Category archives: Abortion

Family Research Council Praises Passage of Pro-life Amendment to Health Care Bill

by JP Duffy

November 8, 2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 7, 2009

CONTACT: J.P. Duffy or Maria Donovan, (866) FRC-NEWS

Washington, D.C.- Today, the House of Representatives passed the Stupak, Pitts, Kaptur, Dahlkemper, Smith, Ellsworth and Lipinski amendment to the “Affordable Health Care for America Act” (H.R. 3962) The amendment maintains the current policy of preventing federal funding for abortion and for benefits packages that include abortion. It clarifies that individuals, both those who receive affordability credits and those who do not, can with their own funds purchase separate supplemental coverage for elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans that do not receive government subsidies may still offer elective abortions.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement concerning the amendment’s passage:

This is a huge pro-life victory for women, their unborn children, and families. We applaud this House vote which prohibits the abortion industry from further profiting from taxpayers by using government funds to pay for the gruesome act of abortion. I congratulate the bipartisan coalition that for months has worked to ensure that abortion is not covered in the bill.

Since prior to last year’s election Family Research Council has been working towards true health care reform that protects life, freedom and families. We supported efforts to ensure the legislation will not be paid for by the lives of future generations. We thank Representatives Bart Stupak (D-MI), Brad Ellsworth (D-IN), Joe Pitts (R-PA), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA), Dan Lipinski (D-IL), and Chris Smith (R-NJ) for standing with more than 70% of Americans who morally object to funding abortion with their hard earned dollars.

Unfortunately, H.R. 3962 is a seriously flawed piece of legislation. The Speaker’s bill still allows rationing of health care for seniors, raises health costs for families, mandates that families purchase under threat of fines and penalties, encourages counseling for assisted suicide in some states, does not offer broad conscience protections for health care workers and seeks to insert the federal government into all aspects of citizen’s lives. Speaker Pelosi is using the guise of health care reform to push her version of social engineering onto American taxpayers. Additionally, the legislation would place a crushing debt on both current and future generations.

FRC will work hard to ensure pro-life provisions remain intact as the bill goes through the legislative process, and will work tirelessly to ensure the legislation is more friendly to families than the current bill.”

-30-

The New Spin on Abortion Funding

by Rob Schwarzwalder

November 8, 2009

Democrats are going out of their way to argue that the Stupak-Pitts amendment prohibiting federal funding of abortion is an effort to enact new restrictions on abortion itself. Julie Rovner of NPR, a journalist no less, argued today that the pro-life Members of Congress seeking to prevent Uncle Sam from paying for abortions are trying to impose new limits on access to abortion. Ms. Rovner seems to be taking a line from Illinois Democrat Jan Schakowsky, who in today’s NY Times is quoted as saying, with reference to her colleague Bart Stupak’s amendment, Theres no way at the end of the day were going to support these kinds of further restrictions on abortion.

This is a desperate misrepresentation of the facts. The bipartisan pro-life effort to maintain existing federal restrictions on federal funding of abortion is nothing more than an attempt to sustain existing policy. It does nothing to “further restrict” abortion.

Those who advocate for unrestricted access to federally financed abortion on demand are getting more outraged by the minute. By affirming the sanctity of life, the Members of Congress who are standing their ground against federal financing of abortion are saying “yes” to the Creator of natal personhood. For this, they deserve our enduring thanks. And let’s pray for Ms. Schakowsky and her fellow advocates of the culture of death, that the God Who made and loves them will draw them into the light of life itself.

How the Health Bill Funds Abortion

by David Christensen

November 6, 2009

The Health Care bill will fund abortion because of the Capps amendment. The supposed “Ellsworth” compromise would not prevent the public option from funding abortion, but would have the exact same effect of government funding of abortion. Because of confusing accounting gimmicks, this flow-chart may help you understand how the public option would fund elective abortion:

How the Health Bill Funds Abortion

[Click here for a full-size PDF version of the graphic]

But It Was Just a Fetus … Wasn’t It?

by Rob Schwarzwalder

October 28, 2009

Today in Utah, a 21 year-old man was sentenced to five years in prison for, according to the Associated Press, “beating a pregnant (17 year-old) girl to try to cause a miscarriage” after she paid him $150 to do so.

