A bill was introduced in the Iowa House this week that would define abortion as murder. According to the Ames Tribune, February 7:

Those charged with murder, under the bill, would include a mother who takes abortion-inducing drugs or a doctor who performs an abortion. It also grants no exceptions for rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother.

When the day comes that abortion is again illegal in the United States, should mothers who seek or attempt clandestine abortions be charged with murder along with their abortionists?

It should be noted that before abortion was legalized throughout the U.S. in 1973, aborting mothers were not prosecuted. According to Clarke Forsythe at Americans United for Life:

States did not treat women who had the abortion as either principals or accomplices….

As one legal scholar in the 1980s who studied this issue concluded after surveying the 50 states, women “were never charged with murder, only seldom were named co-conspirators, and still more rarely were regarded as accomplices.”…

As the appeals court in the District of Columbia wrote in 1901, “… D.C. Code… applies to the person or persons committing the act which produces the miscarriage, and not to the person upon whom it is committed, notwithstanding it may be done with her knowledge and consent. Not being liable to indictment thereunder, she is not an accomplice in the legal sense.”

Based on the fact that abortion was dangerous and often fatal up to the 19th century, women were seen as victims.

In addition, another main reason for the non-prosecution of women is that relieving women from criminal liability provided states with a better chance of achieving convictions against abortionists – the principal.

[Photo via Daily Kos]

~ “Going to Planned Parenthood for non-biased counseling is like calling a tobacco store and asking them if you should smoke,” Students for Life of America, February 8

[HT: Andy Moore]

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.

• Our newest blog, Clinic Quotes, shows the anti-adoption mentality of the abortion industry from a pamphlet distributed by Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood in 1985, which reads:
  

  But aren’t there alternatives to abortion? Yes, there are. A pregnant women can carry the baby to term and she can then keep it or relinquish the baby for adoption. Relinquishment is often not a very humane procedure.

• Down on the Pharm explains why abortion statistics gleaned from abortionists should be viewed with great skepticism.
• Michael New discusses the lack of consistent abortion reporting standards in the U.S. Some states have not reported abortion data to the Centers for Disease Control since 1997.

• Live Action News reports on Planned Parenthood’s total indifference to sex-selective abortions and female gendercide in the United States.
• Euthanasia Prevention Coalition shares the lament of a son who lost his mother to assisted suicide without her family being notified or consulted. The woman suffered from chronic depression.
• Americans United for Life notes that while “big abortion” has a strong foothold nationally, pro-life legislation is poised and ready at the state level.
• Judie Brown calls out the US Conference of Catholic Bishops for their lack of leadership on life issues:
  

  The absence of logic and common sense in [President Obama’s Sandy Hook tragedy] statement [regarding “caring for our children”] does not affect the majority of Americans one way or the other…. [T]he United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which was quick to call for the regulation of firearms after the Sandy Hook massacre… hesitate[d] to reprimand Obama for his impudence on the question of abortion.

  … Where is their leadership, their collective voice, their capacity to rally the troops and change the culture? Considering the bishops’ near silence in this 40-year-war, these are legitimate questions.

• Bound4Life says that despite the life-affirming Huggies video featured below, owner company Kimberly-Clark may not be so squeaky clean:
  

  I thought that since Huggies acknowledged life in the womb they might advocate preserving life at every stage. I wanted to do all I could to promote them and this message, so I began to research them. What I found was startling. Huggies is a brand of Kimberly-Clark. Kimberly-Clark partners with Girls for a Change which was partially founded by Planned Parenthood.

  The same mouth that acknowledges life advocates killing it in the name of choice and “girl power.”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/F4GnKFhHQd4[/youtube]

[Image via LifeNews]

Little did TooManyAborted.com founder Ryan Bomberger know just how much the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People would disdain his satirical but accurate edit of its acronym, NAACP. Click to enlarge…

On January 16, Ryan, pictured right, wrote a scathing piece entitled, “NAACP: National Association for the Abortion of Colored People,” published at LifeNews.com, in conjunction with the NAACP’s upcoming 44th Annual Image Awards.

