Since news broke that PBS, a taxpayer-funded public television station, will air the late-term abortion and abortionist propaganda documentary After Tiller throughout the month of September, pro-lifers have been up in arms.

American Life League is demanding PBS cancel After Tiller.

Meanwhile, a petition drive has been launched to press PBS to air the pro-life documentary 40. Another petition drive wants PBS to air Maafa21. Other suggestions I’ve read include After the Choice and Life Happens.

A PBS official told Dustin Siggins of LifeSiteNews.com yesterday it currently has no plans to air a pro-life counterpart to After Tiller, but it seems as if a strong case could be made for equal time.

What do you think? Should pro-lifers fight the airing of this pro-abortion “crockumentary,” or should we use the opportunity to demand equal time? Also take the poll!

The narratives most often used to spread reproductive justice awareness always center the discussion on “Women’s Rights.” But since I’m not a woman, I’ve felt very disconnected from the spaces I work in….

I was twenty when I had a medicinal abortion, and I have been on some form of birth control since that time. Even though the ability to reproduce hasn’t always been a factor with the partners I have had, I like knowing that I have a back-up plan and hormonal regularity….

Even the intake forms at my local Planned Parenthood are incredibly trans-exclusive! When I went to Planned Parenthood to get birth control I wasn’t given the option to state my preferred name or personal pronouns….

You might love your new hashtag or slogan, and it might be pretty catchy, but take a moment to remember that the “War on Women” really only means one type of person: cis-women.

“A Woman’s Right to Choose,” “Women’s Health,” and “Women’s Access” are all phrases that erase me and others like me.

Using “women” as a catch-all term for “people with active uteruses” is incredibly problematic….

Remember basic diversity training…. Not everyone who gives birth identifies as a woman…

Don’t assume that because someone is feminine that they are a woman regardless of their assigned reproductive system….

If you aren’t catching my obvious personal feelings, I’ll make clear that I’m a femme nonbinary person who deals with this all the time. Make my life a little easier. C’mon.

~ Jack Qu’emi, “4 ways to be gender inclusive when discussing abortion,” everydayfeminism.com, August 29

JLS note: My hope is commenters won’t mock Jack. My goal in posting this is to shed light to pro-lifers on another element of confusion and lostness on the other side. What would you say to Jack if having coffee together?

[HT: @LivinOnAClaire on Twitter]; photo of Jack via ink361.com]

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

• At Priests for Life, Alveda King explains why PFL plans to continue its lawsuit against the HHS Mandate, despite the government’s attempt at an “accommodation”:
  

  Bottom line: The government is on its own in this scheme to expand access to abortion-inducing drugs and contraceptives. We want a full exemption from this mandate, so that we have nothing to do with this scheme. If people want these drugs and the government wants to provide them, then the government will have to find a way to connect with them without our help. Our religion requires no less.

• Pro-Life Action League also comments on the government’s latest HHS Mandate accommodations attempt:
  

  This marks the eighth time the Obama administration has modified the HHS Mandate. Once again, they’re refusing to listen to the American people — or even the U.S. Supreme Court — and truly respect the employers’ conscience rights.

The new rules are nothing more than a slight variation of the so-called “accommodation” first announced in February 2012, whereby some “third party” will provide the objectionable services. I called that scheme a shell game at the time, and the description still fits. Others have called it an “accounting gimmick.”

• Ethika Politika reposts an article by Michael J. New, who responds to a New York Times article which ignores evidence of abortion risks while lamenting the plight of women denied late-term abortions due to gestational age. Interestingly, the NYT author admitted that “a very small percentage of turnaways regret carrying their pregnancy to term.” In other words, even impoverished women who can’t abort because it’s too late seem to find that giving life to another human being isn’t so awful after all. And the risks of late-term abortion – and abortion in general – are certainly worth mentioning. New writes:
  

  Throughout the article, the author takes considerable pains to give the impression that there is a strong scholarly consensus that abortion poses no serious health risks to women. He states that “reputable research” does not support claims that abortion results in a higher risk of breast cancer, infertility, and miscarriage. However, there is an impressive body of research indicating that abortion increases the risk of premature births. Additionally, there are a number of peer reviewed studies which find that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Even the 1997 New England Journal of Medicine study — frequently cited and touted by skeptics of the abortion breast cancer link — finds statistically significant evidence that late term abortions increase the risk of breast cancer.

• Secular Pro-Life notes the identity crisis occurring in the pro-choice (are they still calling it “pro-choice”?) movement, while also discussing something happening in the messaging of the pro-life movement:
  

  Meanwhile, in faith-based-land, I noticed an interesting piece in the Christian Post arguing that… “pro-life” is being overused! Specifically, the authors worry that the use of “pro-life” messaging by Christian environmentalists is diluting the term. Myself, I’m not too concerned, because I suspect 1) that any conservatives who would abandon the pro-life movement because they see the term used by a cause they don’t support likely aren’t our movement’s greatest assets anyway, and 2) it may have the beneficial side effect of busting the stereotypes that the abortion movement pushes about who pro-lifers are and what we do. But in any event, it’s quite the contrast to what’s happening across the aisle.

So where does that leave us? We’re in a good position, but the conflict is far from over, and we need to remain on high alert. Based on the signals we’re getting from pro-choice media commentators, we need to be particularly vigilant in our charitable endeavors. Pro-lifers are as active in charitable organizations as anybody else, so we have the ability to impede the pro-choice strategy here. Whatever causes you are involved in, be on the lookout for activists looking to co-opt them in the name of abortion — and when it happens, speak out against it, quickly and loudly!

