The Anti Abortion Gang

Regulations in Texas Abortion Industry Effective at Reducing Late Term Abortions

2012-01-29T17:49:00.001-08:00

I read an article in Big Think "The Economics of Second Trimester Abortions: Market Supply". I read the entire article, but came back to this, the very first paragraph. This is what we pro-lifers work towards. Less babies being killed by abortion, and given a chance at life.

New research finds that government regulations that restrict the supply of abortions performed after 15 weeks gestation in the state of Texas increased the price of late abortions by 37% ($454) and lead to an increase in the number of unintended births by over 6,600 in the three years following the implementation of the regulation.

The jist of the article is that regulations on the abortion industry in Texas, have adversely affected the price of late-term abortions, causing less women to have them.

What this means to me, is that an average of 2,200 more babies a year, avoid being slaughtered by an abortionist. This... is something I can live with.

Pro-Life Rally gets Rowdy - Bloomington, IN.

2012-01-23T17:17:00.000-08:00

Scott, a pro-life warrior, sent this to me via email.

First, an article in the Indiana Daily Student.

“Stop Abortion Now.”
“It’s a Child Not a Choice.
”Men, women and families shivered in the icy cold, but they held their signs high to protest against abortion on the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
On Sunday afternoon, the 2012 Rally for Life took place on the Monroe County Courthouse lawn, its 20th year. This year, the protest attracted more pro-choice advocates than ever before to counter those who were pro-life.
“This is one of the biggest anti-life crowds I’ve seen,” said Andrew Henry, a pro-life activist who attended with his daughter and pregnant wife. “I had a couple of guys say things I’d never repeat. Oftentimes, they are very rude and impolite while we are here very calmly, peacefully.”

Well yeah, rude would be a good word for them.

Scott documented some of the, uh, conversation. I have to warn you, there is a wee bit of Foul language in it. Many thanks for this timely information!

Sex Selective Abortions, Here and Now

2012-01-22T17:10:00.001-08:00

A Guest Post By Anonymous

True story.

There is a couple currently utilizing obstetric services from an OB/Gyn in the practice where I am currently employed. They conceived intentionally. They have a young daughter. They are currently at 14 weeks gestation. They have pressed the OB to order an amniocentesis for the sole purpose of determining gender. They will abort their child if it is a girl.

Yay for feminism! Score one for the bodily autonomy of the female. Satirical commentary (in case you had to ask).

My thoughts: I fear this happens a lot more often than we are aware. I hope the doctor flatly refused. Perhaps Anonymous will keep us updated on the outcome of this horrific case.

Accessory to Murder

2012-01-22T16:42:00.001-08:00

A guest post by Robert Bickel

Accessory to Murder

It’s a sad fact that murder is committed every day, in every country. Sometimes a murder is committed for vengeance. Sometimes for “religious” reasons. Oftentimes it is committed for money.

Here in the United States, an “accomplice” is one who is present and may even participate in the crime. An “accessory” is someone who has knowledge of a crime being committed or will be committed, and fails to report it. You can also be an accessory if you help the perpetrator in some way.

Let’s examine those who help the practitioners of infant murder, stay in business-----

1. Real estate broker/agent—helps with finding the “right place” and negotiating lease terms—and profits from it.

2. Landlord—gives them a place to commit the crime—and profits from it.

3. Maintenance personnel—makes sure things are kept running—and profits from it.

4. Lawn care—they make sure the “business” is presentable to the public—and profit from it.

5. Attorney—represents killers—and profits from it.

6. Medical supplier—yes, these people make sure the “procedures” continue with the right tools and supplies—and profit from it.

7. Office equipment supplier—provides the tools and maintenance to keep machines running, so records of the killings can be maintained—and profit from it.

8. Utilities provider—provides the necessary services for an efficient operation.

· Phone company—instrumental in making sure appointments can be made and kept—and profit from it.

· Electric company—instrumental in making sure there is plenty of light and electricity for killing the baby—and profit from it.

· Water company—instrumental in delivering an ample supply for sanitation and cleaning up after the killing—and profit from it.

· Gas company—making sure everyone is comfortable—except the baby. and they profit from it.

9. Advertisers—every business needs to advertise—don’t they?

· Billboards—informs and keeps the “service” in the minds of people—and profits from it.

· Signage company—puts the sign on the building, so people know right where to go and have the “problem” taken care of (and they profit from it).

· Phone book—gives the necessary information so people can call and get the process started (and they profit from it).

· Internet service provider, webhost, web designer—After all, abortion clinics, terrorists, pornographers, racist groups have to “get the word out” (and some one profits from it).

10. Post office—makes sure correspondence is picked up and delivered—and profits from it.

11. “Waste collection”—these people help with collecting dead babies and baby parts so they can be disposed of according to governmental regulations—and profit from it.

12. Receptionist—“helps” people with questions, directions, appointments and the necessary paperwork—and profits from it.

13. Security—makes sure everyone at the “facility” is kept safe—except the baby—and profits from it.

14. Counselor—gives women advice so an “informed” decision can be made—and they profit from it.

15. Insurance company—they ensure operations will resume after an accident or disaster—and profit from it.

16. Elected officials—they enact and uphold laws which permit the killing of babies—and profit from it (with our money).

Have you noticed a pattern? …..”and they profit from it.”

Unfortunately, this is not a complete list of “accessories to murder”. You may be thinking of even more who are involved. The cancer is indeed widespread.

“For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil:….” (American Standard Version)

What if, one or more of those mentioned above, decided to say “NO, I/we will not help murder babies anymore, and profit from it”? It takes courage to do the right thing, doesn’t it?

Robert bickel Jan. 2012

"Baby" Isn't A Scientific Term

2011-12-31T10:12:00.001-08:00

If you know @RealtinConnor at all, you know he refuses to acknowledge that a fetus is a baby. To him, babies breathe air. So if it's not born yet, it isn't a baby, to him anyway. I suppose an 8 month gestational fetus is a clump of cells to him, even though it is completely viable. No, he would say it's a fetus, but never acknowledge it's really a baby just prior to being born.

Very often, he accuses pro-lifer's of 'confusing' embryos and babies, or in this case, infants. Embryo is a scientific term, just as 'infant' is. As @RealtinConnor admits. 'baby' is not. 'Baby' can mean any number of things, such as an infant, or a cat, a truck, or yes, even a fetus. Anything that means the world to you at the time, can and often is referred to as your baby. Jacked up 4-wheel drive? "That's his baby". Big marketing project? "That's her baby". You get the idea.

It kind of makes you wonder who's confused, doesn't it? Why does the term 'baby' bother pro-aborts so much? I think you know the answer, as do I.

The Right to Survive

2011-12-31T06:01:00.001-08:00

Many of you are familiar with Judith Jarvis Thompson's article "A Defense of Abortion".

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

My goal here is not to dispute Ms. Thompson's analogy, because to me, it's ridiculously stupid and doesn't deserve comment. I start with it only as a lead-in to the analogy below. This new scenario is in response to the tweet below, and fully disputes the insane notion that babies don't have the legal right to use their mother's body. I look forward to seeing the choicer's attempts at aborting it.

It's a beautiful sunny spring day. You're in the latter part of your pregnancy, and decide to take a walk to help bring labor on. You walk on a posted nature trail, but you veer off the beaten path to see an unusual bird. You're not concerned about getting lost, because you know how to use the sun and shadows to guide your way. Suddenly, a dark cloud appears that blocks your compass. You're pretty sure you came from 'that direction', so you walk toward it. Oh wait, maybe it was from 'over there'. As you repeat this pattern, you realize you're lost. You know you're close to home, but you have no idea which direction home is. You feel contractions beginning. You walk some more, in an effort to find home. The more you walk, the stronger your contractions become. Without knowing it, you've ventured for miles, in the wrong direction. Without knowing it, there is no one around you, for miles and miles.

The final stages of labor are well in progress. You give birth to your baby. You've had no intention of breast feeding, ever. You've said "I'm not a diner!" many, many times. This baby coming when it did doesn't change that. But if you don't supply the baby with nourishment, it will surely die. There are no cows or goats around for you to milk, and even if there were, you have no bottle to put the milk in. You had no reason to bring supplies for this baby, for this was supposed to be just a short walk. You didn't consider the risk of getting lost and going into labor.

The time it will take you to get home is just a bit longer than your baby can survive with no nutrition. You now have 3 choices.

Breast feed the baby. You're not a diner, but allowing this baby to use your body is the only possible way it can survive.
Let the baby die of starvation and dehydration. Painful for the baby, and unless you leave it by a tree and walk away, it would be painful for you to watch.
Kill the baby. So you can rid yourself of the burden it brings. You will get to your goal, which is home, much quicker this way.

Which do you choose? Killing the baby, or even just letting it die, is illegal. Your only legal option is to breast feed the baby. Which means... The baby has the legal right to use your body, even if you don't want it to.

Now, compare this unplanned birth experience to an unplanned pregnancy. Unplanned pregnancies occur most often because the woman didn't consider the risk of getting pregnant when she had sex. And even if she did consider it, she took the risk, in the heat of passion. She now has 3 choices.

Continue the pregnancy, so the baby can survive.
Take steps to 'let the baby die', by drinking concoctions or falling down stairs, intending to induce a miscarriage.
Go to your neighborhood abortionist and have he/she kill it for you.

Many times in the abortion debate, we hear that "women are not incubators", much like the woman above is not a 'diner'. But in order for the baby to survive, it must be allowed to take nutrition from the mother. Whether it's via the umbilical cord in the womb, or via breast feeding, the baby must be attached to the mother. It's a matter of survival. And yes, it should have the legal right to survive.

Abortion Gang Promotes Late Term Abortion

2011-12-29T08:06:00.001-08:00

This is truly disturbing. Over at Abortion Gang, Serena writes about some of the women 'helped' by abortion funds, in this case, in Arizona. One in particular stood out, because the abortion fund organization Serena volunteers for, helped a woman pay for killing her 21 week old baby.

Delores was 21 weeks pregnant – bumping right up against the legal limit for abortion in Arizona. She was getting a late term abortion because she didn’t know she was pregnant until 20 weeks. The birth control method she uses eliminates her period. The only clue about pregnancy was the weight gain. We helped Delores pay for her abortion, as well as gave her money for gas and helped connect her with housing, since she, too, had to drive to Phoenix from a small, rural community.

Abortion Gang is headed up by Steph Herold, who herself works to 'help' women pay for killing their babies. Her twitter handle is @IAmDrTiller, named in memory of George Tiller MD, who specialized in late term abortions. It should come as no surprise then, that they take great pride in 'helping' women kill their 'half way there' babies.

If you have any doubt about what that 21 week old 'clump of cells' looks like, look no further than Amillia Sonja Taylor, who was born at 21 weeks gestation, and who thrives today.

Pro-aborts would love nothing more than to abort the 24 week limit on abortion (for any reason). Pro-lifers are working to stop the slaughter of these innocent fragile human beings. Personhood will eliminate the legality of slaughtering these tiny babies.

I wonder how Serena feels knowing she helped kill a baby the same age as Amillia?

Pro-Aborts Raising Awareness of Abortion in the US... Awesome!

2011-12-19T18:21:00.001-08:00

Sophia of Abortion Gang started a trend called #10ForTebow. Sophia wants pro-aborts to pledge $10 for every touchdown Tim Tebow initiates. The money of course, will fund abortion.

Almost two years ago, Tim and his mom made a commercial funded by Focus on the Family. Here's Sophia's lead in. Don't overlook the anti-Christian sentiment.

A few years back, the-best-person-and-football-player-on-the-planet, Tim Tebow, the savior from The University of Florida, Heisman Trophy winner, 2010 number 25 draft pick, and now savior quarterback for the Denver Broncos, made a commercial. That in and of itself isn’t that surprising, pro-athletes make commercials for all sorts of reasons. Except he wasn’t selling football gear, he was selling anti-choice propaganda. (emphasis is mine)

Anti-choice propaganda? Here's the commercial. See if you can find any "anti-choice propaganda".

Sophia referred to Tim as

the same man that used the Super Bowl to a) build his reputation and brand as the saintliest saint of an athlete that ever lived, and b) raise money for an anti-choice organization that would deny the right to abortion to millions of women

I of course disagree with Sophia's summation. Tim filmed a commercial with his mom. A commercial funded by Focus on the Family, and about family values. Not once was abortion mentioned in the commercial, but that doesn't stop the pro-aborts from attacking him, even two years later.

Today, I saw an interview with Sophia.

"To us that means he is working to restrict access to healthcare options [abortion] for women"

Actually, Tim is just being Tim. Playing football, and "Tebowing" as he does.

I really don't want to touch further on Sophia's interview, she's getting her 10 minutes of fame, whatever! But I would like to thank her, for propelling abortion back into the spotlight. You see Sophia, the Lord is working through you (and Tim Tebow) to bring awareness to abortion in the US. Yes, He is.

Want To Keep Your Baby? Don't Ask A Pro-Choicer.

2011-12-17T07:19:00.001-08:00

This is the sad truth about pro-choice. They only help if your choice is abortion. Shelby Knox posted the tweet below this morning, asking her minions to prevent a CPC from winning $1,000. Sad isn't it?

Obviously, the answer for us is to go to http://clickrain.com/gives and vote for The Alpha Center. They are a medical clinic ran by, get this, religious people! And they do not perform abortions, or refer for abortions.

By the way Shelby, it's not Leslee Unruh you're hurting, it's women who want to keep their babies. Or don't they matter?

The Tizzy Over OTC Plan B

2011-12-15T19:01:00.001-08:00

Pro-aborts, including RH Reality Check, have been in a tizzy since "Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius overruled the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by refusing to allow emergency contraceptives to be sold over the counter (OTC),". Good for Secretary Sebelius!

They suggested their decision to deny vulnerable teens access to emergency contraception was based on the lack of evidence on whether young teens would understand how to use the method and whether there might be unknown risks.

Vulnerable teens? Yep, they sure are. And vulnerable teens need to be protected.

Over at Abortion Gang, Kushielsmoon writes:

Plan B One-Step is a brand of morning after pill, which works the same way as birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. It’s more effective the earlier it’s taken, but can be taken up to 72 hours after sex. Plan B cannot terminate a pregnancy- -it is not an abortion pill. (emphasis is mine)

When pregnancy begins is not something science can answer for us. It's left up to man to pinpoint. Many years ago, ACOG, The American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians declared that pregnancy begins at implantation. Why? From the Population Research Institute

To understand why we have to go back to 1965, when the American Academy of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) arbitrarily and redefined the terms “conception” and "pregnancy.” The group first threw out the then-accepted definition of conception as occurring at fertilization, that is, when the sperm and egg cells unite. ACOG explained that, since conception could not be “detected,” it was impossible to determine whether new life began at that point. It went on to decree that henceforth pregnancy would be defined as beginning only at implantation. This is the time, five to seven days after conception, when the newly formed person, only a few hundred cells in size, implants in the lining of the uterus.
Why did ACOG engaged in this pseudo-scientific sleight of hand? Its motives involved both morality and money. In 1965 Roe v. Wade was still 8 years away, and abortion was illegal throughout the United States. Most Americans still equated abortion with murder and wanted nothing to do with it. If hormonal contraceptives prevented implantation--and they do--then most Americans would reject them on the grounds that they caused early-term abortions.
By redefining pregnancy to begin after implantation, ACOG attempted to avoid the charge that its members, in prescribing hormonal contraceptives, were actually encouraging, if not performing, early-term abortions.

A recent survey shows us that most doctor's don't agree with ACOG. 57% of doctors said that pregnancy begins at conception.

Most of us know that life begins at conception, when the sperm and egg are joined together. It takes approximately a week for the tiny new life to travel through the fallopian tube, and implant itself in it's mothers womb. It's in this time frame that Plan B can cause the uterus to be un-welcoming, causing the embryo to be dispelled, washed out with the menstrual flow.

From Plan B's own website (click on picture to go to the page):

Doing a little research on women who have taken Plan B (or another brand) tells me that it should be prescription only for every woman, not just teens. This is just a couple of examples from the linked website.

Hey I had sex with my boyfriend and he used a condom. It didn't break and he pulled out way before he ejaculated. I took plan b right after we had intercourse, just to be safe.

I took plan b 4 times after having sex. The first time that i took my period had just finished(around april 30). After the fourth time(may 15)

You'll also read how the woman's menstrual cycle is affected, leaving them questioning whether or not they are pregnant. You'll read how some women spot for days, or bleed for weeks. Google it yourself and you'll see many many stories like these.

Jill Stanek has a post up, where she quotes from another article, concerns which have already crossed the minds of many people, including myself.

What’s to stop teenage boys from pushing their… girlfriends to forget condoms, since Plan B can take care of everything afterward?

Why wouldn’t sexual abusers of young girls use Plan B to cover up the horror of ongoing abuse...?

Would a boy pay $50 to experience sex ~~without a condom~~? Yes he would. Would an abuser pay $50 for the opportunity to continue the abuse? Yes, he would.

So again, why should FDA make this drug available to 11 year olds? Simple. They shouldn't.

When abortion was illegal, and why it would be different today

2011-12-01T17:53:00.000-08:00

I've just watched the video below, as it's been cited several times recently. "When abortion was illegal" was in my opinion, intended as emotional ammunition, so people will believe if abortion was made illegal today, it would be the same as it was then. It's clear that it wouldn't be.

00:08 Lana was 17 in 1939, married, and had a baby 10 months later. The baby was very ill, jaundiced. Lana's OB/Gyn told her another pregnancy would kill her. 3 months later she was pregnant again. Fearing death, and therefore leaving her baby with no mother, Lana sought out and found an abortionist.

That was a long time ago, and while Lana's story is indeed terrifying, it wouldn't happen like that today. Perhaps back then it was illegal to do an abortion if the mother's life was imminent danger, but it's not now, and it never will be again. Also, with the advancement in medical technology, Lana may very well not have had the complications she had when she gave birth to her baby. She may even have been able to give her daughter siblings.

00:48 Betty was involved with a boyfriend. They talked about marriage, babies, and what they would name a child. When she told him she was pregnant, everything changed. The relationship ended. Having a baby without a husband was just not done back then. Using the phone directory, she found a Gyn, intentionally passing the OB/Gyn's because she thought the Gyn would be more sympathetic. He was.

Betty had an abortion because of the stigma associated with being an unwed mother. Obviously, this is not an issue today. Where there used to be stigma attached to giving your child life, now there is only stigma attached to killing them, as it should be.

01:25 Rosalie was pregnant, and had to keep it an absolute secret. In her words, it was a "humiliating strange kind of experience". She decided she should have an abortion to make the problem go away.

Much the same as the previous story, Rosalie aborted due to stigma associated with being an unwed mother. But Rosalie's story has a Part 2.

22:30 Rosalie found she was pregnant for a second time, due to being raped by an older man. She opted this time to go to a home for unwed mothers. She was told not to look at or hold the baby when she gave birth, but she did it anyway. "That was a terrible mistake". She stayed on awhile and worked in the nursery to work off her debt (room, board, and medical expenses). "That was a very bad mistake" because she was around babies all the time. "And I wanted to keep the baby and I actually held the baby before they took it" (she breaks down here), "Anybody who would think [adoption] that'd be a great way to solve the problem just..." Then she talks about herself at 17, a child who doesn't know her own mind, and we expect her to carry a baby in her body for 9 months, give birth to it, and then just give it away like it's nothing.

Even pro-lifer's like me, acknowledge how difficult it must be to carry a baby for 9 months, give birth, then hand over your baby to someone you probably don't even know. And Rosalie even said she wanted to keep this baby. I'm sure she didn't have a choice legally when the time came to hand her baby over. Regarding "give it away like it's nothing", pro-life wonders every day how women can abort their babies like they are "nothing".

05:03 Mary, a registered nurse, said they had patients with temps of 105, bleeding, totally infected. Some died from shock because they were afraid to tell the truth about their abortion. She said it was just plain housewives, who felt they couldn't afford another child.

Could this happen today? Absolutely. But with the advancements in antibiotics such as penicillin, it would be rare. And too, it's not even close to mostly housewives getting abortions today. From Guttmacher: "Women who have never married and are not cohabiting account for 45% of all abortions".

12:32 Evelyn talks about walking the streets alone looking for an abortionist, most places denied knowledge of one, or said they had moved. She heard of another place and drove the car there in the evening. They gave her no anesthesia, she didn't know it was supposed to be painful, she was very frightened they were doing something terrible to her. Later in the video (16:52), she tells how she referred women for abortions.

Evelyn, as far as I can tell, just didn't want to be pregnant, for whatever reason. I don't think it was a lack of money, because she mentioned having a car, and never mentioned having to scrape up funds for an abortion. It could very well have been the same stigma that Betty and Rosalie were facing.

Back in those days, women faced issues that women today can't even imagine. Indeed, times have changed. No longer does a woman have to deal with having 12 kids because she "didn't know how not to get pregnant". No longer do young women have to feel pressured to have an abortion, just because of what people might think about them being pregnant. We have something they didn't have, highly effective birth control. There are no excuses for the 1.3 million abortions in the United States each year.

Yet, the same Guttmacher report as linked above states "Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant." 54%. That's a lot of women who had access to birth control, and failed to take advantage of it. Women can do better. YOU can do better. It's your children dying during an abortion, and YOU can prevent it. Hold yourself accountable and do the right thing.

