Archive for NEWS, prophecy, dreams, ZionsCRY, Bible, teaching, visions
  Forum Index -> HEALTH and Medical NEWS

Baby, babies, abortion, PParenthood, LIFE


What does the Bible say about abortion?

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart.  
Jeremiah 1:5

For You created my inmost being
You knit me together in my mother’s womb
Your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me were written in Your book
before one of them came to be.
Psalm 139:13, 16

Do not shed innocent blood.
Jeremiah 7:6

Eccl 11:5  As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.


Planned Parenthood Makes Millions Doing Abortions, KILLING BABIES

Twisted Evil   Obama Praises Work of Planned Parenthood
April 26, 2013
  Barack Hussein Obama praised the work of Planned Parenthood delegates and told them he would stand with them in coming fights over abortion rights.

Obama Praises Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz

Hosea 4:6  My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

Mat 24:32  Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
Mat 24:33  So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
Mat 24:34  Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Mat 24:35  Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

LIFE begins in the womb

HARBINGER  WARNINGS - Isaiah 9 prophecy

Planned Parenthood abortion mills, blood sacrifice to Satan

              Posted   <*))))><   by  

ZionsCRY NEWS with prophetic analysis


Evil or Very Mad    Obama to Largest Abortion Provider: 'God Bless You'
"Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you."
"As long as we've got to fight to make sure women have access to quality, affordable health care, and as long as we've got to fight to protect a woman's right to make her own choices about her own health, I want you to know that you've also got a president who's going to be right there with you, fighting every step of the way," said Obama. "Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you."

The god that blesses abortion is Satan, the god of this world.
Abortion is a blood sacrifice to the devil.

“We Will Not Resuscitate” Baby Born Alive After Failed Abortion
May 2013
A third shocking undercover video has been released showing abortion clinic staffers saying they will not revive babies who are born alive after failed abortions. The videos show embattled abortion practitioner Kermit Gosnell was not an anomaly.

The new video comes on the heels of abortion doctor Cesare Santangelo of Washington, D.C, who was exposed on a recent undercover video telling a 24-week pregnant woman that in the unlikely event that an abortion resulted in a live birth, “we would not help it.”  Before that, the pro-life group released a video showing an abortion facility staff member saying an unborn child born alive after a botched abortion should just be flushed down the toilet.

Now, Live Action released a third undercover video exposing Phoenix, Arizona-based late-term abortion doctor Laura Mercer and an abortion center counselor who would leave a newborn, struggling for life after a failed abortion, to die.

This is the third in a series of undercover videos, found at, involving the illegal and inhuman practices of late-term abortion centers, as well as describing in horrific detail what happens to the mother and baby in a late-term abortion.

Gosnell Jury Hung on 2 Counts
5/13/13  The jury deliberating in the capital murder trial against former Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell says they're hung on two counts.
The jury of seven women and five men are weighing more than 250 charges against the Gosnell with the most serious being four counts of first-degree murder.

It is currently unclear on which charges the jury is deadlocked, but the group told the court it has reached unanimous decisions on all other counts.
Around 10:00 a.m. Monday, the jury passed a note to Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey P. Minehart explaining their situation. The admission came on the 10th day of deliberations.

By law, according to attorneys for both sides, Judge Minehart is required to re-instruct the jury to deliberate on the two charges a second time and attempt to reach a verdict.
Judge Minehart brought the jury into the courtroom on the third-floor of the Philadelphia Criminal Justice Center around 11:15 a.m.

TEXAS Abortion Doc Kills Babies Born Alive
5/15/13  After the conviction of late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell on murder charges, Operation Rescue has been repeatedly asked if there is any evidence that similar practices exist at abortion clinics elsewhere in the nation. That documentation has now been released.

Operation Rescue arranged to have Life Dynamics, Inc. produce a video interview, released yesterday, with three informants who came to Operation Rescue as the result of our Abortion Whistleblowers Program, which offers a reward of $25,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of abortionists who are breaking the law.

The three informants, Deborah Edge, Gigi Aguliar, and Krystal Rodriguez, have come forward to tell of their horrific experiences working for abortionist Douglas Karpen, at one of three of his Texas abortion clinics, the Aaron Women’s Clinic in Houston. A fourth informant has co-operated with Operation Rescue, filing an affidavit about her experiences, but remains at this time anonymous.

As shocking as their stories are, these women did more than just talk; they brought forward evidence of illegal late-term abortions in the form of photos taken on their cell phones at the Karpen’s clinic on Schumacher Lane in Houston.
The photos were scandalous. They depicted two babies aborted well beyond the legal limit of 24 weeks in Texas. Their necks had been cut.

Governor Curses Vermont
May 21, 2013
Vermont is the 4th state to legalize MURDER of adults.
The law allows physicians to prescribe lethal medication to terminally ill patients, and it was signed by Gov. Peter Shumlin.
For the first three years, the new Vermont law will include a requirement that patients state 3 times, once in writing, that they wish to die.

Jury finds Kermit Gosnell guilty of first degree murder
May 2013
 A jury has found abortion Dr. Kermit Gosnell guilty of three counts of first degree murder after deliberating for 10 days on the case, KYW reports.
Prosecutors contended that the 72 year old killed four premature babies after they were born alive in his Philadelphia clinic. He was acquitted of one of those charges. Gosnell was also found guilty in the accidental death of a patient, who died after receiving an abortion and a mix of sedatives and painkillers at his clinic. A 2010 federal investigation described his West Philadelphia clinic as an unsanitary "house of horrors" that primarily served low income women seeking late-term abortions. The nearly 300-page grand jury report said remains of fetuses were stored in freezers and that instruments used in abortions were contaminated with sexually transmitted diseases.

Gosnell faced hundreds of lesser charges, including employing a minor in his clinic and violating the state's 24-hour waiting period for abortions. He's also charged with performing abortions on women who were more than 24 weeks pregnant, which is illegal in the state.

Earlier on Monday, the jury said they were deadlocked on two of the charges against Gosnell. They resumed deliberating and reached a decision early afternoon.
The trial has stoked debate over late term abortions in the country. Pro abortion rights groups say Gosnell was an outlier breaking numerous laws and regulations, while the anti-abortion rights movement has been using the case to advocate for more state-level abortion restrictions.

Pennsylvania abortion doctor Gosnell sentenced to life in third baby's murder - @NBCPhiladelphia

Court strikes down Arizona 20-week abortion ban

SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal court in San Francisco Tuesday struck down Arizona's ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law violates a string of U.S. Supreme Court rulings starting with Roe v. Wade that guarantees a woman's right to an abortion before a fetus is able to survive outside the womb. That's generally considered to be about 24 weeks. Normal pregnancies run about 40 weeks

Several states have enacted similar bans starting at 20 weeks. But the 9th Circuit's ruling is binding only in the nine Western states under the court's jurisdiction. Idaho is the only other state in the region covered by the 9th Circuit with a similar ban.

A trial judge had ruled that the ban could take effect. U.S. District Judge James Teilborg ruled it was constitutional, partly because of concerns about the health of women and possible pain for fetuses.

But abortion-rights groups appealed that decision, saying the 20-week ban would not give some women time to carefully decide whether to abort problem pregnancies.

The ban included an exception for medical emergencies.

Looks like the USSC is in the back pockets of all of the NWO agendas now...

Planned Parenthood Funding Cutoff Bid Rejected by Court Evil or Very Mad

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to revive an Indiana law that would have blocked Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid dollars because the organization provides abortion services.

The justices today left intact a lower court ruling that said the Indiana law violated Medicaid beneficiaries’ right to freely choose their medical provider.

Indiana is one of several states targeting Planned Parenthood in an effort to prevent even indirect subsidies of abortion. Texas, Arizona, Missouri, Florida, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Tennessee, New Hampshire, Kansas and North Carolina have taken steps to limit public funding to health centers that provide abortion services.

Medicaid is the joint federal-state health care program for the poor. While federal law bars use of Medicaid funds for abortions, providers that perform abortions can receive payment from Medicaid for other types of services.

Under the federal law that governs the program, state Medicaid plans must reimburse any provider “qualified to perform the service or services required.”

Indiana contended that provision isn’t absolute, leaving states room to determine what it means to be “qualified.” Indiana’s 2011 law says state agencies can’t provide public funds to any entity that performs abortions or operates a facility where abortions take place.


MTV pulls pro-life ad, but continues partnering with Planned Parenthood
May 2011
-  MTV has announced that it will no longer run life-affirming, call-for-help commercials produced by the pro-life organization Heroic Media. The ads were scheduled to run on the network during May 2011.

“Upon further review, it was hard for us to separate some of the recent tactics of the organization behind the ads themselves, so we have opted to not accept them for air at this time,” said Jeannie Kedas, Senior Vice President MTV Networks, in a statement.

Kedas’ statement was an apparent reference to the national controversy sparked by ads created by Heroic Media that draw attention to the high rate of abortion in the African American community.

One of those ads, a large billboard, was pulled down only days after it was erected in New York City. The ad showed a photo of a young African American girl, and the slogan, “The Most Dangerous Place for an African American is in the Womb.”  

The MTV ad, however, has been running on MTV since May of 2010, and is called “We Can Help.” It features a young woman struggling with an unexpected pregnancy and directs women to a 1-800 help line for crisis pregnancies.

According to Heroic Media, an MTV sales representative who notified them that they would no longer run their ads indicated that MTV President, Stephen Friedman, made the decision.

According to the sales representative, MTV, “Was in the works with doing a partnership with Planned Parenthood and different opportunities for PSA’s when he decided that he did not want to run Heroic Media on MTV.”

Last month, MTV partnered with Planned Parenthood on a promotion called “Get Yourself Tested,” which was promoted on both MTV and Planned Parenthood’s websites.

On their website, MTV has listed Planned Parenthood as an adoption referral resource. However, while Planned Parenthood reported performing 332,278 abortions in the United States in 2009, in the same year they made 977 adoption referrals.
Heroic Media has asked MTV to reconsider the decision.

California Assembly passes bill specifically exempting abortion clinics from surgical building code standards

The state of California, who often leads the nation in laws and legislation, has taken a step backwards, as the California State Assembly passed an act to amend the current health and safety code in state medical facilities in a manner that would allow Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics to have fewer requirements, allowing them to perform their life-taking surgeries in non-surgical facilities. Assembly Bill 980 passed Friday and now moves to the Senate for debate.

Assembly Bill 980 amends current California building codes by allowing surgical abortion centers to be exempted from facility standards that all other surgical medical centers must comply with. In part, the bill says:

(c) Notwithstanding any other law, the Building Standards Commission shall not adopt building code standards that establish construction requirements for primary care clinics that provide medication or aspiration abortion services that differ from construction standards applicable to other primary care clinics described in Section 1226.6 of the 2013 Triennial Edition of the Building Standards Code. (You can read the code here.)

Primary care clinics may include a place where you get a flu swab or strep test, and don’t generally include things as severe and risky as abortion. This legislation flies in the face of the direction of the nation, which has seen multiple laws actually enacting requirements for abortion facilities to be properly inspected and equipped to meet medical standards.

While many states have been tightening abortion restrictions to ensure that the Gosnells of the land are stopped in their tracks, the California Assembly has sent a message to abortion providers that the state’s legislators want to help abortionists do business and will aid in removing barriers to doing this – even when logical health and safety issues are presented. This special loophole just for abortion providers shows once again the symbiotic relationship between the abortion industry and its predominately Democrat pro-abortion political allies.

The California ProLife Council is currently trying to inform residents of this potential law’s passage and is asking all Californians to contact their legislators. To register your objection to this law, you may contact your legislator. This link will help you find the appropriate lawmaker.

Supreme Court refuses to hear Planned Parenthood cases
5/28/13  - The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to the campaign of abortion opponents to “defund” Planned Parenthood.  Without comment, the justices turned away Indiana’s defense of a 2011 law that would ban all Medicaid funds to an organization such as Planned Parenthood whose work includes performing abortions.

The high court let stand decisions by a federal judge in Indiana and the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago that blocked the measure from taking effect. The “defunding law excludes Planned Parenthood from Medicaid for a reason unrelated to its fitness to provide medical services, violating its patients’ statutory right to obtain medical care from the qualified provider of their choice,” Judge Diane Sykes said last year for the 7th Circuit.

The Obama administration had joined the case on the side of Planned Parenthood and argued that the Medicaid law gives eligible low-income patients a right to obtain healthcare from any qualified provider. This is known as the free-choice-of-provider rule.,0,4569389.story

Here's yet more proof that BOTH the Dems and GOP are working hand-in-hand pushing these agendas...

Morgan Christen
Morgan Brenda Christen (born December 5, 1961) is a Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Christen previously served on the Alaska Supreme Court having been appointed on March 4, 2009 by Governor Sarah Palin to replace outgoing justice Warren Matthews.[1] The United States Senate confirmed Christen on December 15, 2011 in a 95–3 vote. She received her commission on January 11, 2012.

Christen was one of two candidates recommended by the seven-member Alaska Judicial Council to replace Justice Warren Matthews on the Alaska Supreme Court.[2] Christen was opposed by pro-life advocacy groups due to her service as a Planned Parenthood board member in the mid-1990s.[1][2] Nonetheless, on March 4, 2009, Governor Sarah Palin selected Christen to fill the vacancy on the Alaska Supreme Court.[2]

In July 2010, Christen confirmed that the Obama White House is considering her to fill the vacancy on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit created when Judge Andrew Kleinfeld assumed senior status.[3]

On May 18, 2011, Obama nominated Christen to the vacancy on the Ninth Circuit.[4] On September 8, 2011, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported her nomination to the Senate floor by voice vote. The Senate confirmed Christen in a 95–3 vote on December 15, 2011.[5] She received her commission on January 11, 2012.[6]

College Republicans to GOP: Back off Planned Parenthood, contraception, same-sex ‘marriage’

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 8, 2013 ( – Republican Party chairman Rience Priebus thanked the College Republican National Committee for releasing a new, 95-page report stating that the Republican Party needs to stop defending traditional values like marriage and defunding Planned Parenthood if it wants to appeal to the youth vote.

The report, called “Grand Old Party for a Brand New Generation,” examines voter trends among those 18-29 and claims young voters have problems with the GOP’s views on hot-button sexual issues. The party’s traditional-minded positions on both same-sex-marriage and reproductive issues were cited in the report as turn-offs to young adults.

“Perhaps no topic has gotten more attention with regards to the youth vote than the issue of gay marriage,” the report says. “[Y]oung people are unlikely to view homosexuality as morally wrong, and they lean toward legal recognition of same-sex relationships.”

The report states that only 21 percent of young voters in a Spring 2012 Harvard Institute of Politics survey felt that religious values should play a more important role in government, and only 25 percent felt homosexual relationships were wrong. And the group’s own March 2013 survey found that 44 percent of young voters said that same-sex marriage should be legal across the country, while 26 percent said that it should be up to states to decide.

Only 30 percent said marriage should be legally defined as only between a man and a woman.

“In the focus groups this issue repeatedly came up as one that made young voters wary of supporting the GOP,” the group said. For that reason, they added two questions to their survey “to gauge how young voters would respond to a candidate who opposes same-sex marriage.”

The survey asked respondents if they would be more or less likely to vote for a candidate who opposed same-sex marriage. Some 39 percent said it would make them less likely to vote for the candidate, including 51 percent of young independent voters. About one-third said that the issue would make no difference to them.

Wrote the College Republicans, “Surveys have consistently shown that gay marriage is not as important an issue as jobs and the economy to young voters. Yet it was unmistakable in the focus groups that gay marriage was a reason many of these young voters disliked the GOP.”

One young man in the College Republicans’ Columbus focus group said, “In this last election, everyone said that the biggest issue was the economy. I think to a lot of people that definitely was the case…but if there is just that one thing – a lot of those social issues that you can’t get behind – and see, everything is in two buckets, and if one of those things in those buckets is something you just can’t agree with then [it doesn’t] matter what else is there, economic or otherwise.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

Among those 44 percent of young voters who believed gay marriage should be legal, half said that a candidate who held traditional views on marriage would be a “deal breaker,” meaning that they would probably or definitely not vote for the person because of it, even if they were in agreement on taxes, defense, immigration, and spending.

The College Republicans suggested the answer for the GOP is to minimize its public opposition to homosexual marriage, instead promoting “diversity of opinion.”

