TYT on The Turnaway Study

There are so many flaws with the Turnaway Study, it’s laughable.  First, one need only look at their website or their Facebook page, to see the obvious bias, and what they are trying to do, which is to validate abortion.

The video below is a report from The Young Turks (TYT), on the Turnaway Study.  Let’s watch and listen.

Take note of the screen shot below, specifically, the 1st bullet point. What does this tell you?  You have to reverse the psychology of what is obviously an attempt to justify abortion.  That 1st bullet point could just as well read:  “No mental health consequences of women denied abortions" Full. Stop. 

The 2nd bullet point “Later abortion is safer than childbirth”, may be true, if of course you don’t count the baby who is killed by it.  There was another article which quoted the following:

We find physical health complications are more common and severe following birth (38% experience limited activity, average 10 days) compared to abortion (24% limited activity, average 2.7 days). There were no severe complications after abortion; after birth complications included seizure, fractured pelvis, infection and hemorrhage. We find no differences in chronic health conditions at 1 week or one year after seeking abortion. [emphasis is mine]

Using the fact that women who have given birth, need time to recuperate?  Really? 

And lastly, the 3rd bullet point indicates that having children can put you in the poor house.  No one ever said raising kids was cheap, and no one I know killed their unborn children because they couldn’t afford them.

Now, go back to the video and listen at around the 1:20 mark.  Listen as the female co-host jumps in saying the overall feeling of the women who had abortions, was relief.  That’s cool, I can deal with that.  But she followed that by saying that the women who were denied abortions, had to deal with the stress of being stuck in a situation where either physically, emotionally, or financially, they knew they were not going to be able to handle.  EXCEPT THEY WERE!!!

The stats speak for themselves.  86% of the women who were denied an abortion, were still living with their babies a year later, while 11% put their babies up for adoption.  What pro-life has been saying all along, is that women will most likely keep their babies, if they’re not allowed to legally kill them in the womb.

What Question(s) Should The #Savita Inquiries Answer?

There has been so much emotion, understandably, regarding the death of Savita Halappanavar. Her husband Praveen, has every right to know if her death could have been prevented. Hopefully, the inquiries into her death will answer any questions he has.

Many, like me, have seen her death as being exploited into a demand for legalised abortion in Ireland. Having said that, what is the one question you want answered from these inquiries? I'll go first, with the obvious question.

Would terminating Savita's pregnancy have saved her life?

Abortion never saves a woman's life [Video]

ProLife Ireland, You’re Being Set Up

I just read Dr. Jen Gunter’s latest post where she explains why (in her opinion) the panel set to investigate the death of Savita Halappavanar must be changed.

There is only one international expert and three of the doctors on the panel work at Galway, the hospital where she died.

She goes on to say that Dr Sabaratnam Arulkumaran (the one international expert) is a good choice to lead the panel.

The head of the panel is an expert from England and a good choice.

What she fails to inform her readers of, is that Dr Sabaratnam Arulkumaran is NOT unbiased when it comes to abortion.  In fact, he co-wrote a paper titled “Safer childbirth: A rights-based approach”, which having read the abstract only, says:

This paper highlights some of the current global efforts on safer pregnancy with a focus on reproductive rights. We encourage readers to do more in every corner of the world to advocate for women's reproductive rights and, in this way, we may achieve the MDGs by 2015.

Now we all know that “reproductive rights” means “abortion rights”, right? RIGHT?  So why would a team of experts set to investigate Savita’s death, be headed by a guy who believes women should have the right to kill their unborn baby? 

This reeks of a pro-abort set up to change Irish laws to allow abortion on demand.

#ProLife ALERT From Youth Defense

From Facebook:

BREAKING: British doctor who will lead Savita inquiry has previously written that countries who restrict abortion should be CHALLENGED.
He favours "liberal abortion laws" which make "choice of a termination of pregnancy a right for women".

http://www.ijgo.org/article/S0020-7292(09)00143-X/abstract

 

Indeed he has.  Spread the word.

Are We Conservative Enough?

