Tag Archives: Freedom of Choice Act

Pro-life blog buzz 11-14-14

pro-lifeby Kelli

  • Down on the Pharm reminds us that the old “hCG in the tetanus vaccine” scandal happening in Kenya right now is nothing new:

    It has all the markers of previous suspected lacings of tetanus vaccines, given to pregnant women in Mexico in 1993, and the Philippines in 1994. In the latter case, HCG was actually found in vaccine samples, and antibodies to HCG were demonstrated in women who had received the vaccine. The antibodies to HCG bind to the natural hormone found in a woman’s body when she gets pregnant, and inhibit further support of the pregnancy. A miscarriage (spontaneous abortion) ensues.

    The Catholic Bishops of Kenya, getting no cooperation from the government, obtained six samples of tetanus vaccine and had them tested at labs in Kenya and in South Africa. All six of them showed the presence of HCG. The Kenyan government persisted in denying that there could be any HCG in tetanus vaccines provided under the auspices of the World Health Organization and UNICEF.

chrispicco

  • Live Action News shares the story of a father who not only said goodbye to his wife Ashley, who died after an emergency c-section, but to their premature son, Lennon, four days later. Chris Picco exemplifies the belief that his son was precious before his birth, and that this is only “goodbye for now.” May God comfort Chris as he honors the memory of his beautiful family.
  • Abstinence Clearinghouse links to Janice Shaw Crouse’s article in American Thinker which points out “that through their votes, unmarried women voters made a statement that they are more concerned about creating and keeping jobs, rather than free birth control, food stamps, etc. These results came as a surprise to many who stated that these free items are what women truly want and need.”
  • Fletcher Armstrong shares four lessons learned from the voters’ response to various pro-life laws, including Tennessee’s Amendment 1.
  • Clinic Quotes has a statement from ultrasound technician Shari Richard who claims simply showing a sonogram picture has pro-aborts terrified:

    For 10 years I have been an ultrasonographer and have witnessed the development of pre-born children. I am convinced that if every mother could see her baby on ultrasound, the abortion argument would be over. A look through the window reveals the true victim of abortion. This is why our presentations are often censored….

    In 1990, I testified on fetal development before the House and Senate subcommittee considering the “Freedom of Choice Act.” I brought an ultrasound videotape of fully formed fetuses as young as eight weeks after conception. Representative Don Edwards (D – CA) tried to prevent me from showing the videotape.

abortionprotestmcmaster

  • In the same vein, Maaike Rosendal at the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform writes about a fantastic backfire that occurred when pro-choice protestors tried to silence a public, on-campus pro-life speaking event at McMaster University. It ended with several pro-choicers questioning why their own side refused to even listen to pro-life arguments:

    As soon as the club president welcomed everyone, she was interrupted by excessive applause and yelling. When she asked the audience to be courteous, protesters began delivering speeches on the reproduction of various animals while cheered on by others. For the next hour, they made it impossible for the presentation to take place with the aid of an air horn, bull horn, and silly string while singing, whistling, throwing paper balls, and mockingly reading from the Bible.

    A few open-minded students begged the protesters to stop. “I’m pro-choice too but I’m very disappointed in your behaviour,” a female student exclaimed. “I’m really interested in hearing their side,” another young woman said. The protesters clearly weren’t. “What are they afraid of?” someone asked aptly. “Why are they stopping us from seeing what abortion looks like?”…

    When the solution to difficult life circumstances is not solving problems but killing pre-born people, forcibly silencing born people you find problematic isn’t that much different. Thursday night’s protesters illustrated their point powerfully: pro-choice for some means no choice for others.

    I wasn’t the only one who noticed this, and the contrast between the two sides was crystal clear…. When the protesters verbally harassed pro-choice girls who asked them to be quiet, accusing them of being “rats” and “traitors” to the extent that one left in tears, campus pro-life students were compassionate, caring, and exchanged contact information to make sure she was okay….

