Tag Archives: USA Today

USA Today columnist predicts the future of abortion in America

prolifegenerationby Kelli

Though the U.S. demographic future is more skeptical of abortion, and will limit abortion more than it is now (likely bringing it into line with Europe’s far more restrictive abortion laws), future Americans will also make substantial room for choice, especially in difficult situations.

Abortion-rights activists like to tell scary stories about the possibility that women whose lives are threatened or who are victims of sexual violence will be denied abortions, but even nearly 70% of pro-lifers want abortion to be legal in those circumstances.

At bottom, young people simply don’t share the basic assumptions of an outdated abortion debate in which it’s either the mother or the embryo. While they want to limit abortion, young people also want much more social support for women, especially when it comes to their being able to keep their children. They will be the generation to finally bring us things such as mandatory paid paternal leave, affordable child care and strictly enforced gender discrimination laws in the workplace.

In short, they will refuse to choose between protecting mother and embryo.

~ Charles C. Camosy, USA Today, March 23

[Photo via pinterest.com]

Pro-life blog buzz 10-10-14

pro-lifeby Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli

  • ProLifeBlogs shares a post from After Abortion detailing the death of an Italian woman from RU-486, which was administered in a hospital. This is the first known death in Italy due to the chemical abortion pill.
  • Operation Rescue announces that eight New Jersey abortion clinics are set to be closed, thanks to the NJ State Board of Medical Examiners’ revocation of abortionist Steven Chase Brigham’s medical license. The raid on his abortion mill revealed the remains of 35 late-term aborted children stored in his freezer:

    In addition to his most recent revocation in New Jersey, Brigham has had licenses revoked or surrendered in New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, and California.

    “If Brigham is not fit to practice in five states, he isn’t fit to practice anywhere,” said [OR’s Troy] Newman. “We are now calling on Virginia, Florida, and Delaware to immediately shut down Brigham’s abortion facilities in those states based on the findings of the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners, which found that Brigham’s deceptive and fraudulent practices, which are being replicated at every abortion facility he owns, pose a danger to the public.”

    It should be noted that Brigham, a man who stored the dead bodies of children in his freezer, blames pro-lifers for his woes. Late-term abortionists like Brigham are considered heroes among abortion advocates.


  • At New Wave Feminists, Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa shares a poster that makes a great point about bodily autonomy (left; click to enlarge).
  • Bound4Life has a collection of encouraging videos on the sanctity of human life from the recent 2014 Values Voters Summit. These bold messages are sorely needed to be heard by all.
  • At USA Today, Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life has a great op-ed responding to pro-choicers who argue that certain safety standards for abortion clinics just aren’t necessary:

    The story of Karnamaya [Mongar]’s death [at Kermit Gosnell’s clinic] defies imagination. When she was found unresponsive after her abortion, emergency responders struggled through narrow hallways barely able to maneuver a stretcher.

    The grand jury that indicted Gosnell for manslaughter noted in its report that Karnamaya’s “slim chances of survival were seriously hampered because it was exceedingly difficult for responders to get her to the waiting ambulance.” Twenty minutes of precious life-saving time was lost….

    Clinics claim that they should be allowed to self-regulate and self-police, unlike any other provider of a medical procedure. They want to continue being regulated even less than nail salons. With great outrage, they claim that heath and safety standards such as outpatient clinic regulations are too “burdensome.”

    Which ones in particular? Hallway widths.

    Health and safety standards close no clinics. Abortionists close clinics when they refuse to fully protect women and refuse to comply with laws that other facilities follow.


  • Pro-Life in TN is alarmed at the media’s love affair with death by assisted suicide, which some doctors are saying should be “safe, legal, and rare” (sound familiar?). The latest person to romanticize assisted suicide is a terminally ill young woman who plans to die on November 1st in Oregon:

    [Brittany] Maynard [pictured right] is using her last days to help for others in similar situations, volunteering for Compassion & Choices, an advocacy organization for terminally-ill patients in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Jersey. She has launched the Brittany Maynard Fund to fight for death-with-dignity laws in other states. Later this month, she plans to videotape a testimony for California lawmakers and voters….

    Five states have already legalized assisted suicide (or the prettier name, “death with dignity”) and bills are pending in seven other states. In Maynard, the media seems to have found their face and sound bites to further promote this aspect of the culture of death.