In response, NAACP attorneys Gordon Feinblatt, LLC, zipped off a letter to both Ryan and Steven Ertelt of Life News, threatening to sue both for copyright infringement, including punitive damages, unless they cease and desist within seven days.

On February 1 Ryan, with the help of legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, filed a lawsuit against the NAACP, accusing the group of intimidation.

Ryan stated he had been using the term, “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People,” since 2011 and had the legal right to do so under “fair use” trademark law, which allows “parodying, criticizing, and/or commenting upon the defendant and its services.”

Ryan’s lawsuit added that NAACP attorneys certainly knew about “fair use” law and were just trying to frighten him. Therefore, Ryan requested that the court award him “relief as may be just and proper.” I hope the court takes a big dent out of bully NAACP’s pocketbook.

In his press statement announcing NAACP’ threat Ryan doubled down by including a graphic reiterating the disputed title. Click to enlarge…

ADF Senior Counsel Steven Aden gave me this statement via email:

Every American should know the truth that abortion has decimated the African-American community. Ryan Bomberger and the Radiance Foundation are performing a public service by exposing the carnage being carried out by Planned Parenthood and its abortion industry comrades.

If the targeting of inner city communities by Big Abortion, leading to death of 16 million black babies isn’t something we can all unite against, what can bring us together? The fact that the NAACP would threaten Ryan rather than coming along side of him to end this undercover genocide shows that politics trumps saving lives and saving communities for these would-be censors.

NAACP’s intimidation tactics did not stop here.

On January 31 the National Black ProLife Coalition announced the NAACP had successfully pressured Twitter to suspend its @NAACP-WATCHDOGS account. The group’s last tweet was:

Racist elitists no longer need the Ku Klux Klan to control blacks; they have Planned Parenthood. And Planned Parenthood has the NAACP on a leash.

Five minutes later Twitter suspended the account.

by Carla

CNN has invited mothers who have had abortions (post-abortive mothers) to “share your story via video, audio or text”:

As much as abortion gets debated politically, rarely do we read stories of women who have chosen to terminate a pregnancy. We want to hear from anyone who has had first-hand experience with abortion. How difficult was the decision? How do you feel about it now? How did it change your life?

Almost all of the current submissions are stories of abortion regret (more on abortion regret). The world needs to know the truth: abortion isn’t just a procedure. Abortion hurts women.

The deadline for submissions is next Friday, February 15.

Guthrie: It’s a movie with a decidedly pro-life/anti-abortion purpose. But [do] you feel like people, as I understand it, are getting the wrong message about what you are trying to say by your participation?

Mallette: Yeah, I don’t feel that it is a pro-life message. I mean, people are going to get from it what they want to. It’s s a true story, it’s a historical piece.  And the reason I wanted to get involved with this film was because, you know, I lived in a pregnancy home my whole pregnancy with Justin, and so this is going to be used as a tool to raise money for pregnancy centers. So regardless of your stance, pro-life, you know, or whatever it is, I just think that anybody would want to help girls in need if they need a place to stay.

Guthrie: Do you feel misled at all by the producers of the film? I mean, if the film has this message and its goal is to – is an anti-abortion message, I mean, are you okay with that? I guess I’m confused about what your position is.

~ Pattie Mallette, mother of singer Justin Bieber, defending her involvement in the film Crescendo during an interview with Savannah Guthrie of NBC’s Today Show, via Newsbusters, February 7. Video of the interview available at link link.

UPDATE 2/9, 8:20a: Here’s more in the San Francisco Chronicle on Mallette’s participation in the movie Crescendo.

I’ve mentioned before that it is helpful to conduct recognizance on the other side’s social networks. You can learn interesting information. Last Tuesday morning Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas posted this notice on its Facebook page:

Texan pro-lifer Andy Moore spotted the notice and immediately began contacting friends. A coalition quickly formed, including (among others) Bryan Kemper, Students for Life of America, and Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust.

When 3p came, pro-lifers were ready, totally overwhelming a Twitter conversation Planned Parenthood had intended to pressure the State of Texas into reinstating funding to one about Planned Parenthood itself. Afterward Bryan reported:

The hash tag was the number #1 trending topic on Twitter and it was BY FAR dominated by pro-life tweets. The conversation they hoped to have was flooded with the truth.

