Author archives: Patrina Mosley

How Prostitution and Sex Trafficking Are Inseparably Linked

by Patrina Mosley

July 11, 2019

This is Part 2 of a series on prostitution. Read Part 1.

There is a very thin line between prostitution and sex trafficking. They are hardly distinguishable in operation, but one is more complicated to prove by law.

Let’s define some terms.

Prostitution is the exchange of sexual activity for money or anything of value (drugs, shelter, etc.).

The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, which amended the definition of the 2000 Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), defines sex trafficking as “the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act, in which the commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not obtained 18 years of age.”

Under the TVPA, coercion is defined as: “threats of serious harm to or physical restraint against any person; any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that failure to perform an act would result in serious harm to or physical restraint against any person; or the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process.”

Who are the pimps and traffickers? They are the facilitator(s) or person(s) using force, fraud, or coercion for commercial sexual exploitation and collaborators who benefit financially.

According to USLegal.com, “Pimps are people who procures [sic] a prostitute for customers or vice versa, and takes [sic] a portion of the profits from the sexual activities. Supposedly he provides protection for the prostitutes, but quite often he will threaten, brutalize, rape, cheat and induce drug addiction of the prostitutes. A pimp is guilty of the crime of pandering. A pimp is someone who brokers the sexual favors of women for profits.”

Prostitution and sex trafficking operate the same way. There is recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, and soliciting of a person for sex. When it comes to proving force, fraud, or coercion, that largely depends on evidence and testimony. What woman will say they are a victim of trafficking when their very lives or family’s lives are threatened or if they have fear of leaving the lifestyle they have become accustomed to?

The Many Sides of Coercion

In one Chicago study, 43 percent of young women who were currently under the control of a pimp/trafficker “said they could not leave without physical harm.” Often, victims see their pimp/trafficker as a boyfriend and there is fear of ending the romantic relationship. It is not unusual for victims to be trafficked by a boyfriend, a male friend, or a family member. Females can also be traffickers and pimps.

In 2016, San Diego County conducted a study about the pimps and traffickers in that county. The study provided keen insight into the common characteristics of those being coerced with these findings:

  • Psychological coercion (defined as “social and emotional isolation, induced emotional exhaustion, and degradation, including humiliation, denial of the victim’s power, and name-calling”) and economic coercion (taking 50 percent or more of prostituted person’s earnings) were primary means sex traffickers employ for controlling victims.
  • Pimps reported an average income of $670,625.
  • Researchers determined that middle schools and high schools were significant/frequent places for recruiting girls who become victims of sexual exploitation, and not just in low-income neighborhoods.

Traffickers and pimps prey on women and children who have a history of abuse and neglect, sexual abuse, running away from home, homelessness, lack of education, or other emotional vulnerabilities. They lure them in with promises of meeting some type of need, whether it be economical, emotional, or both. Pimps/traffickers groom their victims to the point where they have control over them psychologically. Often, this is done by introducing drugs as well, which can cause the victims to become addicted and dependent on the pimp to keep them high and locked into the lucrative sex trade to support their new habit.

In that same Chicago study, 29 percent said they were provided drugs to encourage addiction and 23 percent reported drugs were withheld by the pimp to coerce them into prostitution.

According to a 2013 study of 150 countries, sex trafficking increased in the countries where prostitution was legal.

The idea that sex trafficking is involuntary prostitution and prostitution is willing “sex work” is false. The elements are the same except no one is willing to say an underage girl that she is a working professional prostitute—instead, we shout, “sex trafficking.” If she is 18 and above, is she automatically a willing prostitute? The Archives of Sexual Behavior notes: “In a review of reports on adults in prostitution, 84% were trafficked or under pimp control. The numbers of women who choose prostitution from a position of safety, equality, and genuine alternatives is minimal. O’Connell Davidson (1998, p. 5) noted that only a ‘tiny minority of individuals’ choose prostitution because of the ‘intrinsic qualities of sex work.’ Prostitution has to do with one person’s sexual desires and the other person’s economic needs. The money coerces the performance of sex.”

The operation of prostitution is by default coercion in its transactional nature.

Modern-Day Sex Trafficking and Prostitution

Sex trafficking and prostitution rings are way more advanced and sophisticated today than they were 20 year ago. Today, recruitment and transactions largely take place online through social media accounts, the dark web, and ad listings sites such as Craigslist and Backpage. Before the FBI seizure of Backpage, it was the most popular site for traffickers and pimps to trade off their victims. The average age of recruitment for prostitutes is 14 and the average age of pimps and traffickers are between the ages of 18-34. We have become a generation that are exploiting ourselves.

This May in D.C., as efforts to decriminalize prostitution began to wane, local police made arrests in a major human trafficking case involving teenagers:

Terrell Armstead had an Instagram hashtag “#TeamSupreme” for his prostitution business, according to court documents. He used it to advertise a commercial sex business, posting videos and images of money and luxury goods with the caption “Who wants to join TeamSupreme.”