  • Suzy B says NARAL has launched attack ads against the SBA List, which insinuate that the pro-life organization is no better than a molester:

    Why is NARAL unleashing this disgusting attack on the SBA List and its members?

    Because they know they cannot win the debate over whether painful, brutal late-term abortions should be allowed in America. They can’t attack our message, so instead they are attacking the messenger.

  • Wesley J. Smith is stunned to report that “two internationally respected neurologists conclude that Jahi McMath isn’t brain dead, and the Stanford court appointed independent expert isn’t even curious to see what is going on?” Videos showing her responding to requests to move her hands and feet do not appear to arouse their curiosity to order more tests. Smith writes:

    Here’s my bottom line as one who believed she was dead last year:
    – Maintaining trust in the integrity of the system, alone warrants a second look.
    – So does the interest of science, because we may have witnesses an unprecedented event in brain death science.
    – So does the potential future of a little girl.

    … If this were a death penalty case, the level of evidence presented would create sufficient doubt to justify a reopen because the case involves life and death. If we can do that for a murderer, surely we can for an innocent and potentially alive little girl.

[Images via New Wave Feminists, People.com]

Stanek weekend Q: Why is it always the pro-life movement that is told to take on other issues?

climate change pro-life movement

The title of the September 8 USA Today column was a bit misleading.

Author Tom Krattenmaker’s focus was urging pro-life Christians to become involved in the effort to sustain water, the growing scarcity of which, he claimed, is becoming a worldwide problem:

If you care about life – and I know you do, especially if you’re a Christian who believes in the sanctity of life – please pay attention to what is happening with the water….

Lately, because of political controversies and headline-grabbing court cases such as the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision, the public’s view of evangelical reverence for life has been reduced mainly to fetuses and fertilized eggs. In truth, evangelicals are addressing myriad threats to life, from poverty and slavery to genocide. If the life movement can devote itself to fighting these, can’t it also confront the threat to our life-giving water – and compel the small- and large-scale actions that will conserve it for human beings today and tomorrow?

Krattenmaker confused the issue by interchanging the terms “Christian,” “evangelical,” and “the life movement.”   It is true Christians took on poverty, slavery, and genocide as core issues – a couple thousand years before any other movement came along.

But everyone can’t do everything. Christians comprise a body. See I Corinthians 12. Our body is woven together by people God has brought together who are gifted with different talents and passions. Christians use their God-given talents and passions in various ways to give the Church body life. It’s a beautiful thing.

So there is a subset of Christians whose passion is stopping abortion. (Embryonic stem cell research, assisted suicide, and euthanasia are recent add-ons, as the Culture of Death has expanded its tentacles.)

It’s what this subset focuses on. Why is this so hard to understand? Why are other movements never called to take on the anti-abortion issue? Even in his own article, Krattenmaker participated in that hypocrisy:BabyHumans

One of the environmental movement’s biggest mistakes has been to give the impression that enviros care more about old trees and rare animals than human beings. That problem, thankfully, is being remedied as a new ethos in the movement connects the dots between a healthy environment and the viability of human life.

Krattenmaker did link to a flyer by the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, but I only wish it were true “a new ethos” of environmentalists  had added “save the baby humans” to their plank. But they haven’t.

To that end, I wrote in a comment to the article, “I hope the author is writing a similar column to environmentalists encouraging them to take on the anti-abortion issue?”

Why do you think it is that pro-lifers are singularly targeted with demands to add a myriad of other issues to their work, called hypocrites along the way if they don’t?

Do you think we should?

I suppose one way to look at it is other groups think the pro-life movement does amazing work and are only longing for us to help them, too.

Um, I don’t think that’s it.

Unanimous! Supreme Court strikes down MA buffer zone law

Jill Stanek prays outside Supreme Court before buffer zone abortion clinic decision; pro-lifeRead the background for this case here.

Today, in a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Massachusetts’ buffer zone law, which banned pro-life advocates from entering a 35-foot restricted-speech zone around the entrance of abortion clinics. Read the decision here. Details, from USA Today:

The decision united Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s four liberals, who said the distance improperly removed demonstrators from public sidewalks and spaces. The other conservative justices would have issued a more sweeping verdict, striking down the ban on grounds that it targets abortion opponents’ specific point of view….

Although the court had upheld an 8-foot buffer zone in Colorado in 2000, the Massachusetts law passed in 2007 went 27 feet farther.

