[A]ccording to CBO [Congressional Budget Office], to the degree that government runs and pays for the health-care system — as it does through Medicaid — aborting late-term babies is a cost-saving measure for government. Letting late-term babies live, according to this reasoning, is an increased cost for government.

The CBO did not estimate how much wealth and job-creating power U.S. society has lost and will lose in the future because 11,000 late-term unborn babies per year are killed by abortionists and not allowed to live out their lives.

~ Terence P. Jeffrey summarizing the Congressional Budget Office’s report that abortions after twenty weeks gestation saves the government money, CNS News, July 8

Incredulous, Guy Benson of Townhall quasi-interviews a representative of CBO to understand why they even went there.

[HT: Matille]

As I wrote in my post, “How abortion proponents view the current abortion landscape,” I have developed a collegial relationship with Robin Marty, pictured right, senior political reporter for RH Reality Check.

This past weekend Robin was in Chicago for a National Organization for Women convention, and we got to meet. She had asked if she could interview me for a piece she’s writing.

Through the course of our lunchtime conversation (which she paid for, thanks!) Robin enlightened me on how abortion proponents view current pro-life efforts, particularly since 2010, when pro-lifers began passing laws in unprecedented numbers. Robin agreed to let me share her thoughts. I’m not going to pick them apart, I simply find them fascinating and thought you might, too.

Playing fair

Robin shocked me when she accused pro-lifers of not playing fair. Of course, pro-lifers think pro-choicers (using Robin’s preferred terminology for this post) are underhanded and conniving. But us?

Robin acknowledged, “It’s fair to say both sides think the other side isn’t playing fair.” But Texas was a glaring example of pro-life chicanery in the eyes of abortion proponents, even as pro-lifers thought just the opposite.

“In Texas you had a legislative session that finished with no abortion bill, and then the governor added a special session,” Robin explained. “And we feel we won that special session. We organized as quickly as we could. We had a massive filibuster.”

What about the infamous mob that kept a vote from happening by midnight?

“I can see how your side can say the debate was finished at 11:48p, and it should have been time for a vote, and we broke the rules by not letting that happen,” said Robin. “But at the same time there was a series of events leading up to those 12 minutes.  Our people watched Wendy Davis filibuster and be told she went off-topic [broke filibuster rules], although we thought she was completely on-topic. Those 12 minutes were a culmination of events that led up to them.”

Robin gave another recent example of Republican legislators in North Carolina gutting a bill about Sharia law and inserting pro-life provisions. Robin said such tactics have been disheartening to some pro-choicers, who proceed to walk away from politics. I responded that legislators do this all the time. IMO it’s simply politics. Politics are dirty. Politics aren’t necessarily fair. I reminded her of our classic example of Democrat dirty politics: Obamacare.

Common ground

“There’s no such thing as common ground,” Robin agreed, “when we believe this is a civil rights issue for women, and you believe it’s a civil rights issue for the unborn. I don’t think we will ever agree.”

“But I think it is interesting that we both have common ground in the opposition,” Robin noted. “There are a lot of parallels between both the pro-choice and pro-life side when it comes to what each side thinks is justified and not justified and thinking the other side is not playing by the rules.”

Robin hearkened back to the Texas fiasco. “Maybe that 12 minutes wasn’t a traditional tactic,” Robin explained, “but in this case it was justified. And on your side, exposing a bloody fetus poster to a 5-yr-old would be justified because that’s what’s necessary for you to make abortion end.”

Robin noted that we both have factions we cannot control. We have factions that move too fast and factions that move too slow. She said we also both now often the same civil justice language.

Is the sky really falling this time?

I so often hear wild exaggerations from the other side that I never know if and when they think something is a real emergency. I asked Robin about this. Do they see these particular times as truly alarming?

“I can only speak for myself and a lot of activists I have talked to,” Robin responded. “‘The sky is falling’ is a bit extreme, but I do think there has been a significant shift. The language has changed, the tactics have changed. Local stories – such as when Ohio added abortion restrictions to their budget, or when North Carolina gutted that bill – are now national news events.  There is a sense that abortion access could be changed forever. People who weren’t necessarily engaged are paying attention. The public is becoming more aware that abortion isn’t a settled issue, which many believed was until now.”

 Losing my religion

I asked Robin about the perceived thrones of pro-choice power in Washington and New York. Do they call the shots for the movement, and if so, how does the movement like that?