“There is hardly an appetite from this generation to see the GOP crusade against same-sex marriage,” the group wrote. “In the short run, as we wait for the Supreme Court rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8, the best course of action for the party may be to promote the diversity of opinion on the issue within its ranks (after all, for quite some time, former vice president Dick Cheney was to the left of President Obama on same-sex marriage) and to focus on acceptance and support for gay people as separate from the definition of marriage.”

The College Republicans also described the GOP’s strong opposition to abortion as a negative for young voters who, although largely supporting limits on legal abortion, see the Republican Party as ‘extreme’ on the issue.

“Where the Republican Party runs into trouble with young voters on the abortion issue is not necessarily in being pro-life,” the group wrote. “On the contrary, the Democratic Party’s position of pushing for abortion to be legal in all cases and at all times, including some recent laws around how to handle medical care for babies born alive during abortion procedures, is what is outside the norm of where young voters stand.”

But the group said the GOP should be careful not to go too far in its defense of life. Twisted Evil

“Unfortunately for the GOP, the Republican Party has been painted – both by Democrats and by unhelpful voices in our own ranks – as holding the most extreme anti-abortion position (that it should be prohibited in all cases),” the College Republicans wrote. “Furthermore, the issue of protecting life has been conflated with issues around the definition of rape, funding for Planned Parenthood, and even contraception.”

The College Republicans indicated that Planned Parenthood’s rebranding and public relations offensive has been especially effective with young people, leading many of those who self-identify as pro-life to support the abortion giant. A recent survey found nearly half of college-aged people do not know Planned Parenthood performs abortions.

One young voter who was part of the Columbus female voter focus group identified herself as strongly pro-life, but objected to the Republican Party’s unwillingness to federally fund Planned Parenthood.

“The Planned Parenthood thing for me is not so much about abortion,” she said. “It’s about counseling before you can get to that point, and I feel that that’s a big part of what [Planned Parenthood clinics] do, is contraception counseling and about being safe.”

Another female participant in a Hispanic voter focus group in Orlando told the College Republicans, “I think Romney wanted to cut Planned Parenthood. And he supports policies where it would make it harder for a woman to get an abortion should she choose, even if it were medically necessary. That goes head in hand with redefining rape.”

Feds now back morning-after pills for all girls
6/11/13  NEW YORK  — After setting off a storm of criticism from abortion rights groups upset that a Democratic president had sided with social conservatives, the Obama administration said it will comply with a judge's order to allow girls of any age to buy emergency contraception without prescriptions.

But in doing so, at least one opponent of easy access to the contraception thinks the president is buckling to political pressure, rather than making the health of girls a priority.
The Justice Department notified U.S. District Judge Edward Korman on Monday that it will submit a plan for compliance. If he approves it, the department will drop its appeal of his April ruling.

According to the department's letter to the judge, the Food and Drug Administration has told the maker of the pills to submit a new drug application with proposed labeling that would permit it to be sold "without a prescription and without age or point-of-sale prescriptions." The FDA said that once it receives the application, it "intends to approve it promptly."

Belgian Parliament Posed To Approve Child Euthanasia Law
The Belgian Federal Parliament is reportedly about to expand its controversial "right to die" policies to include access to euthanasia for some gravely ill children.

A consensus among members of the legislative body has reportedly formed in support of legislation to allow children to choose to undergo euthanasia in certain dire cases, according to a report in the Belgian daily newspaper Der Morgen, as translated by the Paris-based news agency Presseurop.

If child euthanasia is legalized in Belgium, the country would become the first in the developed world to have a law on the books allowing the practice, although the Netherlands has since 2005 not prosecuted doctors who perform euthanasia on some minors as long as the doctors act in accordance with a set of medical guidelines dubbed the Groningen Protocol.

Belgium became the second country in the world after the Netherlands to legalize euthanasia in 2002, but the statute currently extends only to people 18 or older.


It's about 11pm here, so we'll see if she makes it one more hour...nonetheless, this isn't some dog and pony show, but some WWE showcase...
Texas Democrat tries to block abortion restrictions with 12-hour filibuster

By Corrie MacLaggan

AUSTIN, Texas (Reuters) - A Texas lawmaker who was a single mother at the age of 19 and is now a rising star of the state Democratic party was attempting to block a Republican drive for sweeping new abortion restrictions on Wednesday by speaking continuously for 12 hours.

The filibuster by state Senator Wendy Davis, 50, could derail a proposal including a ban on abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. She must talk until midnight (0500 GMT), when a 30-day special session expires.

But Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry, a strong opponent of abortion, could revive the proposal by calling another special session of the legislature.

If the filibuster fails and the Senate approves the proposal, Texas is virtually assured of becoming the 13th state in the nation and by far the most populous, to impose a ban on abortion after 20 weeks.

Texas abortion bill fails to pass after epic filibuster

A bill that opponents claimed would virtually ban abortion in Texas failed to pass late Tuesday after lawmakers missed a deadline by just minutes.

There were chaotic scenes after a filibuster attempt fell just short and protesters cheered, clapped and shouted from 11:45 p.m. to midnight and beyond as lawmakers tried to hold the vote before the session ended at midnight (1 a.m. ET).

The filibuster by Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, who wore a back brace, lasted almost 11 hours but ended after three challenges to her speech were upheld.

The only way Democrats in the Republican-controlled Senate could defeat the measure was by not letting it come to a vote on Tuesday.

Texas Abortion Limits Sent Back to State Lawmakers by Perry

Texas Governor Rick Perry called the state legislature back into session July 1 to give lawmakers another chance to approve a measure that might close most of the state’s abortion clinics.

The legislation died in a special session that ended last night after a Democratic senator filibustered. Republican backers forced a vote approving the measure that was later ruled invalid because it came after the midnight conclusion of the session.

“Texans value life and want to protect women and the unborn,” Perry said in a statement today.

The measure that failed yesterday would ban abortions at 20 weeks of pregnancy and require that they be performed in ambulatory surgical centers by doctors with admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles (50 kilometers). Most clinics would have to alter facilities to meet the requirements, which abortion-rights advocates say they can’t afford. Doctors at other clinics may struggle to win privileges.


Being from TX(as I've said in other posts), this has made front page news in our papers(for obvious reasons) - Dunno, but it's turning out into one of those good cop vs bad cop/WWE shows. This same Lt. Gov is also the same guy who played his role by allowing himself to be portrayed as a "moderate" in last year's Senate race(which went to Ted Cruz - who's playing the role of good cop on Capitol Hill now with this immigration bill).
Texas Senate blowup threatens lt. gov.'s future

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — With the crowd in the Texas Senate gallery chanting at deafening levels, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst stood at the podium with his hands in his pockets as his fellow Republicans pleaded and shouted for order.

The protesters refused to settle down as Dewhurst scrambled to the Senate floor and desperately tried to beat a midnight deadline to save one of his top priorities: legislation limiting abortions. He failed, amid one of the wildest scenes in the Texas Legislature in recent memory.

The bill will get another chance next week now that the governor has called another special legislative session, but Dewhurst's political future may not be so easily saved.

Damage left by the raucous scene of an out-of-control Senate — broadcast live on the Internet — has made Dewhurst a target for blame among rivals within his own party who wonder why the presiding officer of the chamber let it happen.

Texas' lieutenant governor is one of the most powerful politicians in the state. Elected statewide and independent of the governor's office, the lieutenant governor controls the flow of legislation in the Senate. Dewhurst has held the post since 2002, when he rode a conservative wave that has allowed Republicans to dominate state politics for more than a decade. But he suffered a crushing defeat by a fellow Republican in last year's U.S. Senate race.


Judge puts parts of new Kan. abortion law on hold

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — A Kansas judge on Friday temporarily blocked some of the state's new abortion restrictions that were set to take effect next week, including a requirement that providers said would make it nearly impossible for a woman to obtain an emergency abortion.

Shawnee County District Judge Rebecca Crotty blocked two provisions. One requires providers to declare on their websites that the state health department's information on abortions and fetal development is accurate and objective. Another redefines medical emergencies so that they don't include mental health reasons, such as a woman threatening to commit suicide. Critics of the provision have said the new definition is so narrow that a woman never would be able to obtain an emergency abortion.

Crotty refused to block other portions of the law that ban sex-selection abortions, block tax breaks for abortion providers and prohibits them from furnishing materials or instructors for public schools' sexuality courses. Another provision that will take effect requires doctors to provide information to patients that includes a statement that abortion ends the life of "whole, separate, unique, living human being."

The judge ruled in a lawsuit filed by Dr. Herbert Hodes and his daughter, Dr. Traci Nauser, who perform abortions at their Overland Park health center. They asked Crotty to prevent the state from enforcing the entire law while their lawsuit proceeds. Crotty said Hodes and Nauser did not present enough information to justify blocking the entire law, requiring her to review each provision. But the judge said, in the case of the provisions she blocked, they and their patients would suffer irreparable harm.

Hodes and Nauser argued that the new law violates their right to equal legal protection, as guaranteed by the state constitution. Hodes called the ruling "a victory for women in Kansas."

Supporters contend the law preserves life, protects patients and lessens the state's entanglement with abortion. The Republican-dominated Legislature has strong anti-abortion majorities in both chambers, and GOP Gov. Sam Brownback is a strong abortion opponent.

Crotty's ruling came two days after the chief federal judge for Kansas had a hearing in Kansas City, Kan., on a narrower challenge filed by Planned Parenthood, which performs abortions at its Overland Park clinic. Planned Parenthood is challenging provisions requiring providers to give certain information to patients.

The state already has spent nearly $769,000 on private attorneys in defending anti-abortion laws enacted since Brownback took office in January 2011. Attorney General Derek Schmidt, also a Republican, has predicted that defending this year's law will cost the state $500,000 over the next two years.

Health and safety regulations enacted in 2011 specifically for abortion clinics have never been enforced because courts are still reviewing them.

Rush Limbaugh, thank you thank you THANK YOU!
June 14, 2013
Rush did the most wonderful blessed annointed of GOD dialogue on the cause of
EVERYTHING that is wrong with America being slaughtering our 53 million babies.
I tried to find it on his website but I guess its too soon.  Hope its there later today.
In his 2nd hour he launched into killing babies - abortion - is at the bottom of everything wrong today.
There are 53 million Americans who dont exist. FIND it and READ it!

Rush Limbaugh

ND judge: 2011 abortion law unconstitutional

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A 2011 North Dakota law that outlaws one of two drugs used in nonsurgical abortions violates the state and U.S. constitutions, a state judge ruled Monday.

After a three-day trial in April, East Central Judge Wickham Corwin said he'd rule in favor of the state's sole abortion clinic, calling the 2011 state law "simply wrongheaded." Corwin officially ruled on the case Monday.

"No compelling state interest justifies this infringement ..." Corwin wrote in his 58-page ruling. He already had granted an injunction preventing the law from taking effect.

Autumn Katz, staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is helping the Red River Women's Clinic in Fargo with its legal challenges, argued that would essentially eliminate the procedure and illegally restrict abortion rights.


Male students say they support abortion for casual sex

Several male students at the University of Colorado – Boulder said they support keeping abortion legal in order to increase their chances at having casual sex.

In the video, posted on YouTube Monday, conservative pundit Caleb Bonham asked students if they support “bro-choice.”

“A bro-choice is where I am pro-choice because I am a man and if women don’t have access to abortion on demand then I won’t get laid as often,” explained Bonham in the video.

“That is a true fact,” one student said.

“Bro-choice is the right choice because if you want to get laid you best go with the bro-choice,” chimed in another.

Bonham also asked a female student if she would consider having sex with someone who is pro-life.

“Would you sleep with me if I was pro-life?” he asked.

“No,” the female student replied.

Bonham told Campus Reform in a statement on Monday afternoon that he filmed the video to see if students would “object to the notion that men should support abortion because it allows for care-free casual sex.”

“Essentially, my video reveals a rarely discussed but prevalent self-centered mindset among the college aged pro-choice crowd,” said Bonham. “One that views abortion as a means to ensure materialistic responsibility-free sex.”


Surprise, Surprise! A "loophole" to all of this!
More Texas Women Could Seek 'Star Pills' for Abortion

Dr. Lester Minto raised four daughters in South Texas, just miles from the Mexican border, where most women are Hispanic and 3 out of 5 girls are pregnant before they reach adulthood.

"My wife died and I raised them on my own," said Minto, 64, who made sure his girls had access to birth control. "Not a single one of mine got pregnant."

For the last three decades, Minto, a family physician and advocate for women, has owned the Reproductive Services clinic in Harlingen, Texas, which performs about 1,500 to 2,000 abortions a year.

But now, with the stringent new anti-abortion law that just passed the Texas legislature, he worries that the women he serves, those from "deep" Texas and Mexico, will turn in greater numbers to do-it-yourself remedy for an unwanted pregnancy -- misoprostol, which goes under the name Cytotec.

The drug, used off-label in medical abortions, is smuggled in by relatives from Mexico to begin a miscarriage -- or what Hispanic women call, "bringing your period down," according to Minto.

"They get things started, then show up in the emergency room and avoid the negative image of having done an abortion," said Minto.

Hispanic women have the highest rate of unwanted pregnancies nationwide -- about 54 percent, according to Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas, executive director of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health. Many are uninsured and speak no English.

"With an increase of barriers mounting, what we are hearing is that a lot of women are turning to other folks they know who can smuggle [misoprostol] over the border or are finding it in flea markets," said Gonzalez-Rojas.

"It's the kind of thing -- people know where to get it and are very quiet. While it's not the most dangerous drug, there are a lot of questions about how to take it appropriately. We have tremendous concerns when women take their health into their own hands."

And it's not just women in Texas, according to Gonzalez-Rojas.

"There are lots of cases throughout the country of low-income women, even in New York City, using misoprostol or Cytotec," she said. "I think it's more about the stigma that exists around abortion and they get a lot of mixed messages and turn to underground methods."

Misoprostol, a prostaglandin inhibitor, is usually used as part of a two-part, FDA-approved medical abortion with mifepristone or RU486. Alone, it is routinely used off-label for obstetrical and gynecological procedures such as cervical ripening, labor induction and mid-trimester terminations. It can be used to induce miscarriage, typically up to nine weeks, but can also be safely given in through the second semester.

In combination, the two drugs are 95 to 97 percent effective. Taken alone, misoprostol is only 80 to 85 percent effective, and is suspected of causing birth defects if it fails.

After care is critical to ensure the pregnancy tissue is expelled to prevent infection. In a worst-case scenario, if a woman has placenta previa, (when a baby's placenta partially or totally covers the mother's cervix) she can bleed to death if the drug is used alone.

In 2007, a Massachusetts teenager took misoprostol in an attempt to induce a miscarriage at 25 weeks and the 1-pound baby was delivered prematurely and died. Amber Abreu, who was 18, faced murder charges that were later dismissed.

"If done properly and done in combination, they are safe," said Minto. But alone, misoprostol "doesn't work that well."

"It's kind of like a cheap cure for a radiator leak," he said. "Its efficacy rate is about 30 percent when used alone and improperly. But even though I don't approve of it, I can't criticize it. I would probably try the same if I were in a situation like these women."

Misoprostol is more readily available than mifepristone because it is prescribed to prevent gastric ulcers.

Hispanic women call them "star pills" for their hexagonal shape and they are commonly used in Latin America, where abortion is illegal, turning a shameful procedure into something that looks like a miscarriage. American immigrants can obtain them for about $2 a pill from relatives in overseas bodegas and pharmacies, according to Gonzalez-Rojas.

The Texas law, backed by Republican Gov. Rick Perry, is one of the strictest in the United States. It bans abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy and hold clinics like Minto's to the same physical standards as hospital surgical centers.

Its supporters say that the strengthened regulations for the structures and doctors will protect women's health.

Rep. Jason Villalba, a Republican from Dallas, said the new law will not have a negative impact on low-income women, as critics have suggested.

"I am pro-life, but no one is denying Roe v. Wade is the law of the land
," he said. "But if we are going to provide a procedure, then the state has the right to regulate how it's done to protect our women who receive this procedure

**So this he saying this bill isn't anti-abortion/pro-life to begin with?

Mat_12:34  O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

"We want women to have the same kind of surgical care, for instance, if they have an appendix or tonsils removed," said Villalba.

One of the new regulations is that abortion providers are located within 30 miles of a hospital.

