by Carder

I panicked — I’d just gotten off heroin, I was very skinny and unhealthy, I wasn’t stable….

But I hope people will see where I was then and where I am now and why I decided it’s OK to keep this baby.

~ Teen Mom 2 star Jenelle Evans, explaining the circumstances involved in her decision to abort her baby while keeping the next baby only four months later, as interviewed by In Touch Weekly, January 29

[Photo via Splash]

World Magazine gives the backdrop:

President Barack Obama last year told Americans he was sorry after it became clear that his oft-repeated claim, “If you like your insurance, you can keep it,” was demonstrably false.

Obama has been much slower, however, to admit fault for another dishonest claim: He secured the final votes for the Affordable Care Act from pro-life Democrats with the promise that federal funds would not be used to pay for abortions.

In 2010, Obama signed an executive order toward that end – even as some Republicans said it wasn’t worth the paper it was written on - but a new Kaiser Foundation study finds 6.1 million women will gain elective abortion insurance coverage through Obamacare, paid for in part by government subsidies.

The House on Tuesday voted to change that, passing the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act with a 227 to 188 bipartisan tally. The bill would bar taxpayer funding for abortion in Obamacare plans obtained after Jan. 1, 2015. In the interim, it would require insurance companies to clearly disclose which plans include abortion coverage.

(As an aside, abortion proponents like former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards also agreed Obama’s EO wasn’t worth the paper it was written on.)

In addition to the aforementioned, HR7 would make the Hyde Amendment and other current abortion funding prohibitions permanent. Currently these are riders tacked on annually to multiple spending bills. The Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funds from being used to pay for abortions except for rape and incest. HR7 ensures that Obamacare conforms with the Hyde Amendment, as promised by Obama.

Simple, right? No, never. Pro-abortion Congressman Henry Waxman (who just announced he’s retiring, yeah!) protested, “This is propaganda, it’s political. The Republicans are trying to make people believe their taxpayer dollars are being used to pay for abortions. It’s not true.”

Ok, if it’s not true, then why fight the bill? it won’t make any difference, right?

But here’s Planned Parenthood’s spin:

I spoke with a Hill staffer who has been working closely on HR7 and who gave me a rebuttal to pass along to you of PP’s above five bullet points, in order:

1. HR 7 only addresses the types of plans that can be paid for using Obamacare subsidies. It specifically allows abortion coverage using private dollars and even specifies that abortion can be purchased as a separate rider, if the consumer chooses.

2. If one wants to purchase her own health insurance coverage, it’s permitted under HR7. HR7 only addresses the kinds of plans that taxpayer subsidies can pay for by applying the Hyde amendment to Obamacare. The Hyde Amendment has not had a health exception in decades, and it would be inconsistent to add one now.

3. The Congressional Budget Office and Americans for Tax Reform have said HR7 is tax neutral. It is not a net tax increase. The “taxes” impacted are actually subsidies paid directly to the insurance company when a person purchases a plan on an Obamcare exchange. In fact the CBO estimates that by 2023 nearly 90% of these subsidies (labeled as tax credits) will be direct spending by the treasury, not reductions in tax liability. These subsidies would continue to be available to plans in the exchange that exclude elective abortion. Again, individuals would still have the option to purchase separate supplemental abortion coverage. Also, HR7 as passed in the House has no impact on tax deductions or credits made available separate from Obamacare.

4. All individual and small/large business comprehensive health insurance coverage would remain in effect if they were in effect prior to Obamacare. The only small employer tax credit that comes into consideration is a special Obamacare credit for a small number of employers that meet certain criteria and agree to purchase insurance coverage for their employees on the Obamacare exchanges. Obamacare already requires these employers to purchase their plans on the exchanges, HR7 would just ensure that the plans available for this special incentive do not include elective abortion.

5. Again, this bill’s verbiage is taken from the Hyde Amendment, which states there is no funding for abortion and no funding for insurance coverage that includes abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. There is no health exception in the Hyde amendment. But, under HR 7 women can still purchase separate abortion riders or plans with abortion coverage with their own money.

by Hans Johnson

Rebecca Rizzi, 24, decided to make an appointment for an abortion at the Planned Parenthood in Tempe, Arizona. “I just felt I had to do it,” she said.

When she arrived, she walked past a group of protesters with the nagging feeling they were in the right. She could hear them every time the door opened and closed. Finally, after waiting more than an hour and leaning toward not going through with it, she went outside for some fresh air.

Being drawn to Sherry Price of the Refuge in the Desert ministry, “I kind of went over to chat and I think I had it set in my mind really not to be dismissive of what they were trying to do, but I was going to ask if they thought what they were doing would actually make a difference.”