“I do believe a lot of the policy is being made in DC and New York that I don’t think resonates with people who live in the Midwest or South,” Robin responded, “especially messaging that can come across as anti-religious. I think the pro-choice position needs to be discussed in a way that can be taken to churches – embracing faith, family, and community.

Robin noted “a rift between the religious and nonreligious side of our movement.”

Planned Parenthood

How does the movement view Planned Parenthood, I asked?

“The feeling toward Planned Parenthood  has more to do with your interaction with them,” said Robin. “I don’t think there is an overarching belief that Planned Parenthood is helping or hurting the movement. It does fantastic work trying to obtain access for contraception. It is also doing quite a bit with litigation and keeping clinics open – not just their own. I think  overall Planned Parenthood continues to be something the movement supports.”

 Who will win?

Simple question.

Robin answered, “Your side wins if you convince everyone there is a baby at the point of conception. Our side wins if we convince people this fight is not just about disallowing those who don’t want to be pregnant to not be pregnant, but it’s also about stopping people from not getting pregnant in the first place. This will end up being a game of who appeals most to the vast majority of people who aren’t taking a side.

“The topic of contraception is necessary to be discussed. We are focusing more on birth control not because abortion isn’t a winning issue but because we never thought birth control was in jeopardy. That’s frightening to us.”

—-

Thanks to Robin for going out on a limb and accepting her first “hostile” interview, as she put it. I appreciate her candidness.

Sometimes I see everyone on the other side as a big lump of evil people, even though I pray to see them as Jesus does. I’m sure many think the same of us. Robin is a reminder to me that even though we couldn’t be more at odds on the most important issue of our lifetime, many pro-choicers are fellow human beings with good – albeit terribly misled (sorry had to say it :)) – intentions.

Pro-abortion authors Robin Marty and Jessica Mason Pieklo have co-authored a fascinating new book, Crow After Roe.

Marty is senior political reporter for RH Reality Check, and Pieklo is a senior legal analyst there. Over the past year or so I’ve developed a collegial relationship with Robin. Even as we both stand our ground, it’s refreshing to discuss and debate sans animus.

Robin was kind enough to give me a copy of her book, which I have been reading with interest. Even though Robin writes from a biased perspective, which she freely acknowledges, she writes intelligently, another refreshing difference from the typical pro-abortion fare I usually read.

Crow After Roe is written from a standpoint of alarm but offers solutions. “[T]he book will shock and move you to action,” notes Feministing founder Jessica Valenti on the back cover. “Most importantly, though, Crow After Roe gives you hope and a roadmap for what we can do to change the current anti-woman tide.”

It is precisely those two points that interested me. Why are abortion proponents alarmed? And how do they envision the way out of their perceived predicament?

The book title refers to Jim Crow laws, created by southern whites after blacks were freed from slavery, which allowed oppression and segregation to continue. The authors believe pro-life laws serve the same purpose of oppressing poor and minority abortion-vulnerable mothers.

Further, Crow After Roe makes the case – with which pro-lifers will readily agree – that, of late, certain pieces of our proposed legislation have been written with the goal of triggering the overturn of Roe v. Wade. To that end the book “examines 11 states… that since 2010 have each passed a different anti-abortion or anti-women’s health law explicitly written to provoke a repeal of Roe….” (It was fascinating reading the names of many people I know on those pages.)

In her forward to the book, former Planned Parenthood CEO Gloria Feldt writes:

[T]he anti-choice right has leveled a volume and variety of attacks never before seen in this nation….

But we can stop them if we change our tactics and bring the struggle for reproductive justice out of the “women’s issues” ghetto focusing only on abortion….

We must also face the fact that privacy is not and has never been a strong enough legal justification for reproductive rights. Therefore, it is essential to bolster jurisprudence affirming women’s civil rights to make their own childbearing choices, and to pass laws such as the Freedom of Choice Act….

The latter seems like a long haul, when even a liberal state like New York just failed to pass an increasingly rare pro-abortion bill, and, as Feldt noted, Obama bailed on FOCA.

Another solution suggested by Robin and Jessica is to borrow from a surprising pro-life page:

According to… Feldt… what is needed is a strong, energetic core, not unlike a feminist version of the “personhood movement” that has been popping up in a variety of states. “Just as the personhood efforts are not coming from the mainstream anti-chice groups,” she says, “I’d love to see a band of feisty young feminists out there leading the charge on this, saying, ‘Excuse me, we are persons and we want our personhood guaranteed.'”