"If something goes awry," he said, "it's a serious procedure -- we want the doctor to be able to get to a hospital quickly and provide care."

Villalba wouldn't answer questions directly about the possibility of more women using these pills, but argued more broadly that clinics that can't comply with new regulations will "fall by the wayside." Villalba insisted women who choose abortion will still have access. He said opponents of the bill have exaggerated the numbers of clinics that will close.

"Here's the good news," Villalba said. "The clinics [that] remain after the dust is settled will have new standards to protect women."

But advocates like Gonzalez-Rojas say the new law is "an affront on women."

"What we know is that with the increase of barriers mounting, the limited clinics down there are likely going to close if they face all these regulations," she said. "Women get put in desperate situations. We don't know how the black market will turn out, so they might get something that isn't the right drug. We are fighting the laws to make sure women get access to care."

The bill was opposed by many doctors, including leaders of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Texas Medical Association.

About 1 in 3 American women will have an abortion by the time they reach 45, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which advocates for sexual and reproductive health and rights. In the first six months of 2013, states enacted 43 restrictions on access to abortion.

In Texas, the abortion rate has remained steady since 2005. The rate in 2008, the last year for which there are statistics, was lower than in the rest of the country: about 16.5 abortions per 1,000 women, aged 15 to 44. The national rate for that year was 19.6.

"You begin to discover the devil is in the details," said Minto, who said he will either have to close down his clinic or move his practice to Mexico.

With new regulations, the procedure for a medical abortion takes three days: A woman must get a sonogram and an explanation of the procedure. Twenty-four hours later, she gets the first pill -- RU 486 or mifepristone, a hormone blocker that makes the fetus unviable. After another 24 hours, the woman must return so the doctor can give her misoprostol, which causes the uterus to contract and expel the fetus.

Until the new law, as is the standard practice in other states, women take the second pill at home and then have a follow up visit with the doctor.

"It's added another doctor visit and, if you live 250 miles away or more, you have to stay in a hotel," he said.

Some women in Texas live as far as to 900 miles from an abortion clinic.

Minto said the safety record and his certification inspections over the last three decades have been "impeccable." He charges women less than $500 for a procedure -- either medical or surgical abortion.

"If you have a case of rape, it's tough," he said. "Where do you send innocent 12, 12, 13-year-old girls? What do they do? I thought about those girls in Cleveland who were held hostage. According to Texas law, if they get pregnant, after 20 weeks, forget it. We have just gone to Taliban Texas."

The next step will be a court challenge to the new law, but Minto is undaunted.

"My licensed abortion clinic has to close," said Minto, "But I'll never give up helping women. I am not a quitter."

Federal judge blocks most restrictive abortion law in the country

A federal judge has blocked enforcement of North Dakota's new abortion law -- the nation's most restrictive.

The law, which was set to take effect next week, would ban abortions beginning at six weeks, when the fetal heartbeat can be detected.

U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland concluded the North Dakota law contradicts U.S. Supreme Court cases addressing abortion restraints and violates a 40-year precedent established in Roe v. Wade.

If the law were to take effect, Hovland said nearly 90 percent of the abortions currently performed at the Red River Women's Clinic, the sole clinic providing abortions in North Dakota, would be prohibited and the clinic would likely have to shut down.  


BornAgain2 wrote:
U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland concluded the North Dakota law contradicts U.S. Supreme Court cases addressing abortion restraints and violates a 40-year precedent established in Roe v. Wade.
Daniel L. Hovland is an Article III federal judge for the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. Hovland served as the Chief Judge of the Court from 2002 to 2009[1]. He joined the court in 2002 after being nominated by President George W. Bush.


Ecc 11:4  He that observeth the wind shall not sow; and he that regardeth the clouds shall not reap.
Ecc 11:5  As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

Obama Judicial Nominee Calls Abstinence Education ‘Unconstitutional’

The Senate will consider the nomination of Cornelia Pillard, a vocal abortion advocate who said abstinence education was unconstitutional for violating “reproductive justice,” to serve as a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in a hearing Wednesday. “The equal protection critique of abstinence-only curricula is strengthened and rendered more amenable to judicial resolution by the fact that sex education classes are designed not only to expose students to ideas, but also to shape student behavior,” Pillard, a Georgetown University Law professor, wrote in a 2007 article titled “Our Other Reproductive Choices: Equality in Sex Education, Contraceptive Access and Work Family Policy” in a faculty publication. -

See more at:

She's a Georgetown University law professor? Georgetown Univ? Which happens to be an RCC Jesuit univ? Will Pope Frankie say ANYTHING about her nomination? Rolling Eyes

Catholic Hospital Association Continues to Provide Cover for ObamaCare's Abortion Funding

At the height of the contentious debate that surrounded health care reform in 2010, negotiations nearly ground to a halt due objections made by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) over abortion funding provisions in the legislation.  The USCCB, which is considered quite liberal in the American sense of the word on the issues of health care and health insurance, refused to give its blessing to what would become ObamaCare due to the legislation's funding for elective abortions.

At the time, ObamaCare appeared doomed.  Many Democrats stated that they could not support a health care bill which didn't include expanded abortion funding, while other pro-life Democrats (such as then-Rep. Bart Stupak and his "Stupak Dozen") refused to cede any ground and stood with the USCCB.  

Just when it appeared that this controversy would end the Democrats' latest attempt at "health care reform," the Catholic Hospital Association (CHA) intervened in an attempt to end the standoff.  As described by Slate shortly after ObamaCare became law:

In the run-up to passage of the health care bill, representatives of the nearly 60,000 U.S. nuns signed a letter in support of the health care bill, contra the bishops, because, they wrote, supporting better health care is "the real pro-life stance." From there, the dominoes toppled fast-Bart Stupak, the Catholic pro-life Democrat who'd refused to vote in favor of the bill because of the abortion question, initially dismissed the nuns' letter but then backed down and settled for an executive order on abortion of questionable import and scope. And the bill passed.

And so ObamaCare became law, with the head of the CHA receiving one of 21 presidential pens as it was signed, all because the CHA declared their comfort with the allegedly pro-life provisions of the bill.

Late last month, the CHA swooped in to back the administration again on an issue of life before birth.  This time, it was on the HHS contraception/abortifacient/sterilization mandate (HHS Mandate):

HHS has now established an accommodation that will allow our ministries to continue offering health insurance plans for their employees as they have always done.

We have prepared this explanation for members to help them understand the accommodation and how to implement it. Throughout this process, CHA has been in dialogue with the leadership of the Bishops' Conference, the Administration and HHS. We are pleased that our members now have an accommodation that will not require them to contract, provide, pay or refer for contraceptive coverage.

The letter acknowledges that the CHA has exclusively focused on its own membership, to the exclusion of consequences of the mandate on others across America.

In the end, what are the consequences of the CHA's actions related to federal funding of abortions in the last several years?

• Despite the executive order, and the CHA's support, in mid-2010, three states -- New Mexico, Maryland, and Pennsylvania -- tried to use federal funding for "elective abortions" -- i.e. abortions not under the Hyde Amendment -- in their states. Those plans were nixed after the National Right to Life Committee "blew the whistle."

• Therefore, the CHA's backing of ObamaCare was de facto support for the funding of abortion, something the bishops and pro-life activists knew even before the law was signed.

So far, the CHA's arguments that the health care law is pro-life really aren't holding water.  But I digress:

• Last year, the CHA stood with the bishops against the HHS Mandate, pushing for greater First Amendment protections.

• It took several "compromises," but the CHA finally backed the administration on the Mandate.

• The final regulations on the HHS Mandate still require Americans to provide contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization to other Americans, in violation of the First Amendment. Abortifacients include Plan B and Ella, both of which induce abortions.

• Specifically, the president of the USCCB still has concerns about the Mandate's First Amendment violations for business owners.

The CHA's letter of support for the Mandate's exclusion of their members does not touch on the abortifacient portion of the Mandate. Does this mean the CHA is now OK with the use of abortifacients?

As an organization proclaiming itself Catholic, the CHA has a responsibility to stand on the side of life, yet it clearly is unwilling to do so, even though its support for the mandate creates a public split between it and the USCCB.  The CHA's support for the Mandate leaves the uneasy suspicion that perhaps the reason the CHA originally stood with the bishops was to provide the Obama administration with political cover.  Pat Archbold has outlined similar concerns in recent days:

The White House's continual citing of the CHA reveals the strategy. They intend, in defense of the matter, to contend that the CHA is the competent authority to interpret Church teaching on the mandate. The CHA endorsement, which encompasses the large majority of Catholic health institutions, clearly shows that the Catholic Church is supportive of the mandate. Any remaining objection does not really represent the Church, they will argue.

For now, the CHA proclaims itself focused only on its members.  But its consistent efforts to work with the Obama administration against life, and in opposition to the leaders of the Catholic Church in America, illustrate that its main political goal may be providing cover to the Obama administration on abortion.

Students sign petition to legalize abortion after childbirth Twisted Evil

Several students at George Mason University (GMU) signed a petition on Wednesday demanding lawmakers legalize “fourth trimester” abortions.

The petition, which was circulated on GMU’s flagship campus in Fairfax, VA., just outside Washington D.C., by Media Research Center reporter Dan Joseph said it was aimed at sending “a message to our lawmakers that women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies and babies” even “after their pregnancies.”

“If you don’t know what fourth trimester is, it’s after the baby is already born,” Joseph added in a video showing him collect the signatures.

WATCH: Students sign petition to legalize ‘fourth trimester’ abortions

“Currently fourth trimester abortions are illegal in all 50 states,” he told students before asking them to sign his petition.

Most student responses varied from “okay” to “cool.”

One concerned student asked if the procedure would “cause harm to the child.”

“Well the child wouldn’t be there anymore,” responded Joseph. “It’s abortion.”

That student then signed the petition

Joseph said that after one hour he was able to garner fourteen signatures.

“That is a lot for the summer because there aren’t as many people on campus,” he said in the video.

1Cor 13:11  When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

The Pope, Homosexuality and Abortion in Brazil

As reported by Daily Mail, “The pope has said that he ‘will not judge’ gay priests. Speaking to reporters on a flight back from his week-long visit to sexually permissive Brazil, Pope Francis said he ‘would not stand in judgment’ of gays in the Vatican and that they should not be discriminated against. The pontiff’s remarks about gays mark a more conciliatory approach than his predecessor. Benedict signed a document in 2005 saying that men with deep-rooted homosexual tendencies should not be priests.”

Speech about not judging gay priests is a surprise, considering that the massive scandal involving pedophilia in the Catholic Church is largely linked to homosexuality among priests.

But the bigger surprise, at least to pro-life leaders in Brazil, is that socialist Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff is about to sign into law a pro-abortion bill, and the pope did not address any specific message about this urgent situation in Brazil. He left Brazil without speaking up against this imminent threat.

How can now Rousseff be pressured by pro-life Catholics and evangelicals when even the pope showed no willingness to tackle directly the abortion issue?

As an evangelical Christian, I think that the pope could make his controversial remark on homosexuality in another time. The absolute priority right now is to speak up against the imminence of abortion legalization in Brazil.

Why did not he speak?

Indiana Planned Parenthood Medicaid Battle Ended By Judge

INDIANAPOLIS — A judge on Tuesday made permanent her order barring Indiana from denying Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood clinics, ending the state's two-year legal fight.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt issued his permanent injunction after the U.S. Supreme Court in May refused to hear Indiana's appeal in the case. Days later, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued an administrative ruling siding with Planned Parenthood.

Indiana had sought to prevent Medicaid enrollees from accessing health care at clinics operated by Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky because the organization provides abortions.

Planned Parenthood, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, had argued that a 2011 Indiana law targeting the organization should be blocked because it probably conflicted with a federal Medicaid statute that protects patients' rights to make their own decisions about health care providers.

Abortion Rule on Hospital Access Blocked in North Dakota

A North Dakota law requiring abortion providers to be affiliated with a hospital within 30 miles (48 kilometers) of their clinic was temporarily blocked by a state court in Fargo.

Judge Wickham Corwin granted a request by the Red River Women’s Clinic to block the law after a hearing today, saying the state failed to show a compelling need for it. The clinic is the only abortion provider in North Dakota, he said in his ruling.

“A woman’s right to choose is one of the inalienable freedoms guaranteed by the first section of our constitution,” Corwin said, contradicting the state’s arguments.

Signed into law by Republican Governor Jack Dalrymple on March 26, the affiliation requirement was scheduled to take effect tomorrow and would have forced the Red River Women’s Clinic in Fargo to close.

“As RRWC provides its physicians with the appropriate staff and facilities, there is obviously no need for a legislative mandate that each of those physicians be credentialed to also perform abortions at a local hospital,” the judge said.


Ireland abortion bill is signed into law after bruising debate

Irish President Higgins signs a bill allowing abortion in certain cases. There had been speculation that he would send it to the Supreme Court.


certain conditions was signed into law Tuesday after a bruising debate in the predominantly Roman Catholic country over whether it risked opening the doors to abortion on demand.

President Michael D. Higgins' office confirmed that he had signed the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill, despite speculation that he might send the controversial measure to the Irish Supreme Court to examine its constitutionality.

Higgins' signature came 2½ weeks after a marathon session by lawmakers, who exhaustively discussed and parsed every word of the bill before approving it on a vote of 127 to 31. The lopsided tally belied the divisiveness of the debate in one of the remaining European nations to forbid the widespread practice of abortion.

The new law does not permit a woman to terminate a pregnancy under any circumstance; rather it allows abortion only when two doctors certify that a woman's life would be at "real and substantial risk" if the pregnancy continued. Only one physician's authorization is necessary in the event of an immediate emergency.

Doctors in Ireland already are authorized under professional guidelines to make such judgments, but many have hesitated to order even medically advisable abortions for fear of being hauled before the courts. Advocates of the bill said explicit legal backing was necessary to reassure doctors and to prevent incidents such as the avoidable death last October of Savita Halappanavar, 31, which galvanized abortion rights activists.

Halappanavar died of blood poisoning after hospital staff members refused to abort her 4-month-old fetus even though she had begun to miscarry. Her death sparked large protests in Dublin by those demanding that the government lay down guidelines for emergency abortions and counter-demonstrations by those against any liberalization.

Opponents of the new law are particularly concerned by a provision that allows abortion if the woman is suicidal over her pregnancy. Three doctors would have to concur in that case, but anti-abortion campaigners fear the provision is open to abuse and are likely to appeal passage of the law to the Supreme Court, even though Higgins opted not to.

Before signing the law, Higgins convened a meeting Monday of Ireland's Council of State, composed of senior public figures, to discuss the bill. The Irish Times reported that 21 of 24 members attended — the largest gathering of the council in more than 75 years — and talked for 3½ hours. Details of the discussion were not released.

Despite its waning influence in Ireland because of its sex abuse scandals, the Roman Catholic Church helped lead opposition to the bill.

The government of Prime Minister Enda Kenny was equally adamant that the bill should pass, and his parliamentary majority guaranteed it. Still, Kenny threatened lawmakers in his Fine Gael party with expulsion from its parliamentary caucus if they voted against the bill, and at least one government minister lost her post as a result.


The new law does not permit a woman to terminate a pregnancy under any circumstance; rather it allows abortion only when two doctors certify that a woman's life would be at "real and substantial risk" if the pregnancy continued. Only one physician's authorization is necessary in the event of an immediate emergency.

Dunno, but are any of these exceptions(ie-to save the life of the woman, and even in cases of rape) biblical as well? I know this is pretty sensitive(and I understand), but nonetheless scripture says...

Matthew 16:24  Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Mat 16:25  For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

Matthew 10:28  And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Mat 10:29  Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
Mat 10:30  But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
Mat 10:31  Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.

Opponents of the new law are particularly concerned by a provision that allows abortion if the woman is suicidal over her pregnancy. Three doctors would have to concur in that case, but anti-abortion campaigners fear the provision is open to abuse and are likely to appeal passage of the law to the Supreme Court, even though Higgins opted not to.

And this very thing happened when Ronald Reagan pushed a pro-abortion bill when governor of California in the late 1960's. Apparently, the so-called language in the bill allowed women to have an abortion if they could prove(to a psychiatrist) that having the baby would cause them mental anguish. Result? About 800K abortions happened in California under Reagan's watch as governor, and Roe V Wade being made the law of the land followed shortly after(ie-only 2 states legalized abortion before Reagan pushed this bill, then more states followed suit subsequently).
January 22, 2008 4:00 AM
Reagan’s Darkest Hour  

"Therapeutic" abortion in California.