The Colorado case was Hill v Colorado, wherein by a 6-3 decision SCOTUS ruled that zone constitutional (six were: Breyer, Ginsburg, O’Connor, Rehnquist, Stevens, Souter; three were Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas).

About that Hill decision, per Scotusblog.com:

Scalia says in his concurring opinion that Hill should be overruled….

The S. Ct. majority says nothing about its prior buffer zone ruling in Hill, the validity of which now seems in real question….

[T]here would seem to be a real question whether Hill would come out the same way after this….

Other pro-abortion buffer zone dominoes to fall?

That domino indeed may fall, along with others. Justice Roberts stated in his opinion (page 23) that five localities may be immediately impacted. Those might be, quoting from the New York brief:

As with the Mass state law, the law of Burlington, which is also fixed and 35 feet is probably unconstitutional; Portland ME (39 ft), likely unconstitutional; San Francisco has 25 feet, likely unconstitutional; Pittsburgh has 15 feet, possibly unconstitutional, and Santa Barbara has 8 foot, possibly unconstitutional. 

Massachusetts abortion clinic buffer zone law struck down; targeted pro-life proponentsThere is also the  Chicago 8-foot buffer zone law and a new New Hampshire 25-foot buffer zone law scheduled to take effected within 30 days.

Thursday’s ruling opens the door to multiple pro-life challenges.

Abortion access remains ensured

The decision does allow wiggle room. Quoting Scotusblog.com again:

The abortion protests ruling is relatively narrow. The Court makes clear that states can pass laws that specifically ensure access to clinics. It holds that states cannot more broadly prohibit speech on public streets and sidewalks….

[A] state has to more narrowly target clinic obstructions. For example, the police can tell protesters to move aside to let a woman through to the clinic. But it cannot prohibit protesters from being on the sidewalks in the first instance. If in practice protesters still are obstructing the entrance, then it can consider a broader restriction….

[T]he Court seemingly leaves no room for a law requiring as a general matter buffer zones of any size around the clinics — it lists all manner of alternatives, including court orders tailored to a specific clinic’s problems, that will be a more narrowly tailored way of responding to the State’s legitimate concerns.

[Top photo is of me praying outside the Supreme Court building this morning; bottom photo is of a now unconstitutional buffer zone yellow line around a Massachusetts Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, via Boston Globe]; thanks to Americans United for Life for analysis included in this post]

Fox’s Neil Cavuto: MS diagnosis shifted focus to “important things”

cavutoby Kelli

I don’t think I would have adopted my boys [Jeremy, 12, Bradley, 11; he also has a daughter Tara, 28] had I not had the illness. It humanized me, taught me not to be a jerk. It made me do things I never would have done….

It forced me to focus on things that were important.

~ Fox Business anchor Neil Cavuto, discussing how his diagnosis of multiple sclerosis changed him, USA Today, March 28

[HT: Susie Allen; photo via roordawrite.blogspot.com]

Obama’s only act of “leadership” was voting to allow infanticide

baipaby Kelli

While president, Obama has not yet stood apart from his party or advisors. To find an example of daring leadership on the part of Obama, you have to go back to his days in the Illinois State Senate…. 

Illinois Senate Bill 1095 was named the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA)….

The goal of BAIPA was to fill the gap so that the surviving child of an abortion would receive the immediate care and legal protections all other newborns receive…. (i.e., no infanticide)

This is where Illinois Senator Obama’s fearless three-year stand on principle began…. Senator Obama, sitting on the Judiciary Committee, voted “No,” and the bill later failed to pass the Democrat-controlled House. “We at Planned Parenthood view those as leadership votes,” said the abortion company’s Illinois president and CEO, Pam Sutherland.

The bill… was reintroduced by the Republican-controlled Senate…. It received two “No” votes by Senator Obama – his committee vote in March and his vote on the Senate floor in April…. Obama explained his “No” votes this way: “What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can’t support that.”

Later that year the Federal BAIPA was signed into law by President George W. Bush.

The third Illinois BAIPA bill… was introduced in February 2003 in a Democrat-controlled Senate. This time Senator Obama was the chairman of the committee where he voted “Yes” in favor of adopting the federal BAIPA language, making the Illinois bill an exact copy of the federal law. Later that same day Senator Obama voted “No” on the bill, and it failed again in the Democrat House.