Detectives allege he would direct message teenage girls, telling them they could make $1,000 a day working in strip clubs and arranging sex dates with customers inside…Among the evidence is a text from one of the young women to Armstead saying, “I only made 200 so far.” He replied, “It’s only 9 I got faith that you’ll get 800 more at least.”

D.C. Councilmember David Grosso, who for the second time introduced the bill to decriminalize prostitution, said:

It is long past time for D.C. to reconsider the framework in which we handle commercial sex, and move from one of criminalization to a new approach that focuses on human rights, health and safety.

As reported:

He was surrounded by several people holding signs. One read, “Everyone Deserves to Feel Safe in Their Work,” while another said, “Sex Workers Matter.”

You cannot combat sex trafficking while trying to legalize prostitution. It makes no sense when the two are essentially the same. And, how in the world does legal prostitution equal human rights? Whose rights? Most people in prostitution are either female or transgender women, and the vast majority of buyers are males. To say that prostitution is a human right is by default saying men have a right to use women’s body as a commodity. Why weren’t there signs that said, “Women’s lives matter,” “My body is not a commodity,” or “I’m not for sale, I’m a person”?

Clinical psychologist and founder of Prostitution Research and Education, Dr. Melissa Farley and former prostitute and founder of SPACE International, Rachel Moran came to a clear and disturbing conclusion in their study “Consent, Coercion, and Culpability: Is Prostitution Stigmatized Work or an Exploitive and Violent Practice Rooted in Sex, Race, and Class Inequality?”:

In thousands of interviews, we have heard prostituted women, men, and transwomen describe prostitution as paid rape, voluntary slavery, signing a contract to be raped (in legal prostitution), the choice that is not a choice, and as domestic violence taken to the extreme.

It is ironic, and even cruel, to equate prostitution with “safety” and “human rights.” The sexual exploitation of others is not a right. It is appalling that even in the age of #MeToo, we have politicians who say “its long past time” that we approach paid sex as a human right instead of saying that it is long past time for the exploitation of women to end.

Stay tuned for Part 3, which will take a deeper look at the path forward for going after the perpetrators of sexual exploitation.

Minnesota Reports 3 Born-Alive Babies in 2018

by Patrina Mosley , Connor Semelsberger

July 3, 2019

Think babies aren’t being born alive after surviving an abortion attempt? Think again. From January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018, three babies in Minnesota survived abortions but later died, according to a new Minnesota state Department of Health report.

Since 2015, Minnesota has been keeping track of abortion survivors since the states’ passage of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. The law recognizes infants who survive abortions as human persons and requires that they be provided with reasonable medical care. The law also requires information to be collected on the medical actions taken to preserve the life of the infant, whether the infant survived, and the status of a surviving infant.

Since the law went into effect, Minnesota has reported 11 babies surviving abortions:

  • five babies in 2016
  • three babies in 2017
  • three babies in 2018

Laws to require the collection of data on born-alive victims should be encouraged in all states. There are only six states that require reporting on babies born alive during abortion procedures: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Texas. As of 2017, only Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, and Oklahoma have reported this information.

Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control report at least 143 babies were born alive after botched abortions between 2003 and 2014 in the U.S. The CDC took this data from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) Mortality Data in regard to infant deaths. These numbers are different from the number collected by the states that report born-alive infants.

As a response to the lack of reporting on abortion and abortion survivors, U.S. Representatives Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) and Gary Palmer (R-Ala.) recently introduced The Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 2019 (H.R. 3580). This bill would require all states to submit abortion data, including the number of children who survive abortions, in order to receive Medicaid funds for family planning services.

The CDC already requests abortion reporting from states. However, the reporting of this information is voluntary, which allows states to leave out certain statistics or opt out altogether. Because there are only six states that require reporting on children who survive abortions, it is vital that the U.S. Congress passes this bill so that the American people know how many innocent lives are lost because of the failure to provide life-saving care to the most vulnerable.

Efforts to protect infants who survive abortion has not been limited to gathering a few data points, as Members of Congress continue to fight for a vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 962) which would require life-saving medical care for children born alive after abortion attempts. So far, Republicans have asked for unanimous consent to vote on this bill 67 times, and every single time Democrat leaders have said no.

Sometimes, a small symbol of humanity is all it takes to change the mind of our government officials. There is no better sign of the humanity of children who survive abortions then the soft, warm feel of the colorful baby hat given to newborns at hospitals, just like the ones in our End Birth Day Abortions Campaign. Every child deserves to wear a new baby hat, especially the three children who survived abortion attempts in Minnesota last year.

Prostitution: Women Deserve Better (Part 1 of 3)

by Patrina Mosley

June 20, 2019

One woman described her experience of the sex of prostitution very succinctly when she referred to it as: ‘Paid rape.’ … . another woman described it as ‘like signing a contract to be raped’ … I described prostitution as ‘being raped for a living.’” (National Center on Sexual Exploitation report)

In places like D.C. and New York, the possibility of decriminalizing prostitution has come back on the horizon. Activists are now referring to prostitution as “sex work”—a deceptive term used to label the buying and selling of human beings for sex as a legitimate profession. This concept was even being promoted to teenage girls in Teen Vogue, with the headline “Why Sex Work is Real Work.” To legitimize men buying women for sex is to say that men have a right to women’s bodies by default. This should enrage every feminist to the core and cause them to come clawing in like a mama bear on anyone who tells teen girls that “men buying your body is a legitimate profession for your future.”

