prolife

Once again, Planned Parenthood has been caught on hidden camera misleading women about abortion.  In this case their staffers attempted to use euphemisms to convince a woman her unborn child was "not a baby" and convince her to have an abortion.

Then the Planned Parenthood employee went further, telling the "client", "It's not a baby,
it's a fetus," which, she claims, is "not like a person."  And, when asked if an abortion will hurt the chances of having children in the future, the employee replied, "Nope".  But recognized medical statistics show an increase in the chances of miscarriage after abortion to be anywhere from 20-50%.

 read more »

All during the debate over ObamaCare, virtually everyone in the pro-life community told pretty much everyone who would listen - as well as those who refused to listen - that the new health care reform law would result in federal tax dollars somehow being used to fund abortion.

Of course Obama and virtually all Democrats poo-poohed the notion.

Well, now we know...

The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new "high-risk" insurance program under a provision of the federal health care legislation enacted in March.

It has quietly approved a plan submitted by an appointee of pro-abortion Governor Edward Rendell under which the new program will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania.

The high-risk pool program is one of the new programs created by the sweeping health care legislation, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Obama signed into law on March 23. The law authorizes $5 billion in federal funds for the program, which will cover as many as 400,000 people when it is implemented nationwide. ...

As you'll remember, all through the debate over the bill the White House and Democrats in Congress opposed strict language that would forbid any tax dollars being used fund abortion.

And now we know why.

***  read more »

There's a new study out that documents just how much YOUR money Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups have received, courtesy of the federal government over the past seven years.

As far as Planned Parenthood goes, the figure is over six-hundred and fifty MILLION dollars. - an average of over one hundred million per year.

The report takes a look at all taxpayer supported streams of revenue making their way to the organization - from "Title X" funding for "family planning" to funds from government organizations like USAID and HHS.  The report from the government's General Accounting Office pegs the exact seven year figure at $657.1 million.

Of course, when it comes to the abortion biz, that's not it: (via Lifenews)  read more »

The latest Gallup poll on abortion is in and - for the third time in several years - it confirms that most Americans share the pro-life point of view.

The poll points out that the overall shift towards more conservative views on the issue that began over a year ago has continued, with 47% of respondents claiming to be "pro-life" vs. 45% who say they are "pro-choice".

While the gap between the two opinions is not very significant, it does represent a firming of pro-life opinion in the country, prompting Gallup to refer to it as "the new normal" on the issue.  It's also worth pointing out that these last few Gallup polls on the issue represent the first significant change on the issue in over a dozen years (when the pro-life position was at a twenty point deficit).

Gallup also points out that the trend towards more pro-life views is consistent across all age groups, as you can see in the graph below.  Note the rapid growth among the youngest age group...which suggests some political heartburn for liberal Democrats in future years.

 read more »

The Georgia chapter of the NAACP has just provided the country with an example of what most people have known all along: that's it's more important for liberal groups to adhere to the liberal orthodoxy - especially on abortion - than it is for them to look out for the best interests of the community that they supposedly represent.

This example comes as a result of their move to withdraw their support for a bill moving in the Georgia House of Representatives that would ban abortions conducted for the purpose of racial selection.

Edward DuBose, chapter president, issued a statement withdrawing the support, saying, "Earlier this month, the Georgia NAACP submitted a letter to support Senate Bill 529. We now fully understand the intention of this legislation and wish to retract our support for it."

"At the time, we were of the understanding that this bill would work to benefit the women in our community. However, after many conversations with membership and constituents, we now realize that this is nothing more than using women's health as a political tool," he said, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution newspaper. "Women of color in Georgia need more than divisive messages and deserve better access to health care."  read more »

The ink is barely dry on retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens' letter of resignation and the pro-abortion crowd is already haranguing for a "pro-Roe" replacement.

This week, both the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and the National Organization of Women (NOW) issued statements calling on President Obama to nominate another pro-abortion Justice...