Senator Obama explained, “…physicians are already required to use life-saving measures when fetuses are born alive during abortions.” He further elaborated in a 2006 USA Today op-ed: “I can’t impose my religious views on another.”…

The Illinois BAIPA bill was signed into law one year after Obama left the Illinois Senate….

Not a single Democrat in the US Senate voted against the federal (anti-infanticide) BAIPA bill.

~ Karl Ushanka, American Thinker, March 31

[Image via breitbart.com]

Goldberg: Liberals are the ones forcing beliefs on society

rosaryby Kelli

The right to own a gun is a far more settled issue constitutionally, politically and legally in this country, but not even the National Rifle Association would dream to argue that we have a right to free guns, provided by our employers. If your boss were required to give you a gun, your new employer-provided Glock still wouldn’t be free because non-cash compensation is still compensation. The costs to the employer are fungible, which means whether it’s a pistol or a pill, the cost is still coming out of your paycheck — and your coworkers’ paychecks….

The plaintiffs in these [HHS contraceptive mandate] cases aren’t saying the government should ban abortifacients or make it impossible for their employees to buy them. All they are asking is that the people using such drugs pay for them themselves rather than force employers and co-workers to share the cost. In other words, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood want such birth control decisions to be left to individual women and their doctors. Leave the rest of us out of it.

But leaving the rest of us out of it is exactly the opposite intent of the authors of Obamacare. The law forces not only arts and crafts shops but also Catholic charities and other religiously inspired groups to choose between fulfilling their mission or violating their values. You may have no moral objection to such things, but millions of people do. By what right are liberals seeking to impose their values on everyone else? Isn’t that something they denounce conservatives for?

~ Jonah Goldberg, “Liberals are culture war aggressors,” USA Today, December 2

Surprise! Court reinstates most of Texas’ new abortion restrictions

shutterstock_138150899-375x250In a move that took both sides of the abortion divide by surprise, the 5th District Court of Appeals yesterday reversed most of a lower court’s decision to block an impactful portion of Texas’ new anti-abortion law. From  USA Today:

A federal appeals court reinstated most of Texas’ tough new restrictions on abortions Thursday in a ruling that means as many as a dozen clinics around the state will not be able to continue performing procedures.

The restrictions could take effect Friday, stopping abortion procedures in at least one-third of the state’s licensed health centers, according to opponents of the law.

The ruling from a panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals came just three days after a federal district judge set aside part of the law, a requirement that doctors who perform abortions have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. That ruling by Judge Lee Yeakel said the provision served no medical purpose….

The panel left in place a portion of Yeakel’s order that prevents the state from enforcing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration protocol for abortion-inducing drugs in cases where the woman is between 50 and 63 days into her pregnancy. Doctors testifying before the court had said such women would be harmed if the protocol were enforced.

The court’s order is temporary until it can hold a complete hearing, likely in January.

The court decision means that beginning as early as today any abortion mill whose abortionist on call does not have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the chop shop will have to STOP committing abortions.

Amy Hagstrom MillerThe fallout for the abortion industry appears real.

Per Daily KosAmy Hagstrom Miller (pictured right), the owner of five Texas abortion clinics, told Rachel Maddow last night that three of her clinics will shut down immediately.” Miller tweeted that she was “devastated.”

Miller told Maddow one of her shuttered clinics is on the border, in McAllen, and aborts mothers from Mexico as well as the U.S. “Most of the women we serve there are mothers,” noted Miller, meaning the contraceptive/comprehensive sex ed movement has failed them by giving them a false sense of security.

More on the court decision from The New York Times:

The requirement is likely to be unconstitutional, [Yeakel] declared, because it is “without a rational basis and places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion.”

But the appeals panel found just the opposite: that the rule is likely to be constitutional because it serves a legitimate state interest in regulating doctors and does not impose an “undue burden” on the right to abortion.

The appeals court said that the admitting privilege rule might “increase the cost of accessing an abortion provider and decrease the number of physicians available to perform abortions.”

But it cited a Supreme Court statement in an earlier abortion case that if a regulation serves a valid purpose, the fact that it has “the incidental effect of making it more difficult or more expensive to procure an abortion cannot be enough to invalidate it.”

The appeals court’s move is by no means permanent, so it is premature to declare victory for babies, mothers, and their families, but undoubtedly there will be lives saved because of yesterday’s decision.

[Top photo via RH Reality Check; bottom screen shot via Daily Kos]