Jack, if there are inherent unintended negative consequences to legalizing gay marriage would you change your mind about legalizing gay marriage?
We weren’t talking about gay marriage, we were talking about how gays shouldn’t get the death penalty.
Depends on the consequences. There are inherent negative consequences to having soda legal but I don’t want it banned.
Well there are at least 5 possible (and realized) negative consequence that I have heard of:
1) depriving children of one, or both, of their biological mother or father.
2) loss of freedom of religion;
3) loss of some parental rights with respect to your child’s education;
4) loss of business rights; and
5) genderless marriage – a redefinition or flattening of the role of the mother and/or father.
Do you think gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage?
Aw man, I missed the gay rights discussion. :P Oh well.
” 1) depriving children of one, or both, of their biological mother or father. ”
We aren’t discussing gay adoption, we’re discussing gay marriage. Separate issues. And most gay people who have children are raising their own biological children.
” 2) loss of freedom of religion;”
You don’t lose your freedom of religion if people are allowed to do things that don’t concern you. Churches aren’t being forced to marry anyone.
” 3) loss of some parental rights with respect to your child’s education;”
This is not exclusive with gay issues, and didn’t start there. Gay marriage doesn’t make educational policies, that’s weird.
” 4) loss of business rights; and”
Actually I’ll give you this one, there have been some lawsuits. Bigoted businesses should be allowed to refuse service to people because of their sexuality if it will make you all stop crying persecution.
” 5) genderless marriage – a redefinition or flattening of the role of the mother and/or father.”
Prove this is a bad thing, and prove that changing things at a legal level changes things overall for everyone. No one is stopping you from having roles in your marriage.
I think same sex marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage in some ways, different in others.
I have responses to each of your responses to the unintended consequences but I will respond to them later. In short, many of your responses are purely dismissive and not on point, not giving full weight to the unintended consequence. For example, the first unintended consequence has nothing to do with gay adoption, save the fact that adoption is a way for homosexual couples to create a family. The first unintended consequence relates to marriage because of the very scenario present a gay person who has their own biological children. If a gay couple in a gay marriage is raising children those children will only be with one of the biological parents or have to be living some type of shared living arrangement where they get to spend time with the other biological parent.
Jack, since you acknowledge that gay marriage is different in other ways, could you elaborate on those ways that you see gay marriage as different? The reason I ask is because the popular gay movement is asking for marriage equality on the basis that gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage.
1) the best environment for children is a happy and stable one. We are all aware of the vast number of single parent households, sometimes of detriment to children, sometimes more beneficial than if the parents remained together. No reputable study has established negative consequences for children raised in gay households.
2) not being able to force your religious beliefs and behaviors on others is not loss of religious freedom. Loss of shades of dictatorial theocracy maybe.
3) if you don’t like your child being taught facts and truths then you are free to homeschool them or send them to a faithschool.
4) what loss of business rights? If you can’t discriminate against people because of their skin color, height etc., why should you be able to discriminate against them on the basis of their sexuality. It’s no different to being born with red hair. Would you make people dye their hair?
5) people are still male or female. The extent to which parents parent and the roles they play varies greatly. Having two moms or two dads isn’t exactly expanding into another universe in this regard.
“Do you think gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage?” – it’s a whole lot less different than you think. Gay families don’t bring particularly greater variances than familes who are farmers, or hippies, or circus workers or hare krishnas.
I’ll respond to The Passionate Pro-lifer here, since she has moderated comments on her blog and I don’t do moderated comments (except for when I feel like it).
The Passionate Pro-lifer (hereafter TPPL) interprets the Texas bill in the following way:
Get to the kill mill early enough and the little resident in utero can be sliced and diced and flushed away, before he or she is old enough to feel pain ~ so say the wise Texan Representatives.
But this is incorrect. The status quo in Texas is that the same baby could be legally “sliced and diced and flushed away” any time before birth. Supporting the bill means increasing legal protection for babies older than 20 weeks. Voting against it means denying them said legal protection. More on the mark would be:
Get to the mill too late and the little resident in utero can’t be sliced and diced and flushed away, after he or she is old enough to feel pain ~ so say the wise Texan Representatives.
Similarly, AHA calls it the “it’s-okay-to-kill-your-baby-so-long-as-you-do-it-before-they have-been-alive-140-days Bill”. It’s really the “it’s-not-okay-to-kill-your-baby-if-you-do-it-after-they-have-been-alive-140-days Bill”.
TPPL then quotes Tom Hoefling, who argues that removing certain language from the fetal homicide bill would automatically make abortion illegal in Texas. But this isn’t really the case. The Supreme Court ruled that the unborn had to be considered persons under the Fourteenth Amendment, which the states have no control over. It was Roe v. Wade, not the Preborn Pain Act, which legally created a class of sub-humans that can be killed for any reason prior to birth. The new bill attempts to reduce its scope. 55 million dead children is a lot, but that number could very well have been 65 or 70 million if it weren’t for pro-life measures passed at the state level.
The most questionable part of the article is the claim that “The babies that have been saved over the past 40 years have not been saved by legislative regulations or incremental abortion bans”. There are many studies demonstrating that various types of incremental legislation do prevent abortions:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/02/analyzing-the-effect-of-state-legislation-on-the-incidence-of-abortion-among-minors
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa054047#t=abstract
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/MedicaidLitReview.pdf
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/orgs/txpep/_files/pdf/TxPEP-ResearchBrief-ImpactofAbortionRestrictions.pdf
Perhaps the best example is Mississippi, which has cut its abortion rate by 60% and closed all but one abortion clinic.
http://www.aul.org/states/mississippi/
Oscar Schindler and Corrie ten Boom didn’t use incremental legislation to save Jews from the Nazis. However, they were not legislators. Nor were they part of a democratic society that, as a whole, embraces the injustice to a certain extent. More on the mark would be William Wilberforce, whose work to end the slave trade in the British Empire spanned several decades and included several intermediate legislative bills before it was finally accomplished. Pro-lifers would do well to take note of this before trying to claim that the Texas bill isn’t progress.