The commercial sex trade is sexual exploitation—it should never be somebody’s job to be exploited by another human being.

That being said, we should not discount the various factors that play a part in leading some women to the commercial sex trade. Often, these women have been sexually abused, come from broken homes, face drug and alcohol addiction, and have been emotionally comprised, manipulated, lured, coerced, or forced into prostitution. To glamorize a system that preys upon these vulnerabilities and is only sustained by dehumanizing the individual is inherently evil.

In reality, there are no good arguments for why it is okay to buy and sell women, girls, boys, or persons who identify as LGBTQ for sex. In 2013, Business Insider published an article advocating for the decriminalization of prostitution in the United States. None of the arguments made back then have changed significantly to this day, and they are still used to spread current misconceptions about prostitution.

Would Legalizing Prostitution Reduce Violence Against Women?

No. A study published in the Journal of Trauma Practice indicates that violence is prevalent within the world of prostitution and tends to be multi-traumatic. The study contained 854 individuals (women, girls, and transgendered people) currently or recently in prostitution in nine countries (Canada, Colombia, Germany, Mexico, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, United States, and Zambia). According to the study (as reported by the National Center on Sexual Exploitation):

Some of those interviewed had been trafficked for the purpose of prostitution and were engaged in legal prostitution. Types and amount of violence experienced in prostitution are as follows:

  • 71% physically assaulted;
  • 57% raped; of those raped, 59% were raped more than 5 times;
  • 64% threatened with a weapon;
  • 88% verbal abuse;
  • 49% had pornography made of them;
  • 47% were upset by attempts to coerce them to perform something a sex buyer had seen in pornography;
  • In Germany, where prostitution is legal, 59% responded that prostitution is not safer with legalization;
  • 89% wanted to exit prostitution.
  • Equating prostitution with death, one woman stated, “Why commit suicide? I’ll work in prostitution instead (p. 53).”

The same study reported that 68 percent of women in prostitution met the criteria for PTSD.

Here are some more disturbing statistics from the National Center on Sexual Exploitation’s report:

  • Interviews of 100 individuals (females (42%), males (32%), and transgender males (26%)) involved in street-based prostitution in inner city Washington, D.C., found high incidents of violence. Since entering prostitution, 61% reported being physically assaulted, with the majority being perpetrated by sexual buyers (75%).”
  • A study of 106 women involved in street-based prostitution conducted in New York City reported types and amounts of violence experience while in prostitution included: Physical abuse (45.3%), Sexual abuse (34.9%), and Physical and sexual abuse (50.0%).”
  • An investigation into the mortality rate of women in prostitution revealed that the leading cause of death was homicide (19%) and found that actively prostituting women were nearly 18 times more likely to be murdered than women of similar age and race during the study interval.”

Dear Teen Vogue, does this sound like the type of “purchasing intimacy” you want girls to go into?

The Business Insider piece was shockingly written by a female who even acknowledged the violence perpetrated on women in prostitution by citing two studies, one from San Francisco where it was found that 82% of prostitutes “had been assaulted and 68% had been raped while working as prostitutes,” and another study in Colorado Springs that found prostitutes were “18 times more likely to be murdered than non-prostitutes their age and race”—yet the argument is made that because prostitution is illegal, these women can’t call for help when their hazardous “work” conditions are too dangerous.

The answer is not to legitimize something bad so less bad things will happen, but to confront injustice with justice.

Do any of these statistics sound like proper “work” for any individual? Why are women allowing other people to tell them that they should settle for this as “work”?

Prostitution clearly isn’t work, it’s paid violence against women.

Even a self-identified former prostitute and D.C. activist for legalizing prostitution shared her story of violence in the trade: “I myself am a former sex worker and faced violence that I couldn’t report to anyone. I have been stabbed several times, beaten and chased by a car. There were times I could have remembered license plates or at least reported the incidents; but because sex work is criminalized, these dangerous people, they’re still out there.”

Wrong. These people are still out there because we fail to prosecute buyers of sex and pimps as much as we do the women who prostitute.

Attitudes of Male Buyers Towards Prostitutes

After interviewing 16 women (aged 20-38) incarcerated for prostitution-related offenses, the authors noted:

Once a prostitute has consented to any exchange of sex for money, these women see many men as assuming that she has given up the right to refuse consent in any situation. Once her sexuality has been ‘purchased,’ her body ‘belongs’ to the purchaser to use. This was the constant theme in the interviews. Many women encountered men who treated their agreement to engage in some form of sex as permission to abuse the women’s bodies in any way they wished, as long as they gave the women monetary compensation.”