On June 14, 1967, Ronald Reagan signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act, after only six months as California governor. From a total of 518 legal abortions in California in 1967, the number of abortions would soar to an annual average of 100,000 in the remaining years of Reagan’s two termsmore abortions than in any U.S. state prior to the advent of Roe v. Wade. Reagan’s signing of the abortion bill was an ironic beginning for a man often seen as the modern father of the pro-life movement. How did this happen?

When the issue surfaced in the first months of his governorship, Reagan was unsure how to react. Surprising as it may seem today, in 1967 abortion was not the great public issue that it is today. Reagan later admitted that abortion had been “a subject I’d never given much thought to.” Moreover, his aides were divided on the question.

Reagan began to vigorously study the issue and the Therapeutic Abortion Act. He asked his longtime adviser and Cabinet secretary Bill Clark — a devout Catholic who had contemplated the priesthood — for counsel. “Bill, I’ve got to know more — theologically, philosophically, medically,” Reagan confided. Clark loaded up the governor with a box of reading materials, which he took home and read in semi-seclusion. Edmund Morris later said that, by the time the Therapeutic Abortion Act reached his desk, “Reagan was quoting Saint Thomas Aquinas.” Years later, Reagan remarked that he did “more studying and soul searching” on the issue than any other as governor.

Brazilian President Enacts Abortion Law

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff has just enacted a law protecting victims of sexual violence which was passed by stealth in the Brazilian Congress recently. There is no problem in laws protecting such victims. But, according to this law, any woman can get an abortion by alleging violence, and there is no need of medical and legal evidence.

The announcement today (August 1, 2013) of the presidential enactment was made by Minister Eleonora Menicucci, who explained that Brazilian women suffer a rape each 12 seconds and that the new law, PLC 03/2013, will be a resolution for their plight.

But the new Brazilian law helps more abortion than victims of sexual violence.

Both Rousseff and Menicucci have been abortion activists for a number of years. Both were members of a violent communist revolutionary group in the 60s and 70s. Both were imprisoned in the same military facility for terrorism.

After their release, they began to campaign for abortion. Menicucci boasted that she made two abortions, even though it is against the Brazilian law. She said that she was trained to perform abortions in Colombia in 1995.

The new abortion law will not solve the massive crisis of rapes in Brazil. Impunity is rampant in Brazilian society. Murderers and rapists go unpunished. But pro-abortion Rousseff and Menicucci made secure that unborn babies will not go unpunished.

The new law has a broad way to define “sexual violence.” According to Dr. Damares Alves, pro-life adviser in the Brazilian Congress, it says that “sexual violence is any non-consensual sex” in its Article 2. She said that if a wife visits a hospital and says that she got pregnant by non-consensual sex with her husband, she is eligible for the status of victim of sexual violence.

In her interview to Julio Severo, Alves said that private, Catholic and Protestant hospitals will be required to submit to the new law and offer abortions to women who affirm that they got pregnant, through non-consensual sex, by their husbands, lovers, boyfriends, etc.

Before her election to the Brazilian presidency in 2010, Rousseff had signed a pledge with evangelical leaders not to pass abortion legislation. She did not keep her socialist word.

Even the recent visit of the pope and several evangelical leaders to Rousseff was not enough to change her mind, even though they never mentioned abortion and child-killing to her.

The new law is a mischievous trick for abortionists, socialists, feminists and women under their spell. It is one more lie to cover rampant violence in Brazil. To the massive number of murders and rapes, Brazil will now have massive child-killing.

Blood shedding was a significant mark in the revolutionary group where Rousseff and Menicucci were members. Blood shedding now is their political mark.

Some people say that socialists do not eat children. Do you really believe that their wicked laws do not do it?

Surprise, surprise! All of this, apparently, was meant to be nothing more than a puppet show starring the false left/right paradigm players...
GOP in key states tries to slow anti-abortion push

Fearing voter backlash, GOP leaders in key states try to slow the anti-abortion push


MILWAUKEE (AP) -- Abortion is still legal but getting one in many states will be difficult if laws passed this year are upheld by the courts. In a march through conservative legislatures, anti-abortion Republicans passed a wave of new restrictions that would sharply limit when a woman could terminate a pregnancy and where she could go to do so.

The push brought the anti-abortion movement closer to a key milestone, in which the procedure would become largely inaccessible in the three-fifths of the country controlled by Republicans even if still technically legal under Roe vs. Wade.

But rather than continuing to roll across the GOP heartland in synch with the pro-life movement's plan, the effort may now be hitting a wall. The obstacle comes not from opposing Democrats but from GOP leaders who believe pressing further is a mistake for a party trying to soften its harder edges after election losses last year.

The resisting Republicans include governors and top legislators in more than a half-dozen states, including some of the largest and most politically competitive in the party's 30-state coalition. They are digging in to stop the barrage of abortion proposals, hoping to better cultivate voters not enamored with the GOP's social agenda.

"It's a huge mistake if your ear is not in tune where people are," said Republican state Sen. Dale Schultz in Wisconsin, who is trying to fend off more abortion legislation in the state's GOP-controlled legislature, even though he says he personally supports it. "And we were pushing people too fast. All we're going to do is panic people and this is going to blow up if we don't begin to moderate on some of this stuff."

The Ohio Senate president, Republican Tom Neihaus, blocked a bill in November that would have banned abortions as early as six weeks into pregnancy.

"I just didn't think it was appropriate," said Niehaus, a supporter of earlier anti-abortion measures. "It's a distraction from our primary focus of getting the economy back on track."

But anti-abortion leaders say they are determined to push on into more Republican strongholds, taking advantage of the party's majority status.

"It is definitely the case that the future for us lies beyond what is considered your traditional pro-life states," said Dan McConchie, vice president of Americans United for Life, which circulates model legislation to state lawmakers.

The dissension, strongest in the Midwest and southern border states, is flaring as the GOP prepares for competitive races in the contested regions next year. The anti-abortion movement is poised to press for constitutional amendments giving legal rights to fetuses, bans on abortions based on gender, and an end to abortion exceptions for victims of rape and incest.

Anti-abortion Republicans have gotten more than 170 new abortion laws passed in 30 states since the party won control of a majority of statehouses in 2010. This year's push was highlighted by some of the strongest restrictions yet passed in North Dakota, Arkansas and Texas.

The key measures banned abortions after approximately six weeks, 12 weeks or 20 weeks, depending on the state; required women to see the fetus on an ultrasound; required doctors to have hospital admitting privileges; and required clinics to have full hospital-type facilities. More than a dozen GOP states in the South and West adopted all or most of the package.

If the new laws are upheld by the courts, many providers would close. Only six of the 42 abortion clinics in Texas are expected for remain open, serving the nation's second largest population. Already, only one clinic remains open in Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming.

In the midst of the push, Republican legislatures in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and several other swing states enacted restrictions, but not the tougher ones. Republican majorities in Florida did not add new restrictions and leaders don't expect to. In Virginia, a key anti-abortion measure didn't pass. Republican Gov. Pat McCrory in North Carolina is balking at more action.

GOP officials there object to the idea of legislating abortion repeatedly and to proposals they consider extreme.

"We just passed the biggest abortion bill in Wisconsin in 15 years," said Wisconsin state Sen. Glenn Grothman, among the chamber's leading anti-abortion crusaders. "But to ask our members to do that again, they might not have the stomach for that."

In these states, GOP leaders say they are worried about alienating women and young people, who disproportionately favor abortion rights. These groups voted in lesser numbers than usual for GOP candidates last year. Democratic President Barack Obama won the women's vote by 11 percentage points.

Nationally, most voters approve of restrictions on abortion but 54 percent think it should be legal in most or all cases, according to a poll conducted in July by the Pew Center for People and the Press. The support for abortion rights was 10 percentage points higher in the Great Lakes and South Atlantic regions than in the South.

In Michigan, "There's just not a whole lot of legislative things left do" on abortion, said GOP Senate President Randy Richardville. "We lean conservative, but we're not crazies."

Michigan's Republican House Speaker Jase Bolger blocked one tough abortion bill this year and Republican Gov. Rick Snyder vetoed another last year, which opponents are now trying to circumvent with a ballot initiative.

But abortion rights supporters say that even if the GOP's anti-abortion push loses momentum, the measures already passed in Republican states will have a major impact on women seeking abortions.

"Even if this wave of restrictions stops, it's not like access will be restored," said Elizabeth Nash, the state policy analyst for the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.
Judge blocks one restriction on Wisconsin abortion doctors

(Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday blocked a portion of a Wisconsin law that requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital near their practice.

U.S. District Judge William Conley last month temporarily stopped the measure, days after Republican Governor Scott Walker signed it into law, and his latest ruling extends that indefinitely while a lawsuit proceeds against the provision.

Planned Parenthood, which filed the suit, is challenging the requirement that doctors performing an abortion have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their practice.

The group, which sued in partnership with another abortion provider called Affiliated Medical Services, contends the law would create such hurdles for doctors that abortion in Wisconsin would only be available in the large cities of Madison and Milwaukee.

Conley, in his 44-page ruling, expressed similar concerns.

"Even if there were some evidence that the admitting privileges requirement would actually further women's health, any benefit is greatly outweighed by the burdens caused by increased travel, decreased access and, at least for some women, the denial of an in-state option for abortion services," Conley wrote in his opinion released on Friday.

A representative for Walker could not be reached for comment late on Friday, and the anti-abortion group Wisconsin Right to Life did not return calls. Rolling Eyes

"In Wisconsin, Texas, North Carolina and elsewhere we are seeing an unprecedented wave of attacks on women's health, and people are fed up with it," Planned Parenthood Federation of America president Cecile Richards said in a statement following Conley's ruling.

Earlier this week, North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory signed into law sweeping new restrictions on abortion clinics, including an admitting privileges requirement.

Texas Governor Rick Perry last month signed into law a similar statute as part of a sweeping measure that followed 12 other states in banning abortions at later than 20 weeks of pregnancy.

In previous rulings in Mississippi and Alabama, courts have blocked admitting privilege requirements for physicians who perform abortions.

Anti-abortion activists, frustrated at their failure to roll back the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that found women have a constitutional right to terminate pregnancy, have in recent years turned to enacting new abortion limits in states with Republican-controlled legislatures.

(Reporting by Alex Dobuzinskis; Editing by Ken Wills)

Here we go again - but guess this shouldn't come as a surprise as the courts system has been compromised...
Abortion law sonogram clause proposal rejected by US judge

Court rejects key parts of Texas governor's anti-abortion law plans, including making women listen to baby's heartbeat

A court has blocked key parts of a Texas anti-abortion law drawn up by Rick Perry, the state's governor and the leading Republican presidential candidate, which would force women seeking terminations to view a sonogram and listen to the heartbeat of their foetus.

A federal court judge also struck down a requirement that doctors describe the unborn baby to the mother in the hope that she would change her mind about an abortion. The judge said the provisions were an unconstitutional intrusion on the rights of women and doctors.

Perry designated the law, which would have taken effect on Thursday, as an "emergency issue", fast-tracking it through the legislature earlier this year.

He has a clear lead in polls of Republican primary voters as the party's presidential candidate. Opponents say he has used the law to demonstrate his anti-abortion credentials to conservatives and the Christian right, and to create an election issue.

Perry has also drawn criticism for the unusual degree of government intrusion into a personal decision, not least because he is a vigorous critic of regulation. He has promised that, if elected, he will make the government in Washington mostly "inconsequential" to people's lives.

The judge, Sam Sparks, said it was not legal to force either women or doctors to meet the requirements relating to viewing the sonogram and listening to the baby's heartbeat. He also struck down a provision that could strip a doctor of a licence to practise for failing to comply.

"The act compels physicians to advance an ideological agenda with which they may not agree, regardless of any medical necessity, and irrespective of whether the pregnant women wish to listen," the judge said. "[It] violates the first amendment [of the US constitution, guaranteeing free speech] by compelling physicians and patients to engage in government-mandated speech and expression."

The law exempted women pregnant through rape or incest, but only if they made an objection in writing. The court blocked this part of the legislation, too.

"The court need not belabour the obvious by explaining why, for instance, women who are pregnant as a result of sexual assault or incest may not wish to certify that fact in writing, particularly if they are too afraid of retaliation to even report the matter to police," Sparks said.

The Centre for Reproductive Rights, which brought the case to block the legislation, called the ruling a huge victory, saying that politicians did not have the right to interfere in how doctors practised medicine, or in women's private medical decisions.

Perry denounced the ruling, which is expected to go to the supreme court on appeal. "Every life lost to abortion is a tragedy and today's ruling is a great disappointment to all Texans who stand in defence of life," he said. "This important sonogram legislation ensures that every Texas woman seeking an abortion has all the facts about the life she is carrying, and understands the devastating impact of such a life-changing decision."

But the ruling is likely to help Perry by giving him fuel for the argument that power should lie with state governments rather than the courts or Washington.

Critics have noted that Perry showed little interest in abortion when a member of the Texas legislature, but embraced it when he became governor in 2000.


The judge, Sam Sparks, said it was not legal to force either women or doctors to meet the requirements relating to viewing the sonogram and listening to the baby's heartbeat. He also struck down a provision that could strip a doctor of a licence to practise for failing to comply.

Sparks was nominated by President George H.W. Bush on October 1, 1991, to a new seat created by 104 Stat. 5089. He was confirmed by the Senate on November 21, 1991, and received his commission on November 25, 1991.

I was in Barnes and Noble yesterday, and saw her on the cover of Texas Monthly(with a couple of political powerbrokers beside her). Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, but Texas Monthly doesn't exactly promote people like her...
Governor? Wendy Davis decides her next steps

Texas State Senator Wendy Davis, who rose to prominence in June after an 11-hour filibuster against legislation that aimed to restrict abortion rights in the state, said Monday that she’s considering a run for governor.

“I’m working very hard to decide what my next steps will be,” Davis said at a luncheon at Washington D.C.’s National Press Club. “I can say with absolute certainty that I will run for one of two offices, either my state senate seat or the governor.”

Davis did not elaborate further, except to say that she will make that decision “hopefully in just the next couple of weeks.”

Davis, 50, has become a rising star in the Democratic party. She raised about $1 million in donations after her filibuster, with more than a quarter of those funds coming from out of state.

**Yes, I know both "parties" are merely opposite sides of the same Hegelian Dialectic coin, but nonetheless when you hear the buzzwords "rising star", you know the Illuminati minions has plans for them(ie-like when they labeled Obama the same in 2004).

Her personal story–a teen, single mom who put herself through community college, then Harvard Law–resonates with, well, almost everyone.

**This is the same, typical rags-to-riches story you hear from not only politicians like Bill Clinton, but celebrities as well. There's nothing new under the sun.

The bill Davis rallied against eventually passed when Texas Governor Rick Perry called lawmakers back for a second special session and the legislation sailed through the Republican-controlled house and senate. Perry signed it into law in July.

“I do think in Texas people feel like we need a change from the very fractured, very partisan leadership that we’re seeing in our state,” Davis said Monday.

If Texas goes all red again in 2014, it will be the 20th consecutive year that its residents have elected only Republicans into statewide office. The last seat to go blue was Bob Bullock as lieutenant governor in 1994–the same year the state’s last Democratic Governor, Ann Richards (mother of Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards) lost her re-election bid against George W. Bush.

Current Governor Rick Perry announced earlier this year that he will not run for re-election. The presumed G.O.P. frontruner, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, is considered a formidable opponent with more than $20 million already in his war chest.


Texas is NOT a "conservative" state - for one, there's lots of megachurches here. Two, it's the home of 3 NWO Presidents. And I'll leave it at that.

New Abortion Restrictions in States Are 0 for 8 in Courts

By Andrew Harris - Aug 20, 2013 2:50 PM CT

State legislatures trying to curtail abortions have suffered a 0-for-8 losing streak after court challenges to their new laws this year.

The laws, all but one signed by Republican governors, drew on ideas from a playbook created by an anti-abortion group. Democrats plan to use the attempted curbs to boost 2014 congressional fundraising and increase voter support, calling the laws part of a “War on Women.”

