Author archives: Patrina Mosley

Supreme Court Pass on Defunding Cases Reminds Us of the Horrors of Planned Parenthood

by Patrina Mosley

December 11, 2018

Many are upset at the Supreme Court’s decision to not review a set of cases that could have brought clarity to whether an individual has the right to sue their state government for withholding Medicaid funds from certain healthcare providers, some of which included Planned Parenthood. As pro-lifers think back to January 2018, we remember when President Trump rescinded Obama-era guidance that had made it harder for states to defund abortion-performing entities like Planned Parenthood. So, what just happened?

After undercover videos were released in 2015 that showed Planned Parenthood selling the remains of aborted baby parts, several states moved to defund them by withholding Medicaid funds. Pro-abortion individuals and Planned Parenthood themselves began to sue many of the states for this action. In 2016, pro-abortion President Obama took precautions and issued guidance that basically tried to scare states into not defunding entities that performed abortions, telling them they could be in violation of the law if they did so.

In reality, due to the Hyde Amendment, Medicaid dollars cannot go towards paying for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest or life endangerment, and most states follow this federal standard, although they do have the option to cover abortion using explicitly “state” Medicaid funds. However, Medicaid money is fungible for entities that perform other services aside from abortions, which many Americans do not like and thus have already made it clear that they do not want their tax dollars entangled with the abortion business.

Cases involving state attempts to defund entities like Planned Parenthood were split on the question of whether an individual has the right to sue states for withdrawing such funding. When cases involving Kansas and Louisiana’s attempts to withdraw this funding reached the Supreme Court, many were looking to the Court to bring clarity to this issue—but they did not. Instead, they just kicked the can down the road to be resolved another day. And no doubt that day for resolution will come. The underlying question to settle is whether states have the right to decide how to best use their Medicaid dollars.

However, it’s important to remember that the Supreme Court’s decision to punt this to another day does not block and nor should it discourage states from their pursuits to defund Planned Parenthood and reallocate their Medicaid funds to better healthcare options for women. President Trump’s action rescinding President Obama’s 2016 guidance freed states from the fear of federal government punishment if they decided to defund entities like Planned Parenthood, and states should continue to capitalize on this.

We will not forget the horrific scandals of Planned Parenthood that brought us to this place to begin with. From committing over a third of the nation’s abortions, to Medicaid fraud, botched abortions, declining services, and participation in the sale of aborted baby parts, Planned Parenthood is not a place that should qualify as healthcare and does not deserve our tax dollars. For every Planned Parenthood, there are 20 more qualified federal healthcare centers that do not perform abortions and yet provide more services for women. Let’s use them!

Christian Healthcare Alternatives to Obamacare

by Patrina Mosley

December 4, 2018

Family Research Council (FRC) and Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI) have released our fifth annual comprehensive review of elective abortion coverage under Obamacare on ObamacareAbortion.com. This resource will help any consumer who wants to find pro-life health plans.

Premiums have continued to sky-rocket and more locales than ever have no pro-life plans to choose from.

It can be tiring to have to choose between your healthcare needs, your pocket, and your conscience.

You may have wondered or heard from neighbors saying: “Why do all the good plans include the abortion coverage?” If you are dissatisfied with the insurance choices in your state, you may want to consider a healthcare sharing ministry. While healthcare sharing does not fix the problem of abortion funding in Obamacare, it does provide an option that respects our consciences and moral values.

In life, things (including medical emergencies) happen, and those within the Body of Christ should strive to take care of each other just as they did in the Book of Acts, during the early church. One of the ways Christians are continuing to care for one another today is by shouldering the burden of each other’s healthcare expenses. Does this mean that the early church in Acts practiced communism as we know it today, or that the teachings of Jesus promoted government-enforced socialism? No. But we are told that the Christians of that time did share all things in common. They voluntarily engaged in this way of life—serving one another—out of an overflow of the heart, because of what their Lord had done for them. (See here for more discussion on this issue.)

These Christian healthcare sharing ministries operate on a system of voluntary contributions of Christian members who are wanting to systematically live out Galatians 6:2 (“Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way, you will fulfill the law of Christ”) by sharing medical costs among their members. Healthcare sharing ministries are exempt from the individual mandate of Obamacare. These ministries do not support abortion in any way and provide an alternative to the state and federal exchanges:

These three ministries have been certified and recognized as healthcare sharing ministries by the Department of Health & Human Services (via the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services).

