Then there was the legislation in South Dakota that apparently legalizes shooting abortion doctors. Never mind that the bill's sponsors say they are simply trying to make their defense laws consistent with other fetal homicide laws. Never mind that even the executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota said she doesn't believe the intent of the bill was malicious. Instead of rational discussions about what the bill actually says, I've mostly seen fits of hysteria as people indignantly demand "How is this 'pro-life'??" over and over.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Take a Deep Breath. Read. Repeat.
Then there was the legislation in South Dakota that apparently legalizes shooting abortion doctors. Never mind that the bill's sponsors say they are simply trying to make their defense laws consistent with other fetal homicide laws. Never mind that even the executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota said she doesn't believe the intent of the bill was malicious. Instead of rational discussions about what the bill actually says, I've mostly seen fits of hysteria as people indignantly demand "How is this 'pro-life'??" over and over.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Virginia to regulate abortion centers
After a Democratic-controlled state Senate committee that traditionally kills pro-life bills defeated the abortion clinic regulations measure, Del. Kathy Byron, a Republican, on Monday put forward an amendment to SB 924, a Senate bill on health and safety regulations for hospitals. The amendment essentially attached the pro-life bill the Virginia state Senate Education and Health Committee killed earlier this month to the legislation.Abortion is surgery, and the offices that do them should be regulated like other outpatient surgical centers. Despite pro-abortion slogans, legality does not guarantee safety. After the Gosnell scandal, it should be obvious that giving abortion businesses special treatment is terrible public policy. I'm shocked that the vote in the Virginia Senate was so close. Still, the fact that the legislation did pass is great news for women and babies in Virginia.
Because of the change to the Senate bill, it went back to the state Senate for a concurrence vote.
After a long and passionate debate on the Senate floor, senators voted 20-20 and pro-life Lt. Governor Bill Bolling cast the tie-breaking vote to send the bill to Governor Bob McDonnell, who will sign the measure into law.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Planned Parenthood's strategy: What abortions?

Meanwhile, anti-Pence bloggers are clinging to the talking point that abortion constitutes only 3% of Planned Parenthood's services. Live Action has an excellent summary of why that's misleading.
Planned Parenthood, along with the entire pro-abortion movement, is in a tricky situation. At the core, what they're dealing with is a serious disconnect between the extremist leadership, which can be fairly described as pro-abortion, and the grassroots of people who identify as "pro-choice" but dislike abortion and support common-sense restrictions on it. The overwhelming majority of Americans oppose taxpayer funding for abortion, whether direct or indirect. That necessarily includes a huge percentage of people who identify as pro-choice. So in order to get the support it needs to overcome Pence, Planned Parenthood has to appeal to a reluctant base. The solution? Deceive them.
Planned Parenthood wants regular, pro-choice-by-default people to believe that:
1) Abortion is not central to Planned Parenthood's operations. False.
2) Planned Parenthood offers mammograms, and defunding Planned Parenthood is therefore a mean-spirited attempt by anti-women Republicans to give people cancer. False.
3) Planned Parenthood offers women's health services that no other federally funded clinics provide. False.
Please pass this on to friends of yours who call themselves pro-choice and support Planned Parenthood, but who are open-minded and listen to their consciences. I may disagree with them, but they don't deserve to be tricked.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Midweek News Roundup: 02/23/11
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Great Things in North Dakota!!!
Monday, February 21, 2011
Update on Baby Joseph
Sunday, February 20, 2011
The sad story of Joseph Maraachli
But unlike Terri's case, no one is trying to keep Joseph alive. All parties agree that his condition is terminal. The dispute is about where he will die. Joseph's family wanted a tracheotomy performed on him, so that he could leave the hospital and die peacefully at home. The family was able to do this when Joseph's older sibling suffered from a similar condition. This time, however, the hopsital refused to do a tracheotomy. It's apparently easier for the hospital to just take him off life support.