Four states’ statutes attacked the core of the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings that a woman has a right to the procedure before a fetus is viable. Efforts to bar abortions after six, 12 and 20 weeks of pregnancy were halted in North Dakota, Arkansas and Idaho. An appeals court struck down Arizona’s 20-week ban. Laws imposing restrictions on doctors were blocked in North Dakota and two other states.

Trying to ban abortions before a fetus can live outside the mother’s womb “flies in the face” of U.S. Supreme Court rulings, said Paul B. Linton, a lawyer with the Chicago-based Thomas More Society whose group, an opponent of abortion, isn’t involved in defending early-pregnancy curbs.

Efforts to limit early-pregnancy abortions are unlikely to succeed, he said.

Federal Courts

“I cannot see the Supreme Court upholding any of these laws with respect to the pre-viability applications,” Linton said in an interview, adding: “I can’t see those laws being upheld by lower federal courts.”

A judge in Bismarck, North Dakota, supported that view on July 22 in temporarily striking down a state law barring abortions at the sixth week of pregnancy, when a fetal heartbeat can typically be detected, except in cases of medical emergency.

“The state has extended an invitation to an expensive court battle over a law restricting abortions that is a blatant violation of the constitutional guarantees afforded all women,” U.S. District Judge Daniel L. Hovland wrote.

It has been 40 years since the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade established a woman’s constitutional right to terminate an early pregnancy. Thirty states limited or prohibited abortions at the time. Colorado became the first to legalize it in 1967, after about 80 years of legislation against the procedure in the U.S., according to the pro-choice National Abortion Federation.

Curb Procedures

The high court reiterated its stance in “Roe” in 1992’s Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. The decisions didn’t end legislative attempts to curb the procedure.

Leading the anti-abortion campaign in the states are the Washington-based groups Americans United for Life and National Right to Life Committee. The latter organization started lobbying before “Roe,” said Mary Spaulding Balch, its state-legislation director.

“Not a single year has gone by where we didn’t pass some piece of substantive legislation,” she said. “Our state affiliates have been in the trenches from the beginning.”

Americans United for Life publishes an annual review of laws in states titled “Defending Life,” a guide for lawmakers that contains model legislation.

“We believe that in the end, the abortion issue ought to be left to the states, that it was a serious judicial error for the United States Supreme Court to put itself in the position of being the abortion control board for the country,” said Ovide Lamontagne, the organization’s general counsel and a two-time Republican candidate for governor of New Hampshire. “We are essentially providing a resource for legislators across the country.”

‘Defending Life’

Model bills in “Defending Life” and proposals by state affiliates of the National Right to Life Committee have been the impetus for some of the bills.

“Some people call it the playbook,” Jordan Goldberg, state advocacy counsel for the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, said of “Defending Life.”

“If you look, you will see a lot of the legislation that’s pending,” based on the models, Goldberg said in a phone interview. “It’s not as if the people in North Dakota woke up one day and said, ‘We have a real problem with the admitting privileges.’”

Her organization, the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood, have led the legal opposition to laws targeting abortion.

Admitting Privileges

Laws resembling Americans United for Life’s proposal to require doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of their facilities passed in Mississippi and North Dakota.

Those laws were temporarily blocked by judges who found they likely burdened a woman’s right in states where doctors would be unable to obtain the privileges and sole clinics would be forced to close.

Similar laws now blocked would have shuttered three of five clinics in Alabama and in Wisconsin would have closed two of four and curtailed services at a third.

Proponents of North Dakota’s law argued it was needed to guarantee emergency care for abortion patients. It would have closed the Red River Women’s Clinic in Fargo.

State Judge Wickham Corwin said abortions performed there are “extremely safe and effective” pre-viability procedures, making the statute unnecessary.

Undue Burden

In his July 31 decision, the judge also said the law posed an undue burden on women and that it ran afoul of the Supreme Court’s “Casey” decision.

Of the three hospitals within the specified 30-mile radius of the Red River clinic, Corwin said, one is affiliated with the Catholic Church and can’t be involved with abortions; the second -- a U.S. veterans’ hospital -- is barred from doing them by federal law; and the third has an annual minimum patient-admission requirement for a doctor’s affiliation.

“The legislature has shown open disdain for the rights clearly protected by the federal Constitution,” Corwin wrote.

Two hundred miles to the west in Bismarck on July 22, Hovland, the federal judge, was similarly critical in calling the fetal-heartbeat law a “blatant violation” of women’s rights.

Upon signing that measure into law in March, Republican Governor Jack Dalrymple acknowledged its uncertain future by saying its chance of surviving a court challenge was “in question.” He called it “a legitimate attempt by a state legislature to discover the boundaries of Roe v. Wade.”

Real Restrictions

“The courts are incredibly important stopgaps, but nobody should be sanguine to think the courts are the solution to this,” Louise Melling, the ACLU’s deputy legal director, said in a telephone interview, adding that resistance is needed in the state legislatures.

“It’s important that people realize the impact of these restrictions is real,” Melling said. The New York-based group earlier this year launched a web page, dedicated to the proposition that the abortion rights issue is a women’s issue.

An adjacent page states that more than 300 abortion-restrictive laws have been introduced by state legislators this year.

Steven R. Morrison, a constitutional-law professor at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks, said some lawmakers don’t understand the constitutional implications of their work.

“They truly believe abortion is murder,” Morrison said. “Why wouldn’t you pass a law that prohibits it? But we don’t live in a theocracy, we live in a democracy, and they’re ignoring the case law as it stands.”

Futile Attempt

Even a futile attempt to curb abortion has moral, political and legal value, said Donald P. Judges, a University of Arkansas law professor.

“For some it’s to make a point to their constituents or perceived constituents,” said Judges, the author of “Hard Choices Lost Voices: How the Abortion Conflict Had Divided America, Distorted Constitutional Rights, and Damaged the Courts.”

In his state, a measure curbing abortions at the 12th week of pregnancy was passed this year by the legislature over Governor Mike Beebe’s veto. Then it was blocked in court by U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright.

Drawing conclusions about trends should await final rulings on the merits of cases challenging state restrictions and subsequent appeals, Lamontagne, of Americans United for Life, said in an e-mail. “Trial courts apply the law as they understand it to be, and they are not always correct,” he said.

Peter Rofes, a Marquette University law professor in Milwaukee, said there’s a positive side to investing “the time, the effort, the money to engage the challenge” of proposing laws almost certain to prompt lawsuits they may not survive.

“It’s a victory for those who seek to keep it in the nation’s consciousness,” he said.

Current Court

Rofes predicted the federal cases will rise at least to the regional appeals courts of appeal. Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen has filed papers signaling his intention to appeal an Aug. 2 ruling by a U.S. judge temporarily blocking the state’s hospital affiliate law.

Judges, the Arkansas law professor, agreed.

“I don’t think the current court is inclined to revisit Roe,” he said. “Until there’s a one-justice switch, I think it’s going to rest in the lower courts.”

Chief Justice John Roberts and associate justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are perceived as the most likely to vote to revisit the issue and perhaps alter the status quo, Rofes said.

Justices Anthony Kennedy, Steven Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are widely viewed as unwilling to fundamentally alter the law, he said.

National Right to Life is pushing for a different kind of legislation, barring abortion at the 20th week of a pregnancy on the ground that a fetus at that point can feel pain.

Neural Pathways

Such measures have been passed in the U.S. House of Representatives and 10 states, most recently Texas.

“Pain is a subjective experience, no matter who is experiencing it,” Cassing Hammond, a professor at Northwestern University in Chicago and a doctor of obstetrics and gynecology, said in a phone interview. Neural pathways that transmit that sensation and cerebral development needed to process it as pain typically don’t fully develop in a fetus until at least the 23rd week of a pregnancy, he said, and possibly not until the 29th.

“We simply do not have evidence that those pathways are in place” at 20 weeks, he said, even if neuroscience has advanced since Roe. “These bans do not make good scientific sense.”

Hammond served as chairman of the National Abortion Federation’s board from 2010 to 2012. He said his views are “not about politics. It’s about providing safe care to patients.”

Linton of the Thomas More Society said of the pre-viability fetal-pain laws, “I would like to see these bills upheld. I just don’t think they will be.”

An Arizona law criminalizing abortions performed at or after the 20th week of pregnancy was struck down May 21 by a San Francisco-based federal appeals court. Prohibiting the procedure before fetal viability is unconstitutional, the court said.

State lawmakers based the statute on “the documented risks to women’s health and the strong medical evidence that unborn children feel pain during an abortion at that gestational age,” according to the appeals court ruling.

The state has until Sept. 28 to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review. Americans United for Life was among the groups filing briefs in support of the law. Arguing against it were attorneys from the Center and the ACLU.

Balch of National Right to Life said her organization hopes the Supreme Court finds a compelling state interest in protecting the life of a child that can feel pain, based on science that wasn’t available in 1973.

“It hasn’t been before the court before, and we would welcome that challenge,” she said.


Trying to ban abortions before a fetus can live outside the mother’s womb “flies in the face” of U.S. Supreme Court rulings, said Paul B. Linton, a lawyer with the Chicago-based Thomas More Society whose group, an opponent of abortion, isn’t involved in defending early-pregnancy curbs.

Efforts to limit early-pregnancy abortions are unlikely to succeed, he said.

Federal Courts

“I cannot see the Supreme Court upholding any of these laws with respect to the pre-viability applications,” Linton said in an interview, adding: “I can’t see those laws being upheld by lower federal courts.”

Well, Thomas Moore, FYI, was a Roman Catholic who helped lead the inquisitions for the Papacy a few centuries ago. No surprise that the Thomas Moore Society is controlled-opposition(at least judging by this guy's comments here).

It has been 40 years since the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade established a woman’s constitutional right to terminate an early pregnancy. Thirty states limited or prohibited abortions at the time. Colorado became the first to legalize it in 1967, after about 80 years of legislation against the procedure in the U.S., according to the pro-choice National Abortion Federation.

But it was Ronald Reagan who signed a big pro-abortion bill when governor of CA in 1967, which not only lead to 1m abortions during his term there, but all but paved the way for Roe V Wade as more states followed in CA's lead.

Leading the anti-abortion campaign in the states are the Washington-based groups Americans United for Life and National Right to Life Committee. The latter organization started lobbying before “Roe,” said Mary Spaulding Balch, its state-legislation director.

“Not a single year has gone by where we didn’t pass some piece of substantive legislation,” she said. “Our state affiliates have been in the trenches from the beginning.”

But Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, and George W. Bush continue to get free rides for appointing Sandra Day O'Conner, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the USSC? You DO know that it was O'Conner's appointee by Reagan that was the clincher to the 1992 5-4 upholding of Roe V Wade, right?

We believe that in the end, the abortion issue ought to be left to the states, that it was a serious judicial error for the United States Supreme Court to put itself in the position of being the abortion control board for the country,” said Ovide Lamontagne, the organization’s general counsel and a two-time Republican candidate for governor of New Hampshire. “We are essentially providing a resource for legislators across the country.”

Uhm...WHAT? Shocked Abortion IS MURDER, PERIOD! And should NOT be legalized anywhere!

Exo_20:13  Thou shalt not kill.

“The courts are incredibly important stopgaps, but nobody should be sanguine to think the courts are the solution to this,” Louise Melling, the ACLU’s deputy legal director, said in a telephone interview, adding that resistance is needed in the state legislatures.

Yes, they have been compromised. It's not just Clinton/Obama appointed judges making rulings for pro-abortion groups, Reagan/Bush appointed judges are doing so as well.

An adjacent page states that more than 300 abortion-restrictive laws have been introduced by state legislators this year.

And ALMOST ZERO of these laws were introduced by state legislators when George W. was President for 8 years! Rolling Eyes

In his state, a measure curbing abortions at the 12th week of pregnancy was passed this year by the legislature over Governor Mike Beebe’s veto. Then it was blocked in court by U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright.

A George HW Bush appointee, that is.

Peter Rofes, a Marquette University law professor in Milwaukee, said there’s a positive side to investing “the time, the effort, the money to engage the challenge” of proposing laws almost certain to prompt lawsuits they may not survive.

“It’s a victory for those who seek to keep it in the nation’s consciousness,” he said.

Or the love of money(as it sounds like you said).

“I don’t think the current court is inclined to revisit Roe,” he said. “Until there’s a one-justice switch, I think it’s going to rest in the lower courts.”

Chief Justice John Roberts and associate justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are perceived as the most likely to vote to revisit the issue and perhaps alter the status quo, Rofes said.

Wrong! Both John Roberts and Samuel Alito have made rulings in favor of pro-abortion when they were lower court judges(prior to George W. appointing them in 2005).

National Right to Life is pushing for a different kind of legislation, barring abortion at the 20th week of a pregnancy on the ground that a fetus at that point can feel pain.

Why is it that these "pro-life" groups set out to "compromise"? Either it's right, or it's wrong. Jesus Christ says either you are with me or against me. There's no gray areas.

Balch of National Right to Life said her organization hopes the Supreme Court finds a compelling state interest in protecting the life of a child that can feel pain, based on science that wasn’t available in 1973.

Huh? Wasn't this science available in 1992, when Roe V Wade was sent to the USSC to review? Or shouldn't have this science been available to all of the lower court judges that made rulings recently? Rolling Eyes
California Passes Bill to Let Nurses Perform Abortions

California’s Senate passed a bill to permit nurse-midwives and others to perform some types of abortions now done only by doctors.

The measure by Assembly Majority Leader Toni Atkins, a San Diego Democrat, passed the Senate 25 to 11. The bill now goes back to the Assembly, which passed it in May, to ratify amendments before going to Governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat.

If signed, California would allow abortions by midwives, physician assistants and nurse practitioners in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Four others states permit non-physician abortions: Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon and Vermont, according to a University of California, San Francisco, study. Thirty-nine states require a licensed physician.

“All women should have timely access to reproductive health care regardless of whether they live in urban or rural areas and without excessive expense or travel,” Atkins said in a statement. The bill “will help fill the gap created by the fact that over half of California’s counties lack an abortion provider.”

The California bill bucks a national trend as states such as Texas and North Carolina have passed restrictions on abortion providers.

While the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade struck down many state laws restricting abortion, statutes vary across the U.S. A flurry of new restrictions have been added in the past three years.

States Opposed

In Kansas, Governor Sam Brownback, a Republican, signed legislation April 19 that bans abortions on the basis of fetal gender, declares that life begins at fertilization and prohibits public funding for abortions.

In North Dakota, Republican Governor Jack Dalrymple signed a law in March making it a felony for a doctor to perform a nonemergency abortion once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, with no exceptions for victims of rape or incest.

North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory, a Republican, signed a law passed in July to make clinics meet structural requirements similar to those for outpatient surgical centers. Republicans said the measure would make clinics safer while opponents said it was an effort to deny access.

Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry signed a law last month that bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and requires the state’s 42 abortion clinics to meet standards similar to those for outpatient surgical centers.

Your Personal Data Given to Planned Parenthood

Published on Aug 25, 2013

America's number one abortion mill is expanding into another line of business — advising people like you how to navigate the complexities of Obamacare's health care exchanges. Plus, thanks to a relaxed screening policy, the new positions of trust will be a "go to" source of jobs for ex-cons.

Posted: 5:19 p.m. Thursday, Aug. 29, 2013

Abortion rules advance without approval from advisory board

Proposed abortion rules, written in response to the sweeping regulations Gov. Rick Perry signed into law in July, moved forward Thursday — but not in the expected way.

The State Health Services Council, a nine-member advisory panel, declined to vote on the proposed rules at a morning meeting as members pointedly declined to second a motion for approval.

What point they were trying to make, however, is a mystery. Members of the council quickly left the dais, with several declining to explain their decision. No motion for approval had failed for lack of a second in recent memory, said Carrie Williams, spokeswoman for the Department of State Health Services.

The lack of a vote did not slow progress of the rules toward final approval. They were sent to Health and Human Services Commission Kyle Janek, who will approve their publication in the Texas Register, triggering a 30-day period for written public comments, an agency spokeswoman said.

The rules were drafted by the Department of State Health Services, which regulates abortion clinics, to enact House Bill 2, which as of Oct. 29 will ban abortions after 20 weeks post-fertilization, require abortion doctors to have admitting privileges in a nearby hospital and require women seeking a drug-induced abortion to make four clinic visits instead of three.

A requirement that abortion clinics meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers will take effect Sept. 1, 2014.