Pro-Choicer With A 'Superior' Attitude, and She's a Liar to Boot.

2011-11-25T22:10:00.001-08:00

I'm not sure how I happened upon this, but I did. This is not an educational post, unless you want to learn about pro-abort trolls from Twitter. I posted this for ME! Remember, my goal is to bring awareness of what goes on in the minds of pro-aborts. Sometimes, they just let it fly from their mouths.

Samantha stated what pro-lifers say all the time. A child is a child, regardless of the reason he/she came into being. That's not what pro-aborts like to hear. It makes them well, crazy.

@SineQuaN0nUSA a/k/a @SineQuaN0nTX (her twitter jail account, don't have to wonder why she needs one) said "telling rape victims to love their babies from rape".

So I asked....

@SineQuaN0nUSA in all her superior academic authority tells me I must use "accurate terminology" when addressing her. She thinks the term 'baby' is not appropriate. Well, most pro-aborts try to keep the baby out of the conversation. It makes killing him/her a lot easier, I'm sure you understand.

I explained that I used the same term she did.

She proceeds to tell me to "stop lying or pay attention".

Maybe she should stop lying and pay attention eh?

Disclaimer: Not all pro-choicer's are as mean-hearted (if she has one at all) as @SineQuaN0nUSA, thankfully.

Are you #ProChoice, but #Anti-Abortion for Yourself?

2011-11-25T19:38:00.001-08:00

This courtesy of @HeatherTMT on Twitter. I show the re-tweets so you can see how other pro-choicer's repeat, ad-nauseam, something of interest to them. I would venture to guess that some re-tweeted because agree with her, and some just re-tweeted, well, because they could.

Just to be clear, Heather would never consider having an abortion herself.

Obviously, I like to ask thought provoking questions, so here goes.

If you consider yourself pro-choice, but would never consider having an abortion, why not? You support abortion, but why not for yourself?

Where Does #ProChoice Draw The Line On Pregnant Women Taking Risks?

2011-11-23T17:44:00.001-08:00

Easy answer is, they don't. Today I had a long twitter conversation with @Auragasmic, who whole heartedly defends the actions of Jennifer Fox, the woman in the occupy Seattle protest who supposedly miscarried 5 days after being pepper sprayed by police. It appears Jennifer's story may be something she concocted for attention.

Fox said she had three ultrasound pictures of her fetus in her tent, but declined to show them to reporters

She also said she did not plan to pick up medical records at Harborview Medical Center that could document the miscarriage until after a planned memorial service Saturday, and she declined to sign a waiver allowing reporters to obtain the documents independently.

"My daughter is a compulsive liar," Stebbins said. "She's a wannabe drama queen." - Ms. Stebbins is her former foster mother.

"I seriously doubt, that if she is claiming she had a miscarriage, that she was even pregnant," said Nicole Botes, who has known Fox for a decade. "I'd like to see actual medical reports."

There are three possibilities to this story.

She was telling the truth
She was lying
We'll never know because we can't prove she was lying, and she won't prove she was telling the truth

I'm going with #3. I'll post an update at the bottom of this post if I'm wrong.

Now back to @Auragasmic. I posed this question: "I take it you would defend a woman who took unnecessary risks, and lost her baby as a result?" Her answer shouldn't surprise any of us.

So when should a woman be held responsible for the death of her unborn baby? Auragasmic seems to think 'never'. I disagree. Some scenarios I used in our conversation were jumping out of an airplane, and running with the bulls. She used less risky scenarios, like driving to work.

If a pregnant woman gets into an auto accident on her way to work, and her baby dies as a direct result, is it the woman's fault?

If a pregnant woman jumps from an airplane, and her baby dies as a direct result of a bumpy landing, is it the woman's fault?

If a pregnant woman gets gored while running with the bulls, and her baby dies as a result, is it the woman's fault?

We can go further:

If a pregnant woman has two options to cross a river, one being a bridge 100 ft away, the other being a fallen tree right in front of her, she chooses the tree because she likes challenges, she falls, her baby dies, is it her fault?

Where would you draw the line?

Occupy Seattle Protester Blames Police For The Murder Of Her Unborn Baby

2011-11-22T12:19:00.001-08:00

From the Stranger, author Dominic Holden quotes part of an interview with the woman who says Seattle police murdered her unborn baby.

"I was standing in the middle of the crowd when the police started moving in," she says. "I was screaming, 'I am pregnant, I am pregnant. Let me through. I am trying to get out.'" At that point, Fox continues, a Seattle police officer lifted his foot and it hit her in the stomach, and another officer pushed his bicycle into the crowd, again hitting Fox in the stomach. "Right before I turned, both cops lifted their pepper spray and sprayed me. My eyes puffed up and my eyes swelled shut,"

A friend called for an ambulance near the community college campus. (Fox says she has been camping with Occupy Seattle since it first began in Westlake Park. She is homeless and says, "I don't have a place. This is the place I call home.")

As for joining the protests, she says, "I was worried about it, but I didn't know it would be this bad. I didn't know that a cop would murder a baby that's not born yet... I am trying to get lawyers." (emphasis is mine)

"It hurts. It's upsetting. I was ready to have a kid, because my family was going to support me in taking care of the child. Her name was going to be Miracle."

So let me get this straight. A pregnant woman stands in the middle of a crowd of protesters, not on the edge where she would be safe and escape would be likely. The police exercise a lawful order to protesters to leave the area, they refuse, the police use pepper spray. The pregnant woman gets blasted right in the face.

Some time later, she miscarries, but it's the cops fault. She was 'ready to have a kid', yet she was homeless, even though her family was going to support her? Sure. "Her name was going to be Miracle", even though at 2 to 3 months pregnant, there is no way to know if the baby was a boy or a girl. So much of this story doesn't jive.

It's a sad day when any unborn child is lost, but this is no more than a vain attempt at sensationalism. The woman will get her name and picture in media across the country. But the police, civil servants who's job it is to protect us, are the bad guys. The shenanigans of the protesters is perfectly fine. Blocking bridges, entrances to banks, even hindering traffic to the local children's hospital is fine!

Feminists have been shouting for years they want equality. Well welcome to equality ladies!

***UPDATE*** Follow the updates from author Dominic Holden on the Stranger. The credibility of the woman referenced above, is shrinking... fast.

***UPDATE*** Some of the headlines I'm finding on Google:

Flaws noted in Occupy Seattle protester's miscarriage stor

Seattle police investigate protester's claim that she miscarried ...

Seattle police probe protester's miscarriage claim - KansasCity.com

Questioning the Accuracy of Jennifer Fox's Miscarriage Claim ...

PersonhoodUSA Gearing Up For Personhood Campaign in Colorado

2011-11-21T10:09:00.001-08:00

Bruce Finley writes for The Denver Post. PersonhoodUSA is gearing up for their next personhood campaign in Colorado.

From the article:

The new version of the measure "will protect every child, no matter their size, level of development, gender, age or race," said Jennifer Mason, spokeswoman for Personhood USA.

New language "will explain again that every human being is a person from their earliest moments," Mason said. "And it will include some extra information that hopefully will prohibit lies of our opponents. . . . It will be a departure from what we've done before."

What should we expect? We should expect the same ad nauseum lies and scare tactics we heard during the Initiative 26 campaign in Mississippi, such as those listed here. We expect Planned Parenthood will set up another pretentious organization, just as they did in Mississippi.

Can we win? Yes. But it won't be easy. We can only win if you and I continue to point out the lies, and spread the truth. So get ready, and stay tuned!

Have you seen the movie '180' yet?

2011-11-13T18:34:00.000-08:00

If you haven't seen the movie '180' yet, it's worth 33 minutes of your time. It is thought provoking, and may make you think differently about the issue of abortion.

Pro-Choice Invites Violence, Pro-Life Declines

2011-11-12T10:17:00.001-08:00

Ben From Canada writes "Pro-Life: Why So Non-Violent?".

I thought I figured out the pro-life side of the abortion debate...however, my solution only brought more questions, troubling questions that I hope some pro-life person will answer.

Chances are, Ben hasn't figured out anything about the pro-life side of the abortion debate. But let's play with it, shall we?

Most of us pro-choice types figure that "abortion is murder" & other such phrases are hyperbole. No one is really silly enough to believe that a clump of cells in a woman's body is a human being...right?

If an adult willfully kills a born child, is it murder? What if at some point (hypothetically), it becomes legal for an adult to kill a born child? Would it still be murder? Would you consider it murder even though it would be at that point in time legal? Ben, you an I are both 'clumps of cells'. All human beings are.

Well, as it turns out, these people DO think that a fertilized egg is really a person. Perhaps it's through brainwashing, simplistic logic, or just plain bad information, but they believe it wholeheartedly, as recent pushes towards "personhood" laws have shown. So that explains why they're fighting so hard to "save" these "babies". But that opens another question.

Actually, we think/know, a fertilized egg is a human being. And as such, we believe they deserve to be granted rights of personhood. You know, like the right to not be willfully killed. No Ben, brainwashing and simplistic logic, along with a lot of bad information, is what it took to successfully dehumanize HUMAN zygotes, embryos, and fetuses.... you know, like in your view.

Now, if it were me, and I literally thought there are people who are legally allowed to kill babies by the truckload, and all attempts to change the law were destined to fail, well...I'd be taking the law into my own hands right now. In fact, if the propositions "abortion is murder" and "abortion will not be made illegal in our lifetimes" are both true, abortion bombing is the only moral route.

So that leads me to the question: why are you not bombing clinics, pro-lifer? Why are you not assassinating doctors? What will it take to make you start doing so? (emphasis is mine)

That would be because pro-lifer's are for the most part, law abiding citizens. Exceptions being the Scott Roeder's of the world. Thankfully, they are rare.

Or is it that the "saving the babies" rhetoric is a smoke-screen for your desire to control women and your wish to enforce your repressive sexual views on society as a whole?

Of course all this is about sex. Why not? What's more important to a pro-abort than an orgasm? Nothing, not even the life of a developing human being.

Have I mentioned how proud I am of Mississippi?

2011-11-10T18:26:00.001-08:00

As you all know, Mississippi's Initiative 26, the Personhood initiative, was defeated on November 8th. I was disappointed, maybe even a bit depressed, but we must move on.

After reflecting on the events for a couple of days, I've come to realize that things are not nearly as gloomy as they seemed. Four of ten people voted yes to protecting the unborn. They voted yes even though the initiative wasn't as clear as it could have been. Four of ten. That's incredible, and something we should all be proud of.

Of the people who didn't vote yes, a vast majority were mislead by Planned Parenthood's false claims of birth control bans.

We all want to reduce the number of abortions, but 26 is so extreme that it would ban common forms of birth control like the pill.

It was a lie which was repeated ad nauseum. There was also the scare tactic that women with ectopic pregnancies would be left to die. And the one that couples who need IVF intervention, wouldn't be able to access it. All lies, but effective. Most good liars are effective though, aren't they?

But even with the lies, four out of ten people voted yes.

The initiative wasn't perfect, but it was a place to start. As we move forward. we must remember something. If the initiative had passed, it certainly would have been contested in court. Of course that was the point. But if because of it's ambiguity, it failed, it could have set us back another 40 years on overturning Roe. None of us want that.

Let's trust the people who know what steps must be taken, and when to take them. Let's get this right.

"Mississippians for Healthy Families" IS Planned Parenthood!

2011-11-06T19:09:00.001-08:00

Someone just tweeted this article to me. Take note.

Stan Flint, a consultant for Mississippians for Healthy Families — a group that opposes the measure —

Blah, blah, blah... Not once was Planned Parenthood mentioned in the article by Elizabeth Crisp, The (Jackson, Miss.) Clarion-Ledger, not once!

Stan Flint is a consultant who works for Southern Strategy Group. Stan Flint is a PROFESSIONAL LOBBYIST who works for PLANNED PARENTHOOD!

Enough with the underhanded tactics of Planned Parenthood.

Mississippians for Healthy Families IS Planned Parenthood!

Mississippi, if you want healthy families, vote YES on Initiative 26.

Was Governor Barbour Under Pressure From Pfizer?

2011-11-06T17:57:00.001-08:00

RH Reality Check's Robin Marty wrote an article regarding Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour's hesitance to vote yes on Initiative 26, the 'Personhood Initiative'. While Governor Barbour did eventually vote yes on the initiative, to my knowledge, he has not completely embraced it. This is disappointing, but not completely disheartening.

Robin states "Now, Prop 26 supporters are accusing Barbour of being wooed by money, not conscience". I'm sure a lot did. It crossed my mind as well. She cites HuffPo in the article, which states:

The Personhood USA campaign retaliated on Thursday by pointing out that Barbour took campaign contributions from Monsanto and Pfizer -- pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the abortion pill.
"We thought it was really strange that he would oppose this measure, since we have the support of nearly every other politician in the state, both Democrat and Republican. So we did a little digging," Jennifer Mason, spokesperson for Personhood USA, told HuffPost. "We discovered that he has received campaign contributions from the makers of the abortion pill as recently as 2007."
Pfizer makes Misoprostol tablets, one of the two pills taken to end early pregnancy, which would be banned if Mississippi voters pass the personhood amendment at the ballots next week. According to a campaign contributions database, Pfizer contributed $7,000 to Barbour's reelection campaign in 2006 and Monsanto, Pfizer's parent company, contributed $1,000.
Barbour's office did not immediately respond to calls for comment.

Do I find it unacceptable that Governor Barbour accepted money from the makers of abortion pills? No, I don't. As Robin stated:

Of course, pretty much every politician with any sort of national standing, especially a Republican, has probably received donations from Pfizer.

She's right. Not necessarily about 'especially a Republican' though, since the tables turned when democrats took control of Congress.

Pharmaceutical companies upped their donations to Democrats by $2.9 million, while reducing their donations to the GOP by $3.9 million.

But pharmaceutical companies do contribute to politicians all the time. And a lot of other industries do so as well.

In my opinion, I doubt if Governor Barbour's hesitance had anything to do with campaign contributions from Pfizer, considering he's not up for re-election due to term limits. More likely, he was a victim of the scare tactics being used by Planned Parenthood to thwart Initiative 26's passing. Things like birth control being banned, women with ectopic pregnancies being refused treatment, and so on. All lies, all initiated by Planned Parenthood.

Finally, I just got a link for the audio of a robocall sponsored by YesOn26 and PersonhoodUSA. And you know what? Governor Barbour STILL sounds unsure of when life begins, but at least he voted yes!

Addressing Medical Misinformation: D. Eric Webb, MD on Amendment 26

2011-11-05T18:59:00.000-07:00

Pro-Choicer Thinks All Fetuses Are Dead

2011-11-05T13:41:00.001-07:00

Kushielsmoon, who is a self proclaimed pro-choice Christian, tweeted this yesterday.

I called her on it with this tweet:

One wouldn't have to wonder what, or in this case, who she was talking about. She used hash-tags common to the abortion debate on twitter, #NOon26 #yeson26 and #prochoice. No and Yes on 26 are both relating to the Personhood Initiative 26 in Mississippi. I've also written about different aspects of this initiative here, here, and here.

This is clearly about abortion. And abortion clearly involves the killing of live fetuses, and also live embryos and zygotes. The only logical conclusion, is that she was referring to unborn children. Fetuses certainly have bone and flesh, yet they are unable to breathe. Yet she denies her intent, her implication that fetuses are all dead. Surprised? No, of course you aren't. Honestly, neither was I.

The lies and denial don't stop there though. She goes on to purport the lies that Initiative 26 would ban birth control, IVF, and even life saving surgery for ectopic pregnancies.

Astounding isn't it. Lies, lies, and more lies, from a supposed Christian. Don't listen to the lies. You can find real answers to questions about Initiative 26 here,

Poll results - Pro-life, Pro-Choice, with God or without?

2011-11-05T09:57:00.001-07:00

Some time ago, I posted a poll on this blog. The question posed was:

"Regarding your political views on abortion, as well as your personal belief about God, which answer below is closest to your belief?"

Pro-Choice and I believe in God 24 (19%)
Pro-Life and I believe in God 73 (58%)
Pro-Choice I do not believe in God 19 (15%)
Pro-Life I do not believe in God 9 ( 7%)

Out of 125 respondents, 65% said they were pro-life, regardless of their belief (or lack of) in God. Of respondents who do believe in God, three times as many are pro-life as are pro-choice. And of those who do not believe in God, twice as many are pro-choice as are pro-life. No surprise there.

Of those who are pro-choice, 19% believe in God, as compared to 15% who do not.

Of those who are pro-life, 58% believe in God, as compared to only 7% who do not.

What does this mean? It means that people who believe in God are also more likely to believe in the sanctity of human life. We're not against abortion because we have religious faith, we're against abortion because killing an innocent human being is wrong. One third of the atheists who participated in this poll believe that as well.

Governor Haley Barbour Voted #YesOn26, The Personhood Initiative

2011-11-05T07:28:00.001-07:00

Just seen on Jill Stanek's website, Governor Haley Barbour calls a halt to "Mississipian's for Healthy Families" deceptive robo-calls regarding the Personhood Initiative. And as Jill stated, he tweeted it too!

Go Governor Barbour!!!

Governor Haley Barbour Ambiguous Regarding Personhood Initiative

2011-11-03T18:37:00.001-07:00

I saw a video a day or two ago, of Mississippi's Governor Barbour on Fox & Friends talking about his thoughts on Initiative 26, the Personhood Initiative, which is on the ballot for the Nov. 8th election. He stated concerns over the wording, or ambiguity, of the Initiative. The text of the initiative is below, as seen on the YesOn26 website.

The initiative would protect life from conception, or fertilization, a no-brainer. It would protect life created by cloning techniques, another no-brainer. Most assuredly, Governor Barbour is confused about "or the equivalent thereof". What does that mean exactly? That's what's ambiguous, no one knows exactly.

I view "or the equivalent thereof" as protection for new human life in the future, because who knows how new life will be created 50, 100, 125 years from now. Initiative 26 is designed for the unknown, to protect life in the future.

On the Fox video, Governor Barbour stated "I'm somebody that believes that life begins at conception".

In another article, it was stated Governor Barbour said 'he believes life begins at conception, but he thinks that's different than what the initiative asks.'

Isn't that what every state needs? A confused leader? Perhaps he's read about the scare tactics from the pro-aborts. Some are listed here. Perhaps he's paving his way to a new future, since he will be term-limited out of office next year? Perhaps he's just ignorant on the entire personhood debate. He's a governor, maybe he just hasn't taken, or had the time to get into it.

As it turns out, he *said* he voted YES today by absentee ballot.

Barbour told reporters Wednesday he was undecided because he thinks the initiative is ambiguous and he had concerns about how it might affect in vitro fertilization and ectopic pregnancies.
Barbour says he still has concerns about how it might affect health care, if passed. He says he voted for it, ultimately, because he believes life begins at conception.

Well Governor Barbour, either life begins at conception, or it doesn't. And since it does, shouldn't you be doing whatever you can to protect it?

Hey Mississippi - Planned Parenthood EXPOSED!

2011-11-01T17:39:00.000-07:00

Live Action does it again. Planned Parenthood has been exposed!!!

The force on getting a no vote on Initiative 26, "Mississippians for Healthy Families", is none other than Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. Surprised? No, of course you aren't.

Some people will do anything to support to right their right to collect funds for killing a mother's unborn child.

Thinking Of Voting No on Mississippi's Initiative 26, Personhood? Don't! Vote YES

2011-10-29T20:00:00.001-07:00

With Mississippi's election right around the corner, pro-aborts are in panic mode! If you've been paying attention, they've been telling you false information (LIES)! For instance you may have heard:

Hormonal birth control will be BANNED! It won't be, however abortifacient drugs such as RU486 will be.
IVF will no longer be available for infertile couples. Not true. IVF will still be available for couples who need it.
Women who's life is in danger will be left to die! Nope. Doctors will attempt to save both the mother, and her baby. That's what doctors are supposed to do, heal people. If saving both is not possible, they will save the mother.
A woman will be prosecuted for having a miscarriage! Oh NO!!! Of course this is a lie as well.

Those are a few of the rumors running rampant (intentionally) in the pro-abort world. It is pro-choice propaganda in over-drive. Listen to Freda Bush MD OB/Gyn dispel the myths (and lies) about the personhood initiative.

What is the opposition to the personhood initiative really all about? SEX. Specifically, sex without consequences.

You see, pro-aborts will tell you banning abortion will hurt women. It won't. It may curb their recreational sex though, which will help women by preventing STD's, and preventing pregnancy.

Killing unborn babies has been their fall-back to the 'oops' problem of accidentally getting pregnant. It's time for it to stop. Mississipians, you have the chance to be the first in the nation to ban abortion. It starts with you. Make us proud!

The Truth About Mississippi's Prop 26

2011-10-27T17:53:00.000-07:00

It's true.. Hormonal Birth Control Can Cause Abortion

2011-10-21T18:52:00.001-07:00

My first thought is that sometimes pro-aborts don't know when to keep their mouths shut, but I'm glad this one didn't. The video I saw on Crook & Liars blog shows a lady 'schooling' Romney on the effect 'life begins at conception' laws, will have on birth control.

Clearly, Mitt Romney had no idea some forms of hormonal birth control can in fact prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman's uterus. I would venture to guess most American's don't know that. Listen to the exchange ~~below~~ at the link above (I apologize, I could not insert the video).

