Tag Archives: NRLC

House to vote on 20-wk abortion ban TODAY – 2nd anniversary of Gosnell conviction

Baby Boy BThe photo, right, is a close-up of the nape of the neck of a 28-week old baby boy whose spinal cord was “snipped” to kill him by late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell after the baby survived his abortion.

Today marks the two-year anniversary Gosnell was convicted for first degree murder of three babies – of likely thousands killed at his Philadelphia clinic over the course of decades. Gosnell was also convicted for involuntary manslaughter in the agonized death of Karnamaya Mongar by anesthesia overdose during her 2nd-trimester abortion.

Today is also the day the U.S. House will vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which will ban abortions of babies after 20 weeks because it is known they feel excruciating pain when dismembered to death.

I will be present in the House Gallery to view this vote.

It was over the 20-week abortion ban that I was arrested on March 25, following first the decision by Republican House leadership to renege on a promised vote on January 22, the 42nd anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision, and then to go silent for two months, after promising to quickly bring it back.

After all the angst, I will say this, however. The bill today is much stronger than it was on January 22, as I briefly explained last week.

There are several new born-alive protections, an issue near to my heart, as well as other important enhancements. Read bullet points on the revisions in this one-page document of bullet points.

I want to highlight a couple of the provisions.

barack_obamaOne, that a second physician be present in the event a live birth is anticipated, is exactly what then-state Senator Barack Obama opposed in 2002, expressing “confidence” (pages 28-35) in the abortionist to properly provide medical care to the baby who just survived his or her first assassination attempt.

Another, what one of my friends on the Hill calls the “call-the-cops-or-wear-the-cuffs” provision, makes it a federal crime if a hospital or clinic employee, or another doctor, doesn’t report an abortionist’s failure to provide medical care to abortion survivors.

Social Media Rally!

Floor action on the 20-week abortion ban is expected to begin between 4-7p EST, although watch tweets by Congressman Trent Franks (@RepTrentFranks) for fine-tuning on the time.

Meanwhile, a social media rally has been launched to set the narrative and counteract pro-abortion opposition. Hashtags are: 1) #theyfeelpain, 2) #HR36, and 3) #prolife.

  1. RT and share @RepTrentFranks’ tweets.
  2. Create your own tweets in defense and support of HR 36 (see www.paincapable.com or NRLC’s Facebook events page for tweet samples). The more tweets the merrier!
  3. RT and/or Favorite other tweets from supporters of #HR36/#theyfeelpain.
  4. Write your own social media post

Thanks in advance. This is an important bill. At least 18,000 babies a year will be saved when it is eventually signed into law, and Americans will be further educated in the meantime.

As SBA List’s Marjorie Dannenfelser writes at Red State, there is no difference between the murders that Gosnell committed and late-term abortions than a few inches.

NRLC ups ante and pushes new “Dismemberment Abortion Ban” of 12-wk-old babies


You may have heard of the barbaric medieval practice of drawing and quartering, as described by historian William Harrison in 1557:

The greatest and most grievous punishment used in England for such as offend against the State is drawing from the prison to the place of execution upon an hurdle or sled, where they are hanged till they be half dead, and then taken down, and quartered alive; after that, their members and bowels are cut from their bodies, and thrown into a fire, provided near hand and within their own sight, even for the same purpose.

This is how Scottish leader William Wallace (played by Mel Gibson in Braveheart) was put to death.

And it pretty much describes a Dilatation and Evacuation abortion, wherein the abortionist reaches into the uterus blindly with forceps and starts grabbing and twisting off body parts of a living baby. Click to enlarge…


D&E abortions are committed beginning in the second trimester, when a baby is about 12 weeks gestation post fertilization (14 weeks from date of last menstrual period).

D&Es replace Dilatation and Curettage abortions at this age because babies get too big, and their bones and cartilage too inflexible, to remove by suctioning and scraping.

In 2010, the National Right to Life Committee introduced us to the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which bans abortions of preborn babies from the age of 20 weeks post-fertilization.

Despite last week’s unconscionable retreat by House Republicans from pressing forward with a federal Pain-Capable ban, to date 10 states have enacted it, with four more expected to follow suit this year. (Pain-Capable bans in two additional states are tied up in court and another one has been enjoined.)

Now, NRLC is pressing forward with an abortion ban that would protect even younger babies. Kansas, where Republicans control all three branches of government, will soon become the first state to introduce the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Act, which Gov. Sam Brownback has promised to sign.