During public comments Thursday, many of the 20 people who spoke against the rules urged the council to soften surgical center requirements that were described as unnecessary, onerous and designed to force clinics to close — including 8-feet-wide hallways, large operating rooms and male locker rooms.

Two council members asked if such changes could be implemented.

Agency lawyer Lisa Hernandez said the new law gave the council no leeway in modifying the surgical standards or make other suggested changes, including granting waivers or time extensions to existing abortion clinics.

'Choice: Texas' Abortion Video Game Encourages Players to Overcome Obstacles to Have an Abortion Evil or Very Mad

An "abortion video game" designed to show the obstacles Texan women face when pursuing the procedure has sparked controversy, with pro-life supporters claiming it completely fails to acknowledge the life at stake and offers no voice to the unborn baby.

"I am saddened by this game," Emily Horne, a lobbyist for Texas Right to Life and a Texas native, said in a recent interview with Polygon. "It reduces abortion to a dry, simplistic view and it completely ignores the voice of the unborn baby, who obviously has no voice or perspective in this at all."

The game, called "Choice: Texas, A Very Serious Game," is in its developmental stages and involves players embarking on a quest to navigate past Texas' abortion restrictions to achieve the ultimate goal of having an abortion. Players may pick from five characters representing women facing different geographical, financial, or healthcare-related obstacles that they must overcome to receive an abortion. For example, one character is presented as a 19-year-old bartender and rape victim, who wishes to terminate her pregnancy, while another character is an excited, expectant mother who faces medical complications with her pregnancy.

The game's description on the website Indiegogo says "Choice: Texas" is an "educational interactive fiction game."

"Players will explore the game through one of several characters, each of whom reflects specific socioeconomic, geographic, and demographic factors impacting abortion access in Texas. Although billed as interactive fiction, Choice: Texas is based on extensive research into healthcare access, legal restrictions, geography, and demographics, and is reflective of the real circumstances facing women in the state," the description reads.


Pretty much - these "pro-life" groups are just that, CONTROLLED OPPOSITION.
Pro-life groups don't really protect the unborn

Pro-life groups funnel tremendous resources into a legal war against abortion in the US without providing adequate practical support for women to maintain pregnancies. Yet not being able to afford a child is one of the main reasons women have abortions.


Religious and political groups that funnel tremendous resources into a legal war to limit and even ban abortion in America are at best, wasting time, and at worst, damaging efforts to protect the unborn. Texas’s new abortion law – one of the toughest in the country – is only the latest in a string of efforts to limit abortions in numerous states across the US.

Members of the pro-life movement spend countless dollars and hours on rallies and lobbying without providing adequate financial and emotional support for women to actually maintain pregnancies. And the majority of women who have abortions cite not being able to afford a child as one of the main reasons for their decision.

Let’s look at, for example, the resources spent on one of the biggest spectacles of the pro-life movement, the March for Life in Washington, D.C. Supporters spend millions on the annual rally that draws hundreds of thousands to the American capital in January, around the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

As a college junior at a private Catholic school in Arlington, Va., I’ve witnessed the March for Life three times. Each year students who wish to attend are excused from classes to travel as a group to nearby Washington, D.C., to attend the march and a mass that precedes it. I have witnessed firsthand how significant the event can be to the people who attend it, but I was still surprised when I found out some Catholic dioceses are already recruiting for the March for Life in 2014. People are willing to plan and fundraise for months to attend a political event that lasts a few hours.
The Diocese of Kansas City, for example, is currently charging $320 for adults and youth (the cost is much less for members of the clergy or religious life) to attend the march. Last year an estimated 650,000 people attended. For the sake of simple estimation, let’s say that even just a tenth of those attendees – 65,000 people – pay $320 to attend. That comes out to an estimated $20.8 million spent by individuals passionate enough to travel to Washington and protest the legality of abortion in the United States. All of this is, supposedly, to protect the life of the unborn.
According to figures on the websites,, and, the average cost of prenatal care alone for an uninsured woman in a healthy pregnancy is around $3,146. That’s $1,862 for regular visits to the doctor, $1,000 for routine tests, $200 for an ultrasound, and $84 dollars for nine months of prenatal vitamins.

That’s just the cost of pre-natal care. That doesn’t include the cost of delivering the child, or the cost of raising that child for 18 years afterward. Nor does it include the cost to the government – and taxpayers – of managing children in foster care when their parents are unwilling or unable to care for them.

It’s no surprise that, according to a study by the Guttmacher Institute in 2005, 73 percent of women terminating their pregnancies cited not being able to afford a baby as a reason for their decision.

So while pro-life Americans spend millions of dollars on events geared toward making abortion illegal, there were 1.16 million women who came to the conclusion in 2009 (a figure that has steadily decreased since the 1990s) that they could not carry their child to term – many of them because of money. The money spent on the March for Life alone could pay for prenatal care for around 6,600 women, or prenatal vitamins for nearly 250,000.
Even if those who participate in the March for Life were able to successfully revoke the legality of abortion in the US, or substantially limit the time in which women can obtain an abortion, statistics indicate that it wouldn’t necessarily protect the unborn. The Guttmacher Institute’s statistics show that abortion rates are higher in countries where it is illegal and procedures are often unsafe.

Even more disheartening are statistics from the Turnaway Study done by The University of California, San Francisco, which showed that women who sought abortions and were turned away (because they had passed their state's gestational limits) were three times more likely to fall into poverty than women who obtained an abortion

A woman’s decision to have an abortion often stems from a very real and legitimate fear that she will not be able to care for a child. Pro-life supporters and activists spend incredibly large sums to take away that decision, but do not provide the equivalent practical support women need to have a baby. Is that really a fight for life? Or just a fight for a long sought-after political goal? It’s time the pro-life movement focuses its resources more on helping women and babies, not gaining legislative power that ultimately will do little to protect the unborn.

Crossed out 2 of the latter paragraphs in the article(as those 2 alone were nonsense).

But nonetheless - you can see the big picture with these "pro-life" groups - seriously, what are they doing with ALL OF THIS MONEY? We're talking of MILLLIONS of dollars here! And how is protesting on the streets in mass numbers going to help the cause? Did it make George W. Bush change his mind on Iraq 10 years ago? They could use this time and energy instead HELPING these pregnant women with very tight finances!

Matthew 23:3  All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Mat 23:4  For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

1Timothy 6:17  Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
1Ti 6:18  That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;
1Ti 6:19  Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.
Abortion coverage for Congress under health law?

WASHINGTON (AP) — The politics of the abortion debate are always tricky for lawmakers. They may soon get personal.

An attempt to fix a problem with the national health care law has created a situation in which members of Congress and their staffers could gain access to abortion coverage. That's a benefit currently denied to them and to all federal employees who get health insurance through the government's plan.

Abortion opponents say the Obama administration needs to fix the congressional exception; abortion rights supporters say such concerns are overblown.

The abortion complication is another headache for the administration as it tries to shoehorn members of Congress and certain staffers into insurance markets coming later this year under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

An amendment by Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley — who opposes "Obamacare" and abortion — requires lawmakers and their personal staff to get private coverage through the same markets that uninsured Americans will use.

Last week, the Office of Personnel Management said the government would keep paying its share of premiums for lawmakers and affected staffers who must leave the federal employee health care system by Jan. 1. That eased a major anxiety for several thousand staffers accustomed to getting the same benefits as other federal employees.

But the proposed regulation did not explicitly address abortion coverage. Under the health care law, insurance plans in the new markets may cover abortion unless a state passes a law prohibiting them from doing so. Plans offering coverage for abortion, however, may not use federal funds to pay for it. Federal tax credits to help the uninsured afford coverage must be kept apart from premiums collected for abortion coverage.

Abortion opponents say the regulation would circumvent a longstanding law that bars the use of taxpayer funds for "administrative expenses in connection with any health plan under the federal employees health benefits program which provides any benefits or coverage for abortions." Unlike many private corporate plans, federal employee plans only cover abortions in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

"Under this scheme, (the government) will be paying the administrative costs," said Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., author of the abortion funding ban for federal employee plans. "It's a radical deviation and departure from current federal law, and it's not for all federal employees, but for a subset: Congress. Us."

Smith is calling on the Obama administration to specify that lawmakers and staffers must choose a plan that does not cover abortions. The funding ban, in place since the 1980s, is known as the Smith amendment.

The personnel office initially refused to address the issue on the record.

Late Friday, spokesman Thomas Richards released a statement saying:

"No federal funds, including administrative funds, are used to cover abortions or administer plans that cover abortions. This is true for FEHBP (federal employee plans) and the marketplaces. Nothing restricts a federal employee from seeking additional coverage of elective abortion services at 100 percent premium cost to the enrollee."

But Smith's office said that did not resolve the congressman's concerns, because no health plans in the government program cover abortion.

Obama, who supports abortion rights, has said previously he does not want his health care overhaul to change existing laws on abortion.

An independent expert on the federal employee plan said abortion opponents appear to have a legitimate question, but the applicable laws are so arcane that it's hard to tell who's right.

"This goes into a legal thicket the complexity of which I can't begin to fathom," said Walton Francis, lead author of an annual guide to federal health benefits. "It would take lawyers hours to decipher the interrelationship between these statutes, and they would probably come to different conclusions."

Abortion opponents say the longstanding ban on "administrative expenses" related to abortion coverage precludes the personnel office from dealing with health plans that cover abortion.

"To comply with the Smith amendment, they would have to advise members and congressional staff that they can only choose plans that do not cover abortions," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. "And, of course, they would have to enforce it."

Abortion remains a legal medical procedure in most cases, but it's subject to increasing restrictions in conservative-leaning states. So far, 23 states have barred or restricted abortion coverage by plans in the new health insurance markets. But 27 states and Washington, D.C., have not. Under the health care law, every state must have at least one plan that does not cover abortion.

Judy Waxman, a leading attorney for the National Women's Law Center, said the outcry from abortion opponents is overblown.

In the new insurance markets under Obama's law, states decide whether abortion coverage can be offered, she explained. If it's allowed, insurers decide whether they want to offer the coverage. They may not use federal funds to pay for it and must set aside part of the premium collected from enrollees into a separate account to cover abortions.

"No federal money will go to abortion," she said.

Number of Dutch killed by euthanasia rises by 13 per cent

The number of Dutch people killed by medical euthanasia has more than doubled in the 10 years since legislation was changed to permit it, rising 13 per cent last year to 4,188

Voluntary euthanasia or physician assisted suicide, where a doctor is present while a patient kills themselves, usually by drinking a strong barbiturate potion, has been legal in the Netherlands since 2002.

Requests have risen steadily since 2003 when 1,626 people applied for medically administered euthanasia, in most cases by a lethal injection, or assisted suicide.

As previously controversial "mercy killings" have become socially and medically acceptable, the number of cases, the vast majority of medical euthanasia, have more than doubled over the decade to 2012.

One explanation for the steep rise of Dutch cases is the introduction last year of mobile euthanasia units allowing patients to be killed by volunatry lethal injection when family doctors refused.

Around 80 per cent of people who request euthanasia die at home and are killed by doctors on the grounds that they are suffering unbearable pain and are making an informed choice. The opinion of a second doctor is also required.


One of Ireland’s largest Catholic hospitals confirms it will perform abortions

The Mater Hospital in Dublin’s north inner city is one of 25 named in controversial legislation where a pregnancy can be terminated if the woman’s life is in danger.

In a statement today, hospital chiefs said they had carefully considered the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act and would abide by the law.

“The hospital’s priority is to be at the frontier of compassion, concern and clinical care for all our patients,” the statement said.

“Having regard to that duty, the hospital will comply with the law as provided for in the act.”

The confirmation follows claims last month from one of the hospital’s board of governors that it could not follow the law because of its Catholic ethos.

Fr Kevin Doran, based in Donnybrook in Dublin, had argued European regulations could allow the hospital to opt out of the new laws.


Woman tricked into abortion sues Florida pharmacy

A Florida woman who had a miscarriage after her boyfriend tricked her into taking pills that can cause abortions is now suing the pharmacy where the drug was dispensed.

The woman, Remee Jo Lee, 27, says in the suit that she thought she was getting amoxicillin, an antibiotic, when she accepted the pills in March from her boyfriend, who falsely said they'd been prescribed by his father — an obstetrician who'd confirmed her pregnancy.

Instead, she was given misoprostol, a stomach ulcer medicine that can cause abortion and birth defects.

A few days later, Lee had a miscarriage, according to the suit, which was just filed in Hillsborough County Circuit Court and was first reported Monday by The Tampa Tribune.

The boyfriend, John Andrew Welden, 28, pleaded guilty last month to federal charges that he forged his father's signature on the prescription and conspired with an employee of the pharmacy to order the misoprostol. He faces almost 14 years in prison when he is sentenced in December.

Police found text messages showing that Lee, who met Welden in 2012 at the gentlemen's club where she worked, wanted to keep the baby but that Welden didn't.

In the plea agreement, Welden said he asked an employee of Sunlake Pharmacy and Compounding Lab in Lutz, north of Tampa, to fill the fake prescription and provide a fraudulently labeled pill bottle. The plea agreement said the Sunlake employee knew Welden was up to no good.

Lee's suit accuses Sunlake of negligence, arguing that "a reasonably competent, concerned and safe pharmacist would have recognized the prescription ... was grossly in error."

Memphis Presbyterian ‘Church’ to Donate Funds From ‘Race for Grace’ to Abortion Facility

A pro-life group in Memphis, Tennessee is expressing concern that a local Presbyterian church is set to donate funds from their upcoming 5K race to an abortion facility in the city.

John Brindley with the Abolitionist Society of Memphis recently told reporters that one of the pastors at Shady Grove Presbyterian Church in Memphis has “justified in his mind that it is somehow okay” to support the facility financially.

On the website for Memphis CHOICES, which outlines that it provides surgical abortions up to 15 weeks for both adults and minors, the facility advertises the church’s upcoming “Race for Grace.”

“CHOICES is honored to have been selected as one of three non-profits to benefit from the 2013 Race for Grace sponsored annually by Shady Grove Presbyterian Church in Memphis,” it writes. “If you support CHOICES’ philosophy of comprehensive, integrated reproductive health care services, we hope you will register and participate in this year’s Race for Grace.”

While the facility notes that proceeds will be earmarked for assisting with developing a prenatal care and midwife deliveries business plan, some are nonetheless perplexed as to why a professing Christians would support an abortion facility. The outlet OneNewsNow also notes that the donations to the facility “frees other funds to use for abortion.”

Brindley told the publication that he plans on going to Shady Grove Presbyterian Church on a Sunday and stand outside with photos of aborted babies to show the congregation the reality of abortion.

“We’re practicing Matthew 18,” Brindley writes on his Facebook page, and then quotes the passage, “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private. If he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.”

He explained that Christians from the city have met with the “pastor” on three separate occasions, but that he nonetheless decided to go forward with allowing funds to be sent to the CHOICES abortion facility.

“After Christians have met with the pastor of Shady Grove Presbyterian Church twice, it looks like he is going to allow the race committee to go ahead with their support of this place that kills unborn babies each week in Memphis,” Brindley wrote. “The next step is to expose evil where it exists. Please help us get the word out.”

He likewise stated that the Shady Grove’s donation is a serious concern–regardless of the type of earmark for the funds.

“Just in case someone is thinking that it’s not a big deal since the money is earmarked for pre-natal care, consider that they are entering into a covenant relationship with an organization that believes it is alright to rip apart the unborn and throw them away like trash,” Brindley outlined.

“What would you think of a church in ****, Germany that earmarked money to a local concentration camp restroom renovation project? They just want to be Jesus to the Jewish prisoners who should have clean bathroom facilities, right?” he continued. “It’s just that the people who are receiving the money are exterminating the Jews on the other side of the building.”

The “Race for Grace” will be held on November 2 in Memphis. Brindley also notes that the CEO of the Memphis Planned Parenthood serves as a deacon at Idlewood Presbyterian Church in the city.

Britain’s Largest Abortion Agency: It’s Legal to Abort Babies Based on Gender

The chief executive of Britain’s largest abortion organisation is asserting that women in the country are legally free to abort a baby based on gender.

Anne Furedi, head of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), states that women the law allows women to terminate their pregnancies if they are unhappy with the baby’s sex, and that the parliament does not need to create any clarifications on the matter.

