Pro-life blog buzz 9-9-14
by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN
- Judie Brown of American Life League discusses an issue that sometimes separates pro-life activists. She believes pro-lifers should not waste time and resources fighting for laws that force abortionists to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. While many pro-lifers rightfully think abortionists fail to meet that standard, and this is a way to expose them and shut down abortion centers when no physician qualifies, Brown quotes ALL’s Jim Sedlak, who voices an alternative opinion:
While pro-lifers get caught up in trying to argue for these kinds of laws, statements are made that you would never expect from a pro-life person. In fact, after the Alabama decision, one pro-life leader, who is one of the strongest fighters for life in the country, actually argued that these laws are needed to protect women who are choosing to have an abortion.
This has brought us a long way from the days when it was clearly recognized that the energies of the pro-life movement were focused on saving the baby, praying for the woman, and finding a way to show women that abortion was not her only solution to her perceived problems.
- Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life posted an op ed in Duluth News Tribune calling out MN Senator Al Franken for his support of the misnamed Women’s Health Protection Act, which “effectively would establish abortion on demand until birth nationwide.”
This extremist, who is up for reelection this November, must be defeated! He only won in 2008 by 312 recounted votes, and at least one pundit considers him vulnerable.
- The Leading Edge, a New Zealand blog, gives tips on how to talk to your “MP,” i.e., member of parliament, about issues that matter to you. The advice is sound for the U.S. as well!
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbfrFwwQcYE[/youtube]
- Clinic Quotes quotes Glamour magazine in 1973, which called abortion the “kiss of death” in the medical profession:
“[Hospital administrators say] abortion is a sleazy and offensive procedure… The doctor who does abortions – even if they are only a small part of her practice – is known as an abortionist…. This label is the kiss of death for any professional hopes a doctor might have.”
- Live Action gives a high five to a Today Show story about Special Kneads Bakery, which employs special needs adults:
“What they do is critical to our success,” says Mike, underscoring the fact that these jobs are not provided as charity or just to give adults with special needs something to do. They are earning an honest wage and contributing in a very real way to the success of the business.
Mike says their love for repetition is a boon to the business: “They do a lot of the jobs that most people don’t even really think about, and don’t want to do.”
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Franken is an easy safe, and overall, has been a great senator. Interesting approach to office after living such a public life before public service.
I don’t know how a politician could be considered “great” if he has promoted the killing of children. I suppose there is a new definition of “greatness” which is measured by the damage that a politician failed to do. Franken has not made a spectacle of himself. He deserves credit for that much.
===============================================
I do believe that requiring hospital privileges really does protect women from a sleazy and dangerous abortion industry.
Women deserve to be protected from dangerous conditions, even while we do not support the “choice” that kills the child. It is pro-life to protect both women and children.
The Clinic Quotes from Glamour is from 1993, not 1973. 20 years after Roe v. Wade, dealing death is still the kiss of death in the healing professions.
Del –
Franken championed a great provision in the health care act to require insurance companies to hit a minimum percentage of how much they actually spend on care – something even the right likes!
Yeah, other than having a favorite fantasy that consists of violence, degradation, bondage, and rape, he’s a real prince.
As reported by a New York Magazine reporter in 1995 as he sat in on Franken’s writing session.
Franken: “And, ‘I give the pills to Lesley Stahl. Then, when Lesley’s passed out I take her to a closet and rape her’. Or, ‘That’s why you never see Lesley until February’. Or, ‘When she passes out I put her in various positions and take pictures of her’.
But hey, its all in fun, right? I’m sure Jaycee Dugard and the victims of Ariel Castro would find Franken’s “joke” a real knee slapper.
Mary –
I’m sure if he was a conservative, you’d write about how it was during a comedy show writing meeting years and years ago.
But that would require a funny conservative, which I don’t think exists!
:-)
EGV,
And if it was a conservative politician you wouldn’t write how it was during a comedy show writing meeting years and years ago.
I agree EGV, something about captivity and rape just isn’t funny, and no, I would never be inclined to see the “humor” in it.
So Franklin was a shining light, demanding that some fiscal responsibility should be written into the ACA. Or at least setting a standard that every insurance company can stoop down to.
I will applaud for that. Better than nothing. If we are going to force people to buy a product, then we should force the producers to meet some minimum standard. I guess.
Like most Americans then and now, I would have preferred that Franken had voted against the ACA.
Del –
I’m pretty sure that I’ve posted numerous polls, to you, about the ACA and if people think it should be repealed or not. Do I need to again? You can say that you believe that, but to say that most Americans do it simply not factual.