The testimonials of how families have benefited from these ministries are encouraging to see, particularly with those who run their own business. “It’s a great alternative for families who are self-employed,” said one.

When another family who was having trouble paying the high premiums of Obamacare switched to a healthcare share ministry, the representatives even prayed with the family. These healthcare ministries are not only ministering to believers physically and financially but also spiritually and emotionally.

Today, there are over 1 million healthcare sharing participants with approximately 85 percent of those represented and supported by a ministry that is a member or affiliate of the Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries.

Believers are using whatever means they have to bless one another. This is not a redistribution of wealth where the government is dictating to us what we should do with our money, which is what Obamacare does by subsidizing the killing of innocent human beings through anti-life health insurance. Instead, participating in healthcare sharing ministries is a form of voluntary stewardship of what God has blessed us with in order to take care of our own bodies as well as the body of Christ.

We want to see all human life protected, and certainly do not want to further abortion by paying for it through our insurance plans. As long as health insurance plans cover abortion, and Obamacare becomes less and less affordable, we can pursue healthcare sharing options that have arisen to fill the gap. More options are available at the resources tab of Obamacareabortion.com, as well as information on what progress has been made to protect your conscience in healthcare choices.

Notre Dame Students Take a Stand Against Porn

by Patrina Mosley

November 2, 2018

Recent studies have shown that young adults aged 18-24 are the most frequent porn users—almost six in 10 young adults seek out porn either daily, weekly, or monthly. It’s no wonder why students at the University of Notre Dome are calling for pornography filters on their campus Wi-Fi as part of a “White Ribbon Against Pornography Week” campaign created by NCOSE. The original request came from the male students in a letter emphasizing that “pornography is an affront to human rights and catastrophic to individuals and relationships. We are calling for this action in order to stand up for the dignity of all people, especially women.”

We applaud these men for showing concern for the well-being of their female peers and their own sexual health.

Women and Pornography

What is unique about this story is that after the males issued their letter, the female students stood in solidarity by issuing their own response letter acknowledging that pornography consumption correlates to sexual assault and that women themselves struggle with pornography addiction:

We want a filter because we want to eliminate sexual assault and sexual abuse on our campus. We want a filter because we care deeply about Notre Dame students — including women — who struggle with pornography addictions.

To some, it may be shocking to see that pornography can no longer be labeled as just a man’s issue. With 76 percent of 18 to 30-year-old women reporting that they watch porn at least once a month, and with the term “porn for women” seeing a 359 percent growth among female users in just one year, pornography can no longer be siloed to one sex.

By and large, men prefer images and graphic sex sites; women prefer erotic stories and romance sites. The connection between erotic materials and women seeking online porn makes sense when the erotica genre generated $1.37 billion in sales, making it the “the single largest share of the fiction market,” with over 90 percent of the consumers being women. Female-targeted erotica novel series like Fifty Shades of Grey are being turned into movies (the film grossed over $1.3 billion). In a recent Marie Claire survey of 3,000 women who sought out internet porn, 40 percent said they sought erotic stories. Erotica has proven to be a gateway to more “hardcore” content, which has led to a rise in women consuming this type of pornography.

And when it comes to curbing sexual assault and harassment, these ladies are right for wanting to curtail the consumption of pornography.

A recent review found 50 peer-reviewed studies directly linking porn use to sexual violence. Pornography also has been shown to play a role in shaping how women think they should be treated, leading to an increased likelihood that they will become victims of sexual assault by physical coercion or other abusive behavior. When you have nearly 80 percent of adult males consuming pornography, of which 88 percent of pornographic scenes are sexually violent against women, how do you think this will affect sexual behavior? In the era of #MeToo, we must look seriously at how pornography is shaping our cultural beliefs about what is acceptable behavior. 

Moral Ambiguity is Dissolving

The latest Barna research shows that just one in 20 young adults report talking with their friends about porn in a disapproving way.

But the evidence of its harmful effects are being brought to light. Much of the Notre Dame students’ letter cites the studies that acknowledge that pornography consumption is “associated with a host of issues: addiction, child sexual abuse, divorce, male fertility problems, sexual assault and the acceptance, normalization and sexualization of cruelty towards women. It contributes to prostitution, human trafficking and the proliferation of sexually transmitted diseases.” I encourage you to read the full letter.