The bill is not yet available online, but NRLC State Legislative Director Mary Balch told me by phone this morning it contains NO rape/incest exception.

Johnson_AnthonyKennedyIt is no secret pro-life groups are in various ways attempting to trigger a lawsuit that lands at the Supreme Court’s door, and in this case NRLC believes the infamous swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy (pictured right), would sway our way. From a January 14 NRLC press release:

In his dissent to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2000 Stenberg v. Carhart decision, Justice Kennedy observed that in D&E dismemberment abortions, “The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off.”

Justice Kennedy added in the Court’s 2007 opinion, Gonzales v. Carhart, which upheld the ban on partial-birth abortion, that D&E abortions are “laden with the power to devalue human life…”

Contrary to Feminist Majority Foundation’s claim, there is another late-term abortion method abortionists could turn to if D&Es are banned: induced labor abortion, of which I am particularly aware.  As of 2009, D&Es accounted for “96% of all second trimester abortions,” according to NRLC, of approximately 100,000 babies who are aborted annually from this age upward.

The fact that abortionists might simply switch procedures disturbs me, of course, although I know the mere title, “Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Act,” is incredibly educational.

But Balch reminded me the induced labor abortion method requires a higher level of expertise, as abortionists testified during the Partial Birth Abortion Ban hearings. It requires the abortionist to give the baby a lethal injection before starting the labor induction by inserting a long needle through the mother’s abdomen that is visualized on ultrasound.

If abortionists don’t kill the baby before starting labor induction, they risk live births, and hopefully Gosnell’s life sentence for killing abortion survivors will dissuade them from risking that.

So, yes, a Dismemberment Ban would stop many babies from being aborted.

And, of course, there is the aforementioned educational component. It was during the “dizzying array,” as Guttmacher termed them, of PBA bans introduced throughout the states and federally during the 1990s that public opinion began to change on abortion…


Balch credits that debate in no small part for the strong pro-life commitment of today’s Millennials, who grew up during those years.

To address concerns of those who would oppose the Dismemberment Ban as “immoral incrementalism,” as opposed to “moral incrementalism” (which they define), Balch responded:

There is not a perfect bill I have worked on – ever. There are always loopholes [JLS note: as I explain here]. The loopholes are not of our making. The loopholes are because abortion is legal in the U.S., and we’re dealing with that fact and trying to work in that reality.

Our job as pro-lifers is to put the baby back in the debate, and imperfect legislation does that. If I could draft perfect legislation there would be no killing. But right now we have an imperfect reality.

So keep an eye out for the next big pro-life conquest: dismemberment abortions, and plan to describe their horrific reality.

The Personhood split, Part I: Structure

988-BreakupOn June 14, 2014, came the news:

Georgia Right to Life President Daniel Becker today announced the formation of a new national pro-life organization, the National Personhood Alliance, a confederation of faith-based, pro-life organizations and leaders who believe pursuing Personhood is essential to protecting all innocent human beings in the 21st century.

Reading that I became confused, because last I knew Becker was working for Personhood USA, a group that sounded an awful lot like this new group.

Both organizations are founded on the “immediatist” principle of supporting only endeavors and political candidates with no abortion exceptions, such as for rape and incest.

But what could really be the difference between an organization named Personhood USA and one named National Personhood Alliance?

One major difference, I came to learn, was organizational structure.

PA wants to formulate an organization of affiliates to compete against the National Right to Life Committee. (It helps to know NRLC disaffiliated Georgia Right to Life, of which Becker is still president, in March 2014 for a difference of opinion on strategy that culminated in GRTL’s public attempt to thwart a piece of NRLC’s legislation.)

PUSA wants to maintain a tight decision-making framework composed of a small leadership team and donor board, also with affiliates, but with no plan to rival and replace NRLC. Plus, PUSA has worked hard to amass a HUGE (seven million and counting) national database of believers.

I’ll pause to say I have friends and colleagues in both PUSA and PA, and I support both immediatist and incremental approaches to stop abortion – pretty much anything short of violence that attempts to move the ball forward. I only get riled when either camp attempts to thwart the others’ efforts.

That said, and as an aside, in my opinion there is really no such thing as immediatist, or nonincremental, efforts.