Can hormonal birth control allow conception and prevent implantation? Yes, it can.

ORTHO TRI-CYCLEN® Lo Tablets product information statement:

Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary
mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical
mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which
reduce the likelihood of implantation). (emphasis is mine)

The above statement is regarding ALL combination oral contraceptives, not just that brand, so we need go no further. But as with proving any point, more evidence will be required.

YAZ product information statement:

COCs lower the risk of becoming pregnant primarily by suppressing ovulation. Other possible mechanisms may include
cervical mucus changes that inhibit sperm penetration and the endometrial changes that reduce the likelihood of
implantation.

Ortho Evra product information statement:

Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary
mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the
cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the
endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation).

So hormonal birth control can in fact prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. Would I want birth control to be banned? No. Why? Because I remember when women were subjected to constantly being impregnated by their husbands, in an effort to keep them at home. Birth control made it possible for women to gain control of their own lives.

Women of child bearing age today, have no idea what women went through 100, 75, even 50 years ago. What they know, and all they care about, is that birth control prevents pregnancy. If it doesn't prevent fertilization, it will most likely prevent implantation, the point at which ACOG says is the beginning of pregnancy. Not all doctors agree with ACOG however.

"Pregnancy begins when a mature egg from a woman is fertilized by a mature sperm from a man." Dr. Mehmet Oz

The point at which ACOG says pregnancy begins, is ACOG's opinion. It's not a far stretch to say pharmaceutical companies had much invested in ACOG's opinion. After all, if ACOG stated pregnancy really begins at fertilization (it does), the pharmaceutical companies would have no choice but to be up front regarding birth control acting as an abortifacient. Many people will say they are up front with this little tidbit, after all it's on the product information sheet! But seriously, how many people read those?

Birth control promotes ~~promiscuity~~ sexual activity, which by default increases the national abortion rate. According to Guttmacher:

Women who have never married and are not cohabiting account for 45% of all abortions

Women in their 20s account for more than half of all abortions; women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and women aged 25–29 obtain 24%

And regarding the use of contraception:

Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.

I show these statistics to keep it real. It's easy to see that most unintended pregnancies which lead to abortions, are caused by carelessness. This is what must change in order to have a real reduction in the abortion rate.

I don't know about you, but I'm tired of the pity-poor-me attitude of today's young feminists. It's time for every young woman to hold herself accountable for her own actions. This is not to say that the men involved shouldn't be held accountable as well. But the fact is, men can't get pregnant, and men don't have abortions. It's up to women to protect themselves from being caught in the position where they feel they have to choose between life and death for their developing child.

So, where do we go from here? I support efforts to ban abortion, the only exception being when the mother's life is in danger. But I can't support a ban on hormonal birth control until we have something better in place, and readily available to women. If politicians continue to push for this legislation, we will lose everything. We have the momentum, and we are gaining the public's attention and support. Let's not lose ground because we're ignoring the effect banning hormonal birth control would have on million's of American women.

Stop Using Kids to Justify the Actions of Grown Women!

2011-10-16T16:19:00.001-07:00

I began this post as a personal rant, due to a comment I received on this post. The commenter says 'kids will not stop having sex'. I beg to differ. Rather than rant, I'll attempt to post useful data to prove a point.

From Guttmacher:

Teens have been waiting longer to have sex than they did in the recent past. In 2006–2008, some 11% of never-married females aged 15–19 and 14% of never-married males that age had had sex before age 15, compared with 19% and 21%, respectively, in 1995.

In 2006–2008, the most common reason that sexually inexperienced teens gave for not having had sex was that it was “against religion or morals” (42% among females and 35% among males). The second and third most common reasons for females were “don’t want to get pregnant” and “haven’t found the right person yet.”

So yes, you CAN stop at least some kids from having sex. Instilling moral values is one way, instilling common sense is the other.

According to data available from Guttmacher, 2006 being the most current year in the report, the pregnancy rate (per 1,000 women) of 15-17 year old women was 38.9, as compared to 122.3 for 18-19 year old women in that same year. Even more telling, is the pregnancy rate for women aged 20-24 years.. a startling 171.

For teens, pregnancy is a problem, but it's clearly not as big a problem as it is with young adults. So what about sex ed? Most pro-choicer's think sex ed is the answer to this problem. Well, if the kids stayed in high school until they're 24, maybe. But in reality, it's when young adults get to college that the real problem begins. I did a quick Google search for 'college sex education'. A few of the web sites listed, peaked my curiosity. I was surprised (I don't know why) to find how many people make a living talking to college students about sex.

Sex Discussed Here! is at the top of the list. Another one was Sex Education for College Students · Think Out Loud, and it began by introducing another speaker - "Writer, educator and self-described feminist pornographer". Stop! Pornographer? Yep. Maybe we should go back to morals?

In the mix, I did find an article titled "College students split on effectiveness of required high school sex ed". A few of the comments from college students are below:

University of Vermont freshman Benjamin Barnet of New York said he does thinks sex education should be optional because it could make people uncomfortable.
“I remember when they were talking about giving birth when I was in middle school and I almost threw up,” Barnet says. “Some people will just feel so uncomfortable and they shouldn’t be forced to take sex ed.”
University of Vermont junior, Nick Monteforte of Wilmington, Mass., is in favor of requiring sex education.

“It needs to be required,” Monteforte says. “Sex education is important when you are in high school because when you are in college and exposed to everything there you should really already know about it.”
For some students, like Anita Marquez, a senior at Stockton College in New Jersey, sex education is much more effective at college than in high school.
“In high school they don’t teach you anything cause they aren’t allowed,” Marquez says. “Our college has programs to teach you about sex and we have a general requirements courses about sex. I took a class called Perspectives of Sexuality and it was the most informative class I have taken at Stockton.”

Then I found an article which I'm still having trouble coming to terms with. Columbia Students Sound Off On Northwestern’s Live Sex Ed Class. You did get that word 'Live' in the title, didn't you?

It has been the talk of Northwestern University, outside Chicago. The demonstration was conducted after a psychology class. A drill with a special attachment was used on a female student, wrapped in a towel, and in front more than 100 students.
“Most of the people who stayed were, in fact, trying to get a better view,” one student said.
“I don’t feel like I would want to see that,” another student said.
Guest lecturer Ken Melvoin-Berg, who was invited to the class by Professor J. Michael Bailey, is defending the voluntary demonstration as educational — a couple engaged in a sex act.
“We warned students five times at least,” Melvoin-Berg said. “He brought her to orgasm right there on stage and that was the end of it, other than the fact that we had positive comments from everybody in the class.” (emphasis is mine)

Have I mentioned morals lately?

Another way pro-aborts use kids for their pro-abortion agenda, is in the tweet below. Not that this could never happen, because we know it can and does. Normally, we get the question "but what if the woman was raped?". And we answer that it's not the baby's fault, so why should it die? It's takes a ~~special kind of~~ warped pro-choicer to use kids this way though. Anything for the cause right?

In this case I would have to say that even if it is her own sibling, it's still a human being. And if the 10 yr old can safely carry the baby to the point of viability, then let them both live. If however, the 10 yr old is in mortal danger, then by all means, an abortion is appropriate. But don't kill the baby just because it came into being due to a pedophile's actions.

Pro-Choice Is Not About Life, It's About 'Lifestyle'

2011-10-16T06:43:00.001-07:00

Occasionally, I see a tweet that really throws the truth out there, for the whole world to see. This is one of those tweets. It's all about lifestyle. The opportunity to have all the sex you want, with the LEGAL right to kill an unborn human being should your actions bring one into being. Yeah, that's it.

If @Silversundancer thinks pregnancy can be devastating to a woman's lifestyle, what does she think that 'choice' does to a unborn human beings life? Now THIS is devastating!

I Wonder If Pro-Choice 'Christians' Agree With Amanda Marcotte?

2011-10-13T18:47:00.001-07:00

I know a lot of people have, but I have not read a lot of what Amanda Marcotte has written. This tweet however, tells the story about the morals, or rather the lack of morals, of pro-choice.

Sure Amanda, you need religion to believe that stealing, raping, and murdering are wrong too. Oh, and did I mention killing innocent human fetuses is wrong? It is.

For reference, the link in the tweet is here.

Protect Life Act has Pro-Choice in 'murderous rage'

2011-10-13T18:22:00.001-07:00

What is it about attempting to protect unborn babies from the slaughter that is abortion, that makes pro-choicer's so angry? It's not like they don't have the power to not get pregnant, is it?

@childfreediva is 'filled with murderous rage'. I assume that rage is directed at pro-life.

Today the House of Representatives voted on the Protect Life Act, and passed it by a vote of 251-172.

From Life News:

H.R. 358, Protect Life Act, makes it clear that no funds authorized or appropriated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), including tax credits and cost-sharing reductions, may be used to pay for abortion or abortion coverage. It specifies that individual people or state or local governments must purchase a separate elective abortion rider or insurance coverage that includes elective abortion but only as long as that is done with private funds and not monies authorized by Obamacare.

Much of the debate surrounded whether or not the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal taxpayer funding of abortions only in discretionary spending related to the HHS department, applied to Obamacare. As the Associated Press confirmed in 2009, it does not.

“Currently a law called the Hyde amendment bars federal funding for abortion – except in cases of rape and incest or if the mother’s life would be endangered – and applies those restrictions to Medicaid,” AP writer Erica Werner reports. “Separate laws apply the restrictions to the federal employee health plan and military and other programs.”

“But the Democrats’ health overhaul bill would create a new stream of federal funding not covered by the restrictions,” AP confirms.

We don't have high hopes for the pro-abortion democrat controlled Senate to pass it, and we have no hope that Obama would ever sign it. But what we do have is progress. With every piece of pro-life legislation that is introduced, the issue of abortion is being brought to the forefront of Americans who frankly, haven't thought much about it. Pro-lifers are changing that.

Yeah, it's just you now

2011-10-06T19:51:00.001-07:00

I just read this post on the Thought Catalog blog, "What It's Really Like To Have An Abortion". It's what I would think is a typical abortion scenario.

Girl goes to college, feeling free for the first time in her life, has sex, gets pregnant. Now what? Well, if you're like a lot of other young college age women, you think about how this pregnancy affects you, no one else, just you.

Every month since you started having sex you have rejoiced the monthly inconvenience of your period and watched TV shows about teenagers getting pregnant, thinking to yourself “at least it’s not me.” It’s you now.
Taking the test is like preparing for a funeral. Everyone always tells you that sex changes things, that it’s the death of your innocence and you can never take it back. Sitting there staring at that pee-soaked stick, you know they were lying to you. This is the loss of that innocence. You feel damaged, dirty, nauseated. Nothing will ever be the same after those lines appear.

You blame the loss of your innocence on the two little lines on the pregnancy test stick. It was nothing you did, you're not responsible for anything. You had sex and it felt good. It was the pregnancy that damaged you, not the sex. It wasn't your fault.

You don't concern yourself with the new human being you took part in creating. You don't concern yourself about the father of the baby.

The person sitting beside you—your significant other—is already crying. They are religious. They think this is a baby.

While waiting for your turn at the abortion clinic...

Your significant other will turn to you, while you are sick and shaking and scared as hell in that waiting room, and they will say to you, “Let’s just keep it.”

But you won't. You can't! After all, it's not about them, it's all about you. You can go back to your life. You won't have to share your life with your child, you took care of that at the abortion clinic. And you will probably lose your boyfriend, he will never get over the loss of his child. Yeah, it's just you now.

You Can't Be Pro-Life, If You're Pro-Choice

2011-10-05T16:29:00.001-07:00

As you may have read in my previous post, Kaitlyn over at the Abortion Gang blog, authored the post Being pro-choice actually makes you pro-life. As much as pro-aborts want to fool themselves into believing they are pro-life, they are not, and they never will be.

Merriam Webster's #1 definition for the word life is the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body. While there are many other definitions for the word life, none are more important than this one. Pro-life supports the development of a vital and functional being, while pro-choice supports a dead body.

Kaitlyn attempts to expand on the definition of pro-life by saying:

1) Prochoice is prolife because: LIFE IS AWESOME.

What's awesome about life for Kaitlyn? Coffee (I would have to agree), all seven seasons of Buffy on DVD, and her cat. That's a pretty narrow view of life, and like most pro-aborts, Kaitlyn's thought process doesn't get much further than personal pleasure.

2) Prochoice is prolife because: HAVING REPRODUCTIVE CHOICES LETS YOU LIVE LIFE ON YOUR OWN TERMS.

To Kaitlyn this includes, having sex, going to school, working, going to a movie, and the availability of Plan B without a prescription. What Kaitlyn doesn't understand is that without life, she would enjoy none of those things. Life vs lifestyle.

3) Prochoice is prolife because: ABORTIONS SAVE LIVES.

On this point, Kaitlyn uses Karen Santorum as an example of someone whose life was supposedly saved due to an abortion. Thing is, Karen Santorum didn't have an abortion at all. Read my previous post, as well as this earlier post, to see how pro-choice perpetuates this lie. As for "Abortions Save Lives", it doesn't. You can't purport to save a life, and at the same time advocate the killing of a human fetus, or embryo, or zygote.

4) Prochoice is prolife because: PEOPLE IN THE PROCHOICE MOVEMENT FIGHT FOR THE LIVES OF THE LIVING.

Kaitlyn believes fighting for convicted murderers who are sentenced to death because of their crimes, is more important than fighting for the lives of the millions of INNOCENT babies who are killed by abortion. Life vs lifestyle. The murderer chose his/her lifestyle, the human fetus doesn't get to choose at all.

Towards the end of her post, Kaitlyn mentions choices of ice cream. That brought to mind the video below. We have all kinds of choices in life, none of which should include killing an innocent human being.

Abortion Gang Corrects An Error, With A Blatant Lie

2011-10-05T08:52:00.001-07:00

I'm reading a recent post on the Abortion Gang blog, "Being pro-choice actually makes you pro-life". It begins with this editor's note:

Editor’s note: This piece previously stated that Rick Perry’s wife had an abortion. This is incorrect (to the best of our knowledge). Rick Santorum’s wife has had an abortion. The mistake has been fixed in the text below.

The author of the post, Kaitlyn, stated that Rick Perry's wife had an abortion. Apparently Kaitlyn intended to perpetuate the lie that Rick Santorum's wife (Karen), had an abortion, and the 'editor' of the Abortion Gang blog, Steph Herold, perpetuates the lie even further in her editor's note.

As I wrote in this post, Karen Santorum did not have an abortion.

The Santorum baby, whom they named Gabriel, was diagnosed at 20 weeks gestation, with a defect that is always fatal without surgery. The Santorum's opted for an operation that they hoped would save their son's life.

It was a success, but an infection developed in the amniotic sac, and I was rushed to the hospital with a high fever, having contractions. I begged the doctors to stop my labor, but they said it would be malpractice, for I would surely die since these infections are untreatable. (emphasis is mine)

Karen Santorum clearly did not have an abortion, but does that fact stop pro-aborts from perpetuating the lie that she did? No, unfortunately it doesn't.

Merriam Webster defines abortion as:

1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as

a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage
b : induced expulsion of a human fetus
c : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy — compare contagious abortion

Read here what I've previously written about the pro-aborts intentional conflation of the terms miscarriage and abortion. As I stated in a previous post,

For the sake of understandable debate, let's leave the terms alone. Miscarriage is spontaneous and unintentional, an act of nature. Abortion is intentional and deliberate, an act by women and abortion providers to destroy the fetus.

Now that I've covered the perpetuation of this lie, I'd like to touch on the 'meat' of the AG post, but I'll save that for another post.

Abortion Breeds Disrespect For Innocent Human Beings

2011-10-01T10:24:00.001-07:00

I saw this photo on Facebook and I cringed. The status update indicated the baby was left in a bin, and was covered with ants. I don't know how old the picture is, whether it was a recent tragedy, or one that's floated around on the internet for years. I don't know the location. I don't know the sex of this baby. I don't even know the ethnicity.
What I do know is that innocent babies are left to the elements of nature, more often than we think.

Take this recent article "Baby found at rubbish dump recovering", in Bloemfontein South Africa.

A newborn baby boy found wrapped in a blanket at a rubbish dump near an informal settlement in Bloemfontein was doing well in hospital on Monday.
ER24 paramedics found the baby boy with its umbilical cord still attached to the placenta. He was hypothermic and struggling to breathe.
Appelgryn said the baby had bite marks on his skin from ants while he was lying at the dump.

Or, there is the story of South Carolina's Orenthia McCuller, who abandoned her baby, umbilical cord still attached, by leaving him outside the laundry room of her apartment complex. There was no need to throw the baby out like trash.

South Carolina's Safe Haven Act, also called Daniel's Law, lets mothers leave an infant that is unwanted or unable to be cared for with a hospital or hospital outpatient facility, law enforcement agency, fire station, emergency medical services station, or any staffed house of worship during the hours the facility is staffed.

I know that even adamant pro-choicer's will say they denounce this type of action, but I have to wonder.

What I most often hear from pro-choicer's, is that if these mothers had greater access to abortion, these despicable acts would be less frequent. In other words, the mother should be allowed to kill the baby in utero, so they're not left to abandon it after birth. The pro-choicer's will make excuses for the women who abandoned these babies. She was poor, or abused, etc. They won't hold accountable the one person who had the power to prevent this tragedy, the mother herself.

What I don't hear, is the honest truth; that abortion breeds disrespect for human babies. For if you can condone the act of abortion, and you can condone the act of a mother abandoning her newborn, what heinous act will you condone next?

Abortion Gang Censors Scientific Evidence of Life in the Womb

2011-09-24T10:45:00.001-07:00

I've spent a few minutes reading an Abortion Gang post, which was brought to my attention by a commenter on this blog.
The issue at hand, was a pro-abort turning what a pro-lifer said into something completely different.
The pro-lifer said:

And the gay guys and lesbians? They were just kids we grew up with. We were sorry they chose the lifestyle they did, because it resulted in the untimely deaths of about 60% of them, from aids and suicide, but they were just kids we grew up with. They didn’t demand to wear dresses to the prom, or shout that they were discriminated against, or require special attention. There was no reason not to like them. We told them to their face they were sinners, and they agreed, and they called us sinners right back, and we agreed. Cause we all knew that we could judge right and wrong, but we weren’t the ultimate judge of someone’s sin.

And 'Burtie', a self proclaimed 'femme dyke', QUOTED her as saying this:

“We told them filthy sinning homosexuals what they were, and we were proud of it. Luckily they all died from AIDS or shame”

For a movement that demands accuracy, Burtie fell far short. Did anyone call her on it? Nope. As a matter of fact, this vitriol was dropped well after the pro-lifer had been barred from continuing the conversation. As my commenter so eloquently put it:

It's certainly a fair discussion when comments like Burtie's continue to be allowed when they can't be answered, eh?

Indeed. What the pro-lifer did was debate points in the article, and she did it respectfully. I was surprised Steph Herold let her comment at all. The Abortion Gang blog is well known for slamming the door to pro-life views. And eventually, (after pro-abort Dee de-railed the conversation), Steph Herold did shut the pro-life commenter down.

I suppose she thinks saying "please" and "thank you" makes up for her lack of tolerance for opposing views. She allows 'vitriol from her 'subjects', but most often, doesn't allow the victim to defend themselves against it.
At another point in the article, Steph Herold censored the pro-life commenter from posting a link to a 12 week fetus shown on ultrasound. In response to the censor of the link "Aoife" wrote:

And I wanted to ask, if I may, respectfully, why the moderator did not allow anonymous’s link to the 12 week fetus sonogram to be posted. I know you said she was a troll, but why did you censor that post, yet continue to allow her to post several other comments? I have to ask because it does look like you were afraid of her presenting the information as it shows Lisa’s claim to be clearly false.

What was Lisa's claim?

Having that knowledge of how a fetus develops…I knew that at 12 weeks or whatever, that’s not a life.

Steph Herold's response to Aoife soon followed:

Hi Aoife: I didn’t publish the comment with the link to the ultrasound because it’s not clear to me if that youtube video is real or not. The youtube clip was to some couple’s personal ultrasound, and frankly, that kind of intrusion creeps me out (not to mention it isn’t scientific evidence of anything). If anonymous had linked to scientific data from a reliable source, that would’ve been totally fine.

So she denied the validity of someone's personal ultrasound (which they chose to upload to the not so personal internet), and she's also validated our claims that pro-aborts can't think for themselves. Ultrasound IS science. And if you can't see the LIVING baby in the scan (without a scientist explaining it to you), then you're either a complete idiot, or you're in complete denial. Probably both!

Politically Correct Pro-Choicer's Admit They Are Pro-Life Personally

2011-09-18T10:46:00.001-07:00

I took a trip back to Feminists For Choice, and I'm glad I did. The article gave me renewed hope.
Serena asked the question "Can you be pro-choice if you wouldn’t choose abortion for yourself?" She then broke down the questions as follows.
1. What does is mean to be pro-choice?
2. If you found out that you were pregnant, and you didn’t intend to be, would you continue the pregnancy, or would you choose to have an abortion?
3. Do you believe that you can personally oppose abortion and still call yourself “pro-choice”?
The question I found enlightening and hopeful, was question # 2. Here are highlights from a few of the comments:

“When I was younger I would have definitely considered it but I don’t know if I would have ever been able to go through with it. At this point in my life because I am in a committed long term relationship I would not consider abortion because I don’t think that I could live with the guilt."

