Tag Archives: Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

My new role at Susan B. Anthony List


SBA-20_logoOriginally posted June 23, 2015

Dear faithful readers of JillStanek.com:

First, the exciting news: I am honored to have accepted a position at Susan B. Anthony List as its National Campaign Chair! Read more at WorldNetDaily.com. Also read SBA’s press release and a a blurb in Politico’s Pulse.

I have been a long-time admirer of Marjorie Dannenfelser and the SBA List team, many of whom are friends. I partnered with the group during the 2012 election cycle for a bus tour exposing Barack Obama’s abortion/infanticide extremism.

This is a new position, for which I will travel the country on behalf of SBA List, speaking to pro-life activists, donors, and voters to promote SBA List’s aggressive campaign strategy to elect a pro-life president in 2016 and advance the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

This will be a permanent position. After the 2016 election there will be the need to conduct another national pro-life political campaign… and another… and another.

But of immediate importance to me, as you know, is passage of the Pain-Capable Act, because as an RN I witnessed the excruciating deaths of 20+ week abortion survivors who would have been saved had a 20-week abortion ban been in place.

Electing a pro-life president is the gateway to enacting this legislation into law. And, of course, a president also wields a tremendous amount of influence in other areas of importance to pro-lifers, such as funding abortion groups and the pro-death agenda, judicial nominations, and other pro-life/abortion legislation.

I witnessed firsthand how devastating pro-abortion legislators can be when I watched then-state Senator Barack Obama vote four times against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act and take a leadership role in seeing its defeat.

Now, the sad news. Because my position at SBA List will be full-time, I have made the difficult decision to grind almost all activities at JillStanek.com to a halt, after 10 years of blogging here. I will basically be keeping the blog open now for archival purposes, posting my own blogs very infrequently.

After this week we will be streamlining my blog to just those postings, which will also be published at Live Action News. This means no more quotes of the day, pro-life videos of the day, pro-life blog buzz, or pro-life news briefs. Also, there will be no more commenting. All comments will be directed to my Facebook page.

2009-06-04-MSNBC-StanekIt has been a great run. After all, were it not for my blog I would never have been named “Worst Person in the World” by Keith Olbermann!

That goofiness aside, we broke many stories of importance here, including information on late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart’s victims in 2013.

But times online have changed. The timing of all this is good – and God’s.

In the beginning (10 years online are like dog years), pro-lifers had to check several blog and web sources a day to get all the news they needed. Now, in combination with social media, Live Action News, LifeNews.com, LifeSiteNews.com, and StanekReport.com capture everything we need to know. And there are now many great pro-life writers.

11297838_10153274799331622_1900318693_nSpeaking of StanekReport.com, it will soon become HarmsReport.com. Pro-lifer Monte Harms has been the strongest contributor to SR.com behind the scenes and will be ably taking the helm. (Thanks also to Carole, Susie, and Josh for their help with SR.com.)

Monte has a rich pro-life background, having volunteered for Justice for All and Protest ABQ and done sidewalk counseling at abortion mills. He has also run the blogs Stand for Life and Pro-Life New Mexico.

And what about Kelli, our site’s glue? I’m happy to report she will begin working for Live Action News next week, doing much of the same work she did here. This blog would not have been held together were it not for Kelli, who has poured herself into it for over six years.

Kelli is but one dear friend I have made here. I can’t begin to name all the wonderful moderators and volunteers who have dedicated themselves on this blog, although I must highlight some special people who were here from the beginning, or nearly the beginning – Bethany, Carla, LauraLoo, and MK.

Special thanks to Carder, Hans, and Susie, who have steadfastly posted great stuff here, so helpful to our cause. And I’d also like to thank our current mods: Del, Sydney, and last but not least Bobby Bambino, who has also been a mod since we began having mods!

But most of all, I want to thank YOU, pro-life readers and activists, for your support of this blog but moreso the sanctity of life.

Prayers appreciated!

