Category archives: Abortion

Pastors Lead the Way in… Harming Life?

by Hugh Phillips

June 13, 2019

In the failed bid by the North Carolina House of Representatives to muster the 3/5ths majority necessary to override Democrat Governor Roy Cooper’s veto of the North Carolina Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, four pastors were the difference in the deciding vote. The failed veto override effort in North Carolina came up short because of their four votes.

This heartbreaking result shows us that we cannot be complacent in the fight for life. What made this vote even more heartbreaking was that four pastors rejected the biblical view of life’s sacredness and voted against a bill to require physicians to save the lives of infants born alive after a botched abortion. Thus, pastors were some of those who stood against the sanctity of life in North Carolina.

For example, take Pastor and state representative James D. Gailliard. Gailliard labels himself a “Whole Life Democrat” and claims to be against abortion. Yet, he voted against the born alive bill arguing that “current law is sufficient” to protect infants who have survived an abortion. However, a staff assessment by an attorney for the Senate Rules and Operations committee clearly shows that while infanticide is technically classified as murder under the law, the legislature has never taken a stand on born alive protections. NC S.B. 359 would have made clear that North Carolina does not tolerate infanticide in any form and would have given teeth to the law by creating an affirmative duty to protect these innocent and helpless infants. This should have been an easy decision for any representative, let alone pastor, who claims that they support life.

Gailliard, along with pastors Paul Lowe, Amos Quick, and Ray Russell, all voted against the born alive bill in North Carolina and have therefore rejected the Bible’s basic theological assumption, first introduced in Genesis 1:27 and historically held across every creed and denomination, that man is special because “God created man in his image, in the image of God He created them.” Pastors should be the first to preach and defend the sacredness of humanity. Yet, in rejecting this standard, these pastors are showing that their lives are governed more by the postmodern worldview and a fear of Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby than by the word of God. These foundational secular assumptions held by such pastors put their congregations and constituents at risk because these pastors seem more likely to make decisions based on subjective morality and outside pressure rather than making objective ethical decisions based on the eternal moral law and God’s truth.

If a pastor cannot even agree to increase restrictions on an act as morally repugnant as infanticide, they are not worthy of holding any elected office in the State or position of trust within the church. This is such a basic tenet of human decency that all North Carolinians, regardless of party, should be appalled and outraged by the cowardly act of these pastors.

The flood of pro-life legislation passing in legislatures across America shows that Americans are demanding that the sanctity of human life be protected. As candidacies begin to be announced for the 2020 elections, voters should have one thing foremost in their minds: will this candidate fulfill the basic role of government and protect life? Republicans are feeling the swelling support of American opinion as they advance the pro-life cause through state legislation. Despite the deplorable attempts of Democrats, and even pastors, to stop the pro-life agenda, we will vote out those who oppose life and advance the pro-life cause to victory with the help of average North Carolinians and the citizens of every state!

Hugh Phillips is a Government Affairs intern at Family Research Council working on pro-life legislation. 

Missouri’s New Pro-Life Law is Grounded in the Belief in Human Dignity

by Hugh Phillips

May 31, 2019

Life is winning in America! Since New York and Virginia passed radical and unnecessary pro-abortion laws in January, conservative states have responded by passing dozens of pro-life laws in the last four months.

One of the latest is Missouri House bill 126, a fantastic law which bans abortions when a heartbeat is detected, adds common-sense informed consent provisions, and includes bans on abortions after a child in the womb is capable of feeling pain. The beauty of this Missouri law lies in the reasons the legislature gave for passing the bill. The bill states in part:

In recognition that Almighty God is the author of life, that all men and women are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life”, and that article I, section 2 of the Constitution of Missouri provides that all persons have a natural right to life, it is the intention of the general assembly of the state of Missouri to [grant]: (1)  Defend the right to life[to] of all humans, born and unborn [, and to]; (2) Declare that the state and all of its political subdivisions are a “sanctuary of life” that protects pregnant women and their unborn children; and (3) Regulate abortion to the full extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States, decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and federal statutes.