• Wesley J. Smith says a woman who acted as a gestational surrogate is asking for child support from the Australian couple who rejected one twin born with Congenital Myotonic Dystrophy. Smith asks, “And why should biological parents be treated by law any differently just because a surrogate was employed then if the woman gave birth herself?” Interesting point.
• At Bound4Life, Josh Shepherd has the amazing story of a mother who suffered a tragic auto accident when she was just 15 weeks pregnant. Several medical teams worked to successfully save both Amie and her son, Aiden, was delivered at 33 weeks. Amie remains in a mostly vegetative state, except when her son enters the room. Please pray for Amie and her whole family:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/qK00roSzdWw[/youtube]

You’ve likely heard by now that PBS, a taxpayer-funded public television station, is airing the late-term abortionist propaganda piece After Tiller throughout the month of September.

I’ll write more on that in another post. For now, stop reading me for a minute and read this incredible piece by Matt Walsh on the topic.

Meanwhile, abortion proponents are ecstatic at the prospect of glamorizing a component of what they support which most Americans assuredly don’t.

Most Americans think drawing and quartering fully formed babies whose wanted friends of the same age get super duper special medical care is too creepy for even a horror flick.

In advance of getting a ton of one-sided publicity for the most heinous of the bunch who commit abortions (which is not to say abortions of younger babies are any less heinous, but if most abortionists are even revolted at the prospect of murdering older babies, you know the procedure itself is disgusting on steroids), abortion zealots are having a tweet fest this afternoon to prop PBS against blowback from the likes of us…

So we pro-lifers are going to push back by hijacking this late-term abortionist love fest with our own tweets…

Note the time-frame is open ended. Organizers didn’t want to commit because they didn’t know if we would do exactly what we’re doing. They needed to be able to cut off the convo to save face if we took things over. But typically pro-abortion chats like this usually don’t last longer than 30 minutes, 60 max.

So please help us keep abortion radicals from peacefully promoting the excruciatingly painful blood bath of older preborn infants, never mind the extra danger their mothers face (hello, Jennifer Morbelli, killed last year by After Tiller star LeRoy Carhart), by tweeting about the reality of late-term abortion – there is so much to say about it – beginning at 2p EST. Use their hashtags #AbortionAccess and #AfterTiller.

If you’re not on Twitter, you need to be. It’s yet another form of social media where pro-lifers can make an impact – see above.

Thanks. And please promote this to your friends on Facebook and Twitter.

by Kelli

On a recent radio program, Stand to Reason’s Greg Koukl (pictured) answered an apparently pro-choice school teacher, Anne, who snarkily asked what he, as a pro-lifer, is doing to take care of children “once they’re here.”

After telling her that he has adopted two children from crisis pregnancies, she still seemed dissatisfied. Koukl responded:

It sounds to me like you wouldn’t be satisfied unless I raised funds for every woman in crisis pregnancies or adopted every child, which obviously would be ludicrous….

I am concerned about the logic and reasoning that seems to be sitting behind this and that is: unless we’re willing to care for these children, then we have no right to tell other women not to kill them. This is not a morally sound equation…. Just because I’m not willing to marry the woman that a man is beating, his wife, doesn’t mean that I can’t object to him beating her.

Take a listen:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/mdzisJJJ-W0[/youtube]

Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.

[Photo via howgoodisthat.wordpress.com]

Amy and Ester, the Florida high school students at the center of “Dry Land,” have a time-sensitive problem to solve: Amy’s unwanted pregnancy. Unlike the women recently played by Jenny Slate in the indie film “Obvious Child” and by Julia Stiles in the Off Broadway romance “Phoenix,” Amy isn’t an adult, so her mother would have to be told if she sought an abortion. She opts instead for a do-it-yourself approach and asks Ester to help.

~ Yale student playwright Ruby Rae Spiegel describing her recent play, Dry Land, New York Times, August 28

by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat

• A newborn baby boy in Utah is in critical condition after his mother abandoned him in a trash can and was found by neighbors who thought they were hearing a kitten:
  

  Police say the 24-year-old mother later returned to the scene and told officers that she’d left the baby there about an hour before he was found.

• Time has a piece by Laura Stampler attempting to promote abortion advocates and their lame Taco or Beer challenge. The piece is entitled “New Viral Fundraiser,” despite only having 127 posts (at this moment) on Tumblr.
• Dawn Laguens’ piece attempting to defend Planned Parenthood’s transition away from “pro-choice” terminology included this absurd assertion:
  

  As evidence, he quotes Hillary Clinton saying abortion should be “safe, legal and rare,” a message that peaked in the 1990s, when President Clinton first said it, and was probably last used around 2006. Nobody says that anymore.

  Here’s a CNN article from 2010 where President Obama uses the “safe, legal and rare” message.

• A 33-year-old woman in Indiana has been charged with feticide after allegedly attempting to use RU-486 to abort her late-term pregnancy. The child was apparently born alive and then left in a dumpster:
  

  A pathologist ruled the infant was born alive and took a breath, but [Purvi] Patel’s lawyer, Jeff Sanford, told the judge the pathologist’s tests don’t prove that. Sanford told WSBT he has big questions about tests the pathologist did and did not do to determine whether the infant was born alive.

by Hans Johnson

As the summer winds down for those in Created Equal’s Justice Riders, they will be returning to school with a great deal of experience debating pro-choicers. Here is a noble effort by Director of Training Seth Drayer, trying to convince a woman that we must at the very least consider mother and child different human beings after birth. See how she answers that:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/vFV8vTg6s5A[/youtube]

Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.

[HT: Mark Harrington]