For Life Together,

Jill

Shock: NARAL sends email claiming “babies” in utero feel pain

JORDI BABY 20WEEKS_4by Kelli

The email was signed by a NARAL supporter, Dana Weinstein, asking for donations to NARAL to fight HR 36, the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would ban abortions after 20 weeks (5 months). She writes, “When I was more than 20 weeks pregnant, my doctor discovered our baby had horrifying severe fetal anomalies that could not have been discovered earlier in pregnancy.”

It’s strange enough to see NARAL using the term “baby” to describe the “products of conception” that the pro-abortion movement has worked so hard to dehumanize — to the point that the media now frequently refer to abandoned babies as “fetuses.”

But even stranger is what comes next. Weinstein writes, “If I’d carried our wanted and loved baby to term, she would have survived only for a short time, in a world of immense suffering. So we chose to end our baby’s pain.”

Again, the word “baby” — even “loved baby,” as if it were possible for this valueless being in the womb to be the proper object for human love. But even more shocking is the admission that children in the womb can feel pain.

The pro-abortion lobby has declared for years that fetuses cannot feel pain, or at least not until much later in pregnancy than 20 weeks. They’ve called it “junk science” to claim otherwise (despite the fact that perinatal surgeons routinely use anesthesia when operating on unborn children).

But now Dana Weinstein is insisting that she and her husband needed to abort their child to end its pain!…

I understand why NARAL is breaking message here. It would be a heartless, unsympathetic parent who would talk about their “fetus” being diagnosed with health problems. And sounds a lot better to talk about “ending” the pain that a baby is supposedly in right now, than killing the child to keep it from feeling pain later.

But NARAL doesn’t get to have it both ways.

~ Eric Scheidler, Pro-Life Action League, June 4

[HT: Life Site News; image via babyjordi.blogspot.com]

“Immediatist vs Incrementalist” debate analysis: Epilogue

SHALL WE DO NOTHING- AHAIn the scheme of things, the “Immediatist vs Incrementalist” debate between AHA’s T. Russell Hunter and Center for Bio-Ethical Reform’s Gregg Cunningham on April 25, 2015, was iconic. AHA’s immediatist philosophy was laid bare as contradictory, confused, and even nefarious.

Most extraordinary was that Hunter came so ill prepared, after beating his chest for months for prudentialists to “choose a man, and let him come down to fight me,” in the words of Goliath.

Witnessing social movement historian and master debater Cunningham methodically take down each of AHA’s talking points, only to receive such  flummoxed responses by Hunter, was a sight to behold. Cunningham was quick to challenge Hunter’s “conflated” and “binary” arguments, and with no keyboard to hide behind, Hunter’s half-baked theories, groundless accusations, and inaccurate portrayal of history were laid bare.

Hunter asked me this question in a comment on my post, “Immediatist vs Incrementalist” debate analysis, Part II: There’s only one way to cut down a tree?:

Jill Stanek,

Do you agree with your readers that “AHA” is some kind of a pro-choice plot? A group sent by pro-aborts to bring the PLM down?

Russ

This was in response to commenters like Kate, who wrote:

I’m convinced that Abolish Human Abortion are pro choicers disguised as prolifers with the mission to bring the prolife movement down. It is one thing to disagree, it is another to go after your own, as they constantly seem to do.

I don’t know why Hunter cares what I think, since he actually accuses me of being part of the “pro-choice plot” for supporting incremental legislation and thus advocating, so he says, abortions that are “safe, early, and painless.”

As you can see, the conversation can (and often does) get stupid. Another for instance, when AHA responded that my hatchet-job on Hunter’s tree analogy was misplaced, because silly me thought he was actually making a tree analogy…

11124720_10155448994180364_1226978605_n

… which was to say the tree analogy only works if it supports AHA theory.

But I will answer Hunter’s question. Actually, I’ll let others who have already said it better than I could. The first thought comes from a pro-life proponent who would prefer no attribution:

T. Russell Hunter and AHA are not dissenting voices in an intellectually honest discussion. They are intentionally poisoning the well and confusing the faithful. Heck, not only does Hunter break down under cross-examination, he can’t even clarify his own position – thus, the endless stream of sandwich-eating videos.