While immediatists charge that a 20-week abortion ban omits babies younger than 20 weeks, or that any pro-life law with a rape/incest exception leaves out babies conceived by sexual perpetrators, they cheer initiatives to establish personhood in one state – but which omit 49 other states, or a protest at one abortion clinic – which is not to protest at the other 749 or so others, or saving one baby headed for death – which is not to save the 2,999 or so others murdered by abortion that day. Etc.

In reality, short of a human life amendment to the Constitution, all pro-lifers are working on incremental steps to stop abortion. [UPDATE: A couple people have pointed out to me that even a human life amendment is incremental, since it omits babies in all other pro-abortion countries.]

Some immediatists will then argue there are “principled” vs. “unprincipled” incremental efforts. In other words, there are those babies it is morally acceptable to try to save and those it is not. This really upsets me on a personal level, because I held an aborted baby that immediatists who eschew a 20-week ban would let die. That’s principled?

But back to the split.

PUSA gave PA its blessing upon launch, but the relationship quickly soured. PUSA publicly announced in a September 1 email it would “not be participating in the new National Personhood Alliance.”

In that email PUSA lodged these complaints against PA:

NPA has incorporated in Georgia as a 501c4 under the name “Personhood Inc.” and will be doing business as “Personhood”, Violating Personhood USA’s trademark of Personhood. In addition, the emails and documents we have seen indicate that they intended to use our logos, branding, and intellectual property.

One of the main concerns here is duplication of focus and confusion among all grassroots supporters.


In fact, there have now been three trademark applications submitted: 1) August 28, 2014, for “Personhood” by Georgia Right to Life Committee; 2) October 6, 2014, for “Personhood” plus the design, right, by Personhood USA; and 3) October 6, 2014, for “Personhood USA” by Personhood USA.

I’m told PUSA and PA are trying to settle their differences through private, not legal, mediation, but if they’ve both now applied for the same trademark, it doesn’t look promising.

NEXT: The Personhood split, Part II: Strategy

NRLC prez reacts to Miss America’s Planned Parenthood internship

by Carder

Miss AmericaIt would be a tragedy if someone who is looked up to by many young women actually buys into the Planned Parenthood abortion agenda. Unfortunately, most people in the country don’t know that Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider.

This will cast a shadow on her entire reign.

~ National Right to Life president Carol Tobias, criticizing Miss America 2015, Kira Kazantsev, for having interned at Planned Parenthood, Fox News, September 17

Thoughts on National Right to Life severing ties with GA Right to Life

imageOn March 29 the National Right to Life Committee announced it was disaffiliating Georgia Right to Life.

In the same statement NRLC announced it was credentialing a new state pro-life organization, Georgia Life Alliance.

Read NRLC’s press release here, but its rationale for severing ties with GRTL boiled down to insubordination: GRTL had publicly attempted to thwart two pieces of NRLC’s “top-priority federation legislation,” the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act last year, and the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act this year.

In its statement, NRLC subtly responded to GRTL’s reason for defying its parent organization, which was that GRTL opposed the rape/incest exceptions in the aforementioned bills:

NRLC and its affiliates seek to restore legal protection for all unborn children from the moment of their conception. Until the Supreme Court allows broad protections for unborn children, we work to protect as many children as possible by passing the strongest possible laws at the state and federal level. That legislative strategy has helped save millions of lives – and continues to save lives today.

Likewise, in its response, GRTL subtly explained its reason for defying NRLC:

In 2000, GRTL changed its candidate endorsement criteria and legislation policy to ensure that all pre-born children are protected, except in cases where the life of the mother is threatened.

As a result, Georgia is the only state where all its statewide constitutional officers do not support rape or incest exceptions. Georgia is one of only two states that have kept exceptions out of their legal codes….

GRTL PAC has an 89% success rate in helping to elect candidates who are truly pro-life and do not support rape and incest exceptions.

LifeSiteNews.com spelled out the disagreement:

The national pro-life group decided Saturday to affiliate instead with [GLA], a new group that says it aims to protect all unborn children, but will support legislation that includes the exceptions as an incremental strategy. GRTL has opposed exceptions – except for the “life of the mother,” provided that the health care provider tries to save both lives – since 2000.

The GRTL/NRLC split is symptomatic of an ongoing battle within the pro-life movement between those who think certain incremental legislation is immoral and those who think either the all-or-nothing personhood/immediatist approach, or more sweeping legislation (such as a 12-week abortion ban), is imprudent.