    Not only did pro-choicers thank the team for being “humble, loving, and professional,” one attendee wrote: “Your arguments were very scientifically accurate and irrefutable.” Someone else messaged later, “As someone who was on the fence… I am finding myself more and more fully against abortion in ANY case. Thank you for coming to our school and being so great!”

  • Watch video of the disruption:

YouTube Preview Image

[Photos via Live Action and CCBR]

How abortion proponents view the current abortion landscape

pro-abortion abortion proponentsPro-abortion authors Robin Marty and Jessica Mason Pieklo have co-authored a fascinating new book, Crow After Roe.

Marty is senior political reporter for RH Reality Check, and Pieklo is a senior legal analyst there. Over the past year or so I’ve developed a collegial relationship with Robin. Even as we both stand our ground, it’s refreshing to discuss and debate sans animus.

Robin was kind enough to give me a copy of her book, which I have been reading with interest. Even though Robin writes from a biased perspective, which she freely acknowledges, she writes intelligently, another refreshing difference from the typical pro-abortion fare I usually read.

Crow After Roe is written from a standpoint of alarm but offers solutions. “[T]he book will shock and move you to action,” notes Feministing founder Jessica Valenti on the back cover. “Most importantly, though, Crow After Roe gives you hope and a roadmap for what we can do to change the current anti-woman tide.”

It is precisely those two points that interested me. Why are abortion proponents alarmed? And how do they envision the way out of their perceived predicament?

The book title refers to Jim Crow laws, created by southern whites after blacks were freed from slavery, which allowed oppression and segregation to continue. The authors believe pro-life laws serve the same purpose of oppressing poor and minority abortion-vulnerable mothers.

Further, Crow After Roe makes the case – with which pro-lifers will readily agree – that, of late, certain pieces of our proposed legislation have been written with the goal of triggering the overturn of Roe v. Wade. To that end the book “examines 11 states… that since 2010 have each passed a different anti-abortion or anti-women’s health law explicitly written to provoke a repeal of Roe….” (It was fascinating reading the names of many people I know on those pages.)

In her forward to the book, former Planned Parenthood CEO Gloria Feldt writes:

[T]he anti-choice right has leveled a volume and variety of attacks never before seen in this nation….

But we can stop them if we change our tactics and bring the struggle for reproductive justice out of the “women’s issues” ghetto focusing only on abortion….

We must also face the fact that privacy is not and has never been a strong enough legal justification for reproductive rights. Therefore, it is essential to bolster jurisprudence affirming women’s civil rights to make their own childbearing choices, and to pass laws such as the Freedom of Choice Act….

The latter seems like a long haul, when even a liberal state like New York just failed to pass an increasingly rare pro-abortion bill, and, as Feldt noted, Obama bailed on FOCA.

Another solution suggested by Robin and Jessica is to borrow from a surprising pro-life page:

According to… Feldt… what is needed is a strong, energetic core, not unlike a feminist version of the “personhood movement” that has been popping up in a variety of states. “Just as the personhood efforts are not coming from the mainstream anti-chice groups,” she says, “I’d love to see a band of feisty young feminists out there leading the charge on this, saying, ‘Excuse me, we are persons and we want our personhood guaranteed.'”

The problem, there, of course, is the abortion movement claimed these “feisty young feminists” weren’t persons before they were persons and killed a huge chunk of them off.

On Robin and Jessica’s “to do” list:

  • Repeal the Hyde Amendment, which bans government funding of most Medicaid abortions
  • Increase the number of abortion providers by ensuring all med students have abortion training and allowing nondoctors to commit abortions
  • Make contraception “easily accessible and affordable,” which they think Obamacare goes a long way toward ensuring (although they’re leery of all the lawsuits)
  • Toss pro-life Democrat politicians from the tent
  • Elect more pro-abortion women
  • Get more liberal judges appointed to the courts

Those are all proactive steps. “However,” they write, “the most immediate step is to stop anti-abortion and anti-contraception bills from becoming law in the first place.”