This law, similar to those passed by numerous legislatures this year, codified into law the common law assumption that human life, in any form and at any time, is sacred because humanity was created by God with meaning and purpose. This foundational belief has given human life significance for millennia. When abortion advocates argue for the killing of children in the womb, they usually base their arguments on appeals to the human dignity and rights of women. However, this argument is misleading. An all-encompassing respect for human rights would see all life as having dignity, both born and unborn.

As Francis Schaeffer notes in his classic work Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, pro-abortion advocates cannot logically and adequately justify abortion based on human dignity because their secular worldview argues that human beings are purposeless, cosmic anomalies that are probably better off not being alive in the first place! As Schaeffer noted, if one is simply a biological coincidence, then there is no basis for human dignity or purpose. This explains the corresponding abandonment of the belief in human dignity that occurred among academic and political elites as the culture became more secular.

As hard as pro-abortion advocates argue, they eventually run up against the fact that their worldview provides no foundational basis for human dignity. Thus, they must resort to slogans instead of arguments. This rejection of the basis for humanity’s worth flies in the face of the natural Christian belief that we have meaning and purpose because we were created by a loving God.  

The passage of strong pro-life measures in multiple states has proven that a culture of life is returning to America and that the American people are becoming even more pro-life. The fight for life continues, and with the help of brave elected officials such as the Missouri legislature, it is a fight we will win!

Hugh Phillips is a Government Affairs intern at Family Research Council working on pro-life legislation.

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!

House Democrats are Allergic to the Truth When it Comes to Pro-Family Policies

by Connor Semelsberger

May 9, 2019

Yesterday, the House Appropriations Committee marked up a bill that will funds large federal health programs like the Title X Family Planning Program, Medicare, and Medicaid. 

Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) in her opening statement was quick to attack the Trump administration’s recent Protect Life Rule which would ensure separation between abortion clinics and family planning services in the Title X program. She concluded that this rule attacks the doctor-patient relationship by banning doctors from even talking about abortion or abortion services to patients. Clearly Rep. DeLauro did not read the regulation. While the regulation change does prohibit Title X clinics from referring for abortions, it still allows for nondirective pregnancy counseling in which clinics can discuss all available pregnancy options with women. Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala.) spoke up in defense of the Protect Life Rule saying, “Time and time again Americans have said they do not want their tax dollars paying for abortions.” Rep. DeLauro later claimed that this rule change will limit access to family planning services for women. Family Research Council recently published a brief explaining how the Title X rule change actually expands family planning options for women, not limits them.

The attacks on the president’s policies did not stop there, as Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) celebrated the fact that the spending bill eliminates the “abstinence only until marriage program” and increases funding for comprehensive sex education. What Congresswomen Lee was really referring to is the Sexual Risk-Avoidance Education program (SRA) which received $35 million this year. The SRA program is designed to encourage avoiding risky sexual behavior all together as opposed to simply reducing it. FRC’s Peter Sprigg wrote a brief explaining more about how SRA education helps eliminate sexual risk for teens. While Rep. Lee would make you believe that the only way to educate teens about sex is through her comprehensive sexual education programs, SRA education, which receives far less federal funding, is actually more effective.

Representative Lois Frankel (D-Fla.) followed along with her colleagues when she opposed a Born-Alive amendment offered by Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) that would ensure funding recipients do not allow an infant that is born alive after a failed abortion to be denied lifesaving care. Rep. Frankel couldn’t help herself from making the conversation about abortion access when she claimed that this amendment is a way to keep women from being in charge of their own bodies and intimidating doctors from performing abortions. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.) a mother of two children, responded by saying, “To hide behind the idea that this is about overturning the law of the land, you can say that, but that’s not the truth.” Requiring born-alive protections does not undermine abortion access in any way—it instead treats all infants who survive failed abortions as a patient that deserves the same lifesaving care guaranteed to all Americans. Since Rep. Frankel and other Democrats cannot seem to understand that infants do in fact survive failed abortions, Family Research Council published a blog outlining just the facts about the issue.