The study “Deconstructing The Demand for Prostitution: Preliminary Insights From Interviews With Chicago Men Who Purchase Sex” interviewed 113 self-reported male buyers face-to-face, recruited in advertisements in free publications and on Craigslist. Here are some of the findings:

  • 46% “purchased sex in order to obtain sex acts they either felt uncomfortable asking of their partner or which their partner refused to perform,” including oral and anal sex.
  • 43% said if they pay for sex, the woman should do anything they ask.
  • 13% “would rape a woman if they knew they could get away with it.”
  • 19% admitted to raping a woman.
  • 57% “believed that the majority of women in prostitution experienced some type of childhood abuse.”
  • 32% thought the majority of women had entered prostitution before the age of 18.
  • 20% “thought that they had bought sex from women who were trafficked from other countries.”
  • 75% have seen women with a pimp.
  • 40% knowingly bought a woman in prostitution who was under pimp/trafficker control.

Here are some verbatim comments from buyers:

She has no rights because you are paying for a sex act- she gives up the right to say no.”

…she gave up her rights when she accepted my money.”

Prostitutes are like a product, like cereal. You go to the grocery, pick the brand you want, and pay for it. It’s business.”

I almost killed a hooker because she tried to run off with my money and I wasn’t going to let her. I used the blunt side of the knife. She tried to leave the car. We struggled for awhile. I wanted to scare her, so I put the blunt side of the knife to her throat. Somehow there was blood, and she gave the money back. I left her lying down in the street. I didn’t even want the money no more.”

Stay tuned for parts 2 and 3 to see how prostitution is linked to sex trafficking and the path forward for going after the perpetrators of sexual exploitation.

Justice Thomas: The Roots of Abortion Are Eugenics

by Patrina Mosley

May 28, 2019

The state of Indiana had asked the Supreme court to review a Seventh Circuit decision striking down an Indiana law regulating abortion. Today, the Supreme Court handed down a mixed ruling in Box v. Planned Parenthood.

Good News: The Court reversed the Seventh Circuit’s earlier ruling invalidating a provision on disposal of fetal remains from abortions. The Supreme Court has upheld part of the first provision of the Indiana abortion law that requires that the fetal remains be buried or cremated after an abortion. No longer will Indiana abortion facilities treat aborted children as “‘infectious waste’ and incinerat[e] them alongside used needles, laboratory-animal carcasses, and surgical byproducts.” These little ones will finally get the dignity they deserve.

Bad News: However, the Court left in place the ruling of the lower court that struck down Indiana’s law that prohibited abortions performed solely on the basis of sex, race, or disability. This part of the law is often referred to as a “nondiscrimination” provision.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a lengthy opinion voicing his opposition for keeping the “non-discrimination” provision blocked, citing the eugenic roots of abortion (emphasis added):

Each of the immutable characteristics protected by this law can be known relatively early in a pregnancy, and the law prevents them from becoming the sole criterion for deciding whether the child will live or die. Put differently, this law and other laws like it promote a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics.

Conclusively, remaining silent on prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex, race, or disability is dangerous:

Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement.

As I have discussed previously, abortion is the pinnacle achievement of controlling which class or kinds of people are encouraged to breed and which ones are not.

In his opinion, Justice Thomas takes the country back to school on something so seemingly fantastical, many do not want to believe it. But when the facts are there for all to see, straight from the culprit’s own mouth, there’s no denying that abortion is a double-edged evil: it destroys both lives and consciences.

Justice Thomas begins with the legacy of Margaret Sanger and her dream of a better society which eventually led to the birth of Planned Parenthood (emphasis added):

The use of abortion to achieve eugenic goals is not merely hypothetical. The foundations for legalizing abortion in America were laid during the early 20th-century birth-control movement. That movement developed alongside the American eugenics’ movement. And significantly, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger recognized the eugenic potential of her cause. She emphasized and embraced the notion that birth control “opens the way to the eugenist.” (Sanger, Birth Control and Racial Betterment, Birth Control Rev., Feb. 1919, p. 12 (Racial Betterment).

As a means of reducing the “ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all,” Sanger argued that “Birth Control … is really the greatest and most truly eugenic method” of “human generation.” M. Sanger, Pivot of Civilization 187, 189 (1922) (Pivot of Civilization).

In her view, birth control had been “accepted by the most clear thinking and far seeing of the Eugenists themselves as the most constructive and necessary of the means to racial health.” Id., at 189. It is true that Sanger was not referring to abortion when she made these statements, at least not directly. She recognized a moral difference between “contraceptives” and other, more “extreme” ways for “women to limit their families,” such as “the horrors of abortion and infanticide.” M. Sanger, Woman and the New Race 25, 5 (1920) (Woman and the New Race).

But Sanger’s arguments about the eugenic value of birth control in securing “the elimination of the unfit,” Racial Betterment 11, apply with even greater force to abortion, making it significantly more effective as a tool of eugenics.

Whereas Sanger believed that birth control could prevent “unfit” people from reproducing, abortion can prevent them from being born in the first place. Many eugenicists therefore supported legalizing abortion, and abortion advocates—including future Planned Parenthood President Alan Guttmacher— endorsed the use of abortion for eugenic reasons. Technological advances have only heightened the eugenic potential for abortion, as abortion can now be used to eliminate children with unwanted characteristics, such as a particular sex or disability. Given the potential for abortion to become a tool of eugenic manipulation, the Court will soon need to confront the constitutionality of laws like Indiana’s. But because further percolation may assist our review of this issue of first impression, I join the Court in declining to take up the issue now.