Oh come on guys whats a little rape joke? Where is your humor for this sterling character?
Hi heather,
I agree, rape is right up there with spousal abuse and child molestation as a great source of humor.
Like what one of Fox’s mental giants delivered about the Ray Rice incident?
Ex-GOP says:
September 9, 2014 at 8:24 pm
Del –
I’m pretty sure that I’ve posted numerous polls, to you, about the ACA and if people think it should be repealed or not. Do I need to again? You can say that you believe that, but to say that most Americans do it simply not factual.
Actually, I was trying to be very precise.
A majority of voters opposed the ACA. And it is still viewed unfavorably by over half of voters.
However, you are right. According to Rasmussen Reports, most Americans do not want a complete repeal of the ACA. Now that it is in place, we would rather see it repaired bit by bit.
Americans are naturally “conservative,” like most common-sense people. We prefer to conserve the conditions that we have grown accustomed to, even if they are less than optimum. We prefer small changes, and fear sweeping reforms.
This is also why the incremental approach to confining abortion has been so successful. Joe and Jane Voter don’t like words like abolish and repeal.
Franken I understand has a 100% pro-abort, NARAL, and PP voting record like the pro-abort-in-chief, he has never seen an abortion law he didn’t love and someone who claims to be pro-life gets on a pro-life blog by Jill Stanek, a pro-life warrior, endorses him and calls him “easy, safe and overall a great senator”. WOW!! Just Wow!! On that note I am out of here. God bless you Jill and mods for what you do but that has to really make your head spin. Maybe you should call in a psychiatrist or maybe an exorcist.
Pro L Laura I understand your frustration but the person who posted that junk about Franken being great is NO pro life warrior!
Our problem is that there are so few pro-life liberals.
Which is odd…. the stereotypical liberal wants to end poverty and suffering, because he believes in the intrinsic dignity of human life. The distinctive mark of the liberal is that he believes that government has great ability to achieve such happiness for us.
We can quibble over whether government programs solve our problems — or just create more for us. But as pro-lifers, we should not let this distract us.
Our job is to remind liberals that children are people too. If we are compassionate, then we must stand in solidarity with the children and their mothers. And that the policy of encouraging mothers to kill their children is the opposite of solidarity and compassion.
Abortion is not Liberal.
For those who support Democrats and their agenda — we need to help them to see that the Democratic Party’s wedded support for Planned Parenthood is the primary reason why Americans may well turn back to Republican leadership for another 12 years. Even though the Republicans seem to lack vision or a plan…. But the Republicans promise no more major changes, and they support restricting abortion. Americans like the sound of this.
So oppose admitting privileges laws because they don’t focus on saving babies from abortion even though they close abortion clinics and, in the state of Texas, saved an estimated 9,900 babies from abortion? (See http://www.lifenews.com/2014/08/29/texas-judge-blocks-texas-pro-life-law-that-closed-abortion-clinics-cut-abortions-13/)
Someone is going to have to explain that logic fail to me.
The admitting privileges issue has merits from a number of directions, though obviously a many-faceted approach to ending abortion is best. This is just one facet. And yes, it does help close shoddy clinics and highlights the unsavory reputations of most abortionists. Many hospitals won’t touch them, and that helps shut them down. Good!
As for hospitals that will grant privileges, there are a few possible pro-life benefits: For one thing, if a botched abortion occurs, and the baby is still alive, it is more likely that a baby born alive will not be stabbed with scissors if his mother is sent to a normal hospital. Too many witnesses.
Another important fact: forced and cruelly pressured abortions by boyfriends, parents, pimps, etc are common–protecting these women from further harm is a good thing.
Furthermore, since Planned Parenthood and other abortionists regularly hide statutory rape and refuse to report it, if one of these abused girls gets sent to a hospital, the hospital staff are more likely to report to law enforcement.
Another thing: abortionists thrive in darkness. . .they don’t want news of their misdeeds spread abroad. So if a hospital has records of who performed botched abortions due to admitting privileges documentation, than such records can be used in lawsuits, licensing board hearings, etc. Forcing accountability can only help us. . .we already KNOW they frequently break the law. The more records they are forced to leave in their wake, and the more laws they must break to continue, the better positioned we are to stop them permanently. I am in definite favor of laws that require more record-keeping and reporting, that will serve to expose to light what these people would like to remain in darkness.
the problem with admittance privilege laws is the same with facility laws, they work so incredibly well to close clinics judges keep overturning them.
Del/heather/Mary/Prolifer
I have an open mind – I want to be convinced by each of you. I’ve never felt those scoring items matter because I don’t feel much of the legislation matters that comes up these days as it relates to abortion.