The judge's ruling in favor of the hospital means that Joseph's last days will not be spent at home. All appeals have been exhausted, and the family is devastated. The removal of life support is scheduled for tomorrow morning; the decision was made on Thursday, but the judge wanted to give the family time to say goodbye to their little boy.
Again, this is not a scenario where anyone's life could have been saved. But it's an important case for pro-lifers to consider in a broader sense. Here is a family that just wanted to make sure that their baby's final days were spent in comfort. They did not have that choice. And yet, the choice to end the life of an unborn baby, by dismembering him or her alive in an abortion, is protected and hailed as a responsible "parenting decision."
What a messed-up world we live in.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Lots happened yesterday
Also yesterday, the pro-life movement suffered a setback in the form of weakened conscience protections for doctors. Although it appears that pro-life physicians are still protected as far as abortion is concerned, other procedures and medications (most notably Plan B and ella) are no longer covered. Medical Students for Life director Dominique Monlozun issued a statement calling the revisions "a direct attack on the entire medical community's conscience." There is also a concern that weak conscience protections will cause some physicians to leave their practices, which could be devastating for people in underserved areas.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Vote on Pence Amendment TODAY
Some Republicans are proposing to suspend all Title X funds as a cost-cutting measure. A lot of people are angry about that, and abortion advocates are eagerly lumping the Pence Amendment together with that, calling both "anti-woman." Remember that the Pence Amendment is not the same bill! Simply put, the Pence Amendment will solve the Planned Parenthood funding problem without decreasing the amount spent on legitimate women's health programs under Title X. Any money Planned Parenthood loses will be diverted to eligible health providers.
Via Jill Stanek, here are Congressman Pence's comments on the amendment:
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Will there be justice in Kansas?
Kansas pro-lifers are trying to be optimistic. But they know that Planned Parenthood can and will appeal all the way to the state supreme court if it has to. In Kansas, supreme court justices are appointed rather than elected. Five of the seven justices were appointed by pro-abortion Kathleen Sebelius, and one once worked for a pro-abortion "public interest" firm. We can only hope that they are willing to put their biases aside and view the case objectively.
Meanwhile, former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, who initiated the case, has been ruthlessly targeted. Despite the findings of three judges that his charges against Planned Parenthood have merit, an ethics trial will begin on February 21. He is accused of allowing his pro-life views to override his prosecutorial responsibilities. Kline is unashamedly pro-life, but if there is probable cause to believe that PP has committed a crime--as, again, three different judges have ruled-- then there is no ethical conflict.
On the other hand, ignoring legitimate criminal accusations for political reasons-- which is essentially what abortion advocates wanted Kline to
do-- would have been a violation of Kline's ethical duties. Attorneys General represent the people, and must investigate all criminal matters with due diligence.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Midweek News Roundup: 02/16/11
Monday, February 14, 2011
Happy Valentine's Day
I realized that we haven’t posted any sidewalk counseling stories in a few weeks. Unfortunately, the past few Saturdays have been busy. It reached a peak on January 22 (anniversary of Roe v. Wade) which was fitting, I guess. They were still there when I drove by at 6 pm, which is about four hours longer than they are usually open. It was the busiest I’d ever seen it. There were more abortions in the winter here last year, too. I think that this is because of end of term parties. I want to see if there will be more in late March/early April, too. (It’s 8-12 weeks after Valentine’s Day, this would correspond to the large number of November babies).
We’ve started offering roses to women. I don’t know if this is more effective, but I feel it puts out a positive message at the very least. More women have been talking to us. This might be because of the roses. However, I feel it has more to do with how close to us they are forced to park. Usually, they only fill two rows, which leaves them at least twenty feet away from us at all times. Recently, though, it’s been so busy that they have no choice but to park about eight to ten feet away from our line. We’ve been handing out a lot more information and getting a few more stories.