The Austin Chronicle even took note:

Not least of all, the chat moderators spent a good bit of energy trying to explain what this discussion was not about: abortion….

If tagwatchers made it through the deluge of anti-abortion and pro-life tweets, though, they could find a wealth of statistics on the state of women’s health care in Texas….

In the end, followers might have been left with more questions than answers, but that’s par for the course in this arena.

Ta da, mission accomplished. A Planned Parenthood supporter on Facebook dismally noted:

Actually, I’m sure Planned Parenthood and their pro-abortion buddies were mortified and embarrassed by all the great points pro-lifers made. Scroll through the #TXwomenshealth hashtag on February 5 to see.

After the dust settled, I noted many pro-life commenters on Facebook said they didn’t have a Twitter account or know how to set one up. My friend Andrew at @TexasProLife suggested I give a brief tutorial.

PCMag.com has a good brief overview of Twitter.

Simply think of a name for yourself (even your own name, like I use), and a brief description, and sign up here.

You don’t have to tweet anything at first. You can just read tweets to start catching on and to pick up typical Twitter shorthand, since you have to say what you want to say in only 140 characters. There are little tricks, like shortening links.

So the first thing you do is “follow” people whose tweets you want to read. For pro-lifers I would suggest, to get started: @LifeSite, @LiveAction_News, @operation rescue, @StevenErtelt, and me, of course.

I also follow pro-abortion people and groups. And I follow friends, news organizations, and people I admire.

After awhile you may want to start using a Twitter dashboard like Hootsuite to separate the people you follow into groups. That’s what I do.

As this post demonstrates, Twitter can be an important online tool for pro-lifers. And the more of us who participate, the better.

by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat

• Slate’s William Saletan (a pro-choice writer) argues pro-lifers get legislation passed because they care more than pro-choicers:
  

  To cancel out that advantage, pro-choicers have to raise the intensity level. When the percentage of respondents who call abortion critical, very important, or a deal-breaker rises toward 30 percent or more, the balance of power begins to shift.Think about that when you see pro-lifers winning elections, passing laws, and marching in the cold. They don’t win because they’re a majority. They win because they care enough to fight.

• At National Review, Michael New demonstrates how a no-exceptions, pro-life candidate can make an effective political case for protecting all unborn children – even those conceived in rape.
• The Detroit News did a story regarding the medical privacy angle of the 35-week abortion botched by abortionist Shelley Sella.

• El Paso Times notes the death of infamous abortionist Raymond Showery (obituary photo at left). Though Showery’s obituary lacks any mention of his career as an abortionist, the Times picks up the slack:
  

  In 1981, Showery was accused of trying to run an El Paso Times reporter off the road while the doctor was being investigated on a number of allegations made by his patients.

In 1983, Showery was found guilty of the 1979 murder of a 5- to 7-month-old fetus he had attempted to abort. Showery’s employees testified they saw the baby girl attempting to breathe and claimed that Showery smothered and drowned her, though a corpse was never found, according to El Paso Times archives. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

While free on bail pending an appeal on the murder charge, Showery was charged with involuntary manslaughter in connection with the death of a 28-year-old mother of four who died from hemorrhaging after an abortion he performed at his Southside Medical Center in 1984. The woman’s uterus and a uterine artery were perforated during the procedure.

Prosecutors charged that Showery used inadequately trained staff, failed to properly treat the tear, delayed treatment and delayed transferring her to a hospital, news archives show.

• At Public Discourse, Matthew Franck writes on the latest HHS mandate “accommodation”:
  

  The government has decided that religious freedom is at its maximum in houses of worship, is attenuated in charities, colleges, and other institutions, and is nonexistent elsewhere in the productive economy.This in fact has been its argument in courts of law—that for-profit employers have no religious freedom that the government is bound to respect. The administration has conceded that religious freedom is at stake in the struggle over its mandate, but it has dictated for whom that freedom exists, when it is truly the common possession of all.