Yet many do not want to debate the morality of pornography. They would rather ignore the fact that this generation has been the primary subject of what has been dubbed “The Largest Unregulated Social Experiment In History.” Recognizing among their own personal relationships that pornography harms both the individual and society, buyer’s remorse on porn is slowly growing. Its devastating effects are being studied and recognized.

A Public Health Crisis

Pornography has been officially declared a public health crisis in five states, and the U.K. Parliament has been called upon to address pornography usage like other public health hazards in order to tackle sexual harassment of girls and women.

Society now warns potential users of the addictive harms of nicotine. Hopefully one day we will see  pornography in the same way.

We’re In a Spiritual Battle of Good vs. Evil. Gosnell Proves It.

by Patrina Mosley

October 11, 2018

What if I told you that for over 30 years, a man was murdering babies that were born alive, collecting their remains in bags, jars, and milk cartons, committing medical malpractice on women to the point of death, illegally distributing drugs to addicts, and breaking several other state and federal laws. Do you think it would get the media’s attention? No. Why? Because this man, Kermit Gosnell, was an abortionist. Even those who find themselves mostly on the left found it appalling that this case received little to no attention.

Well, that’s about to change. In the new movie, Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer, tells the story of how a routine drug bust turned into an investigation of a house of horrors. The script for the movie was largely based on the courtroom transcripts of the Gosnell case to ensure accuracy.

At our Values Voter Summit, the star of Gosnell, Dean Cain, described how the scenes, taken straight from the case, were not sensationalized:

We were shooting this, I even turned to our director Nick—are we going a little overboard here? I mean this is a little much… I don’t want to give away too much… the stuff that was going on there… this can’t be real. Then he showed me the actual footage from the actual [police] raid and it looked almost identical. It’s so horrific that if you decided to make something horrific you’re not even scratching the surface. It’s where truth is much more strange than fiction. It was shocking, it was horrifying, and the moment you see that I don’t think there’s anything you could do but go for a homicide conviction.

This PG-13 movie does a tasteful but truthful job of allowing us to see what really happened on the road to getting justice for the atrocities committed at the sinister hands of Gosnell and the bureaucratic coverups that enabled him. The movie is neither “pro-life” nor “pro-abortion”—it’s a truthful telling of a story that should have gotten way more attention than it did.

In Gosnell, you will see that we are in a true spiritual battle of light versus darkness, good versus evil. Nothing displays that more than this movie.

The movie is opening on October12th, and it’s important that we support this film. Check here to find one of the 600 theaters showing the movie near you, and take your friends, your small groups, and your church.

An Answer to This Generation’s Identity Crisis: “Love Thy Body.”

by Patrina Mosley

October 2, 2018

At our annual Values Voter Summit last week, we hosted a student mixer that discussed the topic of gender identity and sexual orientation in this generation.

Tomorrow, we will have the opportunity to hear more on this subject from author Nancy Pearcey as she speaks at Family Research Council headquarters (register here to attend).

This topic comes in an age of transgenderism, LGBT discrimination laws, and national outcry over who gets to use which restroom—a time when gender is given to self-determination and may change daily. The nature of the sexual identity debate is often laced with animus and confusion and has profound implications for people as well as policies that will affect every citizen.

The Economist recently reported a flood of adolescent girls seeking treatment for gender dysphoria over the last eight years. In 2009, 41 percent of teens going to gender clinics in the U.K. were female. By 2017, that number jumped to nearly 70 percent.

Today, we are seeing gender confusion and gender dysphoria become more common among this generation, especially as many young people have taken up androgynous identities to be hip, cool, or in fashion. They have embraced the exploration of their sexuality to the point of denying truth. While the political Left exploits our youth to gain political points, the real heart of the matter is the philosophical attempt to erase God’s fingerprint on the design of mankind. One of the unique fingerprints of God our Creator is science. Our biological makeup speaks a truth louder than words—down to our XX and XY chromosomes. Researchers have identified over six thousand genes that are expressed differently in men and women.

In Nancy Pearcey’s new book, Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions about Life and Sexuality, she says:

The implication is that the physical structure of our bodies reveals clues to our personal identity. The way our bodies function provides rational grounds for our moral decisions. That’s why, as we will see, a Christian ethic always takes into account the facts of biology, whether addressing abortion (the scientific facts about when life begins) or sexuality (the facts about sexual differentiation and reproduction). A Christian ethic respects the teleology of nature in the body.