To end the mark-up, several Democratic members made lofty promises about the success of fetal tissue research to attack an amendment offered by Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) that would ban federal funding for research using tissue from aborted babies. In defending his amendment, Rep. Harris said, “It’s a straw man argument—Parkinson’s was never cured, Alzheimer’s is not being investigated using fetal cells—these are straw men.” Democrat politicians have little moral boundaries when it comes to achieving supposed medical “breakthroughs”—they will even take tissue from the most vulnerable among us just for a chance at new cures that never come.

Statements like these from Democratic leaders should come as no surprise, as time and time again they fail to read legislation, understand regulations, and listen to the facts. Even as the appropriations process continues with Democrats at the helm, we will continue to speak the truth and advocate for policies that respect the dignity of all human life and allow families to flourish.

Connor Semelsberger is the Legislative Assistant for Family Research Council.

9-Year-Old Reminds Us All of the Power of Prayer

by Daniel Hart

April 24, 2019

Love one another.” (John 13:34)

This pivotal verse from the 13th chapter of John’s gospel is the theme for this year’s National Day of Prayer on Thursday, May 2nd. It is an especially fitting theme at this moment in time in our nation, when our political differences threaten to tear our country apart at the seams. It’s a theme that is the very heart of Christianity, the central commandment that Christ gave to his disciples and followers—to love.

But what is love? In these days of confusion, when many feel entitled to their own truths, it is critical to define our terms. The Christian definition of love is to will the good of the other. This often means that we uphold beliefs that are not only deeply unpopular, but are even considered “hateful” and “bigoted”. Nevertheless, we sincerely believe that true love requires that we uphold them for the ultimate good of everyone. Simply put, if we believe that our beliefs are the Truth, then they are not merely true just for Christians but for all people.

While Christians must be unwavering in our belief of the Truth, we also must be pragmatic and reasonable in our relationships with non-believers and our political opponents. How do we even begin to go about convincing the world of the Truth? The beautiful thing about Christianity is that convincing people through our words and actions is only one tool we have in our arsenal. In the faith life, it quickly becomes clear that successfully evangelizing others is far beyond our own power. In reality, the most effective tool of evangelization is prayer (1 John 5:14). But too often, we Christians de-emphasize prayer in favor of what seems like more direct action, like shouting from the rooftops of social media.

Sometimes it takes the wisdom of children to remind us of the fundamental importance of prayer. Take Jack, a 9-year-old boy from New York. After Governor Andrew Cuomo enacted the most extreme state abortion expansion bill in the country in his home state, Jack decided he wanted to do something about it. With the help of his father, he started the website ConvertCuomo, which asks believers to commit to pray for Gov. Cuomo’s conversion by submitting a prayer pledge on the site.

For Jack, who comes from a strong Catholic upbringing, the “ConvertCuomo” project was an especially personal one. Gov. Cuomo, who is himself Catholic, went so far as to order One World Trade Center and other landmarks to be lit up in pink in order to celebrate his signing into law of the most radical state abortion expansion bill ever to be enacted in the U.S.“My mom and dad told me that he passed this bill and other things and it made me really upset,” Jack said. “So I wanted to think of something to do to stop abortion.”

As Jack recognizes, it is especially important to pray for those in authority like Gov. Cuomo who claim to be Catholic yet strongly support policies that his own faith teaches is a “grave offense” against moral law.

I pray two Our Fathers for Governor Cuomo every day,” Jack says, “sometimes three.”

Jack is keying in on an important truth for believers. If we want our political opponents and non-believers to have personal conversions of heart, praying for their conversion is the most loving thing we can do for them.

Let us join Jack’s prayer initiative and take up the vital task of loving one another through prayer.

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.

What if Abortion Laws Reflected the Actual Views of Americans?

by Cathy Ruse

April 11, 2019

On Saturday I led a panel discussion on “Abortion Until Birth: What Happened in New York, What Almost Happened in Virginia, and What Lies Ahead in the Federal Courts.”