From Care 2 “Conservatives Say Next Election Needs More Abortion, Rape Talk”

Well, I wouldn’t have put it that way, but I’m not the one spinning abortion and rape into a faux “war on women” either.  Yes, faux.  There was never a war on women.

From the article:

According to groups like anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List Mitt Romney should have spent more time debating President Obama on abortion. In a statement released Wednesday Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, said Romney took a weak position on abortion that set the tone for Senate candidates and caused those losses as well. She said Romney was “wobbly” on social issues and called on conservatives to redouble their focus on abortion.

“Abortion meant rape in the minds of many voters because the debate was not fully engaged,” she said. Dannenfelser said Republicans seemed to have called “a de facto truce on social issues” while Democrats “launched a war.” Seriously.

Seriously.  Pro-aborts made up a phony war on women, striking fear in women who actually believed that Mitt Romney would take away their birth control, and overturn Roe v Wade.  How do you defend against a faux war?  You can’t.  When everything thing you say is twisted and exaggerated, it’s best to avoid that topic.

Mitt Romney has a history of flipping on issues, depending on where he’s running.  In Massachusetts, he was pro-choice, because he had to be to get elected. 

To this day, I don’t know what his personal position is on abortion, and neither do millions of other people, hence why they didn’t vote for him, or why they didn’t vote at all.  We put up the wrong candidate, not because I think Mitt Romney is a bad person, he’s not.  But because of his history of flipping, people couldn’t really trust him.

One last snippet from the Care 2 article:

Social conservatives claim the answer to their electoral woes is to become more conservative, and that the answer to their shedding of women voters to become more anti-woman.

I would  disagree that we need to become more conservative.  We’re conservative enough.  As for the shedding of women voters, as much as I hate to say it, the loss of women voters only shows how vulnerable gullible women can be.  And you wonder why they didn’t allow us to vote back in the olden days?  This is why ladies!

Women are smarter than this, but they need to be educated on conservatism.  They need to know that they need not fear conservatives.  Conservative women, are women too.  We fight the same battles they do, we just don’t use our unborn children as pawns in the battle to attain truly equal rights.

We’ve Come A Long Way Baby!

In light of the reshuffle, here's a reminder of why women have late term abortions: 32 reason for 24 weeks. bpas.org/js/filemanager… #prochoice

— BPAS (@bpas1968) September 4, 2012

I saw the tweet above awhile ago.  From "The British Pregnancy Advisory Service”, also known as BPAS, also known as Britain's largest single abortion provider. 
I seriously doubt women in the US have late term abortions for reasons much different than women in the UK, so I think this audit is valid for women here as well.
“BPAS’ staff audited every request for abortion above 22 weeks’ gestation during a randomly-chosen consecutive 28 day period in 2008.”
Of the 32 women audited, only one was for fetal abnormality.

#19 Woman is 23 years old and is 22 weeks pregnant. Couple already has two young children. This was a planned pregnancy. Severe facial abnormalities were detected during a routine ultrasound scan. The request for abortion was made following discussions with the care team attached to the local maternity unit. The plastic surgeon had said that, if the baby were born, it would need to undergo repeated surgeries and face a poor quality of life. The NHS unit was prepared to end the pregnancy, but had been unable to give the woman a date for this. The couple felt they “needed closure” and could not cope with the uncertainty of waiting. They paid privately to attend a BPAS clinic.

Not all of the 32 women audited, had abortions. Some were too close to the legal gestational limit, while others couldn’t get an appointment with NHS (for government paid abortion) within the legal time-frame.
For their reasons for abortion, I found “unable to cope”, the main reason women abort.  To me this is sad.  Other reasons include:

• Girl feels too young to have a baby. (Not too young to have sex though)
• Woman and partner were served with eviction notice
• Mother with two children who feels she just can’t cope with a third.

In the United States, about 1.5% of abortions are performed at or beyond 21 weeks LMP. 

So when you hear a pro-abort defend later term abortions, remind them that approximately 10,000 babies aborted annually in the US, were a few short weeks from viability.  And remind them that feminism’s way of helping women cope, is for them to kill their unborn children.

Economics Is No Excuse To Kill, Except When A Pro-Abort Says It Is

There are too many orphans in the world. No one can argue that.