To that end the authors think a spark was lit in Virginia last year when abortion advocates rallied against an ultrasound bill:

[I]f there is a silver lining to the anti-contraception, anti-abortion, anti-women laws that have been passed or enforced since 2010, it is that they have created the beginnings of a powerful activist backlash.

Despite the Virginia bill’s eventual passage, “[t]he fight over the bill… took its toll,” they write, saying support for ultrasound legislation and pro-life politicians in that state dropped.

Robin and Jessica maintain that even if a bill passes, vocal opposition can weaken it, which may also serve a dual purpose of “fracturing… anti-choice community” support.

Nevertheless, the authors admit their first order of business is to stop our onslaught. (Coincidentally, the Washington Times reported today that only midway through 2013 we have already tied the second-highest number of pro-life bills passed in a year, which was only last year, and 2011 holds the record.)

In other words, they can never get to their “to do” list while playing defense. As I wrote the other day, abortion proponents now find themselves racing from brushfire to brushfire, many of which they are unable to put out. They think pro-lifers have galvanized them; I hearken back to Proverbs 24:16, i.e., it won’t last.

Is it anti-life for me to admit I smell blood in the water – and like it?

I do recommend reading Crow After Roe as good recognizance.

Stanek weekend question: Why doesn’t MSM notice Biden’s legion of flip flops on abortion?

The media and feminists like to accuse Mitt Romney of being a flip-flopper on abortion, simply because he converted from supporting abortion to opposing it.

They also like to point out Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, don’t even see eye to eye on the issue, since the former has a rape and incest exception and the latter doesn’t.

And then we move to the Barack Obama/Joe Biden ticket, which, on the issue of abortion, is actually all of the above on steroids. Yet we hear nary a peep from the press questioning the vast inconsistencies.

I gleaned all the following points from National Right to Life’s excellent piece, “Biden-Ryan Versus Obama on Abortion Policy.”

While Biden has never called himself pro-life, he was at one point considered so weak on the issue a Planned Parenthood official stated in 1986, “Joe Biden moans a lot and then usually votes against us.”

In 1982 Biden voted for a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade, because, according to NRLC, he thought that Supreme Court decision had “gone too far.”

It may be hard to believe, given Biden’s statement during the October 11 vp debate that he “fundamentally disagree[d]” with Ryan’s rape/incest exception, that Biden once held that same exception. According to NRLC:

[T]hroughout his Senate career Biden voted for the Hyde Amendment, prohibiting most federal funding of abortion.  Indeed, Biden explicitly advocated that the Hyde Amendment should contain an exception only to save the life of the mother, and he voted repeatedly against adding exceptions for rape and incest to the amendment.

Biden also takes a much less radical stand in support of abortion than his boss, begging the question, “Mr. Biden, isn’t it hypocritical for you to criticize Mr. Ryan for supporting positions for which you yourself often voted as a U.S. senator – especially since your record is opposite the positions taken by Barack Obama on those same issues?,” quoting NRLC.

To wit:

  • Partial Birth Abortion Ban: As U.S. Senator Biden repeatedly voted for the PBA Ban and against attempts to weaken it with a so-called health exception. After President Clinton twice vetoed the ban, Biden voted to override the vetoes. Meanwhile Obama opposed a similar ban as Illinois state senator and went so far as to attempt to raise campaign cash in opposition to the federal ban.
  • Freedom of Choice Act: As U.S. Senator Obama cosponsored FOCA, a radical bill that would have overturned the PBA Ban and all other federal and state limitations on abortion. Meanwhile Biden “expressed concern” that FOCA “would go too far in overturning state abortion limitations,” according to NRLC. Biden repeatedly refused to support the legislation unless it included several exceptions.
  • Hyde Amendment: For decades Biden voted for this annual rider that banned federal funding of abortion except to save the life of the mother. When attempts were made to weaken Hyde, Biden always rebuffed attempts to add a rape/incest exception.
  • Born Alive Infant Protection Act: U.S. Senator Biden voted for it, Illinois state Sen. Obama voted against the identical version.