One girl, a week or two back, was being coerced by her mother. Both of them freely admitted this. We handed them our sheets about coercion and legal rights, but the girl was unwilling to press charges against her mother or to seek financial or legal independence. She said that she personally wanted to keep the baby, but that it was her mother’s decision. Her mother was completely unapologetic and felt she was doing what was best for her family. We offered her financial and emotional assistance, but she seemed content in letting her mother make this decision for her, even if it’s not what she really wanted.
On a happier note, we had an ambulance come by the clinic for the first time since I’ve been there. I took pictures, because I thought it might be something important, but they just got a stretcher out to check if it fit through the doors. As this happened right after the Gosnell case was released, I figure Dr. Payne wanted to make sure his clinic is up to code. I’m glad that the stretcher fit (because we scary sidewalk counselors really do care about women).
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Things we missed
Pro-life Christians are disgusted with Pastor Chuck Smith. On his radio show, Smith advised a woman to abort her conjoined twins. (He later said that the mother's life was in danger, but the original broadcast doesn't back him up.)
Donald Trump has announced that he is pro-life. His earlier "pro-choice" statements were pretty moderate, so I can believe that he's turned around. Still, a little skepticism is healthy. Time will tell.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Vigil for Victims: Monday
After the event, don't forget to send us your photos! Email them to info[at]secularprolife.org, and I'll feature some on the blog.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Our Truths

Secondly, the bits of the blog I skimmed didn’t seem to describe the fetus the way I see it. The fetus seemed like an abstract concept—an entity that, should it be allowed to live, would someday be a child, but wasn’t a person right now. Obviously I disagree with that view, but I can wrap my head around the idea that if you don’t consider the fetus a person, abortion is something you can live with.
My perusal continued through Exhale, The Coathanger Project (which seems to have been abandoned?) and landed with Our Truths – Nuestras Verdades. Edition No. 3 is “Feelings About the Fetus.” I read a piece called “My Fragile Fossil” in which a woman describes seeing her fetus on a sonogram and her visceral reaction to that moment.
“My fetus. At about two inches magnified, it looks like a picture of a fetus that I had seen in my high school health book: a bulbous head bigger than its body, tiny hands and feet, and a long curly tube—the umbilical cord—which looks like an intestine.”
“Leaning forward, I notice the fetus following my body’s rhythms like a buoy bobbing in the ocean, moving with the tide. I am not prepared for the emotions that hit me as I gaze at the image. In this moment, my fetus becomes more than a tiny gob of cells or a picture from an old textbook. The longer I stare at the screen, the more I begin to fantasize about how the fetus will change as it develops and becomes full-term. Will it grow to have dark skin like it’s father? Will it have short, stubby toes and wide feet like me? Will it later have my mother’s hair, black and sleek?
Tears fall like torrents down my cheek, reminding me of my difficult and complicated decision.”
My first reaction: great sadness. The woman is miserable, the fetus is dead, what a stupid situation. Also anger. Why did she risk putting herself in this stupid situation? And once in the situation, why couldn’t she put the child up for adoption? Is it more upsetting to watch your kid raised by others then to be the mother of a dead fetus? I suppose it must be, or she may have chosen otherwise.
After arguing about one topic perhaps hundreds of times over the years, it’s hard to feel continuously upset. Sadness and anger will well up occasionally, but they don't persist. For me the final reactions, the lasting feelings, are simply bewilderment and defeat.
I find myself, by default, believing that many people are pro-choice because they don’t view the fetus as I do. They think of the fetus abstractly (blob of tissue, clump of cells, product of conception) or as an aggressor (parasite, tumor, invader). If I believed this is what a fetus amounted to, I would probably also be pro-choice. I don’t agree, but I can comprehend. This default mindset is also an outlook with hope. Convince people of the humanity, strengthen the pro-life side, and maybe someday (perhaps not the foreseeable future, but someday) the tide can turn. Maybe.