“I would consider one but I cannot see myself taking this option. I have friends and family who have had abortions and who sometimes struggle to come to turns with that decision, I know that it is unlikely that I ever would."

“If I found out I was pregnant, I wouldn’t consider abortion because I’m in a position where I would actually be pleased. However, I don’t feel that I ever would have considered it."

"I once thought that I may consider abortion if I had been assaulted but having had a child now I don’t think I would be able to. Hopefully I will never find out.”

"So yes, I would consider abortion for an unplanned pregnancy but I am fairly confident that I would not be able to actually go through with it. I have felt physical pain and deep depression every time I have considered terminating, for me the emotional suffering was more significant than the physical/emotional/financial burden of continuing the pregnancy.”

The comments are much more in depth than I've posted here. Remember, the article was targeted for women who claim to be pro-choice politically and pro-life only personally. For that reason, I found question # 2 a sort of miss-fit, yet intriguing as well.

If a woman could never consider aborting her own baby, maybe she'll see through what's 'politically correct', and do what's morally correct by helping other women keep their babies. You can put your time and effort into protecting a woman's right to 'choose', or you can put that same time and effort into helping women keep their babies. It's really that simple.

Maddow Turns Pro-Choice Propaganda Wheel

2011-09-13T18:54:00.001-07:00

If you ever wondered how the pro-choice propaganda machine works, this is a perfect example. First, what I saw:

I have to admit, the tweet peeked my curiosity. So of course I went to Rachel Maddow's profile. Note the pro-choice propaganda machine, Maddow was re-tweeted at least 100 times.

I clicked on the link, and THIS is what I saw:

Wow, that looks like at least 200 people! And what the heck are they doing at a middle school? Well, closer inspection of the caption reveals that the picture is from a pro-life protest back in Dec. 2010. Not at the middle school as the title of the article would lead pro-aborts to believe, but at late-term abortionist Leroy Carhart's office.
So what happened at the middle school? According to the article:

Antiabortion activists who have sought for months to shut down a Germantown clinic picketed its landlord outside a Montgomery County middle school where his daughter is a student, school and police officials said Monday.
A small group of protesters stood outside Robert Frost Middle School in Rockville on Thursday, holding signs and a banner, during back-to-school night, officials said. (emphasis added)
The student’s father, who did not want to be named to protect the safety of his daughter, a sixth-grader at the school, said he saw the five protesters when he went to the school event. (emphasis added)
Some held a large banner that showed his photo, his full name, his phone number and the words “Please STOP the Child Killing.” Others held posters showing aborted fetuses.

Why were the protesters at the school?

Jack Ames, director of a regional antiabortion group called Defend Life, said his group organized the protest at the school because it was a “very good public venue.” Previous demonstrations at the Germantown clinic have been hampered because the clinic is on private property inside an office park. (emphasis added)

But you know what? The protest isn't the reason I'm writing this post. This is about the way the pro-choice propaganda wheel turns. I just have to wonder... How many pro-aborts think there were 200 people at that school? My guess is, a lot. And that's sad.
One more thing... "The student’s father, who did not want to be named to protect the safety of his daughter". Guess he changed his mind, as least for Feminists For Choice. (Picture linked to article)

Why are Republicans trying to take away my WIC?

2011-09-05T19:04:00.001-07:00

Someone again mentioned Republicans trying to end WIC, a federal nutritional program for Women, Infants, and Children. If you're not familiar with WIC, you can read more about it here.

While looking for articles, I ran across this Yahoo Answers question. The answers are enlightening.

The question:

Why are Republicans trying to take away my WIC?

I have an 6 month old son, and I have relied on WIC before I gave birth and now. Without WIC, I am not sure how we both would survive. I don't work, and my boyfriend works a part-time job and barely pay child support. Why are people trying to take away our ability to feed our children?

The first 'answer' I saw, which to me is the best answer, was this one:

This is the exact reason why welfare imprisons people. When the government finally runs out of our money to support you, you don't have a clue what you should do. You say you don't work, why not? WIC is not the ability for you to feed your children. WIC is someone else feeding your children.

I chose to post this answer as it contains links relevant to the issue of welfare abuse. If you read nothing else, read about the man that won the Michigan lottery.

Republicans trying to take away your WIC because fraudulent people sell their government enfamil on Craigslist for cigarettes and drug money.
http://losangeles.craigslist.org/search/…

Why are you having children you cannot afford?
Because you can and you know the tax payers will pay for your iresponsible actions.

Republicans like the concept of personal responsibilities.

See by making it easier for people to have illegimate children the more illegimate children we will have.

So by putting back the responsibilities of children on the parents, the parents will be more responsible and responsible parents are always better for the children.

Michigan Welfare Allows Multi-Million Dollar Lottey Winner to Use Food Stamps
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/2m-michig…

More Working Families Getting Food Stamps
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101022/ap_o…

Welfare Money Spent on Cruise Ships and Vegas
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-…

1 in 2 Household Receive Government Assistance
http://www.gilroydispatch.com/opinion/26…

Food Stamp Recipients Up 28% in 2009
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticN…

Boost in Welfare Rolls Sees New Voters
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/22/…

Welfare Check and Voting Card
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/opinio…

Welfare Agencies See Wave of Voters
http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100…

Welfare Agency Out to Register New Voters
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Welfare+ag…

According to ABC News:

Leroy Fick hit the jackpot.
The Michigan man won $2 million in the state lottery's "Make Me Rich" contest last June.

With the $850,000 he took home after taxes, Fick, 59, used his winnings to purchase a new home and a used Audi convertible. But to buy groceries, this lottery winner is still using his Bridge Card, Michigan's version of food stamps.

How many more children could we afford to feed by stopping this type of abuse? No one wants children to go hungry. If the money is taken only by those who truly need it, there would be enough to go around.

So if you must blame someone for government cuts, blame yourself for being a party to welfare abuse.

10 Things I'd Say To Pro-Aborts Who Blame Conservatives For Their Abortion

2011-08-28T11:05:00.001-07:00

Recently, at AlterNet, Amanda Marcotte listed 10 'realities' pro-choicers should 'throw in the face' of pro-lifers. @TheNatFantastic from Twitter, has asked me to respond to this article. Listed below are the 10 'realities', with a snippet from each, and my pro-life response to them.

1) Most abortions take place early in pregnancy.

Additionally, the growth of medical abortion means a much larger percentage of abortions---62% overall---take place before the 9th week of pregnancy. In fact, in most abortions, the term “fetus” is incorrect, as doctors classify it as an embryo until the 11th week of pregnancy. At 8 weeks, and embryo is about ½ an inch long, and at 12 weeks, the fetus is a little over 2 inches long. In contrast, a full-term baby is an average 20 inches long, a full 40 times larger than the size of the average embryo during an abortion.

This is the most common arbitrary argument of the pro-aborts. They believe it's ok to kill them, based strictly on their size and level of development. What they don't seem to understand, is that an 8 week embryo, is the same human being he/she is at full term. Embryos have all the genetic material required to determine their sex, skin tone, hair color, even the color of their eyes. Abortion erases that tiny innocent human being from the planet.

2) If not for anti-choicers, even more women would get abortions much earlier in their pregnancies.

Most women want to terminate unwanted pregnancies as soon as possible, but there are some women who wait until 12 or 16 or even 20 weeks to terminate a pregnancy for elective reasons. Why do about 10% of women having abortions wait until early in their second trimester? It’s not because they’re stupid or indifferent to the growing fetus inside them. Research indicates that women delay having abortions because they have trouble deciding, they struggle to come up with the funds, and because they may have to travel and overcome legal obstacles to get an abortion.

This is no more than blaming pro-lifers for later term abortions. The argument here, is that if pro-lifers would make it easier for women to have earlier abortions, they would. Remember, pro-life is against abortion at any stage. Knowing that most pro-aborts also struggle with the concept of later term abortions, gives pro-lifers hope that at some point, it will be unacceptable to kill a developing human being, at any stage.

3) Doctors perform late term abortions because of medical indications, often on women who desperately wanted the baby.

the rule of thumb with abortion is, “The later the termination, the higher the odds that the woman needed it for medical reasons.” Indeed, doctors who perform abortions after 24 usually require, as a matter of practice and of law, that the women have medical necessity reasons for abortion. Before he died, Dr. George Tiller had to have a second doctor confirm every diagnosis of a medical condition allowing post-24 week abortions.

Medical reasons? Perhaps a diagnosis of Down-Syndrome? Cleft palate? Granted, there are worse fetal anomalies, such as spina bifida. None warrant the killing of an innocent human being. Who did Dr. Tiller use for that second opinion? Dr. Ann Kristin Neuhaus. Well, let's be honest. To have a diagnosis confirmed, a woman would need to see a specialist, not an abortionist. Dr. Neuhaus didn't 'confirm' any diagnosis. What she did, was supply Dr. Tiller with a legally required second signature. What Dr. Tiller did, was rid women of less than perfect babies.

4) Women who get abortions aren’t afraid of being mothers.

Anti-choice protesters like to shout at women going into clinics about how they would really like motherhood if they tried it out. In reality, women who have abortions are fully cognizant of the joys and pains of motherhood; 61% of women having abortion are already mothers.

The 61% figure, is often used by pro-aborts in an attempt to justify terminating succeeding pregnancies. They just don't understand the concept that whether it's the 1st, or the 15th pregnancy, all of the fetuses are just as much human as the ones privileged enough to be born, and all deserve the same respect, and the same right to life.

5) Abortion is physically safe.

The truth is that abortion is a simple outpatient procedure that’s on the high end of safety for a medical procedure. The vast majority of abortions have no complications at all, and abortion is considered many times safer than childbirth.

Pro-aborts don't talk about the women who died due to having an abortion. The truth is, there have been hundreds of them. While abortion may be a relatively safer procedure for women today, it is never safe for the tiny human suctioned from the womb, and it never has been.

6) Abortion is mentally safe.

repeated studies show not only that abortion doesn’t cause depression, but that giving birth can. In fact, mental illness can be a medical indicator for abortion; for women for whom giving birth can aggravate mental health problems, an abortion is often necessary to prevent further degradation of their mental health.

Once again, childbirth results in a live baby, abortion results in a dead baby. As for 'abortion doesn’t cause depression', it surely can, and does. You may have heard of the pro-life "Silent No More Awareness Campaign", or the pro-choice "Exhale", 'an after abortion counseling talk-line'. Both were created because abortion can, and often does affect the mental health of the women who chose that option.

7) Women who get abortions take responsibility for their decision.

The truth is that women who get abortions know that they’re terminating a pregnancy and are determined to do it long before they set foot in the doctor’s office.

I found this particular 'reality' out of context as relating to what was written along with with. But I will touch on what is there, an attack on the mandatory use of ultrasound. If there is one woman who changes her mind after seeing her baby on the ultrasound screen, it is worth it.

8) Abortion providers are responsible medical professionals who work to make sure their patients are healthy and avoid future unintended pregnancies.

Your average abortion costs around $500. The average cost of childbirth is 17 times as much.

Interesting comparison, considering a surgical abortion takes only a few minutes, and doesn't concern the health and well-being of the fetus. Childbirth on the other hand, is often a long and difficult process, and usually occurs in a hospital, fully staffed with obstetrical doctors and nurses, and equipped for any emergency. How much is your baby's life worth? What about the mother? Indeed, abortion is a cheap way out of the responsibilities of motherhood.

as the nation’s single largest provider of abortions, Planned Parenthood, is a non-profit.

'Non-profit' is a tax status. It does not mean a business can't profit from the services they provide.

Additionally, Planned Parenthood works tirelessly to reduce the abortion rate by promoting sex education and contraception,

But does that promotion do any good?

I will let the following two statements from Guttmacher, Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States, speak for themselves.

"Each year, two percent of women aged 15–44 have an abortion. Half have had at least one previous abortion".

"Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant."

9) Women get abortions because they’re being responsible.

Abortion is often characterized, even by some pro-choicers, as the result of women’s irresponsibility. Women are assumed to get pregnant because they were being irresponsible, and all too often, abortion is characterized as the “easy way out”. The truth is more complex. More than half of women getting abortions were trying to prevent pregnancy by using a contraception method the month they got pregnant.

What part of irresponsibility do pro-aborts not get? "Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant." Does this mean they were acting responsibly? Not if they didn't use the condom 100% of the time, and not if they didn't take 'the pill', every day, on time. Condoms are 98% effective when used correctly. Birth Control pills, are 99% effective when used correctly. If you have access to either method, and still became pregnant, there is a 98% - 99% chance that you were irresponsible.

10) Conservative policies cause the abortion rate to be higher than it needs to be.

Women aren’t getting pregnant on purpose so they can enjoy an expensive suctioning of their uterine lining. So why are there 1.2 million abortions a year in America?

46% of women who get abortions weren’t using a contraceptive method the month they got pregnant, indicating that conservative policies that discourage regular contraception use---everything from abstinence-only education to objecting to any measures that make contraception cheaper and easier to obtain---have been effective in keeping women from using contraception as regularly as they should.

In a pro-aborts mind, it's MY fault you got pregnant! It's time to stop this blame game, and ask every young man and woman to take responsibility for themselves. And if they should fail to do so, take responsibility for the new life they created.

The Real Life Effect of Pro-Choice Propaganda

2011-08-20T16:56:00.001-07:00

I was just reading "Small Town Activist", a post by ProChoiceGal on the Abortion Gang blog. This type of post saddens me. To see someone so lost in the world of 'pro-choice activism', that they shun all the good people around them, is heart wrenching!

It was not easy for me to “come out” as an adamant pro-choicer, but when I did, I had no regrets whatsoever. “Coming out” incited a lot of people to also share their opinions on abortion with me, and with that, I got to find out who the pro-choicers are. Yes, my area is so conservative I feel as if I have to take a bath after being in crowded areas, but I found out that there are more pro-choicers out there than I thought. Not only that, but being very vocal about my pro-choice beliefs ended up scaring away a lot of the anti-choicers in my life. So basically, there are more pro-choicers in my life and less antis. It’s a win-win situation. (emphasis is mine)

She also stated:

I live in an area where I know only a small handful of pro-choicers

...which to me means, she has very few real life friends. What a lonely life she must lead. This is what is so saddening about a post like this. It shows what can happen when you get totally absorbed by rhetoric, and forget about the people in your life that matter, no matter which side they're on.

I have previously mentioned ProChoiceGal on this blog. You should check it out.

Pro-Choice Supports Hatred For The Unborn

2011-08-16T16:28:00.001-07:00

I don't know which bothers me more. The fact that this pro-abort admits she doesn't care that a 16 week fetus has clearly defined genitalia, or the fact that other pro-aborts support her, in her apparent hatred for the unborn. You don't think so? Yes they do, and they would support her if she said the same about an 8 month fetus. They would support her if she was 8 months pregnant herself, and wanted an abortion. They would support her by finding an abortionist to do the job. They would support her by helping her fund the abortion. YES THEY WOULD!

Did you know at 16 weeks, besides having clearly defined genitalia, a human fetus hears external voices, sleeps and dreams? Pretty cool huh! Watch the video below, and keep in mind that IT IS LEGAL TO KILL THAT BABY FOR ANY REASON!

Mitt Romney - Pro-Life Today, Pro-Choice When It Suits Him

2011-08-14T19:10:00.000-07:00

*Special thanks for the video to Leslie

Abortion Advocates Terrified of GOP Candidates

2011-08-14T16:33:00.001-07:00

Do you think pro-aborts aren't worried about the effect the GOP nomination will have on them? Clearly, they are.

This is why is it so important to get a good pro-life candidate front and center. We have the momentum, but we must put someone into power that can finish the job. No flip-floppers welcome!

#ProChoicer @PeriodPiece Uses Deceitful Twitter Tactics

2011-08-14T10:37:00.001-07:00

For the record.... @PeriodPiece has a history of creating deceitful tweets to make it look like prolifers said something, when in fact they didn't. This is one example. Feel free to let me know if you have others to add.

Feminism Sacrificed Respect for Women

2011-08-13T09:08:00.001-07:00

I believe all women should have the right to earn equal pay, for equal work. I believe women should not be over-looked for the job of CEO, as long as she earns that position, and is suitable for it. I believe women should be able to work a construction job, or drive an 18-wheeler is she so chooses. She should be able to operate a back-hoe or be a fire-fighter, if she chooses. Feminists want to be equal to men, and in doing so, have lost respect for being a woman.

That is not something I am willing to give up. As a woman, I appreciate men opening doors for me. I appreciate men showing their respect (and how strong they are) by volunteering to change the flat tire on my car. I appreciate men who work from sun up to sun down, supporting their families. I also appreciate women who work 24/7 keeping the home running. Women often work a full time job, and run their home as well. Women are capable of so many things, and should be respected for all of them.

But the one thing women can do that men can't, is have a baby. Women were built for this, biologically. In gaining equality, feminists have lost respect for their femininity. And worse, they sacrificed respect for my femininity, all for their cause. They didn't ask me what I wanted, they just took it.

So this tweet the other day was no surprise, but it was still sad to see.

"Welcome to equality" - The gist of the conversation went like this.

In the world of feminism, men calling women a "misogynistic idiot" is approved, even applauded. "Name calling ends the argument", unless of course you're the one(s) doing the name calling.

In the world of pro-choice feminism, double standards are a standard.

Reaching Out In North-East Ohio

2011-08-07T07:43:00.001-07:00

A guest post by Sarah Mindek

My personal experience with crisis pregnancy centers hasn't been the best, and I wasn't even going in to get help. After reading about the pro-life movement & hearing about the violence that is abortion, I knew I wanted to help. I felt a calling. I didn't want to just sit back & talk about how awful I thought abortion was, I wanted to do something to make it go away.

After graduating high school I did some research on local organization that were pro-life and helped women who were considering abortion. The first place I saw was a place called New Life Maternity Home. I thought this would be a wonderful place to give my time and be able to interact with women that were possibly going through a hard time, but trying to do the right thing for their unborn child. When I went for my initial visit of the facility and to get volunteer paperwork I was given a tour, and spoke with the director of the home. I was very excited to help, but I felt like my reception was less than welcome.

When I mentioned I wanted to help directly with the women who would be staying at the home, I was told flat out that I was too young (I was 19 at the time), and that the only jobs I could do were sort donations of baby clothes & products or help with meals ( both of which had no contact with the women). When I mentioned upon seeing the tutoring/school room of the house that I was very good at English and I would like to help the girls who hadn't graduated high school with English assignments so they could get their GED's I was again told I was too young to have any involvement with the women staying at the house no matter how good I was with English.

After getting home and looking at the volunteer paperwork I was required to fill out I was discouraged by the amount of personal and religious information I was required to put down. I felt rejected in a way, like I wasn't holy enough to be involved. All I wanted to do was help and share my talents with women who needed them. So I let the applications sit and eventually I forgot about them and they got thrown out or lost. I went on with my everyday life.

Then (a few years later) I heard about a CPC that was opening closer to where I lived (the maternity home was a bit further away) and I grew very excited. It seemed like the opportunity I'd been waiting for had finally come. I called "Your Pregnancy Resource Center" and set up an appointment to get a tour and the necessary paperwork to volunteer at the site. To my dismay when I went in I discovered the same woman who had been the director of the maternity home was now leading this CPC. I was shocked.

Everyone that was a volunteer (that I saw that day) had white hair & seemed extremely uptight. I didn't feel welcome at all. How would a girl my age feel coming in with an unplanned pregnancy?? She'd be surrounded by overly religious grandmothers who completely looked down on her and made her feel uncomfortable.

I didn't know what to do and I didn't want to be rude so I toured the facility, got my paperwork and left. Reading over this set of volunteer papers made me feel even less worthy to work there (and I'd felt pretty bad a few years ago). I wish I still had the papers because all I can remember specifically from reading them is the feeling of despair that washed over me. I wasn't good enough to help, I wasn't religious enough, I wasn't chaste enough, I wasn't old enough (still). It depressed me.

It also made me feel like this organization was out in our community making the pro-life movement look bad & probably not helping very many girls. It probably even helped to reinforce some of the girls who reached out to pro-choice beliefs. Maybe all some of the girls wanted was some tangible help to keep their baby & they went in and had a zealot shoving religion down their throat. I know how I'd feel if that were the case, it would drive me in the complete opposite direction! So again, that application and chance to volunteer got set aside and forgotten to other everyday things. Some more years went by and I'd almost given up hope for the local movement.

Then one day on twitter, Michael Homula contacted me & said basically he liked what I tweeted. We struck up a conversation and I found out he was the executive director of ICU mobile, an international mobile crisis pregnancy outreach organization based in Akron, Ohio. They get RV's and outfit them with an ultrasound unit and patient consult room which can then be taken and parked in front of an abortion facility, a campus, or anywhere else that women might be at.

I was extremely impressed with the way they executed their mission. While they are an evangelical organization, I felt no pressure or rejection to be something I wasn't, or bad about where I was at in my personal religious journey. I met with Michael a few times and he expressed interest at having me be a part of his team. When I told him about the previous experiences I'd had with my local CPC he was shocked. He didn't think I was too young to help out, in fact he said he thought my age was advantageous since I could more easily relate to the young women we were trying to help.