Rebecca visited a pregnancy resource center with Sherry and determined to choose life, saying, “I had it set in my mind that I could do this and put the baby up for adoption. I could live with that.”

As the pregnancy went on, Sherry continued in her support, even offering to take in the baby herself. But then Rebecca learned she was carrying twins and decided to raise them herself. Last month Olivia Grace and Kara Shea were born. Asked what her advice would be to others in her situation she answered: “I would say to seek help…. I didn’t realize how many resources there were to women in my position. There’s so many options and resources.”

This is Part I of Glenn Beck’s interview with the women on The Blaze TV:

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

Here is Part II.

Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com< with your video suggestions.

A reporter for The Daily Texan, the student newspaper for the University of Texas, got it right when calling abortion supporters what they are – “pro-abortion” – five times in an article about a counter-demonstration held during the annual pro-life Texas Rally for Life on January 24.

The term even made the article’s headline.

But she infuriated those who support abortion but who strangely aren’t proud of it. Complaints poured in:

• “First, someone who supports reproductive rights and access to abortion is not ‘pro-abortion.’”
• “The ‘pro-abortion’ label is completely inaccurate…. [O]ne can be personally opposed to abortion for themselves while still being comfortable supporting another person to make that choice for her own body.”
• “I just saw our paper’s “news” article about the pro-choice rally that was held on Saturday…. No one at that rally was pro abortion.”
•  ”I found that the title ‘Pro-abortion rally draws support…’ to be inappropriate.  I am a pro-choice person, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that I am pro-abortion.”
• “I was horrified to see today’s headline at the top of The Daily Texan….   I find this headline to be insulting and embarrassing, not just to your paper but to those of us on campus who call ourselves pro-choice. To be clear, there is no such thing as a ‘pro-abortion’ group.  No one is pro-abortion.  To characterize the pro-choice movement in such a way is to demonize those involved….”

Seems to me they doth protest a tad too much. What other supposed constitutional right are supporters so uncomfortable with?

At any rate, the headline and terminology were quickly removed from the online story….

… and replaced with “abortion rights.” The only evidence remaining is the hard copy of the newspaper, snapshots above (click all graphics to enlarge).

I certainly didn’t mind that the story’s author labeled us as “anti-abortion.” It is the fair counterpart to “pro-abortion.” And I’m proud of it. But it was overused a bit…

But the newspaper’s real bias was making a protest by 200 abortion supporters a front page story, while that which they were protesting – a pro-life rally with 4,000 in attendance, was only mentioned at the end, after a warning to watch out, they could be violent.

Further, the author totally misrepresented why the pro-lifers gathered in the first place. It wasn’t “to protest Texas Judge R. H. Wallace Jr.’s order to take pregnant and brain-dead Marlise Munoz off life support.” To be sure, pro-lifers opposed Wallace’s decision, but the Texas Rally for Life is an annual event.

[HT and photos via Jill’s Wilberforce mentee Rachel Bush, a pro-life leader at UT]

by Kelli

[A recent] study… claimed that the vast majority (over 95%) of women who elected to see the sonogram (they had a choice whether or not to see it) chose to have abortions anyway.

This seems to fly in the face of everything that pro-lifers have experienced….

One of my best friends… once drove [her friend Emily] to [an abortion] clinic and sat with her in the waiting room… [and later] accompanied her for the ultrasound.

“Okay,” said the clinic worker, as they wheeled the big ultrasound machine into the room. “We just have to print out a picture of the pregnancy. Legally, you’re supposed to view it – but don’t worry – we can take care of that.”… [T]hey were careful to turn the screen away from Emily and, as it happened, towards my friend.

What my friend saw on the screen, a fully formed baby at about eleven weeks, horrified her…. She just sat there and watched the unsuspecting child moving her arms around and kicking in Emily’s womb….

[A] clinic worker… came back with Emily’s chart, with the ultrasound printout stapled to a sheet for Emily to sign at the bottom. The clinic worker handed Emily the printed out ultrasound picture – with a big index card taped over the picture of the baby, so that Emily could not see it.

Emily dutifully signed the sheet below the taped-over picture verifying that she had seen the ultrasound and chose to abort anyway…..

I do not know how many abortions were done at that clinic, and how many women signed papers saying that they had seen their baby when, in reality, they had not. Nor do I know whether other abortion clinics have employed the same strategy to avoid laws….

After carefully reading the abstract of the Obstetrics & Gynecology study, it seems that, according to their methodology section, none of the researchers ever actually set foot inside an abortion clinic in conducting research for the study. (And, in fact, all the data was gathered from one, single abortion clinic.) All of their data was collected, not by the researchers themselves, but from records provided directly by one abortion clinic with no oversight of any kind.