But there are pro-choice people who view the fetus more the way I do: alive. Not in some technical sense, not by a biological definition, like a virus or cells going through mitosis. Alive like I’m alive. A human being. A very small, underdeveloped human being, to be sure, but a human being nonetheless. I can comprehend choosing to “terminate a product of conception” or “remove a parasite.” But killing a human being?
Even then, I can imagine someone being “personally pro-life, politically pro-choice.” They are conflicted. They value fetal life, but abhor forced gestation. That place is a little harder for me to mentally stand in than the “product of conception” view, but I can get there.
But there are women who view the fetus the way I view the fetus, and personally choose abortion? That’s not a position I can reach. I don’t understand. You see what I see, yet you can stomach it. You can choose it. I don't understand.
What hope, then, can the pro-life movement possibly have? Even if we could convince the whole country, the whole world, that “person” begins at conception, it still may not change abortion law.
I participate, in my limited ways, in the Pro-life movement largely because I don’t believe it can do any harm. But often I’m not convinced it does much good, either. This isn’t all one big misunderstanding. It’s understanding and fierce disagreement. Irreconcilable disagreement. How can we overcome such an intractable position?
Midweek News Roundup: 02/09/11
Monday, February 7, 2011
What are we doing?
When the news about Kermit Gosnell first came out, I was appalled. I read the entirety of the 261 page Grand Jury Report. Afterwards, I tried to figure out just what about the case horrified me so much. Yes, he killed babies, but that’s what abortionists do. That he killed them a few weeks later and on the other side of the womb doesn’t change the end result. The fact that he had a high school student dispensing drugs and delivering dead and dying babies is sickening all unto itself. That there was not a single certified person working at that clinic, himself included, is also appalling. He was an abortionist without a painted on veneer of professionalism. When pro-lifers picture an archetypical abortionist, Gosnell is what springs to mind. There is not one of our claims about abortionists that Kermit Gosnell fails to fulfill; from hurting women to being serial-killer-esque and collecting body parts.
I think it’s important to remember that though Gosnell is on the far end of the abortionist spectrum, he is still on the spectrum. The bureaucracy isn’t the only thing that failed that community. Pro-lifers failed them too. I could be wrong. Maybe there were sidewalk counselors outside that clinic, pleading with women for the lives of their children, but somehow I doubt it. I searched online for sidewalk counselors and after fifteen minutes I could only find one group that counsels at only one of the four abortion clinics in Philadelphia (five before Women’s Medical Society was closed). And they only counsel for an hour on Saturday mornings.
If sidewalk counselors had been there, they could have saved so many lives. They could have used the Chicago method of counseling and told women about the numerous suits that were pressed against him. (He was involved in the Mother’s Day Massacre in 1972) Counselors could also have observed some of the outside conditions of the clinic and the condition that patients arrived and left in. They also would have been able to observe the advanced state of pregnancy that many of his patients were in. We also have a tendency to get to know the staff, and I would expect that they would learn early on that a fifteen year-old was working in the clinic.
Now, there would be little that sidewalk counselors would be able to do directly. We can only tell others what we have observed. However, we are tenacious. If a single counselor had made a complaint against them and then spread word to their friends, who would spread word to theirs, the DOH would have been forced to make at least a cursory look into the clinic. If only one inspector had walked into this clinic, it might have been shut down.
Also, we need more people like Lila Rose, who would have gone into the building and recorded what she saw. This again might have made the difference in the lives of so many women and children.
I feel that we, the pro-life community, failed these women and their children. We were not there, we did not try. I do not expect us to immediately make a radical difference on the large scale. We are fighting an uphill battle. But we are capable of changing the hearts of individual women. We can get them to see the humanity of their unborn children. We can make sure that the clinics abide by the regulations that are in place so that less harm is done. We can provide resources for pregnant women and new mothers AND we can let them know that these resources exist. Though we are limited by law, we can still make a difference on the small scale and we can attempt to broaden this. If we do not try to save lives (whether by trying to change laws, minds, or hearts), then what are we doing?
