The doctor is in … the Court

Nothing closes a legislator’s mind to a pro-life argument quite like pro-abortion testimony from a medical professional. Funny thing: abortion advocacy groups coined the term “gynotician” in derisive reference to politicians who allegedly meddle in health care by respecting the right to life. There’s no corresponding term for a medical professional who politicizes science in the service of abortion advocacy. “Shill,” maybe, though perhaps that’s harsh.

This comes to mind as I’ve found an outstanding essay by Richard Doerflinger, published on the Witherspoon Institute web site. It’s worth posting verbatim, but with “all rights reserved,” I’ll refer you to this link: The HHS Mandate, Unborn Life, and the Professionals: a Cog in the Political Machine.

Doerflinger casts a sharp eye on the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which in its most recent foray into public policy has submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, opposing Hobby Lobby’s claim that it should be exempt from Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate. Medications like Plan B and Ella and devices like the IUD, according to the ACOG, are not really abortion-inducing even though Hobby Lobby’s owners think otherwise, so the mandate shouldn’t be suspended in this case.

This is the same ACOG that declares its opposition to personhood bills because they might make certain forms of birth control, like Ella and Plan B and IUDs, illegal – since they might induce abortion.

Remember this the next time a Court decision turns on medical advice from the ACOG.

 

 

Bending the facts ’til they fit

Sandra CanoNine years ago this week, Sandra Cano testified before Congress that she had never had nor wanted an abortion. Cano had been identified as “Mary Doe” in Doe v. Bolton, the abortion case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court concurrently with Roe v. Wade. The Doe case defined health-of-the-mother broadly enough to make abortion legal for any reason.

Write the decisions, then bend the facts to fit: it’s a nearly- inescapable conclusion that that’s what the Warren Burger court did with abortion.

Norma McCorvey, the Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, has tried for years to undo the damage done by the case bearing her name. So has Sandra Cano. The two women whose pseudonyms are forever associated with abortion in America want nothing to do with abortion or the so-called pro-choice movement. As Cano wrote on her blog in 2009,

I only sought legal assistance to get a divorce from my husband and to get my children from foster care. I was very vulnerable: poor and pregnant with my fourth child, but abortion never crossed my mind. Although it apparently was utmost in the mind of the attorney from whom I sought help. At one point during the legal proceedings, it was necessary for me to flee to Oklahoma to avoid the pressure being applied to have the abortion scheduled for me by this same attorney.”

 

More on the Roe and Doe cases: Abuse of Discretion, by Americans United for Life attorney Clarke D. Forsythe.

 

“We can do this.”

image

I can’t remember which pregnancy had me feeling completely overwhelmed. My husband and I have been blessed with five children, all now adults, and the ordinary discomforts of pregnancy are long forgotten. There was one day, though, when I wanted to throw in the towel on the whole motherhood thing.

We already had kids, and we very much wanted a bigger family, but suddenly I felt completely inadequate to the task. I couldn’t do anything right, I thought. I was too impatient to be a good mother, too afraid I’d screw up, not wise enough, afraid when I should be bold, bold when I should be cautious.

In short, a really bad day.

My husband could see how full of doubts I was. He looked me in the eye and said, “We can do this.”

Not “I’ve got this all figured out” or “don’t be so stupid” or “relax, you’re the perfect mother.” Instead, just four words, amounting to what’s known in the Book of Proverbs as a word in due season.

We can do this.

Did he ever feel overwhelmed or in too deep? No doubt. Still, when my husband said “we,” he meant it. I never had to be a parent alone, then or ever.

Happy Father’s Day to every man who’s had the courage to say “we can do this” to the mother of his child. May you be blessed this day and always.

Leaven’s hitting the campaign trail

image

Are you a New Hampshire candidate? Do you hear footsteps & a slightly out-of-breath person gaining on you? Don’t be alarmed. It’s only me.

The statewide candidate filing period is almost over, and I’m about to go in search of candidates who have something to say to pro-life New Hampshire voters. Republicans, Democrats, state office, federal office, incumbents, challengers: I’ll listen to anyone who’ll take a few questions.

Senate candidates Jim Rubens, Bob Smith, and Karen Testerman got in ahead of the crowd. I love living in a state where people running for U.S. Senate take the time to be interviewed one-on-one by a local blogger. (Scott Brown, are you listening?)

I’ll be in touch with candidates or their staff as the campaign gets rolling. I know I can’t reach everyone, but I’ll do my best. Leaven’s readers are a politically savvy bunch, and they vote. Candidates, give them a reason to vote for you.

Readers, who do you want to hear from?

Business hours? Just chillin’.

Once in force – meaning as soon as Governor Hassan signs it – New Hampshire’s buffer zone law will put “up to 25 feet” between abortion facilities and people who wish to give silent, prayerful witness against the carnage.

The zone will only apply during business hours, according to the soon-to-be law. So what are the business hours?

Are they hours posted on the door of an abortion facility? If so, prolifers won’t be able to read them, since they can’t approach the facility unless they’re heading inside as an employer, client, contractor, or public employee such as a police officer.

Are they hours posted online? What if a pro-life witness comes in good faith to stand within 25 feet of the facility, only to discover that the hours posted online have changed? Written warning, I suppose – and any subsequent infringement, whether it’s five minutes or five years away, would mean a citation and a minimum $100 fine.

What if a facility stays open late or opens earlier than usual for some reason – a patient needing extra time, for instance? How will anyone know that there’s “business” being conducted?

We already know that the size of a particular zone will be up to the individual abortion facility. Sounds like hours of zone enforcement will be up each facility, too, in the absence of clear posting of hours on the outside of a facility, visible from the edge of the “buffer.”

Of course, every business controls its own hours. That’s as it should be. The trouble with applying that to a buffer zone law: now, selected businesses will be able to control access to public property at all hours, simply by announcing that “business” is going on, even retroactively. A pro-life witness present in good faith outside a facility, thinking she’s legal because it’s after hours, could find herself cited. All it would take is an abortion facility employee calling the police to claim that “business” was being conducted at the time the witness was present.

“So stay 25 feet away 24/7,” someone might say.

That’s what’s known as a chilling effect.