American Taxpayers DO Pay For Abortions

Interesting comments on Jill Stanek's post.  Who else could explain themselves in a hole like a pro-abort? No one. 

The question: "If taxpayer dollars “don’t pay for abortions”, then why would de-funding PP reduce a woman’s right to abortion?"

The answer: "It would reduce a woman’s access to abortion. In many states, Planned Parenthood is the only abortion clinic available. Without funding assistance, many Planned Parenthood clinics would close."

There you have it, straight from the mouth of prochoice.  It's really simple, whether directly or indirectly, the American taxpayer pays for women to kill their babies. 

Why Women Have Abortions

The main focus of this blog is making people aware of what goes on in the minds of pro-aborts.  Below is a perfect example.
Using the #ihadanabortion hashtag, @Juliewashere88 listed several reasons why women have abortions. We'll look at Julie's reasons, and then the real reasons women have abortions.

The latest maternal mortality rate I found for the US is 8 in 100,000 women.  Though that is higher than it should be, it certainly doesn't warrant the fear mongering as noted above.
Some other "reasons" from Julie:
 
Some women do have debilitating illnesses when pregnant, but rape and self-defense?  Come on!  Julie is simply reaching for reasons to justify the brutal act of abortion.
Let's look at the real reasons given by women who had an abortion. From Guttmacher.org:

While I don't agree with any of the reasons listed above, it makes it easy to distinguish reality, from the irrationality that comes from pro-aborts.
It's time America woke up to the reality of just how irrational pro-aborts are.  Pass it along!

Danielle Deaver vs Fetal Pain Laws

To keep it in context, I'm posting the entire article.  Please watch the video at the end of the post.  It brought tears to my eyes, chances are, it will bring tears to your eyes too.

"Fetal pain" anti-abortion laws spur fierce debate

Reuters - Danielle Deaver says she did not want a late-term abortion -- she wanted a baby.

But when the Nebraska woman lost most of her amniotic fluid at 22 weeks last November, she was told the baby girl would likely die outside the womb with undeveloped lungs, and that the fetus could be slowly crushed by the uterine walls.

Deaver asked that labor be induced, so that whatever happened would happen quickly. But doctors could not do it because of a new law that bans abortions after 20 weeks, based on research suggesting this is when fetuses feel pain.

Deaver went home, worrying that every time she felt movement, it was because the baby was suffering. Deaver went into labor after ten days. Baby Elizabeth died in her mother's arms after 15 minutes.
Deaver's crisis illustrates the complexity of the debate over "fetal pain" abortion bans being proposed in 16 states -- a push that has ignited powerful emotions on both sides.

"This pregnancy was planned and wanted," said Deaver, 34, a married nurse with one other child. "This had nothing to do with abortion whatsoever, and we were affected by an abortion law."

The bills, promoted by the National Right to Life Committee copy the Nebraska law, which passed last year. Similar fetal pain bills have passed both legislative chambers in Kansas, Oklahoma and Idaho. Laws also have passed through one legislative chamber in Indiana and Iowa.

The bills make exceptions if the mother's life is at risk, or if she faces risk of a substantial, irreversible medical injury, according to Mary Spaulding Balch, director of the department of state legislation of the Right to Life Committee.

"This is a bill that recognizes the inherent right to life of a child that is capable of feeling pain," said Balch. "It is an acknowledgment that this unborn child is a member of the human family and deserves the same rights as any other member of the human family."

Balch said the bills do not make exceptions for a fetus like Deaver's that may have problems. "You don't kill someone to alleviate his suffering," Balch said. "You try to address his suffering."

Iowa State Rep. Mary Ann Hanusa, a Republican who supports a 20-week ban that passed the House last week, agreed that there are "hard situations" like Deaver's but that doesn't mean an abortion after 20 weeks should be allowed.

"We do not allow euthanasia of someone who may be dying or is infirm simply to allow them to die sooner," Hanusa said.

Iowa State Rep. Sharon Steckman, who voted against the proposed Iowa bill, said a pregnant woman would have to be "pretty much at death's door" in order to qualify for an exception.

PAIN RESEARCH
Medical opinion about when fetuses feel pain is conflicted. The position of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is that there is "no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain."

According to Danielle Deaver, her crisis had 'nothing to do with abortion whatsoever', yet she wanted the doctor to help her end the pregnancy.  Is that not abortion?  Of course it is.  This story has everything to do with abortion.  The many interviews she's had since Elizabeth died are telling.  Prochoicers, and Danielle Deaver, are using Elizabeths death to fulfil their agenda of 'abortion on demand', that means any time, for any reason.

Most prochoicers wouldn't abort a pregnancy at 22 weeks, and a lot of them wouldn't abort at all, but the flip side of the coin is that they wouldn't stand in the way of any woman exercising that "choice". 

Abortion is legal in most states up to 24 weeks, for any reason. 

Due to modern medical technology, babies are being born severely premature, but are overcoming the many obstacles they face.  Fetal pain abortion laws give those babies a chance at life. Isn't it time we did too?  Support fetal pain laws in your state.  Babies lives are depending on us.