When you can’t clarify your own position, something other than your position is the real agenda. That “something else” in this case is a personal hatred of pro-lifers who are recognized (and paid) for working hard and actually getting things done.

What has AHA done other than attack pro-lifers? Reach a few students here and there with a quick sermon? Demonstrate abortion to a handful of folks via a picture provided by CBR? In short, we are dealing with malcontents who rival Planned Parenthood in their efforts to confuse and distort reality.

Watch this clip from Band of Brothers. I’ve seen it a number of times and weep each time. This is what we fight. Everyone in our sphere would save as many of these people as we could. T. Russell Hunter and his cronies will not work with Catholics and secularists to free these people. He would not save them incrementally (click on screenshot to view video)…

2015-05-20_1236

So what’s the lesson? Simply this” We are not dealing with rational dissenters who contribute something to our understanding and thus make us better. To the contrary, we are engaging a moral sickness combined with unthinkable arrogance. I’d rather be known for opening the camp gate.

Steve Hays of Triablogue also answered Hunter’s question in two succinct blog posts on May 17.

Why does AHA discriminate against babies?

Abolitionists accuse prolifers of “discrimination” because they lobby for laws that protect some babies rather than all babies. But the allegation is ironic:

i) To begin with, the charge of discrimination is nonsensical. For instance, it’s discriminatory to choose one group over another group if you’re in a position to choose both groups.

If, however, prolifers are striving to save all, and only those babies who can be saved right now, that’s not discriminatory. They lack the wherewithal, at present, to save more babies. If they could, they would.

ii) In fact, it’s actually the abolitionists who are guilty of discrimination. They discriminate against the babies who are savable by opposing incremental legislation. They discriminate against those babies by refusing to take feasible measures necessary to save them.

So not only is the abolitionist accusation false, but it boomerangs. On the one hand, prolifers don’t discriminate against babies. On the other hand, abolitionists do discriminate against babies.

Abolitionists discriminate against babies in the present in the hopes of saving all babies in the future.

Why does AHA support abortion?

Abolish Human Abortion: Abolitionists will also continue interposing themselves between the innocent unborn and the rhetoric of wolves that jovially and enthusiastically support the unjust laws that cement ageism into our culture of death’s psyche.

Translation: abolitionists interpose themselves between innocent babies and the prolifers who could save them. AHA barricades the abortion clinic from restrictive laws. AHA barricades the abortion clinic to prevent restrictive laws from saving babies.

Instead of protecting babies from the abortionist, AHA is protecting the abortionist from laws that limit his access to babies. They don’t allow the prolifer to come between the abortionist and the baby. They give him free rein.

By opposing incremental legislation, AHA protects the legal status quo. They stand guard at the abortion clinic to keep restrictive laws at bay.

In closing, a thought by Maggie Gallagher of National Review Online last week, upon the passage of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which AHA opposed:

I remember being at the table in New York City in the 1980s, discussing abortion strategies with people who said they could never support any law except a constitutional amendment protecting all human life. Otherwise, they told me, their hands would be dirty.

I remember thinking: Your hands may be clean, but the babies are still dying.

Read previous posts:

Prologue
Part I: Let babies die today, we can save the rest later
Part II: There’s only one way to cut down a tree?
Part III: Social justice history vs TR Hunter
Part IV: Straw men and the Bible
Part V: Sacrificing children to the idol of abolitionism
Part VI: Christians and the legislative process
Part VII: So fundraising is wrong?
Scott Klusendorf: Debate between Gregg Cunningham and T. Russell Hunter
Jonathan Van Maren: Four observations from the Cunningham vs. Hunter debate

Also, fyi, we are in the final stages of preparing an ebook compiling all the analyses of the Cunningham-Hunter debate into one document. Stay tuned.