This is called a teleological view of nature, based on the Greek word telos, which means “purpose” or “goal.” It is evident that living things are structured for a purpose. Romans 1:20 says, “[f]or since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and the divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made … .”

If any of this interests you, please join us tomorrow and listen to Nancy Pearcey as she answers hard questions on life and sexuality from her new book, Love Thy Body.

To attend tomorrow’s event, register here!

California’s Campus Abortion Legislation Has Been Vetoed - Here’s What It Had Wrong

by Patrina Mosley

October 1, 2018

The California bill SB 320—also known as the “College Student Right to Access Act”—would have required the state’s 34 public universities with student health centers to provide abortion pills on campus to more than 400,000 female students by January 1, 2022. California would have been the first state to require access to chemical abortions on campus, which would have made SB 320—which shows reckless disregard for young women—model legislation for the rest of the country. This bill was sponsored by state Senator Connie M. Leyva (D-Chino) in conjunction with The Women’s Foundation of California, a publicly-funded liberal feminist organization that has succeeded in getting 32 of their sponsored bills signed by the governor.

Though SB 320 passed the senate and state assembly, Governor Jerry Brown thankfully vetoed this disastrous legislation just yesterday. In explaining his veto, Governor Brown observed that having to commute a few miles off-campus for an abortion is not an inconvenience for students.

SB 320’s title deceptively includes “right to access” language despite the fact that there is no proof that female students do not have access to abortion in California. In fact, California has more than 500 abortion providers, and abortion is covered by student health insurance plans and the state’s medical assistance program, Medi-Cal. Under Obamacare, students can remain on their parent’s health plans—all of which in California cover abortions.

Here are five serious flaws with SB 320 we should be aware of when this issue comes up again:

  • University student health center are not equipped to handle the liability involved in providing on-campus abortions. SB 320 does little to resolve the liability concerns for universities, who will be forced to be directly involved in providing abortions. Potential complications that can arise from taking the abortion pill range from excessive bleeding and infection to an incomplete abortion requiring surgery and even death. Also not addressed in the bill are admitting privileges to nearby hospitals or emergency assistance in case the young women experience a complication.
  • No verification of the unborn baby’s gestational age is required. These college health centers do not have ultrasound equipment, which are vitally important to determine the unborn baby’s gestational age and in order to diagnose the possibility of an ectopic pregnancy. This poses the very real danger of young women self-administering the abortion pill too late in the pregnancy, thereby increasing their chance of experiencing physically hazardous complications.
  • No pre-abortion counseling is offered. It is disturbingly common for a young woman who is pregnant to feel pressure from the father of her child as well as her family to abort, especially in abusive situations. Will college health centers be able to determine if women are being pressured or forced to have an abortion? A study published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons found that over 73 percent of women who have had abortions admitted that they experienced at least subtle forms of pressure to abort their babies.
  • There is no requirement to inform women of the health risks of taking the abortion pill. College health centers that dispense the abortion pill are not required to inform the young women of all the risks and complications that can result from ingesting the drug, unlike abortion clinics in a number of states that are required to. This begs the question: will there be counseling provided for a woman who may undergo shock and trauma in her dorm room at the sight of her abortion?
  • The bill’s funding mechanism is purposefully vague. SB 320 claims that it will rely on private funding until 2021, but this ignores the fact that a school clinic’s overhead is paid by taxpayers, and the language of the bill leaves open the possibility of taxpayer-funded abortion after 2021 by providing no safeguard to prohibit state funds or student fees from paying for the ongoing support of this program. Public funding of abortion is something that a majority of Americans strongly oppose. According to a recent Marist poll, 60 percent of Americans strongly oppose the use of their tax dollars to pay for abortions. With already-skyrocketing college tuition costs, students and parents will be less than enthusiastic about student fees being raised, especially if those fees go towards abortion-inducing pills.

While California schools are going out of their way to provide abortions to female students who may be pregnant, the bill does nothing to fortify access to knowing their rights under Title IX, if they choose to keep their baby. All public and private schools, school districts, colleges, and universities receiving any federal funds must comply with Title IX which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex—including pregnancy and parental status in educational programs and activities. A student has the right to file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights if they believe their school has violated this federal law. To learn more about how Title IX protects you from discrimination at school if you are pregnant or parenting, go here.

Stay tuned for more on this topic from Family Research Council.

A Bill Allowing College Campus Abortions Shows Reckless Disregard for Young Women

by Patrina Mosley

September 17, 2018

Safe, legal, and rare.”