"Given the current composition of the court, we will assess the eventual
nominee's complete record on privacy and other relevant issues in
the same way we did during Justice Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation
process," NARAL President Nancy Keenan said.

"One thing is certain: opponents of women's freedom and privacy
will use this vacancy on the court as an opportunity to further their
attacks on nominees who have taken pro-choice positions," Keenan
added.

The National Organization for Women also weighed in on Stevens' retirement
and called on Obama to ignore qualified male jurists and only pick
a woman for the high court. ...  read more »

Leave it to Planned Parenthood, NARAL and NOW to think that the Senate version of the ObamaCare bill wasn't pro-abortion "enough", but it's not hard to imagine that they would think so.

What they object to is the pro-life fiction that was written into the Senate bill by Democrat Senator Bill Nelson which uses accounting gimmicks to try and deny the government funds get used to subsidize abortion.  But in the end, it's just a shell game.  But Planned Parenthood can't even abide the fiction.  They're opposing Obama's executive order, which does nothing more than reiterate Nelson's Senate bill language.  They want it all out in the open.

Of course, as everyone who knows anything about how our system of government works, a presidential executive order doesn't stand up to a law passed by Congress.  Don't believe me?  Just ask Planned Parenthood:

"Politically, it's unfortunate that the president was put in a position to sign this executive order," Planned Parenthood's Rubiner said. "But the important thing is that substantively, it has no impact on the force of the underlying law."  read more »

This is a story that's both hard to believe and not hard to believe at the same time.

It seems that this past Saturday, a woman who had participated in the March for Life in Washington was told by security guards that she had to remove her pro-life pin that she had on from the march before she entered the building.  She was told that you can't wear religious or political items in a federal building.  (??) Via Lifenews:

...after searching her bag, two guards at the Gallery told her, "You're good to go in, but first you need to remove that pro-life pin.”

"He was indicating the small lime green pin with the message 'impact73.org' and the silhouette of a small hand inside that of a larger hand that I had attached to the lapel of my coat," Duke writes today.

"The pin, they informed me, was a 'religious symbol' and a symbol of a particular political cause and it could not be worn inside a federal building," Duke continues.

"Why, I asked, can I not wear a religious or political symbol inside a federal building? Bringing to bear the full weight of the supreme law of the land, the guards informed that it was a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution: The combination of me, wearing a pro-life pin, in a federal building was a violation of the separation of church and state," she explained.  read more »

Columnist Cal Thomas raises a point to ponder in the light of last week's decision by the Supreme Court which (essentially) extended First Amendment rights to corporations and unions.

He points out that, for purposes of the Constitution, the court rightly decided that these entities are comprised of citizens, so they have the rights of citizens when it comes to free speech.

The ruling came the week of the annual March for Life, which draws
thousands to Washington to mark that same court's 1973 Roe v. Wade
ruling. The march has become not so much a protest as an affirmation of
the value of all human life.

What makes the ruling and the march ironic is that the 1973 court,
in essence, downgraded a human fetus to the level of nonperson, while
the modern court has invested "personhood" in corporations. Does anyone
else see a contradiction or at least a moral inconsistency in these two
rulings?

Of course, as Thomas mentions, the difference in conclusions has a lot to do with the court making the decision...and in this case "who" was on the court.  read more »

Despite what the New York Times tried to lead the US public to believe, the nation's Catholic hospitals do NOT support the Senate version of Obamacare.

On Christmas Day, the Times ran a story headlined "Catholic Group Supports Senate on Abortion Aid".  It claimed that there was a split between the leadership of the hospitals and the country's Catholic bishops "over the abortion-financing provisions of the proposed health care overhaul" and that "the nation’s Catholic hospitals have signaled that they back the Senate’s compromise."

Of course liberals were quick to point to the "split" as a rationale for pro-life Catholics to support Obamacare.

But wait!  Surprise, surprise, the Times got it wrong. The head of the Catholic Health Association went public yesterday and put the "conflict" to rest.  (Via LifeNews)  read more »