I’m being sincere here.
What senate bills have come up in the past 6 years or so (Franken’s time in office) that you feel would impact abortion rates by more than 20% (plus or minus).
I don’t care about positions, I don’t care about these laws that politicians can smile about but do nothing.
Laws that make an impact – just give me the senate bill number or the name, and I’ll take the research from there. I will probably ask you to make a case of why you think it would have impacted rates by more than the 20%.
I simply remain utterly unconvinced that the federal level matters (except for the possible repeal of R v Wade).
Please convince me. I come with an open mind here.
The Hyde Amendment alone is estimated to have saved millions of babies from abortion. Planned Parenthood does 335,000 abortions a year and gets hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding, cutting or ending that would stop many abortions. Repealing or defunding Obamacare would de-fund Planned Parenthood. Fighting to keep the Mexico City Plicy in place stops the funding of millions of abortions overseas by PP and others… those are just four example of a significant impact on how many babies die in abortions or die with our tax funding. I could name dozens of other policies decided in Congress that are life or death.
But even if the federal policy only stops one abortion, doesn’t it matter to THAT baby?
Mexico City Policy is a wide gapped shell game – at least when I researched it.
I agree with your last statement though – but if we’re talking small percentages and nothing massive, then to me it changes the whole argument – at that point, the most pro-life proposal I’ve seen out there is Rick Santorum tripling the child tax credit. I’d also say expanding health care (the ACA) was huge as financial uncertainty is one of the key drivers on abortion, and expanded health care access is a key to lowering financial uncertainty (there was a good medicaid study on that – expansion linked to the strong certainty).
Steven –
Also – more reading on the Texas abortion numbers – you’ve got to be a bit of a stat geek to read this site – but good reading:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-really-hard-to-measure-the-effects-of-abortion-restrictions-in-texas/
The Women’s Health Protection Act would overturn all state-level pro-life laws (which would probably impact the abortion rate by 20%) and would certainly make abortion legal in all fifty states were Roe to be overturned (thus preventing any decline in abortions resulting from its repeal).
There’s your example.
Would it Navi? I haven’t read the law – certainly can – but aren’t the majority of illegal abortions it would make legal – doesn’t that make up a massively small amount of abortions in areas where those are legal?
What I’m saying is, if the vast majority of abortions are in the first 20-24 weeks, what massive group of now illegal abortions would now be legal?
Read here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/13/pro-choice-bill-womens-health-protection-act_n_4266599.html
Late-term abortion bans are only one area of pro-life legislation. Others include clinic regulations (which have closed many abortion clinics), parental involvement, and informed consent. And as mentioned above, the Hyde Amendment does significantly affect abortion rates. Probably not by 20%, but clearly the federal law matters to some extent.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2009/07/08/index.html
Thanks Navi – I’ll read up on it.
Hyde was passed in 76, right?
It was and, to be fair to Al Franken, he is not on the record opposing it.
“the stereotypical liberal wants to end poverty and suffering, because he believes in the intrinsic dignity of human life” – you are right Del. And protecting the dignity and rights of women, amongst others, is part of that. As opposed to instituting a regime of repression and control which for some reason sees the unborn as more deserving of dignity than the born.
“Our job is to remind liberals that children are people too” – we know that. Fetuses aren’t.
“If we are compassionate, then we must stand in solidarity with the children and their mothers” – not a gop policy.
“Abortion is not Liberal” – apparently it is.
“For those who support Democrats and their agenda — we need to help them to see that the Democratic Party’s wedded support for Planned Parenthood is the primary reason why Americans may well turn back to Republican leadership for another 12 years.” – most voters couldn’t give two hoots about any imaginary ‘wedded support’.
“the Republicans seem to lack vision or a plan….” – agreed.
“But the Republicans promise no more major changes” – and you believe them?!
“and they support restricting abortion” – or so they say.
“Americans like the sound of this” – only those who would vote gop anyway.
How is not being able to kill your own child a form of repression??
That’s crazy-dumb French language theory gymnastics.
Compassion NEVER includes the right to kill children.
Navi: The Women’s Health Protection Act would overturn all state-level pro-life laws (which would probably impact the abortion rate by 20%) and would certainly make abortion legal in all fifty states were Roe to be overturned (thus preventing any decline in abortions resulting from its repeal).
I don’t think that’s true, Navi. Not “all state-level pro-life laws.” It generally deals with pre-viability, and thus existing state laws that apply after viability (of which there are many) wouldn’t be affected.