Abortion Rights vs. Sexual Assault
I’ve seen the comparison over and over again between rape and taking away abortion rights but that comment really hit me. In fact I found it highly insulting and brought me back to a place I would have rather left alone.
It got me thinking, do people actually legitimately think this? Do people who have gone through the traumatizing effects of sexual abuse really honestly think that the taking away of abortion rights would be a worse experience than that?
Or maybe the people who are writing these slogans have never actually been a victim to sexual assault. Maybe they’ve never felt what it is like to have someone else physically take your body and use it for their own pleasure and their own power. Do they not realize how highly insulting it is to be told that I should feel more pain and anguish due to not being able to kill my preborn child than from a man placing his hands on me without my consent?
Sexual assault involves the woman’s body and hers alone. That is something she SHOULD have full control over and no one should ever have the right to take that from her.
Abortion is not just about her body. Abortion involves two bodies.
Pro-choice advocates, kindly never tell me that I should be more traumatized by me losing my “choice” to kill my own child than having my body be taken and used by a man against my will.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Obamacare: What's our next step?
Republicans campaigned very successfully on a "repeal and replace" platform, and Obamacare is back on the table. I don't want us to repeat our same mistakes this time around. So here, as I see it, are the major areas of agreement and disagreement.
Areas of agreement:
1) Our current health care system has serious flaws. We would all like to see more people insured, especially children. There's room for debate about the best solution, but no one seriously disputes that there is a problem.
2) Health care reform should not involve taxpayer funding of abortion. There is broad pro-life support for legislation that would clarify and codify Obama's Executive Order. Even the Catholic Health Association, which denied that Obamacare contained abortion funding to begin with, thinks that this legislation couldn't hurt.
Areas of disagreement:
1) Should we try to improve Obamacare, or do we need to scrap it and start over? Conservatives advocate a policy of "repeal and replace," but do not have the votes to repeal. On the other hand, the liberal pro-life opinion is that there is a lot of good in the bill, and that keeping most of it intact is the best way to promote life and health. (This is also the apparent position of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.)
2) Supposing a "repeal and replace" view, what should be the replacement?
3) Let's not forget about Gunner and other people with disabilities. The National Right to Life Committee has been particularly vocal in its concern rationing is inevitable under Obamacare. With or without Obamacare, how can we practically ensure that society's "undesirables" aren't sent to the end of the line?
Please discuss.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Time to defund Planned Parenthood
The New Jersey and Richmond videos were featured in last night's Expose Planned Parenthood webcast, which urged people to contact their federal legislators in support of H.R. 217, the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act. This bill would forbid abortion centers like Planned Parenthood from receiving money under Title X, which is the federal funding mechanism for women's health services.
Two important things to note:
1) Under current law, Title X money cannot directly fund abortions. However, indirect funding occurs when the same organization provides both legitimate family planning services and abortion. Mike Pence, the bill's sponsor, put it this way:
Now, in fairness, Planned Parenthood will be quick to say, well, you can't use Title X funding to provide abortion services, and I'm sure they technically comply with that. I think we're all adults; we understand that money is fungible. And to the extent that Planned Parenthood can use public resources to subsidize a Title X clinic, that frees up other of their resources, other streams of income, to subsidize their abortion clinic, which in many cases is in the same building-- sometimes it's right down the hallway.
2) The Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act does not reduce the amount of funding for family planning. Planned Parenthood's supporters are attacking this as an anti-women's-health measure. The truth is that any money that would have gone to Planned Parenthood will simply be diverted to other organizations, such as local health departments; you know, places that don't have a record of covering up sex trafficking and statutory rape, lying to patients, and killing millions of unborn babies.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Are conservative pro-lifers trying to redefine rape?