I was thrilled to finally be accepted for who I was and what I had to offer. Since I wasn't done with school to be a licensed diagnostic medical sonographer (I'll be writing another post specifically about that journey) I wanted to be a patient advocate & talk to the girls about what abortion is, what the procedure is like and why they should keep their baby. I feel that I have strong communication skills & some background in human sexuality and the human body (I've taken a few college classes specifically anatomy & physiology and human sexuality) so I'm not ignorant of what I'm talking about.

Well, the way things worked out, I wouldn't be able to get into ICU's training classes until the fall. Michael suggested that I check out the new CPC in my area until then. I asked "what new CPC?", and he said Bella Women's Center was taking over Your Pregnancy Resource Center. I was so pleased. I got the contact information for the new director of the center and was able to get a hold of her on the phone that very day. We had a long conversation about my past experiences & what I was looking for. I was very encouraged by her answers to my questions, so for the third time I agreed to go in for a tour & to get a volunteer packet. I was shocked by the renovations they had done to the building (it looked so much more inviting & professional) and speaking with the director I felt that our objectives (the CPC and my own personal) were not that different.

Like ICU, Bella Women's Center is evangelical, but I also didn't feel ashamed for my lack of faith. I understood their position and was able to express my concerns (and even felt very respected for my contribution & conversation). The facility just opened up to seeing patients last month so getting in to volunteer has been slow going, but unlike before, I'm not discouraged. There are still some kinks to work out in the way the site operates and I know that helping the girls that come to the center is the top priority. Unlike "Your Pregnancy Resource Center", Bella Women's Center is more medically focused.

They have an RN and a sonographer on staff, and test patients for STD's for free, offer pregnancy tests for free and free ultrasounds to determine fetal age. At Your Pregnancy Resource Center, they only offered store bought pregnancy tests for free. They seemed to be more focused on guilting a woman in to keeping her baby by pelting her with religious arguments rather than offering her medically accurate facts & tangible support. Bella Women's Center also offers adoption referrals which they aren't compensated for. If you'd like more information on what Bella offers & what they do in their own words, you can check them out here- http://www.bellawomenscenter.com/ .

So I got my volunteer packet all filled out for Bella, I just have to drop it off. I'm really hoping that the third time's the charm here & that I can finally have my actions back up my words.

Is There A Problem With Crisis Pregnancy Centers?

2011-08-06T09:33:00.001-07:00

This is an issue that has been bugging me for awhile. I somehow don't think I'm alone in this concern.

Crisis Pregnancy Centers are SUPPOSED to be there to help women who have, well, crisis pregnancies. I would hope the majority do, but I also realize there are exceptions. We've all heard stories of CPC's lying to women about their gestation. I've read far too many not to believe a problem exists.

For example, this article at Whole Womans Health, the title being "Pregnancy Centers & One Lie’s Consequences", tells the story of a young women who went to a CPC, and was told she was only 2 weeks pregnant, when it turns out she had been 18 weeks pregnant. Yes, I find the story a bit far-fetched, but I thought it was worth sharing.

“They told me I was only 2 weeks at the first place, just 2 weeks ago – but then this other clinic I just went to told me I was 20.”

Why a 16 week discrepancy? Well, the pro-aborts would say it's an effort by 'pro-life extremists', to get the woman beyond the 24 week legal limit, thereby saving the life of her baby. Whether I agree or disagree with the methodology, I can't deny the fact that the CPC's efforts may have saved the life of the child.

The young woman then went to a pro-choice women's clinic, and was told she was actually 20 weeks pregnant. After the pro-aborts help with pooling all the financial assistance required, the womans baby was killed. She was again free to live her life.

The article goes on to demonize the CPC, and more or less blame them for the extreme cost of the late term abortion.

Because of this particular lie, this woman’s surgery costs about $2,000 dollars more than she initially thought that it would. This woman has to drive more than 400 miles to the nearest clinic that will be able to legally do her procedure. She will pay ~$140 more dollars for gas, and ~$100 more for a hotel – and let’s just hope she has a friend that’s willing to take her. She and her escort will miss 2 days of work, at the least. This is just the surface of the new list of things she now has to take care of before she’s able to have a procedure. (emphasis is my own)

The sad fact is, young pro-choicers, both male and female, take this demonization for what it says, without so much as thinking about it logically. What if the CPC had told the woman the truth when she went there? She was allegedly 18 weeks pregnant at the time. Think about it. How much less would it have cost her to have an abortion at 18 weeks, rather than at 20 weeks? My guess is, not much.

While I don't agree with CPC's lying to women, I don't agree with pro-choice writer's lying about CPC's either. When push comes to shove, women who have no familial support, and want to keep their babies, have no place to go, except their community CPC. Though not perfect by a long shot, they are at least on the side of life.

I think we can all do better.

Pro-Aborts Follow The Lead of 40 Days For Life's 'Peaceful' Protests

2011-07-31T16:17:00.001-07:00

Once again, pro-abortion protesters are counter-protesting pro-lifer's, but this time, they're also following the lead of a 'peaceful' protest.

The Summer of Mercy 2.0 is scheduled for July 30th through August 7th.

The Summer Celebration of Choice is ironically (or not) scheduled for July 31st through August 7th.

They call it "Summer Celebration of Choice", saying:

As you may already know, Dr. LeRoy Carhart has become the new target for Summer of Mercy 2.0. (emphasis added)

Please note that this event is not a counter-protest, but rather a peaceful pro-choice presence and a show of community support for Dr. Carhart, his staff, and his patients. We will not be engaging in any dialogue, argument, or confrontation with any anti-choice protesters, and we are working with law enforcement to ensure everyone's safety over the course of the week. (emphasis added)

Let's not over-look the the use of the word 'target', as they describe the reason for the "Summer of Mercy 2.0" protest in Germantown, MD. They also state this is not a counter-protest. Sure.

But the intent is for them to hold a peaceful demonstration, and I think that's a good thing. It's not however, something they are accustomed to.

We'll see how it plays out. Something tells me, it's going to be a very difficult, long week for them.

What Do Pro-Life Silly Bandz and Happy Meals Have In Common?

2011-07-26T17:47:00.001-07:00

I found this HILARIOUS!!! Jaclyn, a new Abortion Gang blogger, writes about "Pro-Life Silly Bandz". Yes, there is such a thing, and you can find them at Heritage House.

The Indiana Right to Life county fair booth was actually distributing Pro-Life Silly Bandz. And upon further research, you can actually buy these things in bulk!

Silly Bandz are marketed primary towards pre-teens and adolescents.

I'll just say "DUH" to that... Jaclyn goes on to say:

As someone who has worked in the movement for many years, I’m no stranger to anti-choice propaganda for children, but how far is too far?

Well, let's see. How far is too far? Well, Planned Parenthood marketing sex to children is too far. Pro-lifer's market life. Pro-choicer's market sex, and killing the result of that sex with abortion. Life, sex, abortion. Which do you want to teach your child?

This is outright propaganda and a blatant attempt to exploit a harmless childhood trend for a political (and religious) cause.

Well, she has a point with that statement. Imagine, propagating the idea of LIFE with a bracelet. Genius! (You didn't miss the anti-Christian jab in her statement, did you?) These are the same people out to abort Ronald McDonald and the Happy Meal. Gee, I wonder what the survivors of pro-choice mothers eat and play with?

Jaclyn closes with this:

In one scene in the documentary “Jesus Camp,” children are shown playing with a series of plastic fetus models, their mouths covered with red tape with the word ‘life’ written across…..ultimately these children, some no more than eight years old, begin praying to overturn Roe v. Wade. With camps like these across the country, and parents and churches indoctrinating children before they are old enough to read, do we really need to add products like Pro-Life Silly Bandz into our lives? It’s just scary. What will they think of next? Needless to say, I will definitely be adding “Pro-Life Silly Bandz” to the list of things I will not be buying my nieces next year for Christmas.

Jaclyn should be told that Christmas begins with Christ. Somehow, I don't think she ever realized Christmas is, and has always been, a religious holiday. A religious holiday that celebrates the birth and life of Jesus Christ.

Pro-Aborts Want Choice, Unless You're 14 And Want To Keep Your Baby

2011-07-25T18:38:00.001-07:00

Robin Marty's latest article for RH Reality Check, "Anti-Choice Activists Applaud 14 Year Old Giving Birth".

First, let me re-title that article for Robin, "Pro-Life Activists Applaud 14 Year Old Giving Life". Yes, that's much better.

Robin was referring to a press release from the Pennsylvania Pastors Network. Not surprisingly, there was no link to it.

A 14-year-old girl was granted an emergency injunction last week because she didn’t want to abort her baby—even though her parents did.
The Independence Law Center helped the girl from York, Pa. , to fight the abortion in court. The mother and stepfather of the girl had scheduled an abortion for their daughter against her wishes and against the wishes of the family of the unborn child’s father.
“This is a hard road ahead for this young girl, but we applaud her and the future paternal grandparents of the child for standing up for life,” said Colin Hanna, president of the Pennsylvania Pastors’ Network and Let Freedom Ring. “Although this girl is in a difficult situation today, it is a blessing that she has chosen not to make a mistake that would end a child’s life.”
The court-ordered injunction was presented to the girl’s parents and Planned Parenthood of York.

Robin's final comment

I can only hope that these "paternal grandparents" are taking her in and caring for her as well, because this girl is going to need a whole lot of help.

solidifies what pro-lifers have been saying all along. The only help pro-choice is willing to give, is help with abortion. If you decide to keep your baby, you're on your own.

And as Jivin J said "Nevermind that attempted forced abortion". All for choice, unless your choice is to give life. Sad isn't it?

Insurance Companies Forced to Supply Free Birth Control

2011-07-24T18:22:00.001-07:00

According to an article in Mother Jones, the Institute Of Medicine has recommended that private insurance companies be forced to pay 100% of the cost of birth control for their female policy holders, under Obama's healthcare law.

The Institute of Medicine recommended on Tuesday that health care insurers cover the cost of birth control under the new federal health care law. This was just one of the findings on preventive health care services for women from the Institute, the branch of the National Academies of Science tasked with providing research and information on medical topics. But like pretty much everything dealing with women's health these days, this has turned into a debate about abortion.
The Department of Health and Human Services will get to make the ultimate decicion about whether insurers will be required to provide birth control free of charge, but this is a good indication that it will.

First, WHY should private insurance companies bear the cost for YOUR birth control? Insurance companies are in business to make money. You pay a premium, they pay if you get sick. It's INSURANCE, not ENTITLEMENTSURANCE.

Take homeowners insurance for example. It's something all homeowners should have, and something people with home loans are required to have. Should State Farm do preventative termite treatments, just in case you get termites? No, of course not. What they expect, and rightly so, is that you do what you have to do to protect your home. In cases where you have no control, such as a fire or tornado, the insurance company will pay to repair, or possibly replace, your home.

Second. What do you think is going to happen to insurance premiums IF this is enforced? Let me give you a hint. Insurance executives aren't going to have it come out of their pocket, are they? Insurance premiums will sky rocket to cover the cost of required add on's due to Obama's healthcare law. Oh, wait, wait, wait... just in case you don't know, this is just another push to force private companies out of business, and force Americans into socialized medicine. Any one who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

Back to the article, which stated:

But like pretty much everything dealing with women's health these days, this has turned into a debate about abortion.

The reason?

Specifically, they're concerned that this could lead to Plan B, or the "morning after pill," being covered by insurers

Indeed, that's something EVERY pro-life person in America should be concerned about. If they force insurance companies to pay for contraceptives, you can bet EC (emergency contraceptives) won't be far behind. Want to know what the MJ article says? They quoted Jeanne Monahan, director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council:

The other problem, says Monahan, is abortion. Specifically, abortion opponents argue that some emergency contraceptives — so called morning-after pills — can cause very early abortions by preventing the implantation of fertilized eggs into a woman's uterus.

"So those 7 to 10 days before a baby can implant, Plan B can prevent implantation and thereby cause the demise of that baby. So we'd be opposed to those drugs being included because they act as abortifacients."

And this was MJ's response:

Anti-abortion groups believe that this constitutes abortion, even though medical organizations like the National Institutes of Health and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have been clear that this is factually incorrect; pregnancy does not begin until a fertilized egg is implanted.

The medical definition of when pregnancy begins is completely arbitrary. Oh, and if you have any doubt EC causes abortions, this is in the Q & A section of

Plan B One Step

How does Plan B One-Step™ work ?

Plan B One-Step™ is one pill that has a higher dose of levonorgestrel, a hormone found in many birth control pills that healthcare professionals have been prescribing for more than 35 years. Plan B One-Step™ works in a similar way to prevent pregnancy. Plan B One-Step™ will not affect an existing pregnancy.

Similar to an oral contraceptive? Yes of course, but you won't see them blatantly admit that both oral contraceptives and EC can cause early abortions. The last part of that quote is based on ACOG's redefining of when pregnancy begins.

It's political hocus-pocus. Logically, when the egg and sperm combine, a new life is formed, and begins to divide and grow in earnest. EC prevents the implantation of this new life. They could say pregnancy doesn't begin until viability (at or near 24wks), but it wouldn't change the fact that it really begins at conception.

Young Women Are Just Numbers to Nancy Keenan

2011-07-17T19:38:00.000-07:00

Did you see this HuffPo piece by Nancy Keenan, the President of NARAL?

Did you know that 98 percent of American women use birth control during their lifetime?

Yet for many women, it's simply too expensive. One in three women has struggled with the high cost of prescription birth control.
The consequences are staggering. Young adults ages 18-24 have the highest rate of unintended pregnancy in the United States -- and nearly one-third of female teenagers become pregnant before reaching the age of 20. Nearly half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended.

Does Nancy Keenan know that according to Guttmacher:

Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.

It's clear that even if we supplied EVERY woman of child bearing age with birthcontrol pills, 3/4 would not use it consistently enough to prevent pregnancy. What a waste of valueable resources! Just think how far that money would go to care for people that are actually sick.

"Young adults ages 18-24 have the highest rate of unintended pregnancy in the United States -- and nearly one-third of female teenagers become pregnant before reaching the age of 20."

Indeed, the numbers are staggering. If this doesn't speak loudly for the cause of abstinence, I don't know what will. Young women are being over-sexualized, having to load their bodies with artificial hormones to prevent pregnancy. And about half the time, they get pregnant anyway. Then they are subjected to the abortionist. Where does it stop?

If pro-choice really cared about young women, they would work to prevent them from being subjected to this abuse. The only way to prevent this abuse is by remaining abstinent. Did I even mention STI's?

"Abortion Gang" was over the top this week

2011-07-17T09:17:00.001-07:00

Pro-abort members of "Abortion Gang", posted some real doozies this week.

#1 - Christie posted 'We Are Not Baby-Haters", in a sad attempt to justify killing human fetuses. Apparently, Rush Limbaugh equated Caylee Anthony's murder to abortion. Abortion advocates, for the most part, support abortion at any stage in pregnancy, and for any reason. They reserve the right to evict a fetus from their womb, even if the baby was wanted in the first place. For Rush, it's a matter of withdrawing your consent for your child to live, whether in the womb, or already born. It's not only Rush that feels that way. As I began writing this post, I popped over to twitter and saw this:

Clearly, the tweet shows that people other than Rush, equate mother's killing their born children, with mother's killing their unborn children. It is the same, it's just at a different stage of development.

Christie ended her post with this remarkable comment, and I want to share with you.

Kids are awesome, when you’re ready for them. I feel like I will be a better mother because I will have children when I am ready to be a mom. I truly think that having had my abortion has made me a kinder, more understanding, less judgmental person. And I will be a better mom for it… eventually.Right now, I’m just psyched that my best friend is having a baby that I get to play with, cuddle and love, and then give back when she gets fussy. That’s one of the joys of not having kids yet, and waiting until you’re ready (no matter how you get there).

Christie doesn't seem to understand that the baby she aborted, will never be replaced. He/she was a unique individual, and is gone forever due to the abortion. Oh, and her friend who was in labor at the time of the post? She had 2 abortions prior to having this 'wanted' baby. I have no doubt that both Christie, and her bestie, will be good mothers. It's just sad their first babies had to pay the ultimate price, so they could complete their own childhood.

#2 - ProChoiceGal penned "Why YOU Should Be An Abortion Provider". Yes, she is attempting to recruit people to be abortionists.

Let’s face it: providing abortions is not the most popular job that a person can choose. Even among the pro-choice medical community, providing abortions is not something that you do; it’s something that you let other people do. I can understand why, too. People don’t generally go to medical school with expectations of being protested, harassed, and threatened when they finish their schooling and get a job. People don’t usually expect to have the simple question of “what is your job?” to sometimes have to be an awkward, nerve wrecking experience. With all of this, some people may wonder why anyone would want to become an abortion provider.

No, being an abortionist wouldn't be a popular job, considering most people who go to medical school, do so to save lives, not end them. For those that do, It's an extremely lucrative business. The less competition, the more lucrative. Hopefully, ProChoiceGal will find that ripping human fetuses to shreds, isn't her calling after all. Although, I fear that the money will out-weigh her conscience.

Remember Dr. Tiller? He took great pride in ending pregnancies for 'women in need'. He killed viable babies, some of which were completely normal and healthy. As sad as it is, that is the legacy ProChoiceGal wants to live up to.

#3 - Steph Herald wrote "Letting Antis Speak for Themselves". As most of us know, Steph is the head honcho at Abortion Gang. She censors the blog with an iron delete button. She doesn't believe is free speech, and is unwilling, even unable, to debate pro-lifer's. Nor does she want to subject her 'subjects' to comments that may well open their eyes to the reality of what abortion is.

A couple of the comments she highlighted, were intended for the "Why YOU Should Be An Abortion Provider" post. Of course, Steph didn't want to subject her 'subject', ProChoiceGal, to debate.

“My mission today is not to get you to change your major…” So I guess abortion providers’ major would be Murder 101? “However, maybe you have it in your heart to become an abortion provider.” Have it in your HEART?! Are you F*****G kidding me?! A person has NO HEART if they murder a baby. F******g disgusting and vile. It’s one thing to have stupid thoughts but to speak them and then POST ON THE INTERNET for the world to see?! I’m at a loss, I really want to meet this ‘provider’. F******g idiot. (edited for language content)

I'm glad Steph posted this one. Indeed, how can anyone with a heart, consider ripping out the heart of another? It does anger pro-lifer's when someone speaks so casually, and proudly, about their career choice of ripping apart human fetuses.

Another comment:

Excuse the caps please. NO DOCTOR SHOULD BE PERFORMING ABORTIONS PERIOD! THE PURPOSE OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION IS TO HEAL PEOPLE, NOT TO KILL. EVERYONE PRO ABORTION OR PRO LIFE MUST AGREE ON ONE THING. WHETHER YOU CALL IT A CLUMP OF CELLS OR A BABY IT IS STILL SOMETHING LIVING AND EVOLVING TO AN EVENTUAL BIRTH OF A HUMAN BEING. AN ABORTION ABORTS OR EXTERMINATES THIS LIFE. THIS IS CONTRARY TO WHY THE MEDICAL PROFESSION EXISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE………..

Indeed!

It surprises me when she does let a pro-life comment slip through. Like this one from the baby hater post.

Upstatemama:

Okay, I am pro-life and I believe abortion is murder. I say that not to start the debate about it but to let you all know where I am coming from. That said I don’t hate you for your opinion. Nor do I think your opinion makes you a bad person. There are people who do not like babies and children on both sides of this debate. I mean I get the point that was being made. To many people, myself included, Caylee Anthony’s murder is the same tragic as those sweet babies who die everyday by abortion. However, I think that accusing people of being hartless monsters (which is what Mr Limbaugh said essentially) is just pointless. It does not make your point in a clear cocncise way. All it does is serve to fan the flames of hatred that just don’t need fanning.

"To many people, myself included, Caylee Anthony’s murder is the same tragic as those sweet babies who die everyday by abortion." - Isn't that what Rush said? Clearly, the comment was 'let in', because it contained an anti-Rush element to it. What did Rush really say?

"You know, what I don't understand about it is they're [the media] all card-carrying liberals. When does the death of a child bother them? I've never seen them get so upset over the death of a child," Rush Limbaugh said about the Casey Anthony verdict in his monologue on Wednesday.
"If the child had died, what, two years earlier in the womb this woman would be a star. She'd be a hero. And folks, I don't think that is a cliche to say. And I don't think it is as cheap attempt at humor. I think that while it may be uncomfortable to hear -- one of the reasons it is uncomfortable to hear is that there is an element of truth in it," Limbaugh added.
Rush told the media if they want to feel better, they should imagine that Casey Anthony had an abortion instead:
"You people in the media, if you really, really think she is guilty and you want to feel better about this just tell yourselves that she waited a couple of years to get an abortion and then you'll feel better."
"Abortion is brutal, [it's] never characterized that way and the reason it is brutal is because there is an element of truth of it. I just wanted to put it out there. Pure and simple, nothing more."

I would like to conclude this post by sincerely thanking Abortion Gang for making my job so easy.

When is Late Term Abortion Necessary?

2011-07-16T19:56:00.001-07:00

Pro-lifers like me, are so often accused of not caring about women, especially, pregnant women. If you listen as the choicer's tell it, we would let every woman die that had a life threatening event during her pregnancy. I assure you, this is not the case. All any pro-lifer will ever ask, is that everything possible be done to save the baby, but never at the expense of the mother's life.

Today, I read an article entitled "I don’t like that you do abortions, but if you didn’t, I would probably be dead". Within the article, an anonymous physician tells of his experience with a 'very pro-life' couple, who in the end, opted to abort their unborn baby.