Yes @williamstrudy 163 million orphans worldwide. #Prolife doesn't care. Economics is no excuse to kill--unless for war online.wsj.com/article/SB2000…

— SaraJoyM (@Tempibones) August 27, 2012

What we disagree on, is that killing them before they're born helps them. Tempibones apparently thinks it does.

.@ludicrouslib Save the ALREADY-BORN or STFU. The socioeconomic repercussions for forcing more unwanted children to be born is astronomical.

— SaraJoyM (@Tempibones) August 27, 2012

The Right to Know Abortion Facts | New Feminism

It seems the answer to the debate regarding induced abortion increasing a womans risk of getting breast cancer, could be answered with ONE question asked of women who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. One question! Have you had an induced abortion in the past?

The Right to Know Abortion Facts | New Feminism

To Pro-Choice, Abortion = Never Existing

@simplethings92 and what if @tempibones 's mom used a condom that night too? would it not be EXACTLY THE SAME? #prochoice

— J'fer (@pomegrenade) August 19, 2012

Except that the human embryo DOES exist before it's killed by abortion. Why don't they get that?

The Alternative To "Choose Life" Is...

What is the alternative of "choose life" if not "choose death"? Seriously? This is the problem pro-aborts face when trying to deny abortion causes death.

ProLife billboards are stupid. "Choose life" as if the alternative is "choose death." I choose choice

— Jackson (@jacksonwho) August 19, 2012

You Might Be A Liberal if You Think A Pat On The Head Is A Beating

Abortion Proponents Use Dead Teenager To Further Abortion Agenda

By now, you’ve all heard about the 16 year old in the Dominican Republic, who died from complications of leukemia.  As the doctor stated in the video below, she had a very poor prognosis when she was admitted to the hospital, not so much because she was pregnant, but because of the characteristics of her kind of leukemia.  

But would the pro-aborts pass up a chance to scream that a pro-life law, such as they have in the Dominican Republic, kills women?  No, of course they wouldn’t!  Here are a few of the tweets I’m referring to.

You get the idea.  All the tweets carry the same message, that the girl died because she couldn’t have an abortion.  This is nonsense.  Would an abortion followed by chemo have saved her? It's unlikely, due to the severity of the leukemia. Unfortunately, we will never know.

For the record, it would have been acceptable, even preferable, for her to have received chemo when she was initially diagnosed with leukemia, whether or not she was pregnant.  The chemo may have caused her to miscarry, but the chance of saving the girls life would have been greater.  Or, she and the baby may have died anyway, but they also may have both lived.

Amanda Marcotte Equates Being Pro-Choice With Being A Slut

I wonder how many Pro-Choice women (and men) cringed when they saw this tweet by pro-abortion Amanda Marcotte.

Disclaimer: What is written below is to no way indicate I support the “choice” of abortion, because I don’t.

I for one, know that the “pro-choice” movement, supports all choices, including birth and abortion.  There are clearly many, many pro-choice people who support the movement, not for them-selves, but for other women. 

According to Amanda, if you would never consider having an abortion for yourself, then you are placing yourself above those who would.  You are ‘better’ than they are.  You look at women who abort as sluts.

It will be interesting to watch the backlash from her statement.  Here’s an example, albeit a mild one.  Her response did more damage, in my opinion, than helped the situation.

I cringe at the thought of pro-choice women and men defending her statement.  Hopefully, they won’t.  I also hope this brings to light the thinking of those ‘at the top’ of the pro-choice movement, women like Amanda Marcotte.

Roe Is Not About Rape

Because this is an opinion letter, and will probably be deleted soon, I am posting it in it’s entirety.

From the Pueblo Chieftain

Letters: Roe v. Wade

Since so many in Washington would like to cancel Roe v. Wade, I would like to know what their logic is. Any girl or woman should be allowed the morning-after pill as soon as possible if they have been raped or coerced into having sex.

I have wondered for many years how men would feel if they were rape victims and they could get pregnant. Could they handle carrying a child for nine months?

If they did, how would they treat a child forced on them by rape?

Could they give it up for adoption?

