Category Archives: Abortion

Planned Parenthood Leader’s Revealing Tweet

I don’t follow Cecile Richards on Twitter; life’s too short. I do follow David Daleiden, though, ever since his Center for Medical Progress videos documented the baby-parts business in some Planned Parenthood affiliates. Daleiden recently re-tweeted something from Richards.

In case the embedded tweet doesn’t show up for you, @CecileRichards on March 6 said, “Planned Parenthood is proud to provide abortion – a necessary service that’s as vital to our mission as birth control or cancer screenings.”

@DavidDaleiden’s re-tweet: “Today @CecileRichards admitted that abortion is equally important to @PPact as cancer screenings. So much for ‘only 3%’ #PPSellsBabyParts”

Save this. The next time a PP contract comes before the Executive Council, every Councilor needs to see Richards’ tweet, preferably about 500 times over.

If you understand that abortion is not health care, save this.

If you understand that PP’s business model depends on using its patients as human shields (give-us-a-contract-or-else-we’ll-deny-cancer-screenings-to-women), save this.

If you understand that PP uses its supposedly non-abortion contract funds for “infrastructure” at facilities where abortion is performed, save this.  Don’t take my word for it; New Hampshire’s HHS commissioner is the one who let that slip during a public Executive Council meeting last year. Infrastructure is just a four-syllable way of saying “overhead.”

Cecile Richards says that abortion is “vital” (ironic use of a word whose Latin root means “life”) to PP’s mission.

There’s no excuse for forgetting that.


 

Guest Post: verbal hit-and-run at Concord’s “Women’s Day”

Guest post by Stephen Scaer of Nashua. Stephen was among the pro-lifers who witnessed for life at the January 21, 2017 “Women’s Day” of abortion advocacy in Concord, New Hampshire. Photos are by Phyllis Woods and are used with her kind permission. I encourage readers to look in the Comments below the post to find the reply from Veronica, who also was on the scene and who had a much more encouraging experience.

“Do you have a uterus?” asked the gray-haired woman as she and her companion walked past me as I was holding my “Dads for Life” sign at our counter protest at the Women’s Day of Action & Unity in Concord on Saturday.

Stephen and Beth Scaer (photo by Phyllis Woods).

“That’s a rather personal question.”

“You’re a man. You have to say ‘no,’ and you don’t have the right to say whether a woman should have an abortion.”

“Why not?” I asked, as she hurried away. I would have loved to have had a chance to follow her line of reasoning. I assume she wouldn’t assert that people without children had no right to speak out against child abuse, or that people who don’t own pets can’t speak out against animal cruelty. Moreover, although I’ve never been a woman, I have had some experience as an unborn child. But for the most part, these are the hit-and-run tactics the 25 or so pro-life protesters encountered.

Pro-life demonstrators included Fr. Christian Tutor (center, with 40 Days for Life sign), Cathy Kelley of Pennacook Pregnancy Center (left foreground) and Beth Scaer (yellow hat).

 

For example, a woman looked at my sign and said ‘then you should be at home with your kid,’ and took off before I could point out that my daughter was standing 20 feet away with a “Tell Planned Parenthood #GoFundYourself” sign.

My daughter’s favorite hit-and-run was a woman who shouted “you’re nuts” as she darted past, carrying a sign that said “prove me wrong.”

Another woman asked, “Are you against war?”
“I don’t know what that has to do with abortion, but I suppose it depends on the war.”

“You pro-lifers are a bunch of hypocrites. You can’t be for war and against abortion. You can’t be pro-war and call yourself a Christian.” She walked away before I could ask her opinion about Christian war-mongers such as Eisenhower, Washington, the Roman soldiers who converted in the New Testament, and King David. I really wanted to know whether she thought Lincoln had any right to be pro-war and anti-slavery.

And then of course, there was the litany of “you can’t be pro-life if you don’t support [insert your favorite government social program here].”

One older man did wait to hear a few of my responses.
“You shouldn’t tell other people what to do with their bodies.”
“Should we legalize heroin?”
“I’m for legalizing marijuana, but not heroin.”
“Then you’re telling people what to do with their bodies. Also, the child in the womb is a separate body, with her own arm, legs, head, and set of chromosomes.”
“It’s not a person. It’s just a blob of cells.”
“It has everything you have. Are you just a blob of cells?”
“You people are crazy,” he responded, and walked away.

[New Hampshire Right to Life has on its Facebook page an album of photos from the January 21 event.]


 

The French aversion to pro-life speech intensifies

The French government is doing its best to muzzle pro-life speech, apparently under the assumption that women are too delicate to hear it.