A woman had arrived on Friday with ruptured membranes. She was 21 weeks along in her pregnancy and now there was no amniotic fluid left at all. She and her husband wanted everything done. Despite the dismal prognosis for her baby, in respect for the patient’s autonomy, antibiotics were started. Within 24 hours it was clear she had an infection.

Delivery was recommended as these infections are potentially deadly. The parents refused. “The antibiotics might work,” they said. And no amount of discussion about the overwhelming medical evidence that supported delivery could sway their decision. Inducing labor at 21 weeks while their baby was still alive was abortion.
The infection worsened despite the antibiotics. The patient, who was rapidly deteriorating, and her husband reluctantly consented to an induction of labor.

The induction didn't work. The doctor goes on to say how he convinced them that termination was the only way to save the mother's life.

Prior to the surgery, the husband asked:

“How did you learn to do these procedures?"

The doctors answered:

"By doing abortions. Lots of them. I have done more late term abortions than most doctors of my generation. That makes me very skilled. But the privilege of helping women end their pregnancies safely also gave me the skill to help women like your wife."

The article intentionally left it unclear which procedure was used. Was the fetus taken intact? If so, did it live for a few minutes? If so, were the parents given the opportunity to hold, to love, to create memories of their baby? My guess is no, no, and no.

According to AAPLOG (American Association of Pro-life Obstetrician's and Gynecologist's), this is one of a few instances when termination may be the only way to save the woman's life. As an addendum to their mission statement, they wrote:

What is AAPLOG’s position on “abortion to save the life of the mother?”?

Abortion is the purposeful killing of the unborn in the termination of a pregnancy. AAPLOG opposes abortion. When extreme medical emergencies that threaten the life of the mother arise (chorioamnionitis or HELLP syndrome could be examples), AAPLOG believes in “treatment to save the mother’s life,” including premature delivery if that is indicated — obviously with the patient’s informed consent. This is NOT “abortion to save the mother’s life.” We are treating two patients, the mother and the baby, and every reasonable attempt to save the baby’s life would also be a part of our medical intervention. We acknowledge that, in some such instances, the baby would be too premature to survive.

Indeed, we acknowledge that some babies are just too premature to survive, but.we.still.try. Might there have been an alternative for this patient? Perhaps.

An article on AAPLOG's web-site, "Is Late-Term Abortion Ever Necessary?" (also available in PDF) sheds some much needed light on the issue of late-term abortion. The author, Mary L. Davenport, M.D., writes:

Although most late-term abortions are elective, it is claimed that serious maternal health problems require abortions. Intentional abortion for maternal health, particularly after viability, is one of the great deceptions used to justify all abortion. The very fact that the baby of an ill mother is viable raises the question of why, indeed, it is necessary to perform an abortion to end the pregnancy. With any serious maternal health problem, termination of pregnancy can be accomplished by inducing labor or performing a cesarean section, saving both mother and baby. If a mother needs radiation or chemotherapy for cancer, the mother’s treatment can be postponed until viability, or regimens can be selectedthat will be better tolerated by the unborn baby. In modern neonatal intensive care units 90% of babies at 28 weeks survive, as do a significant percentage of those at earlier gestations.

Another part of the same article gives clarity to the reason some doctors, such as the anonymous physician, choose not to try to save the baby. Law suits. Stated plainly, there is less risk of a doctor being sued after performing an abortion, than there is in attempting to save the baby (and the mother).

If there was any advice to give after reading these articles, it would be this. If someone you love has a similar event during her pregnancy, call a maternal fetal specialist, not an abortionist.

Pennsylvania To Grant Birth Certificates For Stillborn Babies

2011-07-12T19:59:00.001-07:00

From Philly.com

Six years ago, Heidi Kauffman, pregnant with her third child, went to her doctor for a routine exam. She was concerned because her lively baby had turned oddly quiet.
An ultrasound confirmed the worst. Three weeks before Kauffman's due date, her baby was dead.
Doctors induced labor, and the 7-pound boy Kauffman and her husband would name Kail was delivered stillborn. Racked with pain and guilt, Kauffman asked a nurse, "When do I get a birth certificate?"
"You won't," she was told. Instead, the Kauffmans received a death certificate.

Every year, thousands of parents in the United States experience the loss their baby in the latter part of pregnancy. How heart-wrenching it must be to come home without your baby, and without so much as a certificate to acknowledge your baby's existence.

"People think it's only a piece of paper, but it was kind of like saying he never happened," Kauffman said.
"I was pretty mad at the world, but I was appalled that I could hold that perfect beautiful baby, and the state would say he never existed."

The new document will be a "certificate of birth resulting in stillbirth". A piece of paper parents can hold in their hand. Acknowledgment that their child existed.

The bill, sponsored by Senator Jake Corman (R), had been held up over several sessions, by a then Democrat controlled House, who were afraid this could somehow impede on abortion rights.

Can it? I sure hope so.

India: Two Doctors Face Action Over Female Feticide

2011-07-10T17:32:00.001-07:00

Abortion advocates often downplay the issue of gender-specific abortion. Specifically, the fact that in many parts of the world, boys are preferred to girls. As of 2007 in New Delhi, the birth rate is 814 girls for every 1000 boys.
The Times of India

2 doctors face action over female foeticide

THANE: An abortion clinic and a sonography centre were sealed in the lake city and two doctors may be booked for conducting illegal sex determination tests after a sting operation by activists Varsha Deshpande and the Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) indicated their role in female foeticide.
Dr Umesh Londhe, who heads Gopika Clinic in Naupada and Dr V N Jawahar, who owns the New Ultrasound Sonography Centre at Pokhran road II, are under the scanner for carrying out a prenatal gender check on a five-month pregnant woman, who was a decoy.
The woman, a practicing advocate and a member of Deshpande's NGO, Lek Ladki, which is campaigning against female foeticide, and another activist, Kailash Jadhav, approached Dr Londhe on Saturday to inquire about the test to determine their baby's sex.
"The couple was sent as a decoy after we noticed an advertisement that Dr Londhe's clinic offered help to the "needy'' who wanted to abort. Our activists met Dr Londhe at his clinic on Saturday and asked if could carry out tests. They told him that they would prefer an abortion if it was a girl as their parents were orthodox,'' Deshpande said.
An unsuspecting Dr Londhe made a feeble attempt to disuade the couple from the tests. "He said it was ironic that educated people from urban cities were consulting him for such illegal acts. Dr Londhe also told them that the state authorities had intensified their campaign against such illegal tests and such abortions attract a heavy penalty. However, the next moment he agreed to help them on the payment of Rs 70,000. After haggling, he consented to do the tests and an abortion for Rs 30,000,'' Deshpande said.
The conversation was recorded and filmed secretly by the decoys. The couple was told that should the tests show the gender of the foetus as male, they would still have to pay Rs 30,000. In fact, an advance payment of Rs 5,000 was demanded upfront and the couple was asked to report to the clinic on Sunday.
When the decoys went to the clinic on Sunday, Dr Londhe took Rs 25,000 from them. He then told the husband to sit at the clinic while he and his nurse Ashwini drove away to a sonography centre of Dr Jawahar.
"They were secretive about the centre's location. Ashwini accompanied them to the centre where tests were conducted by Dr Jawahar without filling any form or registering the patient's name.
After returning to his clinic, Dr Landhe announced that the foetus was of a girl child and that the mother would have to be admitted to his clinic for an abortion '' civic health officer Dr R Kendre said. Dr Londhe said the abortion would have to be conducted on Sunday itself and should the couple delay they would have to forfeit the Rs 25,000 paid to him. An acitivist involved in the raid told TOI that in one month 30 centres in Thane have been sealed.

Though we would like to think gender-specific abortion doesn't happen in the US, it does. If doctors in India will break the law for cash, you can bet there are doctors here that do it too.

Killing Babies is NOT Acceptable!

2011-07-04T09:10:00.001-07:00

A recent Abortion Gang post, was based on, and led me to, a Tumblr post regarding the "a fetus is not a baby" argument.

The author of the Tumblr "Digging For Roots", writes:

every time I see posts that are screaming about how a fetus is not a baby, a fetus is not a baby, a fetus is not a baby
all *I* can think about is that I lost - by miscarriage - eight fetuses (that I know for sure). Fetuses that were wanted. Fetuses that were prior to 120 days and therefore logically I know did not have their soul yet***. But TO ME they were real, and they were babies. They were loved, they were named, they were deaths that were very difficult for me (and their fathers) to deal with.
So while we are wont to scream so loudly that a fetus is not a baby and therefore it is not murder for the person carrying them to decide for themselves if they wish to continue to do so or not - and I agree with this - could we take a moment to realize that saying they are not babies also erases the experience of people who miscarry and are grieving over their loss(es)?

***The authors religious belief (Muslim), is that a fetus/baby does not receive a soul until 120 days.

The author is 'pro' the choice for a woman to decide if her fetus lives or dies, yet to her, her babies were real, they were loved, they even had names. To me, this is no different than allowing someone to kill their toddler, while you would never consider killing yours.

On to the post at Abortion Gang, the author Kushielsmoon attempts (and fails) to bridge the gap, or perhaps widen it, between wanted babies lost in miscarriage, and unwanted babies killed intentionally by abortion.

Legally, fetuses are not infants, are not considered persons, and thus, having an abortion is not murder. But we must remember, the personal is different from the legal. Pregnancy is different for every single woman- and one woman may experience multiple pregnancies in very different ways. A woman may consider her fetus to be ababy, or already a person, because she plans to carry to term. Another woman may consider her fetus to be a baby even though she is planning to have an abortion. Those feelings and beliefs are normal, valid, and should be perfectly acceptable.
Using the term “baby” doesn’t hurt the pro-choice position at all. If a woman believes that abortion is the best option for her baby, then we should support her in her choice.

For her, my opinion on the baby vs. fetus debate isn’t relevant.

She states that it should be 'perfectly acceptable' for a woman to abort her fetus, whether she considers he/she a fetus, or a baby. In truth, it really doesn't matter if a developing human is referred to as a fetus (the medical term), or as a baby (the term most of us use), it doesn't change what he/she is.

In essence, what she is saying, is that it should be perfectly acceptable for a woman to kill her baby. Try to wrap your head around that.

Legally, abortion is not murder, but that fact doesn't make an aborted human fetus any less dead, does it?

Look at the pictures below.

In the United States, it is legal to kill a baby at this stage of development.

Most people assume all abortions are performed early in pregnancy, let's say 8 wks. In fact, most are. But in reality, of the 1.2 million abortions performed in the United States annually, almost 80,000 are done at 16-20 weeks (4 to 5 months), and more that 200,000 are done at 13-15 weeks (3 to 4 months).

So when you hear a pro-choicer scream about a woman's right to abortion, remember that legal abortion kills babies like the one's above, right here in the United States of America. When did we get so low on the moral compass, that this would be 'acceptable'? It shouldn't be.

Does Age Determine Personhood?

2011-07-03T14:06:00.001-07:00

Being a Pro-Life Activist Is Easy - Just Click The Share Button

2011-07-03T05:01:00.001-07:00

One day a few months ago, a co-worker told me she saw my posts regarding abortion, on Facebook. I asked her what she thought about the posts; she then admitted she doesn't read them. I didn't press, it's inappropriate to get into political issues at work, it is at my job anyway.

On another occasion, my sister asked "Where do you find all those articles you post on Facebook?" I told her I got them from social media, like Twitter and Facebook. Then I asked her if she read any of them. She did! So, I asked her if she shared them. Her answer surprised me. "How do you share them?" Yep, it was pretty funny. She did start sharing them after that, maybe not all of them, but hey, it's a start.

The truth is, abortion is a very difficult issue to discuss, so a lot of people avoid it. We just don't know how the other person(s) will respond, so we don't bring it up. Many people get angry, if you suggest taking away a woman's right to choose. We are here to remind them that choosing abortion, is choosing to kill a developing human.

Here are some facts about abortion in the US you should know:

Women who have never married and are not cohabiting account for 45% of all abortions
Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion
Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.

Did you know over 1.2 million abortions are performed annually in the United States alone? 38.2% of abortions are performed at 9-10 weeks or greater. In other words, almost a half a million human fetuses are killed, at or beyond this stage in pregnancy.

(Clicking on the picture will take you to the EHD.org web-site)

If you want to see the reality of what abortion does to babies at this and other stages (you NEED to see for yourself), please visit Priests for Life.

Do your part to end abortion in America. Click that share button on Facebook. Retweet an informative article you like on Twitter. Spread the word! You have the power to educate people about the realities of abortion in America. Do your part. Be an activist. Click that share button!

Misplacing Responsibility For Sexual Satisfaction

2011-06-26T19:00:00.001-07:00

Very often in the pro-choice pro-life debate, I see a tweet that screams "IT'S YOUR FAULT!". This is one of those tweets.

According to @pomegrenade, pro-lifers like @jenleaakins, and I suppose the rest of us, 'create abortions'. I can tell you with 100% certainty, I've never had an abortion, therefore I have never created one.

What @pomegrenade is probably saying is something like "people are going to have sex anyway" and "if you don't supply them with birth control, it's your fault if she gets pregnant.

So IF I choose not to supply, say Planned Parenthood, with condoms and birth control pills, I am creating abortions. It doesn't matter that I wasn't in on someone's decision to have sex , but it's my fault if she gets pregnant.

Yes America, this is really the way pro-choice feminist liberals think.

Kansas Planned Parenthood to Comply With Regulations

2011-06-24T16:57:00.001-07:00

An inspection of Planned Parenthood's abortion clinic in Kansas by the state health department shows that it will comply with new regulations for abortion providers, the leader of the group's regional chapter said Friday.Read more here
Was their any doubt in your mind that Planned Parenthood would comply with state enforced regulations in Kansas? Their wasn't in mine. With the "mom & pop" abortion mills possibly not being able to comply, the financial gain for Planned Parenthood will far out-weigh the cost of attaining compliance. Kansas is a small piece of the Planned Parenthood's pie.
In an article Michelle Malkin wrote in 2008, she said:

the annual report of Planned Parenthood Federation of America revealed that the abortion giant had a total income of $1.02 billion—with reported profits of nearly $115 million. Taxpayers kick in more than $336 million worth of government grants and contracts at both the state and federal levels. That’s a third of Planned Parenthood’s budget.

Clearly, there are big bucks in the abortion biz. Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the United States, and they not only want to protect their financial interests, they want to increase them.
From LifeNews:

With approximately 1.2 million abortions done annually in the United States via surgical abortions or the mifepristone abortion drug, Planned Parenthood has increased its share of the abortion industry to 27.6 percent of all abortions done annually.

That number will increase as smaller outfits are forced to close down. Although I think women will be safer at Planned Parenthood than at smaller abortion mills, it makes me question exactly who is behind the legislation, and what connection they have to Planned Parenthood. I'll save that for another post.

***UPDATE*** The Aid for Women clinic has been denied a license to perform abortion, beginning July 1
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g1yFsH4ByCMOD-HTavm6pqcgWBXQ?docId=519cd789965940e79e6a6e934d230a45

I'll bet Planned Parenthood is making toasts right about now.

Do Abortion Advocates Really Care About Women's Safety?

2011-06-22T20:38:00.001-07:00

An article on Think Progress blog leaves me wondering if abortion advocates really care about the safety of women.

Last month, Republican lawmakers successfully passed an anti-choice bill requiring the state’s only three abortion clinics to be inspected twice a year, including one unannounced review. Under the new licensing standards, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment will create new standards for exits, lighting, bathrooms, and equipment and would have “the power to fine clinics” or “got to court to shut them down.” The law specifically targets abortion clinics and left other surgical clinics untouched by the new requirements — a fact that moved state Senate Majority Leader Jay Emler (R) to note the hypocrisy and vote against his party. However, the law passed in May and demands compliance by July 1.

While I can understand (I do not agree) that pro-aborts are feeling singled out, I cannot understand why they wouldn't want abortion clinics to be regulated like every other outpatient surgery center should be regulated. Adequate exits are not only necessary for fire safety, but in the case of any outpatient surgery clinic, the exit must be able to accommodate gurneys that may need to be brought in (and out) during emergencies.

If Kansas’ law succeeds in shutting down the state’s abortion clinics, that would be nothing less that a direct attack on the Constitution. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court held that states may enact some abortion regulations, but they may not “strike at the right itself” to terminate a pregnancy. A law specifically designed to make it impossible to operate abortion clinics is a direct attack on women’s constitutional right to choose.

The state and federal government's role is supposed to be to protect it's citizens. If an abortion clinic is not operating in a manner that guarantees the safety of it's patients, then it should be shut down. As long as the clinics comply with Kansas state regulations, the state can NOT shut them down. Simple enough?

the law is also going to cost Kansas taxpayers an “absurd” amount of money: $67,000 a year to do six inspections at three clinics.

Yes, that is an absurd amount of money. 18 inspections @ $3700+ each = BIG Government over spending.

In the end, it seems that rather than force abortion clinics to update their facilities and equipment, abortion advocates are willing to risk women's lives by fighting to keep them substandard. I thought they didn't want to go back to the 'back-alley' abortion days, but it seems they do. Maybe it's nostalgia.

ABC NEWS/Politics Shows Biased Abortion Promos

2011-06-18T19:49:00.001-07:00

I don't why I was shocked, but I was. I went to the ABC NEWS/Politics website to view an article about Mitt Romney and Herman Cain opting out of signing SBA's pro-life pledge. As I was attempting to read the article, the video above it was on auto-play. I actually found it quite annoying that it was playing while I was trying to read. I heard commercials play, such as Carrie Underwood for Olay, and another commercial for some type of cookie, Fruit Newtons? or something like that.

Then I heard abortion stats. What? I scrolled up and saw a Guttmacher abortion promo! I was stunned, and quite annoyed. A few minutes later I heard a voice I immediately recognized as Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood. She was defending Planned Parenthood against defunding.

You can see at the bottom right of both images below, "Auto Start On Off", obviously it was on. Had it not been, I would never have known the videos were there. I am saddened and sickened by ABC's bias on the issue of abortion.

Miscarriage is Spontaneous - Abortion is Intentional

2011-06-18T15:55:00.001-07:00

Lately, and perhaps a lot longer than I'm aware of, pro-aborts are attempting to re-define the term abortion.

When a pregnant woman loses her baby through no fault of her own, it is commonly thought of as a miscarriage, though the term 'spontaneous abortion' is medically accurate for this event.

The term 'abortion' is commonly thought of as intentional, an 'induced abortion', but pro-choice feminists are trying to change that. This is of course in an effort to make abortion 'normal and acceptable', unlike the intentional killing that it is.

When pro-choice feminists refer to someone who has had a miscarriage, they will no doubt include their knowledge that the woman had an 'abortion procedure'. Get it? If a D&C was performed because of a miscarriage, then according to pro-aborts, the woman had an abortion procedure. The woman has lost her baby spontaneously, but the fems are linking that with induced abortion. Anything for the cause, heh? What of the millions of women that have/had D&C's that weren't pregnant? I think I know the answer.

For the sake of understandable debate, let's leave the terms alone. Miscarriage is spontaneous and unintentional, an act of nature. Abortion is intentional and deliberate, an act by women and abortion providers to destroy the fetus.

I posted an article this morning about the blatant lies of pro-aborts, regarding Rick Santorum and his wife Karen. The comments on that article, and the screenshots of various choicer's, validate my claims here.

As I stated in my last comment on that post(June 18, 2011 12:44 PM ), by pro-choice logic, a woman who gives birth to a full term baby, has had an abortion. After all, the pregnancy was terminated wasn't it?

Abortion Advocates Lie About Rick & Karen Santorum

2011-06-18T08:46:00.001-07:00

Pro-Aborts can't get past the titles of these two posts, "OUR ABORTION WAS DIFFERENT: WHEN THE ANTI-CHOICE CHOOSE" and Santorum: Our Abortion Was Different. But the titles are supremely misleading, lies in fact, because Karen Santorum didn't have an abortion.

From Gabriel's Story:

at a routine sonogram, the 20 week old baby in my womb was diagnosed with a defect that is always fatal without surgery. Through our immense heartache came the most basic of parental emotions: We had to save our child. After many tests it was determined our son was eligible for the operation that could save his life. It was a success, but an infection developed in the amniotic sac, and I was rushed to the hospital with a high fever, having contractions. I begged the doctors to stop my labor, but they said it would be malpractice, for I would surely die since these infections are untreatable. (emphasis is mine)

DailyKOS published Rick Santorum is against abortion for any reason, with one exception, and even used the following 'quote', directly from the second article linked in this post.

The blatant lies have gone viral, and pro-aborts continue to spread them. A few tweets from Twitter clearly shows pro-aborts don't have a problem with spreading lies.

And....

And...

I even found one by @IAmDrTiller, aka the ring leader of Abortion Gang.

Though she has been told the story was in fact a lie, she hasn't deleted the tweet at this point.

We'll see how the pro-choice community responds to what was obviously 'misinformation' (as they call it).

There is also another element of this story that the choicer's are twisting. From Father First, Senator Second

Upon their son's death, Rick and Karen Santorum opted not to bring his body to a funeral home. Instead, they bundled him in a blanket and drove him to Karen's parents' home in Pittsburgh. There, they spent several hours kissing and cuddling Gabriel with his three siblings, ages 6, 4 and 1 1/2. They took photos, sang lullabies in his ear and held a private Mass.