In the 1930s, ’40s, ’50s and ’60s, if a woman was raped, it was considered to be her own fault. If she had an abortion, many times she was unable to have another child if she lived through the surgery.

Many of those girls were in their teens and had never been told about sex, and had not been given the chance to decide if they wanted a child at such a young age.

I was glad to see Roe v. Wade become law. It prevented a lot of women from having to go through carrying a child to term and having to give it away, or have a back-street abortion, from which many died.

I cannot remember any man going to jail for rape in those days. If men had to go through what women who have been raped go through, they might think differently. In the old days, as well as today, when a young man asks a girl out on a date they usually expect to be repaid, and if the girl gets pregnant, it will always be her fault.

Roe v. Wade should never be canceled. It is critical to the health and well being of all women.

Clayetta H. Speltz

Pueblo

Ms. Speltz has clearly bought into the lie that Roe v Wade is about protecting rape victims.

The logic behind the reversal of Roe v Wade?  Simply, 1.3 million unborn children are killed by abortion every year in the US alone.  Around 3% of those abortions are reported as following rape.  While most rapes go unreported, most rapes don’t result in pregnancy either, so the percentage would not be much higher than 3%. I’m sick of women and men using rape victims as an excuse to keep abortion on demand as law.  Roe v Wade is a product of the sexual revolution.  It’s not about protecting women, it’s about women being free to have sex without the consequence or responsibility of the baby who results from that sex.

So what happens when Roe is reversed?  Women and men will be forced into responsibility when they make the choice to have sex.  There will be no more Saturday trips to the abortion clinic, because you forgot to use a rubber, or because you neglected to take your birth control pill for 3 days.  You will be forced to think (with your brain) before you act on your urge to copulate.

Don’t think you can control that urge?  Then consider yourself as having the same mindset as a rapist, and consider the child you create and kill by abortion, as the victim.

Hey Maddow, You Neglected A Few Truths

Rachel Maddow spewed her venom at the Associated Press,  for what she referred to as a "shockingly bad article".  The article, which by the way was written by a woman,  was titled “Abortion Fight Defines Kansas Prosecutor Race”. See video below.

From HuffPoo:

Maddow seemed shocked by the Associated Press' description of the race in Kansas and inclusion of a quote from Operation Rescue. "What? This is just astonishing," Maddow said. "Yes, the blame for the doctor being shot to death by the anti-abortion activist...lies with the district attorney who didn't prosecute that doctor for something or other. He didn't get prosecuted so obviously, he had to be shot, so says Operation Rescue”

Rachel Maddow was taking issue with this statement from Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue.

"If Nola Foulston had done her job with George Tiller, he would still be alive today," said Troy Newman, president of Wichita-based Operation Rescue.

From the Fresno Bee :

The district attorney [Nola Foulston] had refused to allow then-Attorney General Phill Kline to prosecute Tiller in her jurisdiction, resulting in a judge dismissing charges that the doctor had performed illegal late-term abortions.

What Troy Newman said was the truth.  If George Tiller had been properly prosecuted, he would have been in jail, and therefore protected from people like Scott Roeder. 

Does this mean Nola Foulston was responsible for Tiller’s murder?  No, but then again, neither was Bill O’Reilly.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

18,000 Sacrificial Lambs

An opinion piece written by Christie Zink, and published in The Washington Post, tells of

“a real live, breathing woman who terminated a much-wanted pregnancy at almost 22 weeks, when her baby was found to have severe fetal anomalies of the brain.”

Ms. Zink begins her article with this:

Introduce me to the woman who has an abortion after 20 weeks because she is cruel and heartless. Introduce me to the lazy gal who gets knocked up and ignores her condition until, more than halfway through her pregnancy, she ends it because it has become too darn inconvenient for her selfish lifestyle. If such a woman exists, I have never met her. Sadly, however, she appears to have influenced the thinking of even savvy, politically informed people in this country. Otherwise, how could they argue that carrying to term is always the right decision late in pregnancy? In fact, the myth of such callous women has been compelling enough to push along a bill that would ban abortion in the District after 20 weeks of pregnancy; the bill was approved this month by the House Judiciary Committee, moving it forward for consideration by the full House, perhaps as soon as Tuesday.