Aside from that, was Roe overturned, the burden would then really be mainly falling on poor women, i.e. women with the means to easily travel to where abortion was legal would not be having the problems, whereas poorer women would.
Reality says:
September 10, 2014 at 7:30 pm
“Americans like the sound of this” – only those who would vote gop anyway.
And a majority often do.
So I’m a little underwhelmed here folks – maybe I expect too much, but is it possible to call anybody in the Senate massively pro-life or pro-abortion if nobody can cite any law in the last few decades that would have impacted rates even a moderate amount?
The rhetoric just doesn’t match.
George Bush was the most pro-life President ever…because he passed a ceremonial law that has never been used?
B Obama is the most pro-abortion President ever…because he didn’t support that same law, and he went to Planned Parenthood events?
There’s the quote out there in Churches, wondering if there’s enough evidence to convict a person that they are a Christian. I can’t say that there’s enough evidence to back up the claim that Franken, or heck really anybody at the federal level is strongly pro-life or strongly pro-choice. It’s a sad joke really.
Ex-GOP, I’ll drink to that.
I don’t think that’s true, Navi. Not “all state-level pro-life laws.” It generally deals with pre-viability, and thus existing state laws that apply after viability (of which there are many) wouldn’t be affected.
The vast majority of abortions are pre-viability, so legislation affecting pre-viability abortion is what could significantly impact the abortion rate. Furthermore, it would strike down post-viability abortion bans that don’t have an exception for the woman’s life or health. But the Supreme Court ruled in Doe v. Bolton that “health” includes “all factors—physical, emotional, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient.” Courts have also held that “only the physician, in the course of evaluating the specific circumstances of an individual case, can define
what constitutes “health” and when a fetus is viable.” (source). So virtually any justification can be given to validate a post-viability abortion as long as there’s an abortionist willing to do one.
There’s really only four things the Women’s Health Protection Act wouldn’t do: impose buffer zones, eliminate parental notification/consent, alter insurance coverage for abortions, or legalize partial-birth abortion. It would torpedo virtually everything else.
Aside from that, was Roe overturned, the burden would then really be mainly falling on poor women, i.e. women with the means to easily travel to where abortion was legal would not be having the problems, whereas poorer women would.
I’m not sure why that’s relevant. Some laws are difficult to enforce, and most are easier to break or get around if you’re rich enough. An NFL player that can do a 2000 yard rush can get away with murder, as can (apparently) an Olympic athlete with artificial legs. The point is that overturning Roe would stop at least some abortions – maybe even more than 20% of them.
Does it actually affect any old laws automatically? When I read on it, it sounded like it just set new standards for judicial consideration for the challenge of laws?
It would allow abortion proponents to challenge existing state laws, but it would not automatically overrule them (as federal law would conflict with state law, leaving it to the courts to determine which law to uphold).
Navi: The vast majority of abortions are pre-viability, so legislation affecting pre-viability abortion is what could significantly impact the abortion rate. Furthermore, it would strike down post-viability abortion bans that don’t have an exception for the woman’s life or health. But the Supreme Court ruled in Doe v. Bolton that “health” includes “all factors—physical, emotional, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient.” Courts have also held that “only the physician, in the course of evaluating the specific circumstances of an individual case, can define what constitutes “health” and when a fetus is viable.” (source). So virtually any justification can be given to validate a post-viability abortion as long as there’s an abortionist willing to do one.
Navi, yes – on the latter part of that – but the fact is that very few post-viability abortions are done, to start with, and some of those are in cases where hardly anybody is going to argue against them anyway, i.e. the danger to the woman is demonstrable and understandable enough that the abortion would be legal even in the more hardcore anti-abortion states.
Navi, yes – on the latter part of that – but the fact is that very few post-viability abortions are done, to start with
Well, I guess it depends on how we define “very few”. The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimated that 1032 abortions are performed after 24 weeks every year. That seems like a pretty big number, even if it’s very small compared to the total number of abortions. One is one too many though.
and some of those are in cases where hardly anybody is going to argue against them anyway, i.e. the danger to the woman is demonstrable
Which medical conditions would necessitate a multi-day abortion procedure after 24 weeks, in the year 2014? I don’t know of any cases where caesarean delivery or induced labour wouldn’t be sufficient.
and understandable enough that the abortion would be legal even in the more hardcore anti-abortion states.
Sure, assuming you’re referring to the law in Texas (which has an exception for late-term abortion in the case of lethal fetal abnormalities). The reason being understandable doesn’t mean it ought to be legal though. And there are plenty of post-viability abortions done for socioeconomic reasons as well.