The term “eugenics” was coined in 1883 by Francis Galton, a British statistician and half-cousin of Charles Darwin…

Justice Thomas continues the history and meaning of eugenics in his opinion here. I encourage you to finish reading it and see that this is the philosophy that has been backed and continues to be backed by wealthy elites today.

Consider these facts: Nearly 80 percent of Planned Parenthood facilities are located in African-American and Hispanic communities; women with prenatal testing for down syndrome are encouraged to abort; and females are being aborted simply because they are girls. Is it just a coincidence that the founder of the nation’s largest abortion supplier, Margaret Sanger, was a racist and eugenicist?

Abortion Extremists Are Peddling Illegal Abortion Pills at the Expense of Women’s Health

by Patrina Mosley

May 21, 2019

As reported earlier this year, the FDA has finally begun to crack down on organizations that are illegally selling abortion pills over the internet by issuing warning letters to dealers such as Aid Access.

Just a few days ago, 117 members of Congress issued a letter to the FDA urging them to “continue to conduct oversight” of entities such as Aid Access and Rablon.

Dr. Rebecca Gomperts, founder of Aid Access, responded with a letter of her own to the FDA stating her refusal to stop their profits—I mean, “care”—they are giving to women. She stated, “When U.S. women seeking to terminate their pregnancies prior to 9 weeks consult me, I will not turn them away. I will continue to protect the human and constitutional right of my patients to access safe abortion services.”

Abortion is the ultimate violation of human rights, and U.S. women don’t need this Dutch doctor to profit off our legal invention to a “right” for women to kill a child in the womb.

Dr. Gomperts ships unapproved abortion pill regimens of mifepristone and misoprostol after getting the prescription fulfilled from an Indian pharmacy (of all places), and then sells them for $95; or “she’s willing to offer the drugs for free or at a reduced price if women can’t pay.” The average cost for a chemical abortion of an unborn child up to 9 weeks gestation according to Guttmacher is $535. It’s interesting how these services are not targeted to the rich who would welcome such a discreet and accessible service at any fee. But in keeping with tradition, abortion “services” always target the poor—in the name of “care.”

Gomperts prescribed 2,581 medical abortions in the one year Aid Access has been in operation.

The FDA-approved prescription drug mifepristone is marketed under the brand name Mifeprex® and it carries a black box warning of serious adverse or even life-threatening effects. Whatever regimen Dr. Gomperts is concocting with her friends at the Indian pharmacies is sure to be just as dangerous and life-threatening to women. At the end of the day, we are talking about mixing chemicals to kill a living child in the womb.

In summary, according to the FDA’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) of Mifeprex®, in order to prescribe the regime you must be certified, have the “ability to date pregnancies accurately and to diagnose ectopic pregnancies. Healthcare providers must also be able to provide any necessary surgical intervention, or have made arrangements for others to provide for such care.”

As we stated in a previous FRC publication:

Chemical abortions involve severe cramping, contractions, and bleeding to expel the baby. These symptoms can last from several hours to several days, and they can be very intense and painful. Many women also experience nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and headache. Maternal deaths have occurred, most frequently due to infection and undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy. The abortion business makes a chemical abortion sound safe and simple, but this is a multi-day traumatic process that, according to the Mifeprex® medication guide, could take up to 30 days to complete!

The FDA has updated their adverse events reports on Mifeprex® with two more deaths as of December 31, 2018. There were also reports of two cases of ectopic pregnancy resulting in death; and several cases of severe systemic infection (also called sepsis), including some that were fatal. From 2000 to 2018, the total number of adverse events is now 24 deaths, 97 ectopic pregnancies, 1,042 hospitalizations, 599 blood transfusions, and 412 infections (including 69 severe infections), with a total of 4,195 adverse events reported. And these are just the events reported to the FDA.

Gomperts has previously said that FDA restrictions on abortion medications are “based on politics, not science.”

But the FDA does not go far enough in restricting medication abortion when many states themselves are experimenting with telemed abortions that only require talking to a doctor over the internet before ingesting the chemical abortion regimen. Skyping with a doctor and filling out a questionnaire carries the same risk as ordering pills online from a doctor you’ve never met and who cannot physically assess you. Ingesting chemicals that are powerful enough to kill a living child in the womb has serious consequences.

Disturbingly, the physical trauma that happens to a woman’s body as a result is a sign that the “treatment is working.” What’s more, the adverse effects can even be fatal; the risks are eerily similar to what would happen if a woman tried to carry out a self-induced abortion. For years now and still to this day, abortion activists claim that pro-life polices will force women into back alleys and coat hanger abortions; yet at the same time, they push for the abortion pill which is in reality like a “chemical coat-hanger.”