The girl was seven months pregnant. Aaron Harrison, the criminal convicted of assaulting her, beat her stomach and, bizarrely, even bit her on the neck to induce a miscarriage. And although Harrison had pled guilty to “second-degree felony attempted murder, which is punishable by up to 15 years in prison .. District Judge A. Lynn Payne instead sentenced him under Utah’s anti-abortion statute, saying a charge of third-degree ‘attempted killing of an unborn child’ better fit the facts of the case.”

I don’t think words can describe the kind of depraved conduct you entered into in trying to take the life of a child,” Judge Payne said to Harrison from the bench.

The mother of the baby, born healthy in August, is now seeking custody of the child she tried to have killed.

Judge Payne’s words ring like a bell: “The life of a child.” At seven months, the child is almost fully developed; it’s eyelids are opening and closing at this stage, with its brain functioning and its heart beating. All that really needs to happen prior birth is weight increase.

The potency of medical knowledge has pushed proponents of abortion on demand out of the realms of reason and science. The humanness and personhood of the unborn child are indisputable by any measurable, objective standard.

It was President Obama who said, during his one-on-one with Rick Warren last summer, that determining when human life begins is “above my paygrade.” Perhaps the President could read Judge Payne’s remarks and the facts of this wrenching case and let us know if his current salary is sufficient for him to decide.

NARAL Petition Supports Biblical Account Abraham and Sarah

by Tony Perkins

October 23, 2009

The radical National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) began circulating a petition this week attacking the Family Research Council for its opposition to the government takeover of healthcare. That of course is nothing new; theyve been attacking us for months. But what is new, is that the petition suggests NARAL may actually support the biblical account of Sarah giving birth to Isaac when she was over 90 years old:

Anti-choice extremists at the Family Research Council are launching an outrageous media and lobbying campaign claiming that Congress’ health-care reform bills will deny seniors the medical care they need in order to pay for abortion.

On second thought, suggesting NARAL supports Scripture might be a stretch. But I am sure that if Planned Parenthood and NARAL had been around in Sarahs day they would have been right there, on our dime, helping Sarah end the life of her baby.

Plan B: A Failure to Meet Falsely Inflated Predictions

by Moira Gaul

October 16, 2009

A recent article published in the journal Contraception, discusses the failed “effectiveness” of the drug Plan B (a form of emergency contraception or “EC”) on a population level. The author of the articles concedes:

Our expectations for EC’s effectiveness were biased upwards by an early estimate that expanding access to emergency contraception could dramatically reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy and subsequent abortion. This estimate made a compelling story and is likely a key reason why donors and other were willing to support efforts to expand access to EC.

The falsely inflated predictions noted above were —- in order to dramatically decrease the incidence of unintended pregnancy and subsequent abortion —- touted as valid estimates during the lead up to and the drug’s change to over the counter status to women 18 years and older in 2006. The admission of failures at a population level following expanded access is poignant. Additionally, it is clear that Planned Parenthood has been a primary profiteer through the increased marketing and sales process.

The article goes on to deflect from valid flags raised by the continued self-administration of Plan B and ignores salient women’s health issues surrounding drug usage including: the lack of medical oversight by a licensed clinician during usage to screen for contraindications; the lack of medical studies to determine safety for repeated and long-term usage; and, the failure to inform women of the potential abortifacient action of the drug —- a violation of informed consent.

Additionally, the non-medical provider oversight during drug usage ignores a 2008 study release by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stating that young women most at-risk for contracting sexually transmitted infections and disease are not being referred for testing and treatment. The self-administration of Plan B knocks out a critical link in the care and referral chain for many women at-risk for disease. Such a link is vital for both secondary prevention or screening efforts and thus, the protection of women’s reproductive health.

Expanded access of Plan B to both women and adolescent girls are not in the best interest of either adolescent or women’s health promotion and disease prevention.