Some on Facebook have taken my use of the term of “insubordination” as a judgment call in favor of NRLC. It isn’t. I, myself, was fired for “insubordination,” as it was written on my termination letter, for publicly opposing my hospital’s pro-abortion policy. Firing is what organizations do when subordinates are… insubordinate.

I saw this picture and caption yesterday and thought it provided a good example of what I’m talking about. In this case General MacArthur publicly stated he wanted to expand the Korean War into China, which President Truman opposed….


I’ve heard versions of what went down between NRLC and GRTL from well-placed sources within both camps. And I think both sides are responsible for some rights and some wrongs, as is usually the case. If I thought one group was clearly in the wrong, I’d say so.

I’m generally for doing anything to move the ball forward, so I’m usually happy to see personhood/immediatist endeavors as well as incremental endeavors. Then again, I’m no strategist.

What I don’t like is when either camp undermines the other camps’s efforts, of which both camps are guilty.

And I don’t like when personhood/immediatist pro-lifers attack incrementalist attempts as immoral or not pro-life.

imageI agree with Ryan Bomberger (pictured right), the adopted biracial pro-lifer who is the product of rape. Ryan wrote in an email (which he gave me permission to post):

I was born as a result of rape and am often expected to solely advocate “no-exceptions” policies. I do believe in Personhood as a concept. But just as with slavery, the 13th Amendment didn’t materialize out of thin air. It was a long exhausting haul of political failure and seemingly impossible triumphs.

I long for the day when abortion is unthinkable. But we have to perform massive “heart” surgery for millions out there including many in our own camp along the way.

I’m a passionate abolitionist… an incrementalist… a realist. I cheer when 20 week abortion bans stand up to judicial scrutiny. I applaud when Pain-Capable bills pass. As a parent I rejoice when parental notification and consent laws ensure the State doesn’t meddle in our children’s personal lives. I tear up when I see mobile ultrasound units uninhibited by bogus zoning restrictions as they provide services where they’re needed most. Some victories are bigger than others, but none are too small in this monumental battle.

I admire different approaches. As a creative professional, I firmly believe that one-size-never-fits-all…. We can be unified yet still diversified.

I support GRTL/Personhood USA’s efforts to establish the legality of personhood at conception. But GRTL was just as wrong – according to its own “no exceptions” standard – to oppose a 20-week federal ban with a rape/incest exception as it was to support a state 20-week ban with no rape/incest exception – but which excepted all babies under 20 weeks.

Here is GRTL’s rationalization, which is instructive to read, taken from page 33 of Pillars of Personhood Educational Handbook. Click to enlarge:


IMO, the above is Pharisaic blather to rationalize GRTL’s support of a 20-wk ban with no exceptions, etc.

GRTL’s analogy…

Passing laws that discriminate against such classes with the intent to “come back and save them later” is essentially the same as running into a burning building and saving who you can but then shooting those you can’t on your way out.

… is false. All abortion-bound babies will “burn” if not saved by incremental laws. Pro-lifers don’t shoot the ones they are unable to save. These babies are going to die anyway.

Likewise, to support a 20-week ban that laudably excludes a rape/incest exception is still to “shoot” all babies under 20 weeks left in the burning building. And to support a ban on taxpayer funded abortion is still to “shoot” all babies aborted with personal funds. Even to ban any and all abortions in Georgia is still to “shoot” babies burning in 49 other states.

How can GRTL not see its own hypocrisy? It’s quite frustrating. Mirroring it own principles back at it shows it, too, is guilty of classism (prejudice against preborn babies whose mothers have money), geographical prejudice, and ageism.

That the very nature of abortion is ageism is something I’m reminded of every day, because I carry these drop cards by Created Equal in my wallet to leave in public places…


imageMy final thought is that NRLC’s disaffiliation of GRTL has lit a long smoldering spark into a fire. It will be seen as a tipping point. I have no evidence, only a strong sense, that other NRLC disenfranchised affiliates like Cleveland Right to Life and Colorado Right to Life (which birthed American Right to Life), together with Personhood USA, whose National Field Director is Dan Becker (pictured right), the president of GRTL, and another group or two I can think of, will coalesce into a new national pro-life organization to rival NRLC.

I don’t fear or abhor this potentiality. Although unity is preferred, God uses adversity to advance the message as well. My only concern is whether this development will hinder or help everyone’s goal to stop abortion.