The problem, there, of course, is the abortion movement claimed these “feisty young feminists” weren’t persons before they were persons and killed a huge chunk of them off.

On Robin and Jessica’s “to do” list:

• Repeal the Hyde Amendment, which bans government funding of most Medicaid abortions
• Increase the number of abortion providers by ensuring all med students have abortion training and allowing nondoctors to commit abortions
• Make contraception “easily accessible and affordable,” which they think Obamacare goes a long way toward ensuring (although they’re leery of all the lawsuits)
• Toss pro-life Democrat politicians from the tent
• Elect more pro-abortion women
• Get more liberal judges appointed to the courts

Those are all proactive steps. “However,” they write, “the most immediate step is to stop anti-abortion and anti-contraception bills from becoming law in the first place.”

To that end the authors think a spark was lit in Virginia last year when abortion advocates rallied against an ultrasound bill:

[I]f there is a silver lining to the anti-contraception, anti-abortion, anti-women laws that have been passed or enforced since 2010, it is that they have created the beginnings of a powerful activist backlash.

Despite the Virginia bill’s eventual passage, “[t]he fight over the bill… took its toll,” they write, saying support for ultrasound legislation and pro-life politicians in that state dropped.

Robin and Jessica maintain that even if a bill passes, vocal opposition can weaken it, which may also serve a dual purpose of “fracturing… anti-choice community” support.

Nevertheless, the authors admit their first order of business is to stop our onslaught. (Coincidentally, the Washington Times reported today that only midway through 2013 we have already tied the second-highest number of pro-life bills passed in a year, which was only last year, and 2011 holds the record.)

In other words, they can never get to their “to do” list while playing defense. As I wrote the other day, abortion proponents now find themselves racing from brushfire to brushfire, many of which they are unable to put out. They think pro-lifers have galvanized them; I hearken back to Proverbs 24:16, i.e., it won’t last.

Is it anti-life for me to admit I smell blood in the water – and like it?

I do recommend reading Crow After Roe as good recognizance.

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.

• Down on the Pharm says that by reducing human life to nothing more than a dollar figure, we are one step away from forced abortions – in America:
  

  The Congressional Budget Office has announced that if we pass Trent Franks’ bill H.R. 1797 restricting late term abortions, it could add $400 billion to the federal deficit. Philip Hodges at Godfather politics points out that this might be the first time that the politicians ever cared about the deficit, now that it can be used to push abortion.CNS News has more on this.

• New to our blogroll, Josh Brahm clearly explains why he supports incremental pro-life laws, despite the fact that some pro-lifers believe they are “evil”:
  

  I’m not saying that we should do evil that good may come. My argument is that when we pass incremental bills that will have a positive impact for the unborn, we are not actually doing evil. We are doing a good thing….Trust me, if pro-choice legal experts agreed that this [post 20-week abortion ban] bill would ultimately hurt the pro-life cause, they wouldn’t be fighting it so hard.

• Big Blue Wave calls out Canadian abortion advocate Joyce Arthur (pictured left) for using the term “fetus porn” when referring to graphic abortion pictures – which she calls “callous.” BBW responds:
  

  It’s bad enough these human beings are killed, the representation of their dead bodies are likened to pornography. It`s not enough that you don`t think they have a right to life? You have to disrespect the images of their dead bodies?…

A woman who is in favour of legal third trimester elective abortions… [has] no moral right to give anyone a lesson on the subject of how not to be callous….

Abortions happen at all stages of gestation in Canada. So it’s hypocritical to hide behind the “that’s not a typical abortion” meme. The picture of the dead babies is the picture of what you support. Own it.

• At Catholic Vote, Michael J. New discusses the decrease in Minnesota’s abortion rate over the past six years, after an increase in the 1990s:
  

  On June 16, 1994 a state district court ruled that Minnesota had to publicly fund therapeutic abortions for low income women through Medicaid…. There is a very broad body of academic research which shows that public funding for abortions increases abortion rates. Indeed, while nearly every other state saw its abortion numbers decrease during the mid to late 1990s, Minnesota actually saw its abortion rate increase between 1994 and 2000.However, eventually the tide turned. Minnesota still publicly funds abortions for low-income women through Medicaid. However, in 2003 Governor Tim Pawlenty signed a revamped informed consent law. This law is based on the Pennsylvania law the Supreme Court upheld in its 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision which gives women the opportunity to view color photos of fetal development before submitting to an abortion. In 2005 Governor Pawlenty included $2.5 million in his budget for pregnancy resource centers. These policy changes likely played a key role in Minnesota’s long term abortion decline.