Perhaps Ms. Zink never heard of Kermit Gosnell, the notorious abortionist from Philadelphia. From Slate:

In 2004, a 27-year-old woman went to Gosnell, pregnant with her first child. She testified that she was surprised when Gosnell told her she was 21 weeks pregnant. On the first day of what was to be a two-day procedure, Gosnell inserted dilators in the woman's cervix. After Gosnell had finished inserting the laminaria, the woman asked him what happened to the babies after they were aborted. She testified that Gosnell told her they were burned.
At home, thinking over how Gosnell disposed of the fetuses, the woman had a change of heart. She called her cousin and the cousin called Gosnell to tell him that they wanted him to take the laminaria out. Gosnell said that he could not do that once the procedure was started. And he did not want to return the $1,300 that the patient had already paid. The pregnant woman ended up going to the Hospital at the University of Pennsylvania to have the laminaria removed. It was determined at the hospital that she was 29 weeks pregnant. A few days later, the 27-year-old delivered a premature baby girl. She was treated at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and is today a healthy kindergartener.

Clearly there are women who abort their babies after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Most, but not all, for fetal anomaly. From the website of abortionist Warren Hern MD:

Patients coming in for very late abortion - over 26 menstrual weeks' gestation - are almost always seeking services for termination of a desired pregnancy that has developed serious complications. This usually means the discovery of a catastrophic fetal anomaly or genetic disorder that guarantees death, suffering, or serious disability for the baby that would be delivered if the pregnancy were to continue to term. Occasionally a woman presents at this stage for pregnancy termination because of her own severe medical illness or a psychiatric indication. [emphasis is mine]

Almost, usually, occasionally.. means ‘not always’. The 'psychiatric indication’ could be as simple, and as temporary, as depression caused by the mother being dumped by her no good boyfriend. Clearly, there are many healthy babies who are viable at the time of the abortion.

Even one healthy baby killed for no reason other than the woman changed her mind, is one baby too many. Aborting healthy babies, later term or otherwise, doesn’t matter to pro-aborts. If they fought for the life of even one of these babies, they would have to fight for the rest of them as well. So they use them as sacrificial lambs instead, by saying things such as “only 1.5% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks”, not seeing 18,000 babies destroyed and often dismembered. These are the sacrificial lambs rarely mentioned by the proponents of choice.

Production Prevention

Tweets like the one below are so disheartening.  Pro-aborts just don’t get, or won’t admit, that children are created by the act of sex.  They aren’t created at birth; they are created at conception.Speaking of ‘produce’, is a piece of fruit any less a piece of fruit, before it’s picked from the tree?  No, of course not.  An apple is still an apple, before it’s picked, and after it’s picked.

Birth doesn’t change who or what a baby is.  It’s always been the same developing human being, since the day of his/her conception.

ABC News Tweets Bias In Full Public View

This is just so wrong.  On Twitter, @ABC (ABC News) tweeted the following.  Click on the picture to go to the link, then read the title of the article when the new page opens up.

Now look below, at the link you just clicked on.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/rick-santorum-says-nominating-pro-choice-vp-candidate-112520804.html

Whether or not this was an accident is not important. What IS important is that @ABC has not corrected the tweet, or the link to the article. They clearly showed what we’ve always known.  The mainstream media is clearly biased when it comes to the subject of abortion.  This is completely unacceptable.

Were Babies of Pro-Life Parents Wanted?

I need to dispel the myth in the tweet below. 

Pro-aborts seem to think pro-choice parents choosing which of their unborn babies will be allowed to take their first breath, while choosing death by abortion for others, is better than a pro-life parent choosing to love their babies whether they were planned (wanted) or not.

I think they’re misguided.  If my parents had been pro-choice, would I be better off knowing that I’m here because they didn’t make the choice to kill me in utero?  I think not.  I wouldn’t want to think of my parents as people who would choose death for any of their children.

My parents chose life for all the babies they had.  They chose to love all the babies they created.  That’s a choice I can live with.