ORIGINAL POST: The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, a recent proposal that has not yet been passed, contains the usual exceptions for rape, incest, and the mother's life. But unlike earlier legislation like the Hyde Amendment, it uses the phrase "forcible rape." This has concerned pro- and anti-abortion feminists alike. All Our Lives writes:
Because neither the bill nor the Federal criminal code defines "forcible" rape, it is impossible to be sure of what this means. Does it include date rape? Rape in which the victim was drugged to the point of being unable to consent? Rape in which the victim was asleep or unconscious? Rape in which the victim was threatened with force, even if that force was not ultimately used? Rape in which the victim was mentally impaired and could not consent?As a law student, my initial thought is that this is a case of bad drafting. Somebody thought "We should put a negative adjective before 'rape,' to show that we think rape is really bad"-- and wound up communicating exactly the opposite. If I'm right, we can expect the word "forcible" to disappear in the wake of bad p.r., with no actual effect on how the law operates. Slipping someone a date rape drug is a use of force, as is threatening someone at knifepoint or imposing sex on a mentally disabled woman.
All of these situations are rape. Women who have had these crimes committed against them, whether or not they become pregnant, are harmed if we as a society deem their experiences to be something less than "real" rape.
Nevertheless, feminists are right to demand clarification. The uncertainty of the language is itself damaging. Abortion advocates are using this to malign us all. Now is the moment for pro-life women to stand up.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Midweek News Roundup: 02/02/11
I remember being disturbed enough to stop watching the 2003 Hindi movie Matrubhumi(motherland). Set in the future, it depicted an Indian village populated only by men. It gets that way after a man, yearning for a boy, publicly drowns his newborn girl in a vat of milk, sparking a customthat wipes out women. So the men watch porn, fornicate with farm animals. A father marries his five sons to a woman from the outside and the six men take turns raping her. Eventually more men in the village get involved. She is tied to the cow shed and gangraped every night.Matrubhumi was excessively brutal, I thought, but it addressed a silent, growing genocide that emerging India prefers to ignore.At least 1,370 girls are aborted every day in India. For perspective, some 250 Indians die every day in road accidents. Terrorists killed about six people, on an average, every day in 2009. In the last two decades of economic progress, 10 million girls have died before being born. More are strangled, slowly starved or simply tossed in the trash.This is mass murder on a scale unseen in any other country this century. Only China runs us close. The overall Indian sex ratio should be at least 950 women to 1,000 men (Nature produces more males than females as boys are more vulnerable to infant diseases than girls). But the child sex ratio, the number of girls to every 1,000 boys in the age group zero to six, has dropped from 1,010 girls in 1941 to 945 in 1991 to 927 in 2001, according to census figures. The 2011 census will reveal a further decline based on mostly disturbing trends.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
NJ Planned Parenthood aids undercover "sex trafficker"
At the time, this was inaccurate, and I told her so in the comments section:
Planned Parenthood as "part of a child sex ring" is a far different accusation than "PP is not complying with statutory rape reporting laws, and we have videotape."To which she replied:
"Planned Parenthood is not complying with the law" is the sort of dog whistle cleaning up job I patiently explained right wingers do with conspiracy theories, to make them sound sane enough to get them on TV and confirm what the nutters suspect. You see Fox do a story about an anti-woman/anti-health care sting in Planned Parenthood, and the audience is supposed to know that this is PROOF that they're running a CHILD SEX RING.Well, every now and then, life imitates the speculative ravings of a pro-abortion idealogue. Live Action's latest undercover operation shows a manager at Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey coaching a "sex trafficker" on how to get abortions for his 14- and 15-year-old victims. (Fortunately, in this case, the pimp and prostitute are actually pro-life actors.)
Planned Parenthood is not running a child sex ring. But it is willing to play along and profit from child sex rings operated by others. That should be enough to horrify any true feminist. Live Action is not "anti-woman and anti-health care"; it's pretty clear who is.
I have hope for the nurse practitioner, who "likes to dig" and who the pseudo-feminist manager dismisses as a "f***ing c*nt." If she's reading this: please, reach out to us! Pro-lifers in your area can help you get out of this bloody business. You don't belong there.