• My Drop in the Ocean links to recent article by Laura Peredo at Live Action, debunking the falsehoods about pregnancy resource centers which were spread during a recent Tweetfest.

• Expose Abortion includes this chilling recent testimony from Deborah Edge, a former employee at Texas abortionist Douglas Karpen’s (pictured) clinic:
  

  Q. “You would see the baby alive and him to kill that baby outside the womb, and this would be done by jamming some sort of instrument into the soft spot?”
  A. “Either that, or actually twisting the head off the neck with his own bare hands.”
  Q. “And you saw that happen?”
  A. “Yes, sir.”

Karpen is still performing abortions.

• Fletcher Armstrong discusses the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform’s protest and appeal to the National Education Association at the recent Georgia World Congress to ask the NEA to adopt a neutral stance on abortion. It seems counterproductive for a teacher’s union to support even late-term and partial-birth abortion, but that is the case. Our children’s educators need to be informed of what the union uses their dues to support.
• Big Blue Wave also shares a video that strangely claims “any child can be born gay. So marriage equality is every family’s issue.” BBW points out:
  

  Even if I accepted the premise that anyone can be born gay, so what? Anybody can be born autistic. Does that make everyone concerned with autism?

Also, if science could determine who would be born gay, would society’s eugenic tendencies lead to “search and destroy” missions for those children in utero?

[HT for CBO story: Matille T.; Arthur photo via straight.com; Karpen photo via periodistadigital.com]

by Hans Johnson

Music has long been known to “soothe the savage breast,” but in recent years we have seen the Mozart Effect touted for everything from raising one’s IQ to mitigating epileptic symptoms. A study on 20 premature infants at Tel Aviv Medical Center played Mozart for one group for 30 minutes on two consecutive days. No music was played for the other group. The babies who listened to music were less agitated, expended less energy, and needed fewer calories. Thus they presumably could gain weight and thrive more quickly.

Most recently, doctors at Tel Aviv Saurasky Medical Center sought to differentiate the effects of different classical music by observing 12 babies born in the 30th week of gestation with an average weight of 2.5 lbs. From Haaretz:

The music was played from iPads placed outside the incubators, with earphones in the incubators adapted to the babies’ ears at a volume of 75 decibels. An instrument measuring the absorption of oxygen and emission of carbon dioxide was attached to the babies, enabling researchers to calculate the babies’ metabolic rates….

Following only half an hour of exposure to Mozart’s music, the metabolic rate dropped by 9.7 percent in comparison to babies who weren’t exposed to music at all. Listening to Bach led to a drop of 4.5 percent in the metabolic rate, in comparison to those not exposed to music, but this drop wasn’t deemed to be statistically significant.

The effect of Mozart’s music was very swift: Ten minutes after beginning to listen to his music, the metabolic rate dropped by 4.5 percent. This drop continued as the music went on, in comparison to the babies who weren’t exposed to music.

Here is a YouTube video of a 5-month old enjoying Mozart:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Lgg04BOaII[/youtube]

Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.

[HT: TheBlaze]

After standard treatment at the US clinic, the couple had 13 IVF embryos to choose from. The doctors cultured the embryos for five days, took a few cells from each and sent them… for genetic screening. Tests showed that while most of the embryos looked healthy, only three had the right number of chromosomes….

Scheidts still has two screened embryos in cold storage, but has not yet decided whether to use them. “We haven’t even thought about that. We’ll see how the first year goes.”

~ The Guardian, July 7

[Photo of father David Levy, mother Marybeth Scheidts, and son Connor Levy via The Guardian]

AL.com reported today:

The state of Alabama has uncovered a business relationship between the doctor of a clinic accused of being an unlicensed abortion provider and the woman who surrendered an abortion provider license for the Southside facility a year ago.

In a court filing last week, the state says that Dr. Bruce Norman is contracted with a Georgia company headed by Diane Derzis [pictured above right] to provide staffing, supplies, medication, medical malpractice insurance and workman’s compensation — “in short to manage Norman’s practice conducted at 1001 17th St. South.”

In previous court filings, Derzis stated there was no relationship between herself and Norman.