Recall news from a few weeks back: the French Conseil d’Etat (State Council) gave its blessing to a decision by a French broadcasting service not to show a video with the message that people with Down Syndrome can have happy lives. The video implied that abortion need not be the result of a prenatal diagnosis of a genetic problem. The Council concluded that such a message might be “inappropriate” since it was “likely to disturb the conscience of women who had lawfully made different personal life choices”. I wrote about that over at DaTechGuy Blog

Now, Béatrice Fedor at 400 Words for Women draws our attention to a recent expansion of a French law that forbids anyone from interfering with a woman’s decision to abort her child.

This new law is an extension of a 1993 law that forbids anyone to try to keep a woman from entering an abortion facility, talk to her, carry a sign, pass her a pamphlet, make any kind of contact with her in order to dissuade her from having an abortion including offering help. Now this law has been extended to any digital means but note that the text has been changed from ‘digital’ to ‘any means’. It could be about any website (or perhaps books or videos) contents that is considered as lies, misguiding, making women feel guilty, morally and psychologically pressuring them to keep their child, like telling them about possible consequences of abortion and such.

Fedor lives in the United States but is French by birth. She became pro-life after having had an abortion herself some time ago. She takes the newly-expanded French law personally. She talks about it in a video recorded in French, with an English translation provided on her blog.

My…question is about women who have aborted and suffer from abortion. Will we have the right to speak? Will we be allowed, from now on, to write our stories, to share our stories on the internet or maybe by publishing a book, maybe by making a video just like I’m doing now?

Read more of her questions about the French law. Think about how the land of her birth got to this position. How much (or how little) prolife activity will it take to trigger enforcement of the law? Will prosecutions ensue?

It’s worth working to keep the same kind of law from gaining a foothold here. Start with peaceful and persistent exercise of the First Amendment in defense of the right to life. Respond to any challenges with a vigorous legal defense. Make sure the French law is merely a cautionary tale, not a bellwether of what’s ahead for the USA.

See 400 Words for Women for a translation of Béatrice Fedor’s video, shown below. 


 

Lozier Institute provides info on abortion coverage in health insurance plans

As enrollment season for 2017 health insurance coverage is underway, the Charlotte Lozier Institute in conjunction with the Family Research Council has updated its Abortion in Obamacare web site with a state-by-state list of health insurance plans that do not cover most abortions.

Link to New Hampshire information.

I have not independently verified their New Hampshire information, but I offer it as something to consider when you make your health insurance choices for next year. It’s not easy to keep our insurance premium dollars from being used to underwrite abortion, and I welcome the Lozier Institute’s efforts to shed light on the subject.

If readers have corrections to this information, send them to info@obamacareabortion.com.

On a related note, I’d like to hear from readers who have opted out of conventional health insurance in favor of medical cost-sharing programs like Medi-Share or CMF-Curo. How have these programs worked out for you?

 

Weekend reading: “The Pro-Choice Case for Pregnancy Centers”

This weekend’s recommended reading is from Ardee Coolidge of Care Net, on the pro-choice case for pro-life pregnancy centers.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the vast majority of women who choose abortion do so because of financial concerns, employment concerns, or problems with the baby’s father. Frederica Mathewes-Green once famously said of abortion, “[D]o women want abortion? Not like she wants a Porsche or an ice cream cone. Like an animal caught in a trap, trying to gnaw off its own leg, a woman who seeks an abortion is trying to escape a desperate situation by an act of violence and self-loss.” Indeed, even abortion providers have used her assessment to describe the brutal “necessity” of abortion access for women who have no other apparent choice.

Pregnancy centers provide women with the material support they need to be free to make another choice—one free from the pressures of a desperate situation. At pregnancy centers, women receive job-placement counseling, baby supplies, ultrasounds, and parenting classes. For those who wish to place a child for adoption, they receive resources to assist them with that transition.

Pregnancy centers are not a threat to choice, but are a threat to abortion.

Read the full post. 

“Their story is not ours to share.”

The Walls are Talking (Ignatius Press, 2016)
The Walls are Talking (Ignatius Press, 2016)

Abby Johnson of And Then There Were None leads a team that has assisted hundreds of people who have chosen to leave the abortion industry. In The Walls Are Talking, Abby and co-worker Kristin Detrow related some of their stories.

Today, Abby took to Facebook to say why she hasn’t shared even more stories. Her answer begins and ends with the same assertion: those stories belong to the people who have lived them, and the stories are theirs to share, not hers.

“We truly value the courageous men and women who step forward and make this decision. We respect them. We value their privacy. And we allow them to take time to heal.”

The Facebook post is worth reading in full. Think in particular of the legal threats that can keep a worker from speaking out. “Ever since I left PP, they make sure that all of their workers sign several confidentiality statements. If they are in breech [sic] of that contract, then they will be sued.”

My one and only quibble with The Walls are Talking was the careful guarding of each former worker’s identity. Co-writer Detrow later said to me in an email, “I can assure you that I interviewed each and every one and have personally met many of them….I pray that the anonymity is not a stumbling block for readers.” Abby Johnson’s post today reminds me why anonymity isn’t just appropriate but essential, until such time as a worker chooses to speak out.