One thing Dr. Gomperts did mention in her letter that is true is that “the landscape of abortion is changing.” As more and more pro-life laws are being enacted in the states, the abortion industry is looking to expand its reach through the abortion pill by attempting to defy and delegitimize the FDA’s REMS so that a “self-managed” abortion—the abortion pill regimen—becomes the new normal for the abortion industry.

This kind of abortion-at-any-cost extremism must be stopped for the sake of women’s health and the lives of the unborn.

Stay tuned for more developments on the rise of the abortion pill in our midst.

Democrats of Color Cross Party Lines to Support Life

by Patrina Mosley

May 10, 2019

A number of Democrats of color have defied party lines to support pro-life legislation in North Carolina, Illinois, New Mexico, and Nevada, according to this Washington Times article—proving “One’s party affiliation should not determine one’s conviction to be an advocate for life,” tweeted North Carolina Right to Life.

Sen. Don Davis crossed party lines and joined Senate Republicans in voting to overturn Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto of a bill providing born-alive protections for infants surviving a failed abortion.

The executive director of Illinois Right to Life, Mary Kate Knorr, credits such heroic efforts to the work of pro-life outreach from urban church ministries and the “the growing sense that such communities have not been well served by abortion.”

I agree.

As written in our Planned Parenthood is Not Pro-Woman publication, we see that the nation’s largest abortion supplier is only interested in targeting certain woman.

Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was a prominent eugenicist who wrote many notable articles in defense of eugenics and even authored a book called “The Pivot of Civilization.” In it, Sanger shared her views on creating a better society by eliminating the “unfit.” In establishing what she called the “Negro Project,” Sanger enlisted black leaders, particularly of the clergy, to convince them that birth control was in the African-American community’s best interests. As she once said to an ally, “We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Praise God that today urban clergy are the ones who are deciding to take up the call to rescue their community from the hands of the abortion industry.

Consider this: Today, Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion supplier and operates nearly 80 percent of its facilities within walking distance of black and Hispanic communities.

Thankfully abortions have declined overall, with a slight decline among ethnic groups, but African-American women are still 3.5 times more likely to have an abortion than Caucasian women.

According to the latest census data, just over 12 percent of the U.S. population is African-American, about 30 percent of all abortions are committed on black babies. Though the African-American population in America grew by 12 percent between 2000 and 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that the African-American population “grew at a slower rate than most other major race and ethnic groups in the country.”

This trend is most clearly demonstrated in New York, where more African-American babies are aborted than are born alive! According to New York’s abortion report, there were 82,189 abortions performed on New York residents in 2016. Out of the 47,718 total reported pregnancies experienced by non-Hispanic black women, almost half—49 percent—ended in abortion, and 47 percent made it out of the womb alive. What is most devastating is that this has been the trend in New York for years now.

A number of organizations have been exposing the racist nature of Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry, like The Radiance Foundation, CURE, L.E.A.R.N, Life Dynamics, Black Dignity, the Douglas Leadership Institute, and so many others!

We are so thankful for them and for the courageous black Democratic legislators who were willing to abandon the party’s extremity on abortion and acknowledge the fact that abortion does not help the black community—it eliminates them. The faithful work of urban faith ministries is also to be commended for continually sounding the alarm of the black genocide taking place in our backyards and for being willing to build a bridge on this issue of life with Democratic lawmakers.

Black Democratic politicians may be waking up to the fact that abortion is not in their communities’ best interest—it is actually to their detriment. Moreover, refusing to stand with a party who won’t support policies that extend compassion to newborns after a failed abortion goes beyond protecting their own racial group—it protects human society and their very souls. Hopefully, this is just the beginning of legislators of color who will stop and consider whether or not they should support policies that contribute to the erasure of their existence!

Christian, Female, and Addicted to Porn

by Patrina Mosley

April 29, 2019

The accessibility of pornography in our hypersexualized culture is trapping not only men but women into its poisonous clutches, as we’ve written about in our Women and Pornography publication. Only after being trapped in addiction is our generation realizing the devastating effects that it has on their mind, body, and soul.

And for Gracelyn Sorrell, 19, that’s exactly what pornography was like to her—a drug. “I couldn’t live without it.”

This female teen opened up to Fox News recently about conquering her pornography addiction.

Sorrell’s first exposure to pornography was at 14 years old (which is around the typical age tweens/teens first get exposure to pornographic material), “when an explicit picture on social media triggered her ‘impure desires’ and prompted her to delve further into X-rated websites.”

Porn sites get more visitors each month than Netflix, Amazon, and Twitter combined. Even social media sites such as Twitter are home to an estimated 10 million porn accounts.  

Gracelyn said pornography became a way to comfort herself and escape from the grief of losing her father and being sexually assaulted by women.

My phone was the easiest way I could access porn,” she said. “I could sneak around and do it in the afternoon when I got home from school, and my mom was at work…I was watching about four hours of porn every day.” She even began to have trouble focusing and keeping her grades up in school and found herself distracted when she was with family and friends.

Her story is not uncommon. Current statistics show that 61 percent of all pornography is now consumed on mobile devices. Three percent of all women say they either thought they might be addicted or are unsure if they are addicted to pornography—this equates to three million women. According to one report, “76 percent of 18 to 30-year-old American women report that they watch porn at least once a month.”