What pro-life refers to as 'respecting the dead', choicer's refer to as 'sick'. I suppose throwing him in the garbage like trash would have been preferable to them.

Understanding Both Sides of the Abortion Debate

2011-06-16T19:20:00.001-07:00

For Psychology Today Blogs: The complexities of abortion - How becoming a mother made me a better thinker.

As a young teenager and through a lot of my college career, I identified as "pro-life"; that is, I believed that women should not have a right to abort a fetus they created as a result of voluntary sexual intercourse. After taking my undergraduate Bioethics class (and falling in love with the subject - indeed, it is the only Bioethics class I ever took even though it is now my main area of research), my professor helped me to see that there are pretty solid pro-choice arguments - the most convincing for me being Judith Jarvis Thomson's argument that no person is obligated to use their body to sustain the life of another person. Just as I cannot force you to give me even in milliliter of blood to sustain my life (even though I am a person with a right to life), a woman cannot be compelled to use her body to sustain the fetus (even if the fetus were considered a person). I carried that view with me for a long time, through my graduate training, and right up until July 2008, when I saw my daughter's image for the first time on the ultrasound screen. That first image was, to use Rudolf Otto's term, awe-ful. The ultrasound technician pressed the wand against my belly and the little fetus somersaulted in response. While the technician continued to speak to us, my little tenant continued frolicking in my womb. My husband and I drove home in silence afterwards. While stopped at a red light he commented, out of the blue, that after seeing our fetus, he could never bring himself to abort it. My response seemed so foreign given my beliefs: Neither could I.

There is a lot more to the article, and it is a must read. Please take the time, read every word, it's that important.

Pro-Abortion Activist Pre-Planned Her Unborn Baby's Death

2011-06-12T07:38:00.001-07:00

New Jersey's abortion rate is approximately 50% higher than the national average. So it's no surprise that this culture of fetal death led Jessica DelBalzo to an early decision. In her recent RH Reality Check article, "My Happy Abortion: One Woman's Guilt-Free Story", Jessica admits:

I remember thinking and even saying aloud that I would abort if I got pregnant as a teenager.

Jessica went on to give birth to two children, good thing for them they were 'wanted'.

Then, as a young twenty-something, I became eager to have children – and I welcomed two very wanted, well-loved babies into the world.

And then:

Once things began to deteriorate between their father and I, I knew without a doubt that any future pregnancy we faced would be terminated

And so it happened. Jessica got pregnant, and fulfilled her 'promise' to herself (and the pro-abort sisterhood). She was finally granted the opportunity to experience abortion first hand. What else is a pro-abortion activist supposed to do? She tells of her decision not to have twilight sleep, only choosing a local anesthetic. She wanted the full experience. I suppose that makes her a heroin in pro-abort minds.

Pre-planning your child's death, that's so pro-choice.

*Photo from RHRealityCheck profile

Open Question for Pro-Choice

2011-06-09T20:41:00.000-07:00

Scenario: Abortion has been made illegal, and you found out you're pregnant.

Considering where you are in your life today, what would you do? Why?

Honest answers appreciated.

The Peaceful Abortion Vigil

2011-06-07T19:38:00.001-07:00

I'll never understand how a group of people praying, can be so intimidating to abortion advocates.

Abortion Advocates Recommend Dangerous Self-Abortion

2011-06-06T19:17:00.001-07:00

From Serena at Feminists For Choice:
"Women should absolutely be able to take control of their bodies into their own hands. Taking mifepristone and misoprostol outside of a health center should not be deemed illegal." (emphasis is mine)

So much for safe. Pro-choice doesn't care about the safety of women.

Personhood

2011-06-04T19:07:00.001-07:00

It's all over the web, "Abortion Foes Push To Redefine Personhood", this particular article is on NPR's web-site. (I thought they were supposed to be non-biased)

Pro-Lifer's can't deny it, that's exactly what we're are trying to do. Since the 1973 decision in Roe v Wade, unborn human beings have been denied their personhood. We're working to get it back for them.

An article I just read, Semantics Don’t Change Truth: The social motivations behind new definitions, explains the semantics abortion advocates use to deny the unborn their human rights.

But what does “being pregnant” really mean? Some clever sleight of hand has been underway for years to allow “guilt-free” abortions by redefining the words involved.

The article goes on to explain:

The move to redefine conception actually started in 1959 when Dr. Bent Boving at a Planned Parenthood symposium pointed out “the social advantage of [implantation preventatives] being considered to prevent conception rather than to destroy an established pregnancy.”
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists followed Boving’s advice in 1965 by adopting this definition: “conception is the implantation of an ovum.” Since fertilization cannot be detected until the time of implantation—when the physical connection to the mother’s body allows a hormone from the developing placenta to enter the mother’s bloodstream—the reasoning was that the beginning of pregnancy could be redefined to the time when we can medically detect it. This reasoning is tantamount to asking whether a man alone on a desert island really exists if no one knows he’s there. Such reasoning amounts to philosophical meandering, not science.

So this is how it plays out. ACOG redefined when pregnancy begins to be at implantation. Now, the term conception is being applied to mean at implantation. Why? Birth control pills and IUD's can act to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus. Emergency Contraception, the morning after pill, supposedly prevents conception (implantation). If fertilization is the same as conception (it is), then many birth control pills, IUD's, and the morning after pill would be considered possible abortifacients (they are). After all, if you're not considered pregnant, then you're not considered to have had an abortion. Make sense?

Had ACOG not changed the definition, pharmaceutical companies would have lost millions in sales. Money drives big pharma, and big pharma's money drives politics.

PersonhoodUSA, other pro-life organizations, and mom and pop pro-lifer's like me, are working to give human rights back to the unborn, rights which never should have been taken in the first place.

Pro-Life Movie, Pro-Abort Nightmare

2011-06-03T17:09:00.001-07:00

Pro-Aborts are going to have nightmares about this.

TPMMuckraker

Kenneth Del Vecchio, a Republican candidate for New Jersey state Senate and a producer of conservative-themed films, is premiering a psychological thriller this weekend with a pro-life twist: Three pregnant women, who intend to have abortions, are kidnapped and forced to carry their pregnancies to term.

From the Official Release

The controversial premise of THE LIFE ZONE: three women have been kidnapped from abortion clinics and are being held for seven months—until they all give birth. The film, which appears to cut right down the middle, examining the topic from both sides, offers a powerful, anti-abortion climactic twist.

Here's the official movie trailer:

Imagine locking pregnant women up, in order to prevent them from killing their babies. Will pro-aborts see this scenario as a real possibility? Yes, they will.

Pro-Aborts say "Follow the Law", Unless it Involves Abortion

2011-06-02T18:15:00.001-07:00

***UPDATE***
As the title of this post suggests, the pro-aborts think what this woman did should be overlooked. Robin Marty of Care2 writes the article Drop The "Unlawful Termination" Charges Against Jennie LMcCormack, a petition, and an attempt to sway the court’s decision in this case. Ms. McCormack aborted her 20+ wk fetus, only a few weeks from viability. From Robin:

McCormack doesn't need a jail sentence, she needs help recovering from a desperate situation.

I agree Ms. McCormack needs help in her recovery, but I don’t agree that she shouldn’t be penalized for what she did. People make mistakes, and they must deal with the consequences.
For more information about 20 wk abortions, Christina Dunigan has an excellent article over at Real Choice.
***************
A woman in Idaho, Jennie L. McCormack, took pills her sister ordered online, and successfully aborted her pregnancy of at least 20 weeks. Idaho recently passed a law making abortion illegal at 20 weeks or greater.
From Idaho Press-Tribune

Law enforcement officer found the fetus inside a box that had been wrapped inside a black garbage bag, according to the police report. After the officers opened the bag, they smelled a "terrific odor" and said McCormack then pointed toward their findings and said: "My baby is in the box," the report said. (referring to the police report)
McCormack told police she had kept the baby's remains in a box in her bedroom for about a week and moved it outside because it had begun to smell.

Even the mother admitted there was a 'baby' in the box.
The baby was found by police on Jan. 9, 2011, after a woman named Brenda Carnahan called police. She learned of the horrific event from her brother, who was an apparent friend of Ms. McCormack.
Robin Marty of Care2 had this to say:

Unable to afford the doctors visits and medical bills associated with an actual medical abortion, Jennie L. McCormack of Idaho instead had her sister purchase drugs online to ingest in order to cause a miscarriage. (emphasis is mine)

Pro-aborts tend to get abortion and miscarriage confused.... intentionally. Jennie McCormack fully intended to ABORT her pregnancy, thereby killing the baby... no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
A couple of comments on the Care2 post:

From Sarah K - No matter what your personal viewpoint that woman deserved to have proper medical care and support. Had she known how many weeks she was she may have made a different decision.
And where is the father in all of this?

Actually, Sarah is right. Jennie did deserve to have proper medical care and support. All women do. Women deserve to be able to give birth to their babies, and still have peace of mind that they can afford to feed and clothe any other children they may have. Jennie McCormack already had 3 children.

From Miranda Lyon - The woman who turned her in doubtless feels so self-satisfied with herself, congratulating herself for her moral and righteous act, but really has only done something judgmental, lacking in compassion, and mean-spirited.

Really Miranda? Abortion at 20 weeks is ILLEGAL in Idaho. Funny how pro-aborts defend abortion as a 'legal medical procedure', and then defend illegal abortions too. Hypocrites. Judgmental? Yes, it's legal (and moral) to judge someone. Lacking in compassion and mean-spirited? Was it compassionate to end the life of her unborn baby?

If convicted, Ms. McCormack could be subject to a $5000 penalty, as well as up to five years in prison. In my opinion, the fine of $5,000 should be dedicated to a pro-life charity, you know, the one's that help women, AND their babies.

Ms. McCormack had choices, and one of those choices was to ask for help. The only help she asked for, was help to kill her baby.

#ProChoice #Twittiots

2011-05-28T20:57:00.001-07:00

Excuse the language, but this one is really rude and vile. I'm guessing the conversation was based on privacy rights.

@AmyNLuv is one of the newer pro-aborts on twitter, and hasn't yet looked in the mirror at her own hypocrisy. She's complaining about pro-lifers using the pro-choice hash-tag, and in doing so, she uses the pro-life hash-tag.

Amy, you FAILED!

Mother angry at lack of abortion counselling

2011-05-28T20:23:00.001-07:00

stuff.co.nz

A mother is angry her 15-year-old daughter wasn't counselled through the pros and cons of having an abortion until she was on the hospital bed and presented with the termination-inducing pill.

Napier woman Natalie* said it's only one of the things medical professionals could have handled better when her daughter chose to have a second-trimester termination.

Two years ago Natalie's daughter discovered she was pregnant after taking a store-brought pregnancy test. A scan by a doctor confirmed the test, revealing she was more than three months' pregnant.

Natalie, who was overseas at the time, said her daughter didn't feel she could confide in anyone and decided to have a termination.

Four weeks later, and after a number of consultations, her doctor arranged for her to see a counsellor at Hastings Hospital. Her daughter told the Star-Times she was given a piece of paper at the hospital and asked to read and sign it.

She said no one went through it with her or explained what it meant.

"I quickly skimmed through it... to get it over and done with," she said.

During the session the counsellor contacted Wellington Hospital and arranged for her to head down to the hospital that day, as Hastings Hospital cannot perform second-trimester abortions.

"At no time were the pros and cons of having a termination or keeping the baby discussed with her. They never sat down and went over anything like that," Natalie said.

"She just said, she got asked, `Do you not think you can be a mother?' and she said no." Natalie acknowledged more information may not have changed her daughter's mind as "at the time she didn't want the baby".

Her daughter was given petrol and accommodation vouchers, then drove to Napier to pack her bags. Her boyfriend's sister drove her to Wellington.

Natalie wondered why her daughter wasn't at home with the nanny, so rang her estranged husband. When he discovered where his daughter was, he drove to Wellington.

"He was devastated," she said.

By the time he reached his daughter, she'd already been given laminaria – a cervix dilator and labour inducer. Natalie said she was told that once she started, she couldn't turn back.

"She didn't even know what the procedure involved. She knew nothing about the development stage of the baby. I think they should be told that," she said.

"Apparently, she thought she was going to be put to sleep and she'd wake up and the baby would be gone. Was she capable of making that decision? Was it an informed choice?"

Natalie said the hospital staff handed her a pill and said she needed to take it to "get the rest of it going".

However, after talking to her father and hearing that she would have her parents' support, she became unsure about proceeding with the abortion.

That's when she talked to someone about the pros and cons of having a second-trimester termination.

As a result, she decided to keep the baby, but doctors told her there was a chance she could miscarry.

A month later, having named the baby and decided upon a teen parent unit, she did miscarry.

"She ended up having to deliver her," Natalie said. "It was awful."

Now 17, her daughter has a tattoo on her back with the baby's name and a set of little footprints. She has said if she'd had to tell her parents, things would have turned out differently.

Under section 38 of the Care of Children Act 2004, a female of any age can consent to an abortion. She does not have to inform her parents or guardians.

Family groups are calling for a law change after the Star-Times reported that a mother was horrified when her 16-year-old daughter had an abortion facilitated by the girl's school counsellor.

*Names have been changed

- Sunday Star Times

This article highlights the importance of parental consent laws in the United States (and elsewhere). Had this young woman's parents been notified, she would have a happy healthy 2 year old right now. Instead, she has a tatoo with her babies name, and will endure years of regret knowing that her baby died because of her actions.

There's Something Amiss in Pro-abort Story

2011-05-26T19:55:00.001-07:00

A story appeared today in Salon titled "Abortion Saved My Life". The author, had a placental abruption, which can indeed be life threatening, for both the mother and the fetus. But was it in this case? I have my doubts Not that the pregnancy was in danger, but rather that the situation was as critical as the story leads some to believe. Something just doesn't add up.
To begin with, she was seeing an "OB/GYN who specializes in treating fibroids and endometriosis", not one who specializes in high risk pregnancy. This makes no sense, considering the woman was having issues with bleeding from the beginning of her pregnancy, and was told by her doctor that the pregnancy was very high risk.

I was taking an afternoon nap when the hemorrhaging started. Laying in bed with my toddler napping in his room, and waking up to find blood gushing up my body is an experience I wouldn’t wish on anyone. The placental abruption that my doctor had listed as a possibility was happening and I was going to have to do my best to take care of both of us. Mind you, my husband was at work and my not quite 2 year old sure couldn’t dial 911 for me so I had to make it to the phone & make arrangements for the sleeping toddler as well as his older brother before I could leave the house.

In the real world, you dial 911 to get help as soon as possible. As for making arrangement for the kids, it was probably done in a quick call to a friend or relative, while she was waiting on help. That is, if she waited on help at all. No mention was made of EMT's or an ambulance. Perhaps someone drove her to the hospital. Perhaps she drove herself.
The woman and her husband had previously discussed aborting this baby.

When we found out (that standard pregnancy test before surgery is necessary after all) I talked it out with my husband and we debated aborting (I got as far as the clinic), before ultimately deciding that we would try to make it work.

I'm guessing that with the bleeding issues, along with the earlier thoughts of abortion, she wasn't emotionally attached to this baby. While at the hospital, I assume the ER, she was seen by the doctor on call.

The doctor on call didn't do abortions.

As you read the story, you might notice that the woman's personal OB/Gyn was not called. MY doctor would be the first person I called in an emergency. Ok, maybe the second, the first being 911. Perhaps her doctor didn't perform abortions? Also, no doctor is going to let a woman bleed to death, if he/she can do something to stop it.
When pro-aborts read her story, they will read it as, "Woman almost died because doctor didn't do abortions".
It's one more story the pro-aborts will add to their arsenal to put the pro-life cause in the bulls-eye. It's one more spin for "abortion on demand". It's one more sad attempt to force doctors to kill babies against their conscience.
Abortion on demand is what her story is all about. It's sad really, that young impressionable women, and men, fall for this kind of stuff without question. They need to wake up and smell the fowl.

Texas' Pre-Abortion Sonogram Law

2011-05-21T09:36:00.001-07:00

From CNN, "Texas law requires sonograms, explanations before abortions"

Women seeking an abortion in Texas will have to view a picture of the embryo or fetus and hear a description of its development before having the procedure, under a law that takes effect September 1.

Needless to say, pro-aborts are not liking this. They see ultrasound as invasive. No, they really don't, but that's the best they can come up with. Sticking a foreign object in the uterus to remove 'the products of conception'? Now that's invasive!

Critics say the new law is unnecessary.
"What no one is focusing on is that this is a mandate to humiliate women who want an abortion," said Yvonne Gutierrez, vice president for public affairs at the Planned Parenthood Trust of South Texas.

No, the law is not there to humiliate women. The law is there to protect women from aborting what you've told them is 'just a clump of cells'. Ultrasound will allow them the opportunity to see and hear exactly what's going on in their uterus.

"It's going to make it more difficult for women to get an abortion," Gutierrez said, calling it the most stringent sonogram law in the country.

Yes it will, that's the point!

The law, she says, "will strengthen informed consent and bring abortion closer to standards that are set for other surgical procedures." - Elizabeth Graham, director of Texas Right to Life

I can't honestly say that this law was put in place to bring abortion closer to standards set for other surgical procedures, but it's ok with me. This law will allow women the opportunity to make truly informed decisions. And that's how it should be.

Pro-abort Admits It's a "Baby" in the Womb

2011-05-20T16:53:00.001-07:00

We've all heard the rhetoric. It's not a baby! Yeah it is, and this pro-choicer admits it. Sad thing is, if she had not wanted her baby, she had the legal right to kill it. What kind of people think it's ok to kill a baby?

Canadian Pro-aborts Are Sweating

2011-05-20T11:57:00.001-07:00

You know, it may seem like I'm picking on Abortion Gang, but when I'm looking for blog material, they make it so easy!

"Learning From American Mistakes" by Not Guilty, is nothing more than pro-abort hacking of the pro-life movement in Canada. Being an American, I don't follow Canadian politics, other than what I pick up on Twitter. Needless to say, the pro-life movement in the good old USA, is leading the pro-life movement in the rest of the world, and that includes Canada. That's what we do in America; we lead, the others follow.

On May 2nd, Canadians made a horrible decision. Well 39% of the 61.4% (5.8 million of 33 million people) of the population that voted did anyways. We gave Stephen Harper his long-coveted majority.

It's seems conservative Canadians are standing up for what they believe in, much like conservative Americans did back in November of 2010.

Back to the issue of abortion -

The problem, as is most evident now than ever, is that if you give an anti an inch, they will take a mile.

And then she goes on to say -

Our government is bound and determined to not learn from America’s “war on drugs” and mega-prison mentality. Harper is hell-bent on remaking those mistakes. The pro-choicers in Canada must stand their ground. We must not accept one single concession. We must demand more. More access, more prevention, more freedom. We must not look to “agree to disagree” or appease the antis. We must look them in the eye and tell them they can take their “moral high-ground” and stick it. We are going to demand abortions access in the most remote areas; we must demand more support for those who choose abortion. Pro-choicers in Canada must fight fire with fire. We cannot give in because as soon as we do, as soon as we concede one point, we lose everything.

From the comments -

Serena writes:
if you give an anti an inch, they will take a mile.
I couldn’t agree with you more about not making concessions on abortion. If the pro-choice community accepts any restrictions on abortion (i.e. bans on “late term” abortion), we may as well give up the whole kit and kaboodle. Either you accept abortion, or you don’t. It doesn’t matter what stage of pregnancy the woman is in, imho. Abortion is a moral, responsible decision. Period.

If you give a pro-abort an inch, they will most assuredly take a mile. Case in point, late term abortion. Serena appears to be okay with it, and with no boundaries set. When is late, too late? Abortion is legal in most US states until 24 weeks gestation, for ANY reason. Would Serena want abortion legal at 34 weeks? 39? You get the picture. Most of the pro-choicer's I talk to, are NOT ok with late term abortions, though I doubt they would agree to help ban them. Just like most people that are pro-life personally, don't give abortion a second thought politically. The issue of abortion is one most people would rather not even think about.

Americans turned their backs on the abortion issue after Roe, and because of that, over 53 MILLION abortions have been performed. Over 53 million human lives were ended, before they could take their first breath. Enough is enough! It's time for Americans and Canadians to stand up against the abortion lobby. We can't bring back the babies that were lost to abortion, but we can give babies of the future a fighting chance.

New Zealanders Fight for Parental Consent Law

2011-05-18T19:38:00.000-07:00

Read the entire article: nzherald.co.nz

One of the most evil manifestations of the abortion industry and the "health" system is their ability to have abortions performed on schoolgirls without the knowledge or consent of the child's parents.

It's truly sad that underage teens are able to make the decision to abort their unborn baby, yet the parents that are responsible for these teens, have no say in that decision.

Reading on -

And a thoroughly scientific study in 2006 by Dr Priscilla Coleman, a research psychologist at Bowling Green State University in Ohio, refuted a long-standing contention that teenagers are better able to handle an abortion than dealing with an unplanned pregnancy.

Teens know that a human being is killed by abortion. They've not yet been desensitized to the reality of abortion. They may be at some point in the near future though, by their future pro-abort college classmates.