That’s how the Democrats described their position on abortion over 20 years ago. Nevertheless, in just one year, 321,384 lives were aborted by Planned Parenthood, and nearly 60 million lives have been lost to abortion in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade.

First off, anything legal is hardly ever rare, and when it comes to abortions, it doesn’t take a genius to know they are not safe—physically or psychologically.

We know the phrase “safe, legal, and rare” was just political coaxing mixed with just enough moral undertones to put people’s consciences at ease about abortion rights. But as usual, when you give the Left an inch, they build a highway.

Now, Democrats in California want young women to have as many abortions as they want, right from their dorm rooms. This is the purpose of California bill SB 320, the first bill of its kind, which has made its way onto Governor Jerry Brown’s desk.

SB 320—deceptively titled the “College Student Right to Access Act”—would require public universities with on-campus student health centers to provide abortion pills to young college-aged women by January 1, 2022. If signed, California would be the first state to require access to chemical abortions on-campus, and abortion activists will make SB 320 model legislation for the rest of the country.

Legal abortion has created a pathway for bills like SB 320 that try to reinforce the idea that abortion is healthcare. Elective abortion—the taking of innocent unborn life—should never be considered healthcare, and if anything, legislation like SB 320 shows a reckless disregard for the health of young women and presumes that education and motherhood are not compatible.

We’ve known since 2006 that the abortion pill regimen is dangerous, with thousands of reported adverse health events, including several deaths. Recently, the FDA reported 1,445 more adverse events from 2012-2017. Since the introduction of the abortion pill in 2000, the drug has caused 22 deaths, 97 ectopic pregnancies, 1,041 hospitalizations, 598 blood transfusions as a result of blood loss, 411 infections, and 69 severe infections, with a total of 4,185 adverse events reported.

A former Planned Parenthood manager, Abby Johnson, had this experience with her medical abortion:

A blood clot the size of a lemon had fallen into my bath water. Was that my baby? I knew this huge clot was not going to go down the drain, so I reached down to pick it up. I was able to grasp the large clot with both hands and move it to the toilet.

Then came the excruciating pain again. I jumped out of the shower and sat on the toilet. Another lemon sized blood clot. Then another. And another. I thought I was dying. This couldn’t be normal. Planned Parenthood didn’t ever tell me this could happen.

One of SB 320’s co-sponsors, ACT for Women and Girls, says SB 320 is “about making sure that our young people are prepared for their life.”

Can you imagine the mental trauma that would occur to a young woman who sees her abortion take place in her college dorm room, while at the same time enduring the physical trauma of excruciating pain?

We know already that abortion negatively impacts a woman’s mental health. One study in the British Journal of Psychiatry analyzed 22 studies that detailed women who were post-abortive and found that they were more likely to have issues with substance abuse and had greater anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts than non-abortive women.

Instead of “preparing” women for life, the abortion pill is setting them up to be more traumatized through life.

SB 320 does not prepare men or women for life, to take responsibility for their actions, and make wise, moral choices.

In reality, having the abortion pill readily available steps from college dorm rooms does nothing but incentivize the prevailing hook-up culture. Will the future of college “sex weeks” not only include condoms but abortion pills too?

Neither does it enhance the dignity of women. Instead, SB 320 treats women as sex objects, implying that “if she wakes up pregnant, it’s no big deal, since she can easily go to the health center to get some abortion pills.”

No accountability, no responsibility—the gifts of modern feminism.

Modern feminists place opposition between education, work, and family for women. If you’re a young college student who thinks she is pregnant, modern feminists say abortion is the safest route to ensure you will not be uneducated and poor (as if this is the worst thing that can happen to you… the slight elitism should not go unnoticed). Feminists proudly tout they are pro-choice, but the only choice they are in favor of is telling you to abort your child.

There are serious concerns that are not addressed in SB 320 that make the bill look rushed and politicized. SB 320 disregards the risks to women’s health, the potential liability to schools, and unclear fungibility of taxpayer funds. The bill’s funding mechanism is purposefully vague. Private funding until 2021 ignores the fact that a school clinic’s overhead is paid by taxpayers, and the language of the bill leaves open taxpayer-funded abortion after that.

SB 320 leaves more questions than answers in giving women unsupervised access to abortion.

As the abortion industry creates victims, the pro-life movement creates victors.