Spoken Word - Abortion

I Google Searched Abortion

I did a Google search for 'abortion'.. and saw this forum thread on "The legal maximum length to terminate a pregnancy. I have no idea what locale the poster lives it, nor does it matter.  Here's what he/she posted:

Okay so a friend of mine is 17 and will be 18 in the first week of May. She had protected sex in early march (like the first week or two) and had her period a week before she had sex. During intercourse the condom slipped off. And she is now worried she may be pregnant. Keeping the child is not an option because she has no job and will be going to college in the fall and the father is a freshman in college. She is trying to find out if she can just drive to a state that doesn't require parental consent for an abortion or if she should wait until the weekend after her birthday.

If she conceived during the first/second week of march.
And goes for an abortion the first/second week of may.
Would that be too late for an abortion?

*Abortion costs would be a great help if anyone knows them.

Thank you and PLEASE answer this is really important

This is part of a response that floored me

In the UK if a baby is born at 23 weeks it is classed as labour as a baby can survive in intensive care in rare cases, so I'd push on getting one before 23 weeks.

That's just sad. To even suggest killing a baby because it's close to viability, is just evil.
:

Another reason to say no to EC

In response to the recent feminist clash over EC (Emergency Contraception) campaigns, Christie tells her EC story in the Abortion Gang blog.  She took EC about an hour after a condom failure.  She had what she thought was a period, indicating that the EC did what it was supposed to do. It didn't.

After 3 weeks of constant bleeding and painful cramps, I finally went to the doctor. As someone with a history of irregular periods, my GYN wasn’t too concerned. Except that, when she ran the pregnancy test, it came up positive.

It wasn't clear to me if Christie's pregnancy was intrauterine or ectopic.  But I would summize that EC can be dangerous.  I would guess that Christie had such a difficult time because she took EC, not because she was pregnant. 

Prochoicers Clearly Don't Comprehend Anti-Abortion Bills

From Susan Nielsen at OregonLive.com, "Behind the abortion laws: From bills, a disturbing portrait of women emerges". 

Women sure are impulsive, lying, vulnerable and childlike creatures, aren't they? That's the conclusion I'd draw, if my understanding of women were based solely on anti-abortion bills. 

The key point in the statement above is "my understanding".  Of course, she would think that way.  Fortunately, not everyone thinks like she does.

* Women are impulsive. Half of states now require women to undergo a waiting period before obtaining an abortion. Usually the waiting period is one day. South Dakota just passed a three-day waiting period, the longest in the nation. The implication is that, without a government-mandated waiting period, women would dash into abortion clinics without first weighing the gravity of their decision. 

Waiting periods give women an extra day or so to think about the decision they make.  In cases of coerced abortion, it may give women the extra time needed to change what needs to be changed, in order to protect the life growing inside them.  It may give the the time needed to secure actual help, so that they can deliver their baby, and be able to feed and clothe him/her.  Considering most women will know they are pregnant soon after a missed period, what's a couple of days?  It could be the difference in the life or death of their child.  This is not too much to ask.

* Women are prone to lying. Last week, the Indiana House passed a measure that would forbid most abortions after 20 weeks. A version of it is expected to pass into law. Opponents tried to carve out an exception for victims of rape or incest, as well as for women whose lives are threatened by medical complications. However, the bill's sponsor fended off the amendment by attacking it as a "giant loophole" that women would use to get abortions by pretending they were raped.

"Giant loophole"?  The bill's sponsor is right.  There is no doubt in my mind that some women would lie and say they had been raped, when the act was in fact consensual. 

* Women need things explained to them.  A bill recently passed by the Texas House would require doctors to describe the fetus in some detail to all abortion-seeking patients, including victims of rape and incest. The bill allows women to close their eyes and cover their ears. (It doesn't specify whether women are permitted to say, "La-la-la, I can't hear you.")

This statement makes it clear that women who abort DON'T WANT TO KNOW about the living fetus they are carrying.  It's a lot better for women to be uninformed, to be ignorant about the life of the fetus.

I'll just point out that nearly 90 percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester and fully 95 percent take place during the first 15 weeks. The women who seek them cite a variety of common reasons, including an unsupportive partner and insufficient income to provide a good home. All available research suggests that women rarely make this difficult and private decision lightly. 

The real numbers are staggering.  Did you know 18,000 babies are aborted at 21 weeks or greater?  And almost 80,000 babies are aborted between the 13th and 15th week.  Refer to my recent post "We've Seen the Pictures, Let's Look at the Numbers".  I break  down abortion stats for you in real numbers, rather than percentages that tend to make it look less tragic. 

Yet the composite picture of women found in today's abortion bills suggests a far inferior being, one needing protection from her own rash decisions. This is an ancient stereotype about women, wrapped in a hundred new packages that, at least sometimes, aren't about abortion at all.

Your article, Ms. Nielsen, is nothing more than feminist propaganda, designed to ensure the slaughter of innocent human fetuses for many years to come.