"The scientific evidence is now strong and compelling. Abortion poses more risks to women than giving birth." - Dr Priscilla Coleman

You can read more about Dr Coleman's study here

Pro-Abort Dreams of Being an Abortionist

2011-05-17T20:23:00.001-07:00

I am sick. I just read an Abortion Gang post from “Prochoicegal”, who’s big dream is to be a baby killer.

Yes, that’s right, she wants to be the one that sucks out the fetus, tearing he or she limb for limb, all the while listening to the slurrrrpppp of the vacuum, while watching tiny arms and legs, maybe even a spine, go through the tubes, and empty out into a bowl, or jar, or whatever they catch ‘products of conception’ in. Magnificent career huh?

With so many strong opinions out there about what I should do with my life and with so much stigma surrounding my future profession, it’s sometimes difficult to get my voice out there and “come out” as a future abortion provider.

Stigma? ABORTION PROVIDERS KILL HUMAN FETUSES. Why should that be stigmatized? Geez. She needs to hang around some normal people, you know, the ones that don’t kill babies. But no.

Usually people just avoid me after I tell them (hey, I’m okay with that. Who wants to be friends with an anti, anyway?)

'Usually'? I like that. It's clear that the vast majority of US citizens are appalled by abortion, as they should be.

87% of U.S. counties don’t have an abortion provider, and this needs to change.

I agree that this stat needs to change. Shall we go for 97%?

Saying “I am an abortion provider” should be no more stigmatic than saying “I am a cardiac surgeon”, just like saying “I had an abortion” should be no more stigmatic than saying “I had heart surgery”.

Except that cardiac surgeons save lives, abortion providers end them.

Wait, what was the comparison I saw the other day? Oh yeah.

So there you have it. The dreams of a pro-abort. Sick world.

Pro-Choice Orgs Want Women To Be Informed, Oh Wait, No They Don't

2011-05-17T19:01:00.001-07:00

Robin Marty penned an article for RH Reality Check blasting an attempt by Online For Life to 're-direct' abortion minded women to a Crisis Pregnancy Center in their neighborhood. According to Robin:

Anti-abortion activists keep passing abortion restrictions like "women's right to know" and mandatory ultrasounds under the guise that women need to have access to as much information as possible prior to an abortion.

Apparently Robin doesn't think women deserve to have 'as much information as possible', before terminating the life that is growing within them. To Robin, it's much better to keep them blind to the humanity of the unborn.

So why is it that when a woman is using the internet to gather information on abortion providers, they are making it a goal to keep them from the very information they are seeking?

If a woman wants an abortion bad enough, she will find her way to an abortion mill. Don't believe me? Check out the stats on Online For Life's web-site. It's clear we have a lot more work to do, changing minds and hearts.

Online For Life offers life affirming options, to help keep women from making a decision that they will possibly regret for the remainder of their lifetime, while at the same time, saving the life of their unborn child.
Meanwhile... NaralProChoiceNY has put out ~~an APB~~ a video announcing a nationwide attack on CPC's, in an attempt to restrict women from learning the truth about abortion.

I sometimes wonder if pro-abortion organizations have ever considered gathering funds to HELP women? Helping women get out of poverty would be cost prohibitive. It's more 'cost-effective' for them to perform abortions. And women and their babies lose.

Special thanks to my twitter friend @momn3boys for bring my attention to the Naral video. :-)

Does Pro-choice Sell Stupid by the Bucket?

2011-05-14T14:57:00.001-07:00

Sometimes it's just entertaining to sit and watch the monitor on my computer. No, it doesn't do tricks! It's the level of stupid coming across the pro-choice twitter feed that's entertaining. I was going to say something, but what can you say to such stupidity? Nothing.

If life began at conception? Life DOES begin at conception, there are no ifs about it. Annie just solidified the FACT that every human conception is indeed a miracle, one that pro-choice takes for granted.

That anyone would take Annie's 'facts' as justification for the abortion of millions of babies is not surprising, yet it's very sad. I wonder if they've ever sat and thought about what abortion really does. Have they ever envisioned an 8wk fetus being ripped apart, limb by limb? Probably not.

I'll finish up with a couple of real doozies. This one may explain why some pro-aborts think gender is 'assigned' at birth.

SERIOUSLY Annie, did you flunk biology in school? Gender IS determined at conception

If eye doctors start digging in peoples eyes in order to intentionally blind them, I promise there will be protesters. Lucky for you, they don't use curettes.

Legal Abortion Couldn't Save Her

2011-05-08T08:19:00.001-07:00

I saw this this morning, and as a pro-lifer, I felt the need to respond. What Ian wrote is emotional, and pretty much what we all do in times of tragedy, lash out and place blame. This is in no way intended to increase Ian's pain over losing his friend.

On Friday 6th May 2011, @IanTheAtheist said:

A letter to the #ProCHOICE & #Antichoice
A woman just died who was close to me. She had an abortion without proper medical care. She hid it because of her family and the shame. Info is still coming out. It looks like she did it herself in the bathroom. Her name is Kim, age 31. Now her 3 daughters don't have a mother. Kim was a University of Santa Barbara California graduate. She would have been an awesome high school physics teacher. I am very sad. Just a side-note: Kim was on the Pill.

Her husband left her. Kim had a full-time job and a full college load. Due to medical problems from her last pregnancy and her financial situation, she wanted an abortion. She feared that if she had one, her mother would find out and stop baby sitting the kids while she worked. She couldn't afford more day care costs.

Her mother is a hardcore catholic bitch. (redundant, I know.) She throws Halloween parties in which she runs a fake abortion clinic in an attempt every year to scare teenage girls. They call the parties "Hell House" and girls/boys walk through a large gymnasium seeing fabricated sets with bloody "dead" baby dolls. They have robot dolls that scream and say "Don't kill me!" Kim grew up around this and knew that having an abortion would ruin what little family she had left. Her husband made the situation a million times worse by leaving. Why did he leave? Because Kim never gave him a son. "She kept spitting out girls." <----His response to my email today.

Kim was a hardworking woman put in a situation she couldn't resolve. Above is the short version of all of the events, because I can't write this without crying. Suffice to say that women deserve better. If you're a man and read this: think of your sister/mother/daughter/aunt/cousin. Imagine them being put in Kim's exact situation or worse. What could happen? Is it worth death? Your propagandist opinion isn't worth the death of anyone.

Kim's little girls are now stuck with Kim's mom. Now they have very little chance of growing up as well-adjusted adults. They will no doubt have issues. They will have massive depression.

Remember that religion caused this. Religion causes death. Kim would be alive and well if she could have seen a doctor without shame. She would have finished graduate school. Her girls would have a mommy. The world was a better place with Kim in it. Highschool students would have learned from her well honed understanding of physics.

F*** you if you can read this and think "Well why didn't she do this? Why didn't she do that? Well she could have done blah!" No she couldn't. She was left with no other opportunity. Trust women. They are the best of us.

You don't need to let your opinion of something tramp on everybody else's freedoms.

-emotional wreck-

Who is really to blame for this tragedy? Her husband? Her Mother? Religion? Abortion culture? Maybe society as a whole? Did Kim really not have any other option?

Of course she did! She could have told her mother, who as a 'hardcore' Catholic, would have done what was necessary to help Kim through what was obviously a crisis pregnancy. She could have talked to someone, perhaps her close friend Ian? She could have talked to a counselor? She could have went to her neighborhood abortion clinic, where abortion is "Safe & Legal"? Kim had a lot of options. She 'chose' the option to end the pregnancy herself.

I can only imagine what she was going though emotionally when she attempted to self abort. This is where society failed Kim. No woman should ever feel she has to make the choice to abort, whether legally or illegally, safe or unsafe. Today's abortion culture leaves women feeling abortion is the best option. When it's all said and done, if Kim would have had real support, from ANYONE, she just might still be alive today.

Yes, women DO deserve better, they deserve better than abortion.

As Mother's Day Approaches, Pro-Abort Shows Hatred for Mothers

2011-05-04T18:01:00.001-07:00

I can honestly say I was shocked to read a recent post on the Abortion Gang blog, "Fetus Photos". The sheer hatred and disrespect for Mother's and Mother's-to-be, is telling. It makes me wonder what goes through the mind of the author Shayna and other pro-aborts, when they see a pregnant woman on the street. My thoughts are that to them, every pregnant woman is a threat to the pro-choice feminist cause, and every fetus is an assailant. All words below in bold are my emphasis.
Quoting Shayna -

When does it make sense to start snapping ultrasound pics of your uterus and sending out grainy black and white shots of what appears to be a slightly anemic sea monkey to your friends and family?

As soon as the Mother to be wants to? Thankfully, most people will rejoice with the mother to be (exception being Shayna). Her friends and family will share in her happiness and smile every time they see one of her ultrasound pictures (exception being Shayna). They will lift anything heavier than a few pounds for her, so she doesn't overexert herself (exception being Shayna). They will ask if she needs anything to make her more comfortable (exception being Shayna). They will start planning her BABY shower (exception being Shayna). They will LOVE her AND her baby (exception being Shayna).

And yet, she is barely at the point in her pregnancy where she can even begin to find out whether or not her pregnancy is truly one that will mature into a fully formed human being, independent and capable of surviving outside of her body. What will she, or any one of the millions of other women who behave in the same way, announcing their children’s existence even before they attend their first prenatal doctor’s visit, if they find out that their pregnancy is not viable? That their potential children would have no quality of life? Can she still have an abortion if she has already so publicly and firmly turned her pregnancy, which is a medical condition that she herself has, into a separate human being in her own mind the mind of her friends and family members?

I'm taking it that Shayna would prefer every baby aborted "just in case" something goes wrong? Only a pro-about would keep a calendar reminding her of the last possible day to abort "just in case" the baby's not perfect.

And yet, the baby-centric culture that we have created, wherein it is somehow bitter or radical for me, a single woman, to defend my right to my own body by belonging to the Abortion Gang, but normal for a pregnant woman to spam her entire e-mail address book with a flood of fetus photos. Sure, her job as an ultrasound tech means that my cousin is able to scan herself more often than a hairdresser changes her hair color, but she is hardly alone in transforming from a multifaceted woman into an obsessed baby bakery.

It's called HAPPINESS Shayna! Something you clearly don't have any experience with.

I’m not sure whether I find the barrage of baby news and photos so obnoxious because it began upon conception or because of its sheer volume. It could be because, despite the fact that it is remarkably easy to conceive a child, her behavior indicates that it is somehow a daring or difficult choice.

Actually, the chances of getting pregnant run between 11% and 25% each month, depending on the timing. While some women get pregnant easily, others struggle for years, and some never get pregnant. They never experience the joy of carrying their baby in their womb, feeling it kick, and giving birth. They feel like they were cheated, and unworthy. They go through years of depression because they feel that their destiny is unfulfilled. So sad that Shayna has no empathy for these women. But who says feminists should care for all women? Not me.

Yet, I believe, that it is so much more challenging and admirable to make the decision to not have a baby. To dare to put quality of life above “life,” to make the hard decisions that, unfortunately, no one will be sending you cute little pastel care packages for. It is so much more difficult to decide to have an abortion, to decide that you cannot have a child now, because, unlike the decision to have a child, there is no one there to pat you on the back, let alone legions of family, friends and acquaintances. As Mother’s Day approaches, though, if you are one of these courageous women, then please pat yourself on the back. Whether you have children now or not, know that you decision mattered, and that you deserve to be praised every bit as much as and more than those who decided to carry pregnancies to term.

I'm picturing Shayna walking out of the abortion mill after having her baby forcefully removed from her womb. All the other pro-aborts are high fiving her, and yes, patting her on the back. You were so brave! Another baby saved from a world that's just scary to live in. Shayna goes back to her place, alone.
At the same time, her cousin went to the hospital. All of her family is there waiting outside the door to her room (exception being Shayna), and then they hear it. The baby cries, it's such a joyful sound. Everyone cheers. Happy tears flow, and hugs all around. A day or two later, the new mom is holding her baby as she is wheeled out of the hospital. There are balloons and flowers. She goes home and puts her newborn in it's bassinet for the first time. And she sits for hours, just watching her baby sleep. LIFE is beautiful.
It's sad the Shayna will never experience the joys of pregnancy and motherhood, or maybe it's not.

No Evidence EC is Lowering the National Rate of Unintended Pregnancy

2011-04-30T19:03:00.000-07:00

From Reuters Health:

The hope, Kavanaugh noted, had been that emergency contraception would lower the national rate of unintended pregnancy. "But so far there's no evidence that this is happening," she said.

Enough said

X Factors Stacey Solomon Chose Life For Her Son

2011-04-30T16:26:00.001-07:00

According to UnRealityTV, X Factors Stacey Solomon considered abortion when she was 18 years old.

“I was completely miserable. What were the positives? I tried hard but I couldn’t think of any. So I asked my mum to make an appointment at a termination clinic.”

The ultrasound is ultimately what changed her mind about aborting her pregnancy and killing her son. Though it was far from easy, Stacey chose life for her son.

“I hated every second of my long, long labour.”
“It was disgusting. And when they gave him to me, I didn’t even want to hold him. I just thought, Get me some food! I was completely wrapped up in my own unhappiness.”
“I didn’t feel motherly. I felt so hopeless, like I was nothing. I didn’t want a baby. I really didn’t. I went on crying and crying.”
“I was fat, torn and sore. I was helpless and trapped. I felt as if I’d gone from having the best life in the world to everything being in ruins.”

“I don’t remember a lot about that period of my life. I couldn’t foresee that Zach would be the greatest blessing I could ever have. I went through hell for three months.” (emphasis is mine)

Stacey found that being pregnant for 9 months is not easy, and giving birth is even harder. But in the end, her son Zach is truly the greatest blessing in her life. It's so sad for women that 'choose' to abort their babies, never knowing the blessing they missed out on.

The Anti Abortion Gang Blog, Recently Reviewed by College Students

2011-04-27T18:40:00.000-07:00

I was delighted to find a group of college students analyzing this blog. The introduction was:

The blog we have chosen is called the Anti-Abortion Gang and can be found at http://theantiabortiongang.blogspot.com/. The blog’s goal is to show people what is really going on inside the minds of pro-aborts. The blogger expresses his or her opinion and beliefs about others’ tweets, blogs and other articles referring to abortion. The blogger prides herself/himself on having a blog where others can refute and argue, which many pro-abortion blogs don’t allow. This blog uses fear in the headlines of the blogs as well as their content. This blogger wants to scare you into believing abortion is horrible and the wrong thing to do. (emphasis is mine)

Since I personally don't find the posts here as fear mongering, I dug a little deeper to see what they were studying. It wasn't abortion. As I looked further into their blog, I found that they are studying how fear is used in blogs, videos, etc. Hence, the title of the blog "The Rhetoric of Fear".

While I was disappointed that the intro seemed to be biased, I was delighted at several of the comments regarding abortion, including this one:

The background colors symbolize the life that is destroyed through abortions. The red color can be interpreted as blood; the result of the slaughtering done through abortions. These lively colors help the antiabortion article to symbolize the life they are fighting to protect.

I found most students were hung up on the color patterns of the blog. Here are a few more.

the background is pink, white and yellow. It gives the appearance of an animal cell that has been placed on a microscopic slide and magnified

The blog's interface sports a watercolor of red and orange patterns that can possibly resemble body tissue, cell groupings, blood or some sort of biological image

The background consists of light red and orange, the exact color of blood that has been exposed to the air for a time period.

There are more comments regarding the color scheme, I just copied over a few for a quick read. I was intrigued at how much the students over-analyzed (IMO) the theme. But I suppose that is what they are being taught? In truth, the reason I chose this theme is 1. because it's free, and 2. because the background and colors reminded me of bloody gauze. Simple isn't it?

The students had several numbered options of what type of analysis they are choosing. I found most stopped at #1, which is the colors etc. So while I thought the 1 was a good grade, alas, it's just a code. Perhaps I was over-analysing as well?

To the students, I'd like to thank you for your time, your analysis, and wish you the very best in the future!

A Pro-Life View at a Pro-Choicers "Thoughts on Abortion"

2011-04-27T03:37:00.000-07:00

Amanda authored a blog post regarding her "Thoughts on Abortion".

One of the biggest misunderstandings regarding pro-choice advocates is that people think we are advocating for everyone to get an abortion every time someone gets pregnant.

No Amanda, we don't. Advocating the death of even one prenatal human being makes you a pro-choice advocate.

It is so easy to get pregnant and sex is such a strong instinct that is difficult to expect circumstances to be perfect.

While some women are extremely fertile, it is not easy for other women to get pregnant. Many pass on their most fertile years, instead opting to endure the emotional, physical, and financial torture of infertility treatment later on. Circumstances are never perfect. Yet women abort their babies, and wait for that magical time of perfection. The unique babies that were lost, will not be regenerated. They are gone forever.

At conception, though the fetus may be "alive" per se, it is hardly a human. After all, cells are alive, and that is essentially what it is. If someone chooses not to get pregnant and loses the egg through menstruation, is that not an idea similar to this concept of abortion and preventing life, etc?

Actually, it's very much a human, it even has it's own unique DNA. Skin cells don't have that. An egg lost through menstruation doesn't have that. The egg has the woman's DNA only, it is not a new human being.

If people are so disturbed by this, then perhaps they should stop consuming all animal products (like eggs -baby chickens, anyone?), never kill a bug, never take antibiotics, and, in fact, should not even live at all considering all the organisms and bacteria our bodies naturally kill.

Most chicken eggs sold commercially are not fertilized, and none of them are human. Justifying killing a human embryo by using the life of bugs and bacteria, is so, well, prochoice. Your priorities are astounding.

Waiting Periods for Killing a Human Fetus Compared to Waiting Period to Get Rid of a Parasite

2011-04-25T03:33:00.001-07:00

How many times do we have to repeat, fetuses are NOT parasites.

And by Pro-Choice Logic We Should ?

2011-04-23T07:28:00.001-07:00

@Twisted_Shadow equates carrying a baby to term, and giving it life, to slavery. This is one of many of the really stupid arguments choicer's use.

Slaves HAD NO choice. If knowing the life they would have to endure, and they would have been given a choice prior to boarding the slave ship, I'm going to guess they would have refused.

Much like if a woman knows she risks getting pregnant by having sex, she should refuse. It's not rocket science. Sex can result in pregnancy. And biologically, that's the way it's supposed to work.

By pro-choice logic, we should murder toddlers who are in the terrible twos? It's simply slavery chasing them around all day.

ProChoicer says OK to Ripping Apart Fetuses

2011-04-22T09:49:00.001-07:00

How did feminists come to be so heartless? @ashleyrebeccah says it's ok to rip a fetuses head off, because the fetus isn't aware of it.
Her use of the word "they" indicates that she knows a fetus IS someone, a person. And she ~~condones~~ promotes abortion anyway.

Abortion Advocates Still Hiding Behind 'Privacy' Laws

2011-04-22T09:03:00.001-07:00

A Pro-Life WIN in the UK! From BBC News:

The Department of Health has lost a court battle to keep secret some details on abortion statistics.

Be sure to watch the video embedded in the BBC article. Josephine Quintavalle of ProLife Alliance says people want to know why. The public, in the UK and the US, have a right to know why abortions are being performed.

The privacy argument is nothing new, it's what Roe v Wade in the United States was based on.

In an article in the Guardian, the author, Kate Smurthwaite, argues that a woman's privacy will be put at risk by allowing late term abortion stats to be publicly released.

In 2009, there were 136 abortions in the UK among women who had passed 24 weeks of pregnancy. Numbers are fairly consistent – around the 130 mark each year. The range of conditions involved is very wide, predominantly involving a variety of brain and cardiac abnormalities; most common foetal abnormalities, such as Down's syndrome, are typically revealed earlier in pregnancy at the 12 or 20-week scan. As such, many conditions will be listed with only one or two cases a year, effectively providing one individual woman's medical record.

Kate admits that the majority of fetuses with Down Syndrome, are diagnosed before they would be considered 'late term'. The fact is, 90% of Down Syndrome babies are aborted, most prior to late term status. This is only a portion of what abortion advocates want to hide. There are other cases of non-fatal fetal abnormalities such as cleft lip and palate. In the UK, these are often recorded as 'social abortions', never revealing the true nature of the anomaly.

In the case of Down Syndrome related abortion in the UK, Mail Online reports:

The National Down's Syndrome Cytogenetic Register said that over the last four years fewer than half of abortions of Down's babies were recorded properly.

It is so important to track trends in Down Syndrome diagnoses, as well as other physical anomalies. Abortion advocates are skewing the numbers, by hiding the data. This needs to stop. No one wants to know the name and address of the women that aborted, or the abortionist that performed the act. But we deserve accurate data relating to abortions.

Pro-choicer Says OK to Mothers Killing Their Unborn Babies

2011-04-19T16:53:00.001-07:00

Twice in her pro-abort tweets (that I saw), @diane_welborn admits that a pregnant woman IS a mother. Do these people have no shame? Oh wait... this is pro-choice we're talking about. They've been working on 'baby killing without shame' for 38 years.
Now they are unashamed enough to say a mother is more important than her child. Not where I came from! A mother is supposed to protect her young from harm. A good mother will sacrifice her own life, to save the life of her child.
Of course that only applies to us that ~~believe~~ know that an unborn baby, at any developmental stage, is the same person he/she will be after they take their first breath. The pro-aborts are still living in denial.

Diane is a clear case of someone in denial. With two children of her own, she denies they were alive before birth.