~ Sarah Terzo, suggesting that abortion clinic records might not be such a reliable study source, Live Action News, January 27

[Play the video below to see a growing child in utero at 11 weeks of pregnancy, via ehd.org]

[Photo via postabortionwalk.blogspot.com]

by Kelli

Last night, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers delivered the Republican response to President Obama’s State of the Union address. LifeNews.com points out some life-affirming comments made by the mother of three:

Like all parents, we have high hopes and dreams for our children, but we also know what it’s like to face challenges. Three days after we gave birth to our son, Cole, we got news no parent expects.

Cole was diagnosed with Down syndrome. The doctors told us he could have endless complications, heart defects, even early Alzheimer’s. They told us all the problems. But when we looked at our son, we saw only possibilities. We saw a gift from God.

Today we see a 6-year old boy who dances to Bruce Springsteen; who reads above grade level; and who is the best big brother in the world. We see all the things he can do, not those he can’t. Cole, and his sisters, Grace and Brynn, have only made me more determined to see the potential in every human life – that whether we are born with an extra twenty-first chromosome or without a dollar to our name – we are not defined by our limits, but by our potential….

Quoted comments begin at 3:40…

[youtube]http://youtu.be/FBPBvsCexF4[/youtube]

McMorris Rodgers’ official bio states that she is “the only Member of Congress in history to give birth three times while in office.”

by Carder

Several factors drive this. First, by their nature, bikers tend to be politically conservative….

Second, bikers also tend to be an extremely patriotic group and, today, they are sensing that something is terribly wrong with our country and that, if changes are not made, we will soon be in an irreversible state of moral collapse. They also see the legalization of abortion as a symbol of that moral collapse.

Third, the typical biker abhors both cowardice and injustice, and the predominant feeling among them is that abortion is a textbook example of each.

~ Life Dynamics founder Mike Crutcher, explaining why he launched Bikers for Life, via The Blaze, January 22

[Photo (click to enlarge) of Bikers for Life at the January 18 Dallas March for Life]

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

We welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email Susie@jillstanek.com.

• Michael New reflects on the progress of the pro-life movement in 2013:
  

  Overall, according to the Guttmacher Institute, 70 state-level pro-life measures were enacted in 2013. This makes 2013 the second most productive year on record in terms of the number of pro-life laws that were passed. Overall, there were more pro-life laws enacted between 2011 and 2013 than in the entire previous decade.

• Big Blue Wave describes the backlash over some ads on buses in Canada (pictured left; click to enlarge). As you can see, the image isn’t graphic, and it says nothing about abortion whatsoever – but the response from certain “feminists” asserts that signs like this one “are victimizing women who need an abortion for health reasons, women who have been raped, women who want an abortion simply because they are not ready to be a parent.” How the truth about prenatal development can “victimize” women is still a mystery.
• Clinic Quotes points out the “me first” abortion mindset. Quoting Patricia Lunneborg’s book, Abortion: A Positive Decision:
  

  You’ve got to tell yourself, I am worth a hell of a lot, and I come first… my well-being, my peace, my value comes first. The focus of my life should – and can – be me…. So when the outside says you should be thinking of the child, say No. The only thing you should be thinking about is you.

• Euthanasia Prevention Coalition says a pro-assisted suicide bill in Israel is not expected to pass. However, the country recently passed legislation in favor of taxpayer-funded abortions.
• The Washington Times prints an editorial by Clarke Forsythe, senior counsel of Americans United for Life, who points out that the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision grows more vulnerable as public skepticism increases. He points to two significant reasons: the invention of the ultrasound and scientific data on the health risks to women seeking abortion.

• Americans United for Life is pleased with the reception of the 9th edition of their pro-life playbook, Defending Life 2014. It includes a great deal of useful information on crafting pro-life legislation. As one reporter observed, “AUL, which describes itself as both the legal arm and ‘intellectual architect’ of the movement, is chiefly responsible for the most recent and highly successful under-the-radar strategy.”
• Life Training Institute has some good suggestions for discussing pro-life apologetics with your pastor:
  

  Encourage pastors that are afraid to confront abortion, out of fear of hurting people, that doing so offers the opportunity to further the gospel within their flock. We know that people are hurting as a result of abortion already. Properly addressing the issue opens the altar of God to men and women struggling with the pain of a past abortion. Some have heard clearly that abortion is wrong but have not heard as clearly that the grace and mercy of Christ is sufficient for forgiveness. They carry a burden that God never intended them to carry and that he desires to lift from their weary shoulders.