The chief executive of BPAS made her views known in an article for the online magazine Spiked where she compared gender selective abortion to abortion after rape.

“A doctor agreeing to an abortion on grounds of rape would be breaking the law no more and no less than a doctor who agrees an abortion on grounds of sex selection,” she contended.

“There is no legal requirement to deny a woman an abortion if she has a sex preference, providing that the legal grounds are still met,” Furedi continued. “The law is silent on the matter of gender selection, just as it is silent on rape.”


'Painless death' or 'precipitous cliff'? Transsexual chooses euthanasia after failed operation

A high-profile case of a Belgian transsexual who chose to be killed by medical euthanasia after a sex-change operation turned him into a "monster" has highlighted the soaring number of people in the region electing to die this way – and has raised fresh questions over the controversial practice.

Nathan Verhelst, born Nancy, gave an interview to a local newspaper hours before his death this week citing his "unbearable psychological suffering" – rather than a terminal or degenerative physical illness – as his reason for dying voluntarily.

"When I looked in the mirror, I was disgusted with myself. My new breasts did not match my expectations and my new penis had symptoms of rejection. I do not want to be... a monster," Verhelst told Belgian newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws, referencing his double mastectomy and surgery to construct a penis last year.

Verhelst, 44, was killed by voluntary lethal injection on Monday according to local media reports.

Euthanasia, the act of a doctor directly killing a patient, is becoming more popular in Belgium and the Netherlands, which along with Luxembourg have all legalized euthanasia in the past 10 years and are the only three countries in the world where the practice is legal.


Don't say you weren't warned: Euthanasia made Netherlands a killing field

Statistics from the Netherlands should serve as a warning to Quebec, Canada and France, and also to states in this country considering euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide.

The Netherlands has recorded increases annually in euthanasia since it was legalized, and 2012 was no different: a 13-percent increase which represents three percent of all deaths in the country. Fifty-five people with dementia or other psychiatric conditions died by euthanasia, including those with depression.

Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition tells OneNewsNow what's important, too, is what is not reported.

“What is missing is that in the major report that was done in 2010, which was a meta-analysis, they found that 23 percent of all the euthanasia deaths in the Netherlands were not reported,” says Schadenberg. “So therefore this is only the reported deaths. It's not the unreported deaths obviously, so therefore if you look at the total number of deaths it's much higher than that.”

The report also does not show the assisted suicide deaths so that would increase the 2012 total.

“What's very important is since 2006 the number of euthanasia deaths has more than doubled,” Schadenberg notes.

One more thing the report excludes is the deaths due to the Groningen Protocol in the Netherlands.

What is that?

“That's the protocol that allows for euthanasia for children who are born with disabilities,” says Schadenberg. “So we don't actually know those numbers.”

To make it even more convenient for its citizens, the Netherlands launched six mobile euthanasia teams, taking death squads into their homes.

- See more at:

EU May Declare Abortion a ‘Human Right’

( – European lawmakers this month will vote on a measure that promotes abortion as a fundamental human right, while taking aim at the conscientious objection rights of pro-life doctors and health workers.

Critics see the move as an attempt to dictate abortion policy to individual European Union governments, despite an acknowledgement by leading E.U. institutions that there is no consensus on the matter across the 28 member-states.

The controversial draft report, which is being promoted by socialist members of the European Parliament (MEPs), was passed last month by the legislature’s committee on women’s rights and gender equality.

According to supporting documents, 20 E.U. member-states legally permit abortion on demand, while six others have limitations which are either interpreted broadly (Britain, Finland, Cyprus) or restrictively (Ireland, Poland, Luxembourg). Malta prohibits all abortions. (The 28th and newest member, Croatia, had not joined the E.U. when the legislation was being drafted.)

Even in countries where abortion is legal, the report states, it is often made unavailable “through the abuse of conscientious objection or overly restrictive interpretations of existing limits.”  Other obstacles include “medically unnecessary waiting periods or biased counseling.”

(Some E.U. countries have compulsory waiting period of up to seven days and pre-abortion counseling, either for all women or in some cases for adolescents only.)

The measure would therefore require member states to “regulate and monitor the use of conscientious objection so as to ensure that reproductive health care is guaranteed as an individual’s right, while access to lawful services is ensured and appropriate and affordable referrals systems are in place.”

An explanatory note complains that objectors deny women information about and access to “lawful interruption of pregnancy.”

“There are cases reported from Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Ireland and Italy where nearly 70 percent of all gynecologists and 40 percent of all anesthesiologists conscientiously object to providing abortion services,” it says. “These barriers clearly contradict human rights standards and international medical standards.”

Aside from the anti-conscientious objection language, arguably the most explosive part of the draft report is a clause that says “as a human rights concern, abortion should be made legal, safe and accessible to all.”


Here's another example over where it appears the "good guys" are controlled-opposition too. Look how much the state is charging taxpayers for this. No, I'm not saying we should sit on our hands and do nothing while Planned Parenthood and their minions do what they want - but nonetheless $1m is just too much money from taxpayers.

Ultimately, TPTB's minions are making sure everyone working for them is profiting.
APNewsBreak: Kansas abortion lawsuits cost $913K

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) -- Kansas has paid more than $913,000 to two private law firms that are helping the state defend anti-abortion laws enacted since conservative Republican Gov. Sam Brownback took office, and such expenses appear likely to grow.

The attorney general's office disclosed the figures in response to requests from The Associated Press. More than $126,000 in legal fees stem from two lawsuits filed this summer against restrictions enacted just this year.

Kansas has enacted sweeping limits on abortion and providers since Brownback took office in January 2011, though it hasn't attempted to ban abortions in the earliest weeks of pregnancies, as Arkansas and North Dakota have. The newest Kansas restrictions, challenged in separate state and federal lawsuits this summer, block tax breaks for abortion providers and even govern what appears on their websites.

A state-court lawsuit is still pending against health and safety regulations approved in 2011 specifically for abortion clinics, but the state prevailed in a federal lawsuit against 2011 restrictions on private health insurance coverage for elective abortions. All of those cases have been handled by the firm of Thompson Ramsdell & Qualseth, of Lawrence.


UK doctors given bonuses for placing patients on ‘death lists’ - report

General practitioners in England have been receiving £50 bonuses for placing patients on controversial ‘death lists’ in order to reduce the number of occupied hospital beds. The move is yet another tactic aimed at cutting NHS costs.

Belgium Eyes Child Euthanasia
Oct. 2013
Since euthanasia was legalized in Belgium in 2002, Belgians have been euthanized for blindness, depression, anorexia nervosa, and a botched sex change operation.
Now, Belgians want to allow euthanasia for children.
Under legislation currently being debated in the Belgian Parliament, terminally ill or suffering children under 18 could be euthanized if they request it, their parents consent to it, and an expert deems the child capable of understanding their decision.
The bill is widely supported and is expected to become law.

Girl smuggled in to have organs harvested
Modern slavery is an appalling evil in our midst

The first case of a child being trafficked to Britain in order to have their organs harvested has been uncovered.
The unnamed girl was brought to the UK from Somalia with the intention of removing her organs and selling them on to those desperate for a transplant.
Child protection charities warned that the case was unlikely to be an isolated incident as traffickers were likely to have smuggled a group of children into the country.
The case emerged in a government report which showed that the number of human trafficking victims in the UK has risen by more than 50 per cent last year and reached record levels.

Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal judge has determined that new Texas abortion restrictions violate the U.S. Constitution, a ruling that keeps open — at least for now — dozens of abortion clinics that were set to halt operations Tuesday had key parts of the law taken effect.

In a decision released Monday that the state is certain to appeal, District Judge Lee Yeakel wrote that the regulations requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital creates an undue obstacle to women seeking an abortion.

"The admitting-privileges provision of House Bill 2 does not bear a rational relationship to the legitimate right of the state in preserving and promoting fetal life or a woman's health and, in any event, places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus and is thus an undue burden to her," he wrote.

While Yeakel found that the state could regulate how a doctor prescribes an abortion-inducing pill, he said the law did not allow for a doctor to adjust treatment taken in order to best protect the health of the woman taking it. Therefore he blocked the provision requiring doctors to follow U.S. Food and Drug Administration protocol for the pills in all instances.

"The medication abortion provision may not be enforced against any physician who determines, in appropriate medical judgment, to perform the medication-abortion using off-label protocol for the preservation of the life or health of the mother," Yeakel, appointed by President George W. Bush, wrote.

Texas abortion clinics stay open following ruling

After judge's ruling to throw out new law, Texas abortion clinics set to resume appointments


LUBBOCK, Texas (AP) -- The only abortion clinic in a 300-mile swath of West Texas can resume taking appointments Tuesday, after a federal judge struck down new restrictions that would have effectively shuttered it and at least a dozen other clinics across the state.

Lubbock's Planned Parenthood Women's Health Center had stopped making appointments last week, bracing for this week's scheduled enforcement of a new requirement that all doctors performing abortions in the state must have admitting privileges at a hospital less than 30 miles away.

Supporters who sued to block the requirement, part of a broad series of abortion limits the Legislature approved in July, argued it was meant to outlaw abortions, not make them safer as state officials had claimed. The judge agreed, finding that the law imposed an unconstitutional burden on women seeking to terminate a pregnancy.

The admitting privileges provision "does not bear a rational relationship to the legitimate right of the state in preserving and promoting fetal life or a woman's health and, in any event, places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion," Judge Lee Yeakel, an appointee of President George W. Bush, a former Texas Republican governor, wrote in his decision.


Oklahoma high court says drug-induced abortion law unconstitutional

OKLAHOMA CITY (Reuters) - The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that a state law meant to restrict the use of abortion-inducing drugs instead bans them altogether, rendering the law unconstitutional and paving the way for the measure to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

The state had argued that the 2011 law was written to force abortion providers to use federal guidelines when administering the RU-486 drug, the so-called "abortion pill."

But the state court said Tuesday that the effect of the law as it is written is a ban on all abortions by medications, and as a result "restricts the long-respected medical discretion of physicians" who may feel that method is safer for some patients than surgical abortion.

A similar restriction in Texas was partially upheld Monday by a federal district judge, who ruled that the state could require adherence to federal guidelines unless a doctor decides medical abortion is needed to preserve the life and health of the mother.

Some 18 states have laws restricting or banning the use of medication abortions, several of which are under judicial review or have been blocked, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization which supports the right to abortion.

In practical terms, the ruling changes nothing for women choosing medication abortions in Oklahoma because the law was halted by a district judge in 2012 in a lawsuit.

The U.S. Supreme Court put the case on its docket, but before it would hear arguments the court instructed the state Supreme Court to interpret whether it bans all use of the medication or just restricts it to federal guidelines.

Tuesday's ruling bolsters arguments by abortion-rights groups that the law should be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, whatever its effect, said Martha Skeeters, president of the Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, which filed the lawsuit.

Proponents of the law say that requiring abortion providers to use the Food and Drug Administration's protocol for medication abortions is safer for women, reduces errors, and has more credibility than off-label use.

But abortion-rights groups and providers say the federal protocol, based on recommendations made by the drug manufacturer in the 1990s, is more expensive, requires more trips to the clinic and can have more side effects than the common off-label protocol in use by many providers.

Quebec Takes First Step to Legalize Euthanasia

The Quebec National Assembly voted today on Bill 52 (An Act respecting end-of-life care) that takes the Canadian province once step closer to legalizing euthanasia.

The vote comes as an opinion poll indicates most Quebec residents do not favor the bill’s provisions for “medical aid in dying.”

In an online survey of almost 500 residents conducted October 23-28 by Abingdon Research, 47% said Bill 52 requires further study, while another 14% expressed opposition. Only a minority – 35% – were in favour of the bill.

Natalie Sonnen, executive director of LifeCanada, said the poll also highlighted problems with the bill’s use of the vague term, “medical aid in dying.” Before being given the definition, only 30% answered correctly that “medical aid in dying” as proposed by Bill 52, involves “a doctor giving a patient a lethal injection.”


UK's top court: OK for hospital to stop treatment

Britain's highest court has ruled in favor of a hospital that gained court approval to withhold treatment from a terminally ill man despite the family's opposition.

In a unanimous judgment handed down on Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeal was correct in allowing Aintree University Hospital in Liverpool to withhold treatment from David James, 68, who suffered colon cancer, organ failure and a stroke, among other problems.

James' doctors estimated he had a 1 percent chance of survival and applied to the Court of Protection for a legal declaration allowing it to discontinue some types of treatment, like restarting his heart if it stopped and a kidney replacement therapy. The court rejected the application on Dec. 6, but 15 days later the Court of Appeal reversed the decision. By that time, James' condition had worsened, and he died on Dec. 31.

Until his death, James had been dependent on a breathing machine, had a tube to provide him with basic nutrition and hydration. His doctors said "daily care tasks" caused him pain and suffering.


100 Pro-Abortion Storytelling Events Organized Across Country Evil or Very Mad

On Monday, pro-abortion groups across the country launched an organized effort to feature women telling uplifting stories of their abortions.

The so-called “1 in 3” week of action will feature 100 events in 32 states, and began in Washington D.C. According to the Advocates for Youth, one in three women in the United States will at some point have an abortion. Advocates from Washington D.C. who will lead off the event include Deb Hauser of the Advocates for Youth; Ilyse Hogue, NARAL Pro-Choice America; Andrea Gleaves, Women’s Information Network; and many more. The “1 in 3” organizers will also be handing out a book: 1 in 3: These Are Our Stories. Tellingly, organizers suggest that their goal is to keep abortion “safe, legal, and affordable” – a marked change from the old pro-choice slogan from the Clinton years, “safe, legal, and rare.” The organizers also want to “end the stigma” surrounding abortion.

Helping to end that stigma includes recruiting celebrities to be part of the “1 in 3” campaign. MTV star Katie Stack of 16 and Pregnant will be joining the campaign. Speaking with ThinkProgress, Stack said, “That experience with MTV really reinforced for me that it can be really powerful to provide these opportunities and to allow stories to heard — stories that are complex, and that don’t necessarily fit a pro-choice or pro-life narrative.

The University of Michigan at Ann Arbor will host an event called an “abortion speak-out,” at which Stack will appear. “It’s very hard to talk about abortion without the negativity, without calling people murderers, without the judgment,” Stack explained. “The speak-out event is almost an experiment to see if it’s possible. Hopefully it is. I know Carly has taken a lot of steps to make it a safe space, but it’s really hard to authentically create a safe space to share these stories.”

Stack told ThinkProgress, “The fact of the matter is, no matter what anyone wants to debate about abortion and its morality, I feel that I made the right decision. And that’s threatening to people, the fact that I will say that.”

Ruling halts abortions at third of Texas' clinics
AUSTIN, Texas (November 1, 2013)- A third of the abortion clinics in Texas can no longer perform the procedure starting Friday after a federal appeals court allowed most of the state's new abortion restrictions to take effect.

A panel of judges at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled Thursday evening that Texas can enforce its law requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital while a lawsuit challenging the restrictions moves forward. The panel issued the ruling three days after District Judge Lee Yeakel determined that the provision violated the U.S. Constitution and said it serves no medical purpose.

The panel's ruling is not final, and a different panel of judges will likely hear the case in January. But in the meantime, Texas clinics will have to follow the order. Twelve of the 32 clinics in Texas that perform abortions don't have doctors who have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, meaning they won't be able to perform the procedure, though they can provide other services.

In its 20-page ruling, the appeals court panel acknowledged that the new provision "may increase the cost of accessing an abortion provider and decrease the number of physicians available to perform abortions." However, the panel said that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that having "the incidental effect of making it more difficult or more expensive to procure an abortion cannot be enough to invalidate" a law that serves a valid purpose, "one not designed to strike at the right itself."

- See more at:
Supreme Court lets stand ruling throwing out 'abortion pill' limits

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Monday left intact a state court decision invalidating an Oklahoma law that effectively banned the so-called abortion pill RU-486, with the justices deciding to sidestep a potentially contentious case.

The high court had been waiting for the Oklahoma Supreme Court to clarify a December 2012 ruling that had voided the law before deciding on whether to rule on the case. Last week, the state court issued a new opinion explaining its reasoning in more detail.

The U.S. high court's latest action means the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling is final. The state court said the effect of the law would have been a ban on all abortions by medications, and as a result "restricts the long-respected medical discretion of physicians" who decide that method is safer for some patients than surgical abortion.