Pro-life news brief 4-16-13

by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat

  • At the Washington Post, Sarah Kliff offers a mea culpa on her description of the Gosnell trial as a “local crime story” and outlines the basics.
  • The New York Times has sent reporter Trip Gabriel to the trial, and he has an article noting the role social media played in getting the national media to cover the story.
  • Here’s the Washington Post’s article with a quote from NRLC’s Mary Spaulding Balch:
    “The significance of the trial is that it shows just how reluctant people are to look at what goes on in abortion facilities,” said Mary Spaulding Balch, director for state legislation for National Right to Life, a group that opposes abortion. “This is something they don’t know about, and they would be shocked to hear about it.”


  • Tim Carney echoes those thoughts:
    When you discuss the act of aborting – even perfectly legal abortions – you have to discuss the blood, the scalpels, the scissors. You might use terms like “dilation and extraction” or “dilation and curettage [image at left; click to enlarge].” Think through those terms (“curettage” is defined as “a surgical scraping or cleaning”) and recall that what is being extracted or scraped has a beating heart.

Discussing Gosnell threatens to start a discussion on abortion procedures – and that’s not good for anyone in the abortion industry.

  • Same with the LA Times’ Jonah Goldberg:
    Regardless, Gosnell isn’t only being charged with performing illegal late-term abortions. He’s being charged with delivering viable babies and killing them. The really profound question here is what is the moral difference between killing a living baby that is outside the mother for a few seconds and killing one that’s still inside. It’s no wonder the media would rather talk about itself.
  • New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan tries to explain the lack of coverage as well:
    I do think that it wasn’t on their radar screen – and that it should have been. The murders of seven newborn babies, done so horrifically, would be no ordinary crime. Any suggestion, including mine on Friday, that this is just another murder trial is a miscalculation. And it’s certainly possible that journalists who were more in touch with conservative voices and causes would have picked up on the importance of this trial sooner.

Catholics Ryan and Biden debate abortion

Last night Democrat Joe Biden and Republican Paul Ryan engaged in the one and only vice presidential debate of the 2012 election cycle.

I thought Biden lost hands down, coming across as a snide, rude, condescending, blowharded buffoon, while Ryan appeared presidential and gave measured, polite, substantive responses.

As somebody said on one of the radio talk shows this morning, watching the debate was like watching someone try to carry on an intelligent conversation with a drunk at a bar.

Then again, I’ve never for the life of me understood why people don’t always see the Biden we saw amplified last night. And I’ve never been able to figure out why people aren’t frightened to death of the prospect of Biden as president.

All that aside, and on to our issue, I thought moderator Martha Raddatz’s question on abortion was great, quite pointed. It was just too bad she had Ryan answer first, and it was too bad she didn’t make Biden actually answer her question:

Raddatz: This debate is indeed historic. We have two Catholic candidates, first time on a stage such as this, and I would like to ask you both to tell me what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion. Please talk about how you came to that decision. Talk about how your religion played a part in that. And please, this is such an emotional issue for so many… people in this country. Please talk personally about this if you could. Congressman Ryan.

Read the transcript of their responses here.

Bearing in mind that Ryan was speaking to undecideds and independents, his answer was for the most part good. He started by humanizing preborn children at a very young age. ABC listed this as one of the top 10 quotes of the night:

[A]bout 10 1/2 years ago, my wife Janna and I went to Mercy Hospital in Janesville where I was born for our seven-week ultrasound for our firstborn child, and we saw that heartbeat. Our little baby was in the shape of a bean, and to this day, we have nicknamed our firstborn child, Liza, “Bean.”

Ryan struck the Obama administration on the religious freedom issue as it pertains to Obamacare. He struck the Democrat Party for being extreme on abortion (“The Democratic Party used to say they want it to be safe, legal and rare. Now they support it without restriction and with taxpayer funding, taxpayer funding in Obamacare, taxpayer funding with foreign aid.”), and he pointed out Biden’s own extremism on abortion, wheren he condoned China’s one-child policy.

My quibble would be that Ryan didn’t go far enough in exposing Obama’s extremism on abortion – opposing the Born Alive Act (which Biden supported), opposing the Partial- Birth Abortion Ban, opposing parental notification, opposing a ban on sex selective abortions, opposing a ban on abortions after babies can feel pain – any and all of which the public would be horrified to learn.

Ryan could have also done a touché on abortion flip-flopping by pointing out Biden’s remarkable “evolution” on abortion. (Funny how the media doesn’t notice that.)

But Ryan did well enough. My only real regret is the Romney/Ryan ticket’s support of abortions for rape and incest.