In light of all this, NRLC suggested another question for the debate, “Mr. Biden, since you yourself voted for several major types of pro-life legislation for a period of decades in the U.S. Senate – taking positions the same as Mr. Ryan on those issues — when exactly did you decide that those positions were ‘extreme’?”

Your thoughts on why no one seems to notice Biden’s vast inconsistencies on abortion and his opposition to many of Obama’s radical stands?

New Gallup poll on abortion: Those perceived as most aggressive lose?

Click all graphics to enlarge…

The pendulum has swung back.

For the last 2 years Gallup’s annual poll asking the question, “With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?” swayed our way.

This year it didn’t. What does it mean?

Continue reading

Weekend question 1-16/17-10

weekend question.jpgAZStarnet.com reports on a microcosm of a nationwide phenomenon:

As the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade approaches, Tucson is seeing a increase in anti-abortion activism….
The election of President Obama, the push for health-care overhaul and Obama’s push for the Freedom of Choice Act – which would eliminate all state restrictions on abortion access – have increased activism, said Kelly Copeland, a local activist.
“We’re in danger of losing everything we’ve gained for 37 years,” said Copeland, a Catholic who plans to open a crisis-pregnancy center on March 25.
The national shift has brought out more activists locally, he said. Beginning last spring, for example, biannual meetings of Tucson for Life, which typically included about 15 attendees, shifted to monthly meetings averaging about 80 activists….

So this past year’s national pro-abortion political activism, often successful, has spurred tangible national, state, and local pro-life activism.
Which side is winning?

Hyde Amendment has pro-aborts kicking themselves

Pro-lifers tend to see the glass as half empty, understandably. Wherever we are not succeeding, innocent humans are dying.
So I’m always interested to read how the other side views its glass.
hyde amendment 1976.jpgThe pro-abort call right now is to overturn the Hyde Amendment, which bans public funding of almost all Medicaid abortions. Pro-aborts have never liked it, of course. Every year they try to kill it, since it must be renewed annually.
But the Hyde Amendment was shown during the healthcare debates to be more problematic than previously understood. It left the other side stunned and embarrassed when incorporated into the Stupak Amendment and passing in a pro-abort-controlled House.
Pro-aborts are now kicking themselves for letting it pass in the 1st place, which I find intriguing – as if it were all up to them.
Following are excerpts from a piece published yesterday by Frances Kissling, former president of Catholics for Choice on all this:

The debate about abortion coverage in health insurance reform is the latest disappointing moment in the efforts of feminists to ensure… the social transformation Roe promised….
To hear President Obama call the Hyde Amendment… an “American tradition” is only the most recent of many misstatements about what a fundamental right entails….

Continue reading

Jivin J’s Life Links 10-27-09

web grab.jpgby JivinJ

  • At the pro-choice blog Feministing, a blogger named Rose shares bits of a conversation she had with Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards regarding health care and abortion and the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).
  • Stephen Drake of Not Dead Yet isn’t happy with the Princetonian’s portrayal of his organization and its description of their protest against Singer.
  • Friends of Scott Roeder (the alleged killer of George Tiller) are planning to auction off random militant anti-abortion items on eBay to raise money for his defense. Weird. How many people are actually interested in an Army of God manual? Hopefully, not very many.
  • FOCA in bits and pieces

    masquerade.jpgA bill has been presented in Congress, purportedly to reduce abortion.
    But the Prevention First Act contains many of the elements in the polarizing and subsequently back-burnered Freedom of Choice Act.
    Introduced by Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Pregnancy First Act would increase funding for Title X (Planned Parenthood’s main source of support), and would exclude support for abstinence education and mothers in crisis pregnancies, according to The Catholic Key.
    Watch this new video from American Life League, which shines the spotlight on this “FOCA masquerade”:

    [Photo attribution: vi.sualize.us]