Matt Walsh to Cecile Richards: You don’t know compassion

StadiumBaltimoreby Kelli

Planned Parenthood, as you know, has always been repugnant, vile, abhorrent, cruel, destructive, racist, brutal, and murderous, but it used to be pretty upfront about it. Now you do the same things while hiding behind a thick wall of propaganda and deception.

It’s cowardly, ma’am. You are a coward. You all are.

And you clearly lack respect, to put it mildly.

But lots of organizations thrive on manipulation and obfuscation. What really sets you apart, of course, is the murdering. You, Ms. Richards, are personally responsible for 327,000 children being executed this past year alone. In all, your abortion retailers have slaughtered over 6 million human beings, which makes you about as prolific as the Nazis, and equal in moral depravity.

To put this in perspective, consider the professional football stadium in my hometown of Baltimore. It has a seating capacity of about 71,000. I would need more than 4 stadiums of that size to fit all of the children you’ve slain in one year. That’s four entire football stadiums stacked with dead bodies, and even then we’d run out of room. I could fill every football stadium in the country 3 times with the people you’ve killed over the course of Planned Parenthood’s existence.

So, compassion?

Really?

I want you to actually visualize it, Cecile. Visualize 90 stadiums packed with maimed, rigid corpses, and and then tell me again about your compassion and respect. Tell me how “compassion and respect” slaughters 6 million people.

You’re a certifiable lunatic if you legitimately believe mass genocide is compassionate. But you don’t actually believe that, do you? You know better. You’re a businesswoman, not a psychopath. Killing is just your business.

~ Blogger Matt Walsh in his open letter to Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards (who lambasted a 20-week abortion ban as “lack[ing] compassion and… respect”), The Blaze, May 15

[Photo via baltimoremagazine.net]

Stanek weekend Q: Explain breathtaking liberal blind spot on abortion vs animal cruelty?

These tweets are literally posted one on top the other in pro-abortion Democrat Ted Deutch’s Twitter feed:

Screen Shot 2015-05-16 at 6.41.37 AM

The practice of animal crushing is a sexual fetish of the sickest kind.

About his introduction of the PACT Act, Rep. Deutch wrote:

Too many animals are subjected to unfathomable cruelty and abuse, out of no fault of their own and no recourse for protection. These inhumane acts have no place in our society.

House Foreign AffairsYet, incomprehensibly, particularly by comparison – and on the very same day as he introduced his animal cruelty bill – Deutch, pictured right, blew off the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act as a Republican stunt in his floor speech opposing the 20-wk abortion ban (beginning at 1:08:26 on the video):

Motivation behind H.R. 36 couldn’t be more transparent. They want to make abortion after 20 weeks illegal and abortions before 20 weeks impossible.

Never mind “abortion” equals human slaughter, and never mind it is a well-established fact that babies feel pain by the age of 20 gestational weeks. Babies much younger than this routinely receive anesthesia during prenatal surgery.

This cognitive disconnect is beyond my capability to comprehend. Can anyone help me?

[HT: Chris C.]

New language in 20-week abortion ban virtually ensures an end to late-term abortions

admin-ajaxYesterday, the U.S. House passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act by a vote of 242-184-1.

In the gallery for the debates and vote, I was as horrified by pro-abortion opposition as I was elated by pro-life support.

Most egregious was Democrat Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, who evoked faith, God, and even the song “Glory” from the movie Selma to defend the right to dismember 5-mo-old children (beginning at 33:32).

Both Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards hid behind tweets to express support for stabbing and decapitating little babies. Richards went too far, however, even for her…

I can’t even begin to fathom such an openly depraved mind as that.

Now the bill moves to the Senate, where the lift will be heavier than it was (but should not have been) in the House. Required will be 60 votes to surmount a Democrat filibuster.

Then, of course, there is our pro-abortion/pro-infanticide president to contend with.

But do not forget how the arduous progression of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban only served to heighten awareness of both the savagery of abortion and the humanity of the preborn child and with it heighten support for the sanctity of life.