For instance, 24-year-old single mom Briana Williams graduated from Harvard Law School with her one-year-old daughter, and many other students have shared their stories.

SB 320 is not empowering or safe for women. Better options are prevailing, and those efforts should be supported and funded. Tell Governor Brown how this bill will harm young women and place public universities at risk.

Resources for Women with Unplanned Pregnancies

Pregnantoncampus.com

Pregnant on Campus is an initiative started by Students for Life of America to empower women to choose life by providing resources and support for pregnant and parenting students on campus.

AbortionPillReversal.com

If a woman takes the first pill of the abortion pill regime and then has second thoughts, there is still a way to stop the process. For more information, visit AbortionPillReversal.com. For emergencies, there is a hotline at 877-558-0333.

Find a Pregnancy Center Near You

Care Net pregnancy centers offer accurate and helpful information in a compassionate environment. If you think you may be pregnant and are in search of information about pregnancy options, a free pregnancy test, or post-decision support, the experts at your local Care Net pregnancy center can help. Search here to find one near you.

Planned Parenthood’s New President Can’t Erase Its Atrocities

by Patrina Mosley

September 14, 2018

The new Planned Parenthood president, Leana Wen, has been announced and it is clear from her background that she carries all the Left’s qualifiers for being anti-Trump, which will only matter for so long. Planned Parenthood’s attempts to be relevant do not make Wen a shield for the atrocities Planned Parenthood clinics are committing and profiting from every day.

The fact that Planned Parenthood has placed its scandal-ridden organization into the hands of a physician does nothing to dignify abortion as a form of healthcare. It only makes taking the Hippocratic oath to “do no harm” hypocritical. The organization’s introductory video asserts that “having a physician as the head of Planned Parenthood is a sign that what we are doing is mainstream medical care.” Why is it not? Because, Cree Erwin-Sheppard is dead, Jamie Lee Morales is dead, and a 20-year old woman at an unlicensed Planned Parenthood abortion clinic is dead, all due to botched abortions. These are just a few recent examples.

Abortion is the number one killer of African-Americans. Leana Wen, the former Health Commissioner of the predominately African-American community of Baltimore City, should know this. Nearly 80 percent of Planned Parenthood’s centers are located within walking distance of mainly African-American and Hispanic communities.

Planned Parenthood has aborted over 321,000 babies just in the last year—and yet according to the organization, this is to be “understood as a fundamental human right.” The fact that over 60 million lives have been extinguished in the U.S. alone from abortions is the single greatest human rights violation we are facing. Planned Parenthood should be defunded, and the DOJ should follow through with their investigation into Planned Parenthood’s scandalous activities based off congressional referrals. 

The Remains of Aborted Babies Are Now a Commodity to the FDA

by Patrina Mosley

August 9, 2018

The FDA has signed a new contract for “fresh” aborted baby parts with Advance Bioscience Resources (ABR)—yes,  the same ABR that came under federal investigation for its role in the baby parts for profit scandal that has engulfed Planned Parenthood.

Undercover footage released by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) exposed the buyer-seller relationship between the abortion industry and fetal tissue procurement companies, which included Advanced Bioscience Resources (ABR). The findings were so egregious that it prompted multiple congressional investigations. Part of their investigations showed ABR acting as the middleman—buying baby body parts from abortion clinics and then selling them. Two of their top six buyers were the NIH and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)! ABR would pay Planned Parenthood and other abortion facilities a flat fee of $45 to $60 per baby specimen before turning around to sell the body parts for astronomical prices such as $340 to $550 per specimen. The income tax forms of ABR, a non-profit corporation, report $6.5 million in total revenue for the last five reporting years (2010-2014).

Yet the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 makes it unlawful for the sale of human fetal tissue to be sold for profit!

In 2015 alone, ABR made nearly $80,000 in payments to its top five abortion facilities, which included several Planned Parenthood facilities. Investigations have shown Planned Parenthood officials admitting to falsifying budget items to conceal the fact that they are financially benefiting from the fetal remains of abortions and altering abortion procedures to get more intact baby parts to sell, even while the baby is alive, all without obtaining proper permission from the mother.

Biotech companies like ABR, who had technicians stationed at three of the Planned Parenthood facilities involved, have been complicit in the disregard for human dignity and the law.

This is all done in the name of “science.” When government agencies like the FDA and NIH are so deeply involved in such inhumane and unethical practices, they become normalized in our minds. As a result, reform becomes harder to find, and injustice is perpetuated.