D.C. Woman Leaves Baby to Die in Plastic Bag, Gets 13 years

by Cathy Ruse

October 15, 2009

How can anyone ignore the irony in this awful story reported in the Washington Post yesterday?

A young woman walks out into a field with a pink towel, scissors, and a plastic bag, gives birth to a daughter, cuts the umbilical cord and leaves the baby to die.

Of course she could have had an abortionist legally kill the child.

The Supreme Court case of Doe v. Bolton mandates that an abortion be legal even after viability if an abortion doctor cites emotional or familial reasons for the abortion. During a post-arrest interview the woman said she had been raped, and the prosecutor said the woman got rid of the baby because she was afraid the man she was living with, whom she considered her husband, would break up with her for having another mans child. Plenty of legal grounds for a late-term abortion.

Assistant State’s Attorney Renee Battle-Brooks argued that whether she was impregnated because she was raped was irrelevant. That doesn’t make [the baby’s] life any less valuable,” Battle-Brooks said. “That baby struggled for breath in that plastic bag. She was alone, she was cold and she was hungry.”

Last month a 33-year old Rhode Island woman was sentenced to 25 years for killing her newborn daughter.

The baby was found in a plastic garbage bag under a laundry appliance in the womans parents home. Judge Robert Krause of Providence County said, Not to impose a substantial jail sentence … would simply devalue the life of a child. Krause added: No civilized society is prepared to do that and neither am I.

My point in raising these cases is not to argue for criminal penalties for women who have abortions no one in the pro-life movement seeks that but to show the irony in our law, and the striking quotes from those in the legal system as they recognize and defend the humanity of the youngest of babies. They sound so much like pro-lifers. One day, God willing, everyone will speak this way about children, even before birth.

President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize for…funding abortions overseas?

by Cathy Ruse

October 9, 2009

It was announced this morning that President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Reuters reports that The Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Obama for his

extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation

between peoples.

But this prize was apparently awarded *prospectively*, since the nomination

deadline for the prize came less than two weeks after Obama took office.

So what actions did Obama as President take before the February 1st deadline

that gave the committee such assurance of his future worthiness of the

prize?

On January 20 he called for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and

declared his intention to give multiple rights and privileges to homosexual

couples.

On January 22 he issued an order announcing his intention to close

Guantanamo Bay.

On January 23 he issued an order authorizing tax dollars for abortions

abroad.

As Michael Novak wrote in National Review Online at the time: These first

steps were unworthy of a great nation and unworthy of a serious leader.

Mother Teresa called abortion the greatest destroyer of peace. But

according to the Nobel committee, forcing taxpayers to fund it gets you a

peace prize.

Abortion is about life

by Jeremiah G. Dys

September 25, 2009

The Charleston Gazette this morning reports of Dr. Susan Wicklunds visit to Charleston yesterday for a book signing and speaking engagement with the Womans Club of Charleston. Wickland, a long-time abortionist from Montana, offers praise for her profession. The Gazette article, unsurprisingly, is glowing in its coverage. But it is the actual words of Dr. Wicklund that left me stammering for words.

Consider, for instance, her description about what abortion is:

Abortion is about life: quality of life for infants, children and adults. Everywhere and in every sense of the word. Life, not death, she writes in her book, This Common Secret, My Journey as an Abortion Doctor.

I am at a complete loss for comment on such a statement. Abortion is about life? Really? Clearly, the abortion industry has done much to justify, conceal, and rationalize their life-ending practices for decades, but is this the new face of pro-abortion activists like Dr. Wicklund? In recent years, the rhetoric of pro-abortion politicians has shifted from discussing the actual procedure to focusing on the focus-group approved message of making abortion safe and rare. President Obama has infamously declared that, though we may disagree, we ought to agree on ending unwanted pregnancies. Such an argument, it would seem, is lost on Dr. Wicklund, who would rather end a human life to improve quality of life for another.

However, as I think about, Dr. Wicklund has actually made a profoundly correct statement.

Continue reading at the The Family Policy Council of West Virginia’s Engage Family Blog…

Archives