As a Christian, Sorrell felt like she was leading a double life. She eventually admitted to her mother that she had a porn addiction and began journaling as a way of praying to God. She also started deleting apps on her phone that could tempt her “self-control.” 

I felt like that transparency helped me get back on track,” she says. Today, Sorrell spends her time ministering to others about purity and freedom in Christ.

If you or someone you know is struggling with this, there is help. As Sorrell has found, freedom and forgiveness abound in fullness at the foot of the Cross, but the first step is confessing it. Sin festers in the darkness and tricks its victims into believing that they are safer in the dark than they are in the light. Who better to lead a generation out of the clutches of pornography than the ones who have already fought and won? In the darkness you are a victim, in the light you are a warrior. In the darkness is defeat, and in the light, there is victory.

As God is transforming hearts, we have a duty to do everything we can to help increase the cultural atmosphere’s freedom to thrive. FRC and other advocates such as the National Center on Sexual Exploitation and state representatives have joined the #fixappratings campaign to hold tech companies accountable for the damage they are doing to young minds. As the campaign website states, “Many apps popular with youth are incorrectly self-rated and include dishonest and generic app descriptions that deceive parents about the dangers kids face on these platforms.”

The images Sorrell were exposed to were, in her own words, “dehumanizing especially to women. It’s not healthy to watch. I wish it could all just be taken off the Internet for good.” Typical scenes of pornography depict violence towards women, and we must stop and think about what type of impact this has on healthy sexual development and attitudes towards women, as I testified here.

Because apps such as Instagram and Twitter are so popular among youth and our generation, they provide the easiest access to explicit pornographic content. This should be a public concern.

Join child advocates around the country who are calling for accurate app ratings and descriptions due to the rise of online grooming, sex trafficking, pornography, and sexual exploitation.

Montana Becomes 13th State to Declare Porn a Public Health Crisis

by Patrina Mosley

April 26, 2019

The Montana legislature has joined a growing list of states that have resolved that pornography contributes to a public health crisis because of its harmful effects on society, including its role in normalizing violence and abuse of women and its contribution to unhealthy sexual development.

As reported by The Christian Post, “The Montana resolution notes that porn contributes to the hyper-sexualization of teens and prepubescent children, that what was once known as ‘hard core’ content is now considered mainstream, and that early exposure is leading to low self-esteem and body image disorders in young people. It also explains that porn treats women as objects and products for consumers’ use and that girls are taught to be used and boys taught to be the users.”

The CDC has already acknowledged that “Pornography can be connected to other public health issues like sexual violence and occupational HIV transmission.” This is confirmed by an analysis of the 50 most popular pornographic videos in the United States, which found that 88 percent of scenes contained physical violence, and 49 percent contained verbal aggression. Moreover, 87 percent of aggressive acts were perpetrated against women, and 95 percent of their responses were either neutral or expressions of pleasure. With this normalization of sexual violence, it is easy to see why such deranged treatment of women could be viewed by males as “okay,” especially when such acts are misleadingly welcomed by women with fake pleasure.

When you have 79 percent of males ages 18-30 admitting that they are viewing pornography at least on a monthly basis, and 63 percent doing so on a weekly basis, how can we not stop to think about how this is impacting their sexual attitudes towards women?

As I testified before a Maryland House Joint committee on a similar resolution, pornography has been dubbed the “The Largest Unregulated Social Experiment In History,” and it has no doubt contributed to the need for the #MeToo movement. Pornography consumers may be unaware that the “entertainment” they are consuming may be of victims of sex trafficking. What viewers may be watching is someone’s humiliation being viewed and distributed over and over again.

From the rise of STDs to the unhealthy development of sexual attitudes and behavior and its connection to sex trafficking, pornography is no small issue.

The National Center on Sexual Exploitation has created a Research Summary highlighting findings from over 90 peer-reviewed studies on the harms of pornography.

As pornography has become increasingly mainstream and as the number of studies on the harm of pornography expands, declaring it a public health crisis is a significant step in giving this issue the attention it deserves.

Texas and Arizona are also currently considering similar resolutions, and we look forward to a favorable outcome from these two states.

Women Continue to Die After Taking the Abortion Pill

by Patrina Mosley

April 18, 2019

The FDA has updated their adverse events reports on Mifeprex, also known as “the abortion pill,” with two additional deaths since December 2018.

The previous report released last year on adverse events of the abortion regimen from 2000-2017 showed 22 deaths. Now, an update to the FDA’s Questions and Answers on Mifeprex states that “As of December 31, 2018, there were reports of 24 deaths of women associated with Mifeprex since the product was approved in September 2000, including two cases of ectopic pregnancy resulting in death; and several cases of severe systemic infection (also called sepsis), including some that were fatal.” To date, the report now documents nearly 4,200 adverse events, including deaths, hospitalizations and other serious complications.