I was joined by Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Greg Schleppenbach of the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops’ Pro-Life Secretariat, and Jeff Caruso of the Virginia Catholic Conference.

The following are excerpts of my introductory remarks.

***

One of the most celebrated phony arguments for a right to abortion is the Famous Violinist.

It’s a thought experiment, by a supposed moral philosopher (Judith Jarvis Thomson), and it goes like this:

Imagine you wake up in a hospital bed, and discover that your circulatory system has been connected up to the circulatory system of an unconscious famous violinist, lying beside you.

The violinist has a serious kidney infection, and a rare blood type—and you are the only match.

The hospital director comes in and says:

  • It was wrong for the Society of Music Lovers to kidnap you and place you in this difficult position.
  • But without the use of your kidneys, this man will die.
  • And, well, it’ll take 9 months for him to get well.

Are you morally obliged to make your kidneys available to this violinist for 9 months?

You’re supposed to conclude: no, you have the right to choose what happens in, and to, your body. You’re not obligated to put your body in service of another’s life, even that of a famous violinist.

The argument fails, of course. For many reasons. Chief among them is that mothers and children are natural allies, not enemies—not strangers on a hospital bed. 

But this is what modern abortion politics has done to our thinking.

The first American feminists never saw the child as the enemy. Elizabeth Cady Stanton said women had been treated as property; how degrading that we should treat our own children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.

What would they say about our abortion culture today?

According to the Guttmacher Institute, founded by Planned Parenthood, approximately 4 percent of abortions are done for the mother’s health. And 3 percent for “possible problems affecting the health of the [baby].”

Taken together, that’s 7 percent.

That means 93 percent of abortions are done on healthy women with healthy babies.

What are the reasons for these abortions?

Well, the women told Guttmacher they couldn’t afford a baby, they didn’t feel ready, they were having relationship problems. Or their husbands, or boyfriends, or parents wanted them to have the abortion.

There’s a pattern here, if you look for it. Of women who needed financial help, but no one gave it to them. Who needed emotional support, but no one provided it.

Of women who may have wanted the baby, but were surrounded by people who wanted the baby gone.

Feminists for Life says abortion is a reflection that we have failed to meet the needs of women—that: Women Deserve Better Than Abortion.  

They say the slogan “It’s my body, it’s my choice” has really become “it’s her problem.” The rest of us are off the hook.

The truth is, they know it’s a baby. And they’ve known it for a long time.

Even the Famous Violinist argument concedes there’s another person in the equation.

Planned Parenthood activist Amy Richards wrote an essay in the New York Times Magazine about being pregnant with triplets, and having two of her babies aborted.

After reciting a list of ways her life would change if she were to have triplets, she concluded, with a final lament, that she would have to “start shopping only at Costco and buying big jars of mayonnaise.”

She recounted how Peter, her boyfriend, stared at the sonogram screen and said, “There are three heartbeats, and we’re about to make two disappear.”

If you’re a Planned Parenthood activist, why tell your story this way? Why the heartbeats? Why the mayonnaise?

Very clearly, she’s telling us that she knows they’re really babies.

But she’s also clearly telling us that she doesn’t have to have a good reason to abort them—she can, just because she wants to.

And legally speaking, she’s quite right.

Forty-six years ago, the Supreme Court took abortion policy-making out of the hands of the people, and made abortion-until-birth a constitutional right.

Roe v. Wade made abortion legal before but also after viability, until birth, for “health” reasons.

And then Doe v. Bolton, defined “health” as “all factors”—“physical, emotional, psychological, familial, [or] the woman’s age.”

That’s why pro-lifers speak of “abortion on demand.” That’s why Amy Richards speaks of big jars of mayonnaise.

Most people have no idea how extreme U.S. abortion law is.

If American law on abortion reflected Americans’ views on abortion, the law would look very different.

And that’s exactly what politicians in New York were afraid of: That the people would get to have a say, again, on abortion policy.

Archives