That ruling invalidated a state law it said had the effect of banning abortion-inducing drugs altogether.


Judge suspends ban on Iowa abortion pill system

Judge grants Planned Parenthood request to suspend ban on Iowa abortion pill system


DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- An Iowa judge ruled Tuesday that Planned Parenthood could still use video conferencing to distribute abortion-inducing pills while the organization challenges a new ban on the practice in court.

The ban, approved by the Iowa Board of Medicine in August, was scheduled to take effect Wednesday.

The new rules require a doctor to be physically present with a woman when an abortion-inducing drug is provided. The change targeted Planned Parenthood of the Heartland's practice of enabling doctors, typically based in Des Moines, to prescribe the drugs while meeting with patients in rural areas though a secure Internet video connection.

In granting Planned Parenthood's request for a temporary stay, Polk County District Judge Karen Romano said the board had not supplied evidence that the system was either unsafe or negatively impacted patient health. Rather, she said the ban could delay a woman's ability to have a chemical abortion or force a woman to have a surgical abortion.

Romano did not rule on the merits of the case, though she said it was peculiar that the board would mandate the ban for abortion services but not any other telemedicine practices in Iowa.

Iowa Board of Medicine Executive Director Mark Bowden said the decision perpetuates what the board believes is inadequate health care for Iowa women seeking abortions.

"The board believes that a physician must establish an appropriate physician-patient relationship prior to the provision of a medical abortion," he said in a statement on behalf of the board. "The physician's in-person medical interview and physical examination of the patient are essential to establishing that relationship."

Planned Parenthood supporters have argued that the ban reflected board members' opposition to abortion, noting that the board was appointed by Gov. Terry Branstad, a conservative Republican and abortion-rights opponent.

The organization applauded the judge's decision Tuesday.

"Our No. 1 priority is the health and safety of our patients," Planned Parenthood of the Heartland President and CEO Jill June said in a statement. "Allowing the rule to be ineffective during litigation will ensure that Iowa women can continue to receive safe health care, without delay, from the provider they trust."

Branstad did not directly respond to the judge's ruling, but spokesman Tim Albrecht said the governor commends the board for its "open and transparent process" in approving the ban.

"The governor shares the concerns brought forward by those in the medical community concerning webcam abortions, and believes a serious, thoughtful and open discussion needs to occur as to whether women are receiving an adequate standard of care when undergoing this procedure," Albrecht said in a statement.

US top court rejects pre-abortion ultrasound case

Washington (AFP) - The US Supreme Court refused Tuesday to hear a case concerning pre-abortion ultrasounds for women seeking to terminate their pregnancies in Oklahoma.

By refusing to take up the matter, the top US court let stand a ruling by the state's supreme court that struck down a local law requiring "the performance, display and explanation of a pre-abortion ultrasound."

The state claimed to have a "legitimate interest of reducing the risk that a woman may elect an abortion, only to discover later, with devastating psychological consequences, that her decision was not fully informed."

The law mandated that doctors or certified technicians working with them perform ultrasounds on woman at least an hour before carrying out an abortion.

It required the images to be displayed in such a way that they could be seen by the women in question and mandated a "simultaneous explanation of what the ultrasound is depicting."

In addition, physicians or certified technicians were required to provide a medical description of the images, which had to include such details, if applicable, of a heart beat and internal organs.

They also had to "obtain a written certification from the woman, prior to the abortion" although the measure stated that "neither the physician nor the pregnant woman shall be subject to any penalty if she refuses to look at the presented ultrasound images."

After examining the matter in closed session three times, the Supreme Court gave no explanation for its refusal to take it up.

Just last week, the court announced it would not review the Oklahoma supreme court's decision to overturn a state law that restricts the use of an abortion pill.

The decision effectively upholds the lower court's ruling that the law was unconstitutional, and will allow doctors in the state to prescribe RU-486, also known as the Mifepristone abortion pill.

It is also expected to say soon whether it will take up a Texas law that could lead to the closure of more than a third of clinics performing abortions in the state.

Despite its landmark "Roe V. Wade" decision in January 1973 legalizing abortion in the United States, the practice has remained a perennial source of controversy and in recent years a growing number of states have passed laws limiting it.

Supreme Court watchers expect the nine-member panel to revisit the issue.

On January 15, it will focus on the right of "pro-life" protesters to demonstrate in front of abortion clinics.

The headline is misleading - all the USSC did was uphold the TEMPORARY INJUNCTION made by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals(to let this TX law passed stand for now) - otherwise, the 5CCA will hear the case in January.
Texas abortion law stands: Supreme Court splits 5-4 on hearing the case

A new Texas law requiring doctors performing abortions to have hospital admitting privileges has forced more than a dozen clinics in the state to close. The case is on a path back to the Supreme Court.

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to block a tough new Texas law that has forced more than a dozen abortion clinics in the state to close their doors.

The justices split 5 to 4 on whether to block the law. The action came in a controversial case over abortion restrictions that is likely to find its way quickly back to the high court in the months ahead.

In the meantime, the law will remain in full effect pending an appeal at the New Orleans-based Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals.

That court is set to hear oral arguments in January.

The new law, which took effect last month, requires any physician performing an abortion at a Texas clinic to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic.

Obtaining such privileges is difficult and the new requirement has caused roughly one-third of the state’s abortion clinics to close their doors while leaving an estimated 20,000 Texas women without such services, according to abortion rights advocates.

“This law is blocking women in Texas from getting a safe and legal medical procedure that has been their constitutionally protected right for 40 years,” said Cecil Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, in a statement.

“This is outrageous and unacceptable,” she said.

Elizabeth Graham, director of Texas Right to Life, hailed the high court’s action as a significant step forward.

“This ruling signals that Texas is on the verge of a decisive legal pro-life victory,” she said. “The recent closures of abortion clinics, even if temporary, prove that [the Texas law] does have a major impact in protecting women and their unborn children from substandard care at abortion clinics.”

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the justices should intervene in the case to block the Texas law from being enforced while the expedited appeal to the Fifth Circuit is underway.

Abortion rights advocates had asked the courts to uphold an injunction issued by a federal judge who ruled last month that the new Texas law was overly restrictive of a woman’s right to obtain an abortion. After declaring the law unconstitutional, the judge issued an injunction blocking enforcement of the statute pending any appeals.

Texas officials appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit and asked the appeals court to lift the federal judge’s injunction. The appeals court did so.

Abortion providers in Texas filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to preserve the status quo in Texas so that abortion clinics could remain open during the ongoing appeals.

In declining the block the law, Justice Antonin Scalia said that the appeals court’s earlier decision was based on its conclusion that Texas officials were likely to prevail in the case, with the new statute being upheld as constitutional.

The justices owed deference to the appeals court’s conclusion, he said.

“It would flout core principles of federalism by mandating postponement of a state law without asserting that the law is even probably unconstitutional,” Justice Scalia wrote in a four-page order.

“Reasonable minds can perhaps disagree about whether the Court of Appeals should have granted a stay in this case,” he said. “But there is no doubt that the applicants have not carried their heavy burden of showing that doing so was a clear violation of accepted legal standards.”

In a dissent, Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan said they would have taken action to block the new Texas law.

Justice Breyer, writing for the dissenters, said that the federal judge’s initial injunction would have preserved the status quo, allowing clinics to remain open and serve women in their communities as the litigation continued.

“By putting Texas’ new law into immediate effect, it instantly leaves 24 counties in the Rio Grande Valley… with no abortion provider because those providers do not have admitting privileges and are unlikely to get them,” Breyer wrote in a 5-page dissent. He added that the new law “may substantially reduce access to safe abortions elsewhere in Texas.”

Breyer said that the underlying legal issue concerning the constitutionality of the Texas law “is a difficult question.”

“Lawmakers in Texas and other states have passed laws like this for the sole purpose of limiting access to safe, legal abortion, not promote women’s health,” Terri Burke, executive director of the ACLU of Texas, said in a statement.

Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said the Texas law was “unworkable, unconscionable and unconstitutional.”

“The shattering stories of women turned away at clinic doors and denied their constitutional right to abortion are already numerous, and they multiply every single day this underhanded law is enforced,” Ms. Northup said.


Jeremiah 8:11  For they have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.


In declining the block the law, Justice Antonin Scalia said that the appeals court’s earlier decision was based on its conclusion that Texas officials were likely to prevail in the case, with the new statute being upheld as constitutional.

The justices owed deference to the appeals court’s conclusion, he said.

“It would flout core principles of federalism by mandating postponement of a state law without asserting that the law is even probably unconstitutional,” Justice Scalia wrote in a four-page order.

“Reasonable minds can perhaps disagree about whether the Court of Appeals should have granted a stay in this case,” he said. “But there is no doubt that the applicants have not carried their heavy burden of showing that doing so was a clear violation of accepted legal standards.”

Well speak for yourself, Justice Scalia! Didn't you rule the opposite in the Oklahoma case recently? Rolling Eyes

US top court rejects pre-abortion ultrasound case

Albuquerque voters reject late-term abortion ban

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) -- Voters in New Mexico's largest city soundly defeated a ban on late-term abortions Tuesday in a municipal election that was being closely watched as a possible new front in the national abortion fight.

Voters rejected the measure 55 percent to 45 percent following an emotional and graphic campaign that brought in national groups and hundreds of thousands of dollars in advertising. The campaign included protests that compared abortion to the Holocaust and displayed pictures of aborted fetuses.

A coalition of groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico and Planned Parenthood, called the results a huge victory for Albuquerque women and families.

"Albuquerque families sent a powerful message today_they do not want the government interfering in their private medical decisions," Micaela Cadena with the Respect ABQ Women campaign said in a statement. "Dangerous, unconstitutional laws like the one we rejected today have no place in Albuquerque, no place in New Mexico, no place anywhere in our nation."

Why anti-abortion groups are struggling at the ballot box

Since the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, access to abortion has been one of the most contentious topics in American politics. The battle has raged across the country for the last four decades, as anti-abortion and pro-choice activists have clashed in the courts, state houses, and the halls of Congress.

Last week’s referendum in Albuquerque, N.M., where voters rejected a ban on abortion after 20 weeks, underscored a new development in the fight. And it also highlighted a fundamental disconnect in the way Americans approach restrictions on terminating pregnancies — particularly when they're asked to pull the trigger on a significant change to abortion law.

If it had passed, the measure would have been the first in the country to curb abortion at the local level. The campaign was part of a new strategy by anti-abortion activists to circumvent Democratic-controlled state legislatures. Albuquerque was seen as a test case, since it's a Democratic enclave with a large Latino (and thus Catholic) population that is home to New Mexico’s only two abortion clinics.

But like so many ballot measures that aim to stop abortion, this one failed by a wide margin — 55 to 45 percent — despite polling that at one point showed the referendum might succeed. It’s just the latest evidence that the anti-abortion movement is struggling to score victories at the ballot box, even as conservative state legislatures across the country have passed dozens of laws aimed at making it harder for a woman to get an abortion.

In 2011, voters in Mississippi, arguably one of the most conservative states in the nation, rejected a personhood amendment to its constitution that would have enshrined the idea that life begins at conception. A full fifty-eight percent of voters were against it.

In 2008 and 2010, Colorado voters defeated personhood initiatives by roughly three-to-one margins. The residents of South Dakota overwhelmingly voted against banning abortion in 2008. Since 2005, a total of 15 ballot measures have gone before voters and 13 of those have failed.

“We've seen time and time again when the issue is actually put before the voters that they defeat these attempts to ban or restrict abortion,” said Gretchen Borchelt, senior counsel and director of state reproductive health policy at the National Women’s Law Center, a non-profit based in Washington, D.C. “The voters see how extreme these measures really are.”

Opponents of abortion have had much more success in red state legislatures. Bans on abortion past 18 or 20 weeks have been enacted in 12 states, though three were suspended by the courts. Twenty-six states have laws that require women to wait at least 24 hours between when they receives counseling and have the procedure. Several more require that parents either be informed or give consent to minors seeking abortions.

In Texas, lawmakers have succeeded in shutting down several clinics by forcing abortion providers to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. Doctors are also required to show patients images from the ultrasound and make the fetal heartbeat audible. The new rules forced 12 of the state's 36 clinics to stop providing abortions.

But that doesn’t mean the right-to-lifers are giving up on the referendum front. There are several ballot questions already being prepped for the 2014 midterms, including another personhood referendum in Colorado.

However, instead of proposing modest, incremental changes, these groups seem intent on putting the most extreme anti-abortion propositions before voters — and the evidence shows that voters just aren't prepared to go there.

Owner of Last Abortion Facility in Mississippi: ‘I Feel Like God Wants Me to Do This’ Twisted Evil

The owner of the last remaining abortion facility in Mississippi told reporters last week that she believes God wants her to be a part of the abortion industry.

“I feel like God wants me to do this job,” Diane Derzis, owner of Jackson Women’s Organization, told the Associated Press in a report published on Saturday.

Derzis operates several abortion facilities in the south, including one in Columbus, Georgia and Richmond, Virginia. She also owned New Women, All Women in Birmingham, Alabama until the facility was ordered closed this past August by a federal judge.

“I thank God every day I had that abortion,” she told reporters, noting that she herself had an abortion as a newlywed because she did not want to have any children. “It was not a great experience, but you know what? I had a safe abortion. And that’s what counts.”

Christians from across the country have been working to shut down Jackson Women’s Organization in Mississippi as they desire to see Mississippi become an abortion-free state. Operation Save America and States of Refuge have had the location on their radar as Mississippi is one of five states that has just one remaining abortion facility.

“Imagine one state being set free from blood guiltiness,” Rusty Thomas with states of Refuge told Christian News Network. “If one state falls, it does send a message that it can continue in other states.”

“We’re going to trust God, and sing and pray and cry out to God to shut this death pit down,” said Cal Zastrow, who visits the facility throughout the year with his family to intercede on behalf of the unborn.

Zastrow and others have been participating in what they refer to as “church on the street” many days at the facility, and one day this year, they even conducted a Jericho march outside of Jackson Women’s Organization. On some occasions, over a hundred Christians have gathered to speak out for life at the facility.

Both Zastrow and Derzis were featured on ABC’s Nightline earlier this year, as Derzis contended to reporters that God was on her side in the abortion business.

“I know as fervently as they do that what I’m doing is moral and right,” she stated. “But if I’m wrong, that’s between the Lord and I.”

Footage also showed Zastrow calling out to Derzis, “I want you to quit killing babies. I want you to turn to the love of Jesus.”

“I have the love of Jesus,” she replied. “He approves of what I do.”

“No, you don’t,” Zastrow responded. “You have the murder of preborn children.”

Derzis has been fighting the law in the courts for over the past year as Mississippi legislators passed a requirement in 2012 that mandated abortion facilities to obtain admitting privileges in the event that a woman has an emergency on the operating table.

As none of the area hospitals would agree to work with abortionists, Jackson Women’s Organization has been unable to comply with the law. It was to be shut down earlier this year, but a court placed a stay on the order until a judge decides whether the regulation passes constitutional muster.

Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant said that he would like to see the facility close.

“My goal, of course, is to shut it down,” Bryant he told reporters. “Now, we’ll follow the laws. The bill is in the courts now, related to the physicians and their association with a hospital. But, certainly, if I had the power to do so legally, I’d do so tomorrow.”

Zastrow said that he hopes that more Christians will be proactive in speaking up on behalf of the unborn.

“Abortion will end in America in the name of Jesus, but not while we sit in our churches,” he stated.

That persons god is satan - the god of this world.

The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
2 Corinthians 4:4

Belgium close to decision on euthanizing disabled children

Belgium is one step away from legalizing euthanasia of disabled children.

The Belgium Senate voted 50-17 in favor of a bill for doctors to kill disabled children and sent it to the lower chamber where there is strong support for the concept. Alex Schadenberg heads Euthanasia Prevention Coalition International and he says the country has been heading in this direction since first legalizing euthanasia.

“As sad and terrible as this is, the Belgium people have been on this road for quite a while since legalizing euthanasia in 2002,” he tells OneNewsNow. “The real message is once you allow doctors to have the right to kill their patients, that right is not limited. In fact, it continues to grow – there are always more reasons to ask for or to seek death by physician.

The law is not being enacted because of public support at all. Schadenberg says there is a much more sinister reason behind it.

“It's not about suffering,