Biden’s response to the question was fallacious. He began by agreeing that “[l]ife begins at conception. That’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life.” Then the but: “But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and – I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman.”

Stop. A moderator experienced on the topic of abortion, or desirous to discuss it any deeper than on the surface level, would have made Biden explain how he believes life begins at conception but finds it is acceptable to allow someone to kill that life. As pro-life Democrat strategist Kirsten Powers tweeted:

Biden also lied by denying Obamacare forces religious institutions to pay for abortions.

And Biden made a big deal out of Ryan’s personal opposition to abortion for rape and incest. “I just fundamentally disagree with my friend,” which is pretty impossible if one really believes life begins at conception.

Biden also reminded the audience that Roe is endangered if Obama isn’t reelected and gets to choose the next one or two justices, as is anticipated. Does that sound like someone who honestly believes life begins at conception? Of course not.

Oh, for a reporter who would actually delve in to this topic. The responses are always the same. Everyone knows what answers are coming. Why after almost 40 years of legalized abortion does no reporter ever ask a follow-up question of abortion proponents? Raddatz certainly had one for Ryan:

I want to go back to the abortion question here. If the Romney-Ryan ticket is elected, should those who believe that abortion should remain legal be worried?

What are your thoughts? How do you think Ryan and Biden’s debate on abortion will impact the electorate?

[Photo of Biden via USA Today; photo of Ryan via ABC]

Book on Komen’s cave to Planned Parenthood passes Politifact’s “truthometer” test

Georgia’s Politifact decided to analyze Karen Handel’s book, Planned Bullyhood, on two key points.

Handel is Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s former Senior VP of Public Policy who was falsely accused by feminists and liberals of pushing the organization to defund Planned Parenthood.

Handel’s new book gives an insider’s account of Komen’s original rationale and the naiveté, insurrection, and cowardice that lead the organization to flip flop.

Politifact picked two points from the book to analyze: that Planned Parenthood does not perform mammograms, and that Obamacare includes abortion coverage.

The mammogram question was easy to prove. Although PP was certainly not forthcoming for many years, and had even attempted to confuse the issue, the organization will admit the truth when asked point blank.

In fact, it apparently now feels pressure to jump out in front at times and clarify it does not offer mammograms, as did Dr. Vanessa Cullins, VP of External Medical Affairs at PP, in this August 2012 video, although notice the spin, lumping PP into a category of healthcare providers it is not. Jump to 1:35…

YouTube Preview Image

On the mammogram point Politifact gave Handel an unqualified “True.”

The question on whether Obamacare indeed covers abortion, despite Obama’s claims to the contrary, is harder for MSM to see, since the route is circuitous. In April 2012 Tampa Bay Politifact would only go so far as to say:

The complex funding mechanisms make the question of whether Obamacare covers abortion a little fuzzy. But clearly the law provides some access to the service.

In fact, Politifact has so been notoriously bad on this topic that Douglas Johnson at National Right to Life warned in September 2009 one might “get vertigo” trying to follow its logic.

But Georgia Politifact was more willing to hear Handel and Johnson make their case, ultimately giving Handel a mostly thumbs up:

Basically, abortions can be performed under the health care law, depending on which state you reside in. Because that bit of detail was not mentioned, we rate Handel’s entire claim Mostly True.

Nevertheless, Politifact still managed to play fast and loose with facts surrounding abortion coverage in Obamacare in its story, earning this withering response from Johnson, in an email comment:

A new week, and here we have yet another PolitiFact “factcheck” on an Obamacare-abortion issue – and as you would expect, there are all sorts of things wrong with it.

The reporter (Eric Sturgis of PolitiFact Georgia) concludes that “federal funds” are not used for “abortion services” under Obamacare – in part because a page on the DHHS website says this is so!

He accepts that the Obama executive order “committed to no federal funding for abortion,” despite the detailed materials I sent him refuting this notion – including the statement by the president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, that the executive order was a “symbolic gesture.” He quotes Richards in a manner that leaves the impression that she disapproved of the executive order, but the quote was actually what Richards said months earlier, in an initial reaction to the Nelson-Boxer deal. And so forth.

Still, because of the way Karen Handel stated her charge – she spoke of Obamacare providing “coverage for abortions” – PolitiFact decided that Handel’s statement was “mostly true.” It is nice to see an innocent defendant win acquittal, even though the “judge” got so many things wrong on both the law and the facts.