Just between the years 2012 to 2017, the FDA released a report detailing 1,445 more adverse events from Mifeprex. In total, the number of adverse events from 2000 to 2018 is now 24 deaths, 97 ectopic pregnancies, 1,042 hospitalizations, 599 blood transfusions, and 412 infections (including 69 severe infections), with a total of 4,195 adverse events reported.

It is unbelievable that Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry would still market something as lethal as the abortion pill as “safe.” It certainly is not safe for the babies that are destroyed by its use and the women who are physically and emotionally harmed.

In a chemical abortion, it is common for a woman to experience severe cramping, contractions, and bleeding to expel the baby. According to the Mifeprex medication guide, this is expected and shows that the “treatment is working.” How pleasant.

These symptoms can last from several hours to several days, and they can be very intense and painful. Many women also experience nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and headache.

And these are the pills California wants to freely dispense on college campuses!

What makes chemical abortions unique from surgical abortions is that the mother will have to see and dispose of the remains of her aborted child.

A 2011 peer-reviewed synthesis on the mental health effects of abortion included a survey of 22 published studies combining data on 877,181 participants, showing that abortion increases the likelihood of depression, anxiety, and reckless behavior such as alcoholism, drug use, and sadly, suicide.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, medication abortions accounted for 31 percent of all nonhospital abortions in 2014, and for 45 percent of abortions before nine weeks’ gestation. The abortion pill can be used up until the 10th week of pregnancy.

How many more women will have to die before the abortion pill is banned?

California Is Trying to Turn College Health Centers Into Abortion Clinics with Taxpayer Dollars (Again)

by Patrina Mosley

April 12, 2019

Last week, the California State Senate Health Committee approved in a 7-3 vote Senate Bill 24, known as the “College Student Right to Access Act.” This bill would amend the state’s public health code to require student health care clinics at all 34 California public colleges and universities to “offer abortion by medication techniques”—a.k.a “the abortion pill”—starting on January 1, 2023.

You may remember a similar bill (SB 320) that went forward last year, sponsored by the same senator, Connie Leyva (D-Chino). Thankfully, this was vetoed by then Democrat Governor Jerry Brown, who saw the mandate as “unnecessary” since “the services required by this bill are widely available off-campus.” In his veto statement he says that “according to a study sponsored by supporters of this legislation, the average distance to abortion providers in campus communities varies from five to seven miles, not an unreasonable distance.”

The report he is referring to was commissioned by the University of California San Francisco (UCSF), which is advocating in favor of the campus abortion mandate! But thankfully, a distance of five to seven miles was too short even for Governor Brown, and only showed how college campuses are targeted by the abortion industry.

SB 24 and last year’s SB 320 are virtually identical, with some changes in grant amounts and deadlines for implementation; other than that, they are the same in function. This means Sen. Leyva and other sponsors of the bill made no effort to fix the serious flaws with this type of mandate raised by both sides of the debate. Yes, even the universities themselves are apprehensive!

To bring this bill up for a second time without addressing its many serious flaws shows a reckless disregard for the 400,000 young women on these 34 public campuses.

In a previous blog, you can see what potential risks and liabilities would come with forcing colleges to dispense the abortion pill. Just two concerns (among many) about SB 24 are that this type of mandate once again has vague funding language and has no mention of support for women who choose not to abort and instead choose to parent the child.

Like the previously failed mandate, SB 24 claims it would only take effect after $10.2 million in private funds have been raised for the costs of equipment and “readiness” as the legislation states, but the language of the bill leaves open the possibility of taxpayer-funded abortion after 2023. It provides no safeguards to prohibit state funds or student fees from paying for the ongoing support of the program. Public funding of abortion is something we already know that a majority of Americans strongly oppose, yet SB 24 takes no precautions to prevent that.

In addition, this legislation offers no maternal assistance for women who choose not to abort! It just supports abortions. The Institute for Women’s Policy Research found that over a quarter of all undergraduate students are raising dependent children—yet no assistance is offered for them. Parenthood and education are compatible, and there are plenty of women who can prove that. To have a bill that purposefully goes out of its way to take away women’s children rather than help them raise their babies and continue their education is a slap in the face to “women’s empowerment” and grossly disregards the human dignity of the unborn.

Any abortion, no matter what stage of pregnancy it occurs at, is a life-changing experience. Even an early-stage chemical abortion can be quite traumatic. What makes chemical abortions unique from surgical abortions is that the mother will have to see and dispose of the remains of her aborted child. It is more than obvious that mental trauma would occur to a young woman who sees her abortion take place in her college dorm room or in a student health center bathroom. Is this really a good thing for a young college woman? I think not.

All in all, this type of bill could care less for women—it only cares about expanding the business of abortion.

Abortion proponents consider this mandate as model legislation for other states to follow, and California is vying to be the first state to implement it.

The California State Senate Health Committee passed the bill. It will now be referred to the State Senate’s Education Committee before going before the full Senate for a vote.

Sitting California governor Gavin Newsom has already insinuated his support for the bill, and this has given activists for SB 24 more optimism. However, it is still unknown how much support will actually come from the public universities themselves who remain apprehensive of the considerable liability that they would have to take on.

To take action on this reckless bill, you can contact California legislators on our action page.

Archives