This afternoon the House will vote on the Prenatal Discrimination Act, a federal ban against sex-selection abortion. A two-thirds majority vote is needed.
Following are Democrat congresspersons to focus on. If you live in their district, your call is urgently needed to request support for PRENDA:
Today pro-life group Live Action released a new undercover video showing Planned Parenthood’s flagship Margaret Sanger Center late-term abortion clinic on Manhattan Island in New York City help a pregnant mother determine if her baby was female so she could have a sex-selection abortion.
The video is second in a new series titled “Gendercide: Sex-Selection in America,” exposing the practice of sex-selective abortion in the United States and how Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry facilitate the selective elimination of preborn baby girls.
Michigan Rep. John Conyers [pictured], the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the bill “tramples (on) the rights of women under the guise of nondiscrimination, while doing absolutely nothing to provide women with needed resources for their babies, female and male.” Citing opposition to the bill from groups such as the American Congress [...]
Until now pro-abortion groups have opposed state and federal bans against sex selective abortions by simply denying they exist, for instance Jezebel only six days ago:
[I]n the U.S., there’s no evidence or noteworthy numbers to indicate that women are having abortions based on the sex of the infant….
Apparently, abortion industry leaders have decided they can no longer carry on the ruse. Public opinion is so persuaded against sex-selective abortion, the other side must have decided they have to enter the conversation in order to remain players and try to influence the outcome.
The first to fall was Guttmacher Institute in its Spring 2012 Policy Review, published sometime after May 1:
Yesterday the pro-abortion website Jezebel posted a hit piece against an investigative video released by the pro-life group Live Action that showed a Planned Parenthood employee helping facilitate what she thought was a sex-selective abortion.
Jezebel’s (lame) hit was to be expected. But the headline must have slipped by editors…
“Rascals”? Lol. But the bigger faux pas was asking whether Live Action could prove Planned Parenthood facilitates sex selective abortions. We now know that answer is yes. Oops.
Jezebel editors quickly realized the strategic sin and unpublished the post, although not before one of Live Action’s astute bloggers captured it. Here was Jezebel’s liberally correct redo…
Last night Live Action’s Lila Rose appeared on The O’Reilly Factor to discuss her group’s new video investigation into sex selective abortions. Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com After viewing a cut from Live Action’s first exposé, which showed an Austin, Texas, Planned Parenthood employee helping facilitate what she thought was a sex-selective [...]
UPDATE 2p: Planned Parenthood has issued a statement disclaiming any culpability. It states the now terminated employee was “entry-level” and “did not follow our protocol.” So what exactly is the protocol of an organization that claims “[g]ender bias is contrary to everything our organization works for,” yet not wanting (lucrative) sex-selective abortions “curtail[ed]” in any way?
1:26p: See previous post here.
According to the Huffington Post, Planned Parenthood says it fired the staffer involved in Live Action’s new video investigation into sex selective abortions almost immediately after LA conducted its sting.
A Live Action source told me today the sting at that Austin, Texas, Planned Parenthood was conducted April 11, so the employee was fired April 14, 6-1/2 weeks ago:
In a surprise move, House Republicans announced this past Friday they would call for a vote on a federal ban against sex-selective abortion, aka the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, H.R. 3541*, tomorrow, May 30.
PRENDA will be considered under “suspension of the rules,” meaning no amendments can be added. The bill must be voted on as is, straight up or down, and a two-thirds majority will be needed to pass it.
UPDATE 7:42a: Sign the new petition at ProtectOurGirls.Com, which calls for an immediate ban on the horrific practice of sex-selective abortions in the U.S.
6:45a: Pro-life group Live Action has just gone public with the first video from its latest undercover investigation: sex-selective abortions.
This first sting was conducted at a Planned Parenthood in Texas.
The Daily Caller broke the story a few minutes ago:
A person even saw a foetus being fed to the animals…. This is known to everyone in Beed, but the police are not taking action as [abortionist] Munde [is] influential. ~ Varsha Deshpande of Lek Ladki Abhiyan, an Indian anti-sex selection organization, discussing the heinous practice of feeding aborted female fetuses to dogs in order [...]
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.
So a brief blog post today on one of the more utilitarian reasons that I have heard for abortion/contraception – it saves money….
This sounds to me like something I heard from a colleague last year that the reason that New York’s prison population was down… because of Roe v Wade – since then, thousands of poor people have had abortions and a large number of those aborted babies would’ve committed crime and ended up in jail.
I should have suggested to him that an even better way of reducing prison population would be to kill everyone inside, but that would’ve made things awkward and I had only half-finished my drink at the time (and so no quick escape from the awkwardness).
Surely these sorts of arguments are completely beside the point when it comes to abortion. Either abortion is killing of the most innocent, in which case utilitarian arguments like this are sickening and deeply perverse, or abortion is nothing more than a medical procedure, in which case how much money it may save the state is neither here nor there… unless the state is thinking of using it as an argument for compulsory abortion as a cost saving device, a la China?
So, as with most abortion arguments, they are a smokescreen which obscure the real argument: are we killing a human being or not?
~ Marcus Roberts, Mercator Net, March 28
[Graphic via chillertv.com]
Comments (8)