Traditionally, our society has believed that donating one’s body parts should be voluntary in order to prevent the human body from becoming a commodity. Well, now body parts are becoming a commodity. An aborted baby cannot consent to anything because they are dead. The government and the abortion industry are colluding to take advantage of this situation and benefit from one of the most traumatic events a woman can face.

Continuing this type of FDA research does not make us more medically advanced—it instead causes us to devolve into thinking human beings don’t matter, and that the ends justify the means. What is ironic is that this dark business shines a light on the fact that abortion really does take the life of human beings, who are then being used for experimentation.  

This is bad science and does not lead society forward. It instead incentivizes the harvesting of body parts through harmful practices such as late-term abortions and the alteration of abortion methods, which increases the risk to the mother and violates federal law.

The FDA claims that this type of research, which transplants fetal tissue to make humanized mice, can only be done by using aborted babies. In reality, using fetal tissue has yet to solve any medical crisis. Congress has even acknowledged this: “In over 100 years of unrestricted investigation, human fetal tissue research has had ample time to prove useful, yet it has failed to do so.”

Good science is ethical science, and we have seen the blessings of that through the use of adult stem cell therapies, which have already been used to successfully treat at least 73 conditions and over one million patients worldwide. There is no reason we can’t use ethical practices to treat modern humanity’s ailments.

HHS should replace these contracts with traffickers in baby body parts with contracts that reflect ethical and more effective science. As taxpayer-funded entities, the FDA and NIH must be held accountable. Far too many culprits in this baby body part trafficking scheme have gone unchecked. The lives of the unborn demand justice, and America can do better.

Why the Hysteria Over Roe? Because it Would Strike a Blow to Eugenics

by Patrina Mosley

July 6, 2018

It’s quite telling that the first reaction of many on the Left after Supreme Court Justice Kennedy’s retirement announcement was panic at the thought of a possible reversal of Roe v. Wade. With each new possible Supreme Court nominee, the immediate outrage from the Left has been “Roe v. Wade! Abortion rights will be overturned!” Really? Abortion rights is the only thing they can think of when the possibility of getting a new conservative judge on the court comes up?

There are plenty of other possible Supreme Court reversals that should keep them up at night. For example, the 1962 Engel v. Vitale decision said that school official-initiated prayer in public schools somehow violates the First Amendment. (Overturned! Time to call the snake handlers and tell them they’re back in business! Just kidding.) Or even the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges 5-4 decision, particularly in light of how the legalization of same-sex marriage has impacted religious freedom, in which the recent Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission decision could set a precedent. Yet, condemning the supposed “constitutional right” to kill another innocent human being is horrifying to them. Why? Because it’s not about abortion rights or about women rights, it about eugenics. That’s not to say that all people who are pro-choice are in favor of or even aware of the eugenic influence of the abortion industry.

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution provided the basis for the eugenics philosophy, in which “natural selection” was understood to favor certain races over “lesser races,” which became the foundation for eliminating “undesirables” (non-whites, the poor, the mentally and physically handicapped) so that the population was eugenically controlled to produce only the “right” kinds of people (white, wealthy, high intellect). His cousin and follower, Sir Francis Galton, is known as the father of eugenics because of his dedicated research and advancement of “the study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations either physically or mentally.” This philosophy attracted many “elites” of society, who were often wealthy, powerful, and racist, who desired to put thought into practice.

The eugenics movement gave birth to the abortion industry, which has been a major campaign contributor to the Democratic Party for decades (which has historically been the party of slavery, Jim Crow, and the KKK) in exchange for protecting “abortion rights.” There has been big money backing this philosophy since the early 20th century, including the Rockefellers, Andrew Carnegie, the Weisman Institute, and many others. The U.S. abortion policy is the pinnacle success of the American Eugenics Society (AES), which included members such as Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood (originally called the American Birth Control League), William Vogt, and Alan Guttmacher, who were both former Planned Parenthood presidents. And yes, that’s Alan Guttmacher of the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute.

Sanger’s organization changed its name to Planned Parenthood to invoke less political implications, and began to focus marketing efforts on “maternal health” and “family planning.” At the annual Galton Lecture of 1956, Fredrick Osborn, the head of the American Eugenics Society, said: “Let’s stop telling everyone that they have generally inferior genetic qualities for they will never agree. Let’s base our proposals on the desirability of having children in homes where they will get affectionate and responsible care, and perhaps our proposals will be accepted.”