Good riddance to late-term abortions

The other day I directed you to new verbiage in the Pain-Capable Act, but I want to explain how the added language will virtually end late-term abortions in the U.S, exceptions notwithstanding.

Those exceptions are: 1) rape/incest, 2) life of the mother.

Backing up, the Pain-Capable Act protects children from the “post-fertilization age [of] 20 weeks.”

But, as Wikipedia explains, “In human obstetrics, gestational age refers to the embryonic or fetal age plus two weeks. This is approximately the duration since the woman’s last menstrual period began.”

So, the New York Times article two weeks ago, entitled, “Premature Babies May Survive at 22 Weeks if Treated, Study Finds,” was speaking of gestational age, which is the same as 20 weeks post-fertilization.

hqdefaultIn other words, the Pain Capable Ban protects potentially viable babies.

The added bill language specifies that pregnancy terminations must be committed in a way that “provides the best opportunity” for the preborn baby to survive.

This means the abortionist cannot kill the baby ahead of time by injecting him or her with a medication to stop the heart.

It also requires that a second physician trained in neonatal resuscitation be present to care for the baby, and that babies born alive be transported to a hospital.

Additionally, there is the “call the cops or wear the cuffs” provision, making it a federal offense if employees/doctors witnessing an abortionist’s failure to provide medical care do not report this to police.

There is also a required informed consent form that includes the age of the child, a description of the law an explanation that if the baby is born alive, s/he will be given medical assistance and transported to a hospital, and information about the woman’s right to sue if these protections are not followed.

Finally, the aborting mother is empowered with the right to sue her abortionist if s/he fails to comply with the law. Parents of minors may also sue.

Given these confines, I cannot imagine any abortionist daring to commit late-term abortions. And what second physician would agree to help?

If a mother’s life is truly endangered, and her obviously wanted baby (otherwise she would have aborted much earlier) is potentially viable, it would be abnormal to say the least for her to want her baby killed rather than saved.

The end result, if and when this bill is enacted into law, will be an end to abortions past 20 weeks in the U.S.

 

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.

House to vote on 20-wk abortion ban ~May 13

Screenshot_2015-05-08-08-36-00On the heels of a second protest at Speaker Boehner’s office, the Weekly Standard announced this morning that the U.S. House will vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act around the anniversary of the May 13, 2013, conviction of late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell.

A source told me midway through the 3-1/2 month process of arriving at language that satisfied all contingents, “This is the most complicated bill I’ve ever worked on.”

Farthest apart were pro-lifers who wanted the rape/incest exception removed from the bill entirely and those who wanted the reporting requirement removed from the rape/incest exception.

Ultimately the compromise reached semi-removes (for adults only) the reporting requirement, replacing it with a doctor/counseling requirement, and adds new language making the bill ultimately stronger than ever.

The new language will make committing late-term abortions with exceptions very unappealing for the slime who would commit them in the first place.

Final language isn’t available, but LifeNews.com has a decription:

According to pro-life sources who spoke with LifeNews, the rape exception language will be airtight by requiring some sort of documented medical treatment or counseling 48 hours prior to the abortion (so hopefully the mother has a further chance to weigh abortion alternatives). In addition, such treatment or counseling must be provided by physicians or counselors that are outside of the abortion industry. In cases of rape or incest of a minor, the abuse must first be reported to either social service or law enforcement.

As pro-life sources have informed LifeNews, other new provisions of the bill that strengthen in include a born-alive infant protection requirement that requires a second doctor be present and prepared to provide care to the child if he or she is born alive and that the child must receive the same level of care as would any other premature infant. The baby must then be transported and admitted to a hospital. The woman is also empowered with a right to sue if the law is not followed, and is provided with an informed consent form that notifies her of the age of her baby and the requirements under the law.

Abortionists are explicitly required to follow state mandatory reporting laws and state parental involvement laws. Finally, abortionists are required to report any late abortions done under the exceptions to the Center for Disease Control and such data will be compiled into an annual public report to ensure accountability.