Derzis, owner of the New Woman All Women Health Care abortion clinic in Birmingham (also owner of the last remaining abortion mill in Mississippi) surrendered her clinic license last year after the state launched revocation hearings following a 76-page deficiency report filed by the Alabama Board of Health that found, according to LifeNews.com:

… inadequately trained staff; failure to have policy and procedures related to medication errors and the administration of medications, which resulted in the hospitalization of three abortion patients, one of whom was placed in the ICU; no documentation indicating that Derzis’ two abortionists were even licensed to perform abortions; inadequate preparation and administration of drugs, which led to [two] overdoses and inadequate pain management; and use of uninspected equipment.

But in March pro-life activists learned the clinic was still illegally open. Authorities were alerted, and the Board of Health filed a complaint to shut it down – again.

In a motion to dismiss that case, Derzis’s attorney claimed she was no longer connected to the clinic and that it was run entirely under the direction of abortionist Norman, pictured right. Norman claimed he committed less than 30 abortions a month and, therefore, did not have to be licensed.

But kudos to the state for investigating and connecting the dots, the evidence of which it has asked to be added to other evidence in a trial set for August 5.

Life Legal Defense Foundation has been a force behind closing Derzis’s clinic all along the way. Its senior staff counsel, Allison Aranda, further explained the latest in an email to me this afternoon. In particular, she responded to my question whether Derzis could be jailed for lying that she no longer had connections to the clinic:

False testimony and/or statements must be made under oath in order to be punished as perjury in a criminal court.  As far as I know, the statements were made by her attorney in a motion to dismiss.  There was no attached declaration signed by Derzis making the claims under penalty of perjury.

Also of note is the fact that Diane’s attorney withdrew the motion to dismiss (the document in which Diane purportedly made the claims disassociating herself with Norman’s office).  So technically the court never issued a ruling on the information.

I do think that it is significant that Derzis lied (likely to her attorney or he should be in trouble for making those claims knowing they were false).  The court is not going to trust her or her attorney after a blunder like this.  Rest assured the court will hold them to the strictest evidentiary rules at the trial set for August 5th.  After these, not merely unsubstantiated claims, but rather blatantly false claims, the court will demand full proof that Norman is performing less than 30 abortions in any two month period and will order Norman to cease employing any of Derzis’ staff.  The court will most definitely order Derzis to cease providing employees to staff the Norman office and will demand proof of the extent of her business relationship with Norman.

But Derzis’ conduct is sanctionable by jail time already.  We should be calling on the local prosecuting agencies to go after her in criminal court in addition to the civil action brought by the ADPH.

See these portions of the Alabama Code dealing with unlicensed hospitals and violations of the rules and regulations adopted by the Board of Health below.  I think more pressure should be put on the Jefferson County Attorney’s Office to prosecute Derzis!  I’m drafting a letter to send to the DA/CA’s office.  We are also filing an amicus brief in support of the ADPH’s request for a permanent injunction against NWAW, Derzis, Norman, and now the Georgia Clinic.

22-21-33.  Unlicensed hospitals.

(a) Any individual, association, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or other business entity who operates or causes to be operated a hospital of any kind as defined in this article or any regulations promulgated hereunder, without having been granted a license therefor by the State Board of Health shall be guilty of a Class B misdemeanor upon conviction

§ 22-2-14.  Rules and regulations; violation.

Any person who knowingly violates or fails or refuses to obey or comply with any rule or regulation adopted and promulgated by the State Board of Health of this state shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be fined not less than $25.00 nor more than $500.00 and, if the violation or failure or refusal to obey or comply with such rule or regulation is a continuing one, each day’s violation, or failure or refusal shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punished accordingly.

[HT: Fr. Terry Gensener; top photo via mpbonline.org]; bottom photo via abortiondocs.org]

The Washington Examiner has posted “20 bizarre pro-choice signs protesting the Texas abortion bill.”

I already posted one of them, but here’s another that caught my eye, bringing new meaning to the term, “concealed carry”:

The woman was obviously wishing she could quife a round at pro-life legislators. Perhaps she was responding to Texas Congressman Steve Stockman’s tweet…

Babies shooting their mothers from the uterus, pro-abortion women shooting politicians with their uterus… it’s the feminist era of the Wild West.

It’s all a bit zany, but the reality isn’t. The umbrella sign above was unwittingly ironic. The uterus, of course, is already used as a lethal weapon 1.2 million times a year in the U.S. So speaking of guns, and via Abort73.com…