It is no accident that today, nearly 80 percent of Planned Parenthood clinics are in minority communities, and although 13 percent of American women are black, they receive over 35 percent of the abortions - Margret Sanger’s: dream no doubt –“We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” It is also no mistake that the plaintiffs in the case of Roe v. Wade wanted to use someone they thought they could manipulate when they found Norma McCorvey (Roe).

Abortion is the Pinnacle Achievement of the Eugenics Philosophy

Ghastly connections can be drawn from the marketing of eugenics as “family planning” to abortion. The pinnacle achievement of this disingenuous and sinister movement is the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

In the majority opinion of Roe. v. Wade written by Justice Blackmun, he consults the works of the members of the British and American eugenics societies, lower federal court cases that “expressly invoked overpopulation as a basis for legalizing abortion,” Buck v. Bell, and other projects and organizations which contributed ideology and tactics to controlling the population growth of the “poor” and “uneducated.”

Blackmun’s opening paragraph even acknowledges the political and philosophical implications of proceeding with unrestricted access to abortion by stating: “In addition, population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones tend to complicate and not to simplify the problem.”

He goes on to cite Glanville Williams (footnotes 9 and 21), a fellow of the British Eugenics society, president of the Abortion Law Reform Association, vice president of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, and advisor to Britain’s Birth Control Commission. In Williams’ book, The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law, he states: “There is, in addition, the problem of eugenic quality. We now have a large body of evidence that, since industrialization, the upper stratum of society fails to replace itself, while the population as a whole is increased by excess births among the lower and uneducated classes.”

Blackmun also cites Lawrence Lader’s book Abortion (who also wrote Breeding Ourselves to Death) seven times (footnotes 9, 21, 26, 33, 44, 57, 58)—and indirectly relied on the people and groups to whom Lader’s book expressed profuse gratitude: Glanville Williams, Christopher Tietze, and at least five additional AES members that included Alan Guttmacher, officers of England’s leading abortion rights group, the Abortion Law Reform Association (whose leaders included Julian Huxley), and 27 members of the British eugenics society. Planned Parenthood also filed an amicus brief in Roe, as mentioned in a footnote in the Court’s opinion.

In addition, Blackmun cites the American Public Health Association (APHA), who openly praised Germany’s sterilization program and who would later publish an article praising abortion as a method of population control:

It would appear that legalization of abortion is probably the single most effective and practical measure that can be taken to lower the birthrate, and, by doing so, preserve the environment from further deterioration.

Notably, Blackmun also cites The Biological Time Bomb, “The New Biology and the Future of Man,” and many more eugenic references. An article from the The Human Life Review, reposted by Orthodoxy Today, provides an in-depth account of how the financial and ideological backing of the eugenics movement lead directly to Roe v. Wade. It is no secret among the elite and powerful that abortion is not so much about a woman’s body as it is the method of controlling the breeding of those they deem unfit to have children anyways. In a National Review article, the author reveals this:

In an interview with Elle, [Justice] Ginsburg said, “It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people.” That wasn’t 1927 — it was 2014. A co-counsel for the winning side of Roe v. Wade, Ron Weddington, advised President Bill Clinton that an expanded national birth-control policy incorporating ready access to pharmaceutical abortifacients promised immediate benefits: “You can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy, and poor segment of our country. It’s what we all know is true, but we only whisper it.” 

Just two months after Roe v. Wade was decided, The American Eugenics Society changed its name to “The Society for the Study of Social Biology,” to encourage greater acceptance and more discreet advancement of their agenda. Their announcement reassured the public that “The change of name of the Society does not coincide with any change of its interests or policies.” Its former head and leading eugenicist Frederick Osborn also explained the reason for the new name of their journal, from Eugenics Journal to Social Biology: “The name was changed because it became evident that changes of a eugenic nature would be made for reasons other than eugenics, and that tying a eugenic label on them would more often hinder than help their adoption. Birth control and abortion are turning out to be great eugenic advances of our time…”

The historical record shows that the poison of racism and elitism definitively infected the origins of the abortion rights movement by way of the eugenics movement, whose philosophical ideas have continued to this day. Overturning Roe v. Wade would be a monumental step in reversing this repulsive legacy of American life.

  • Page 1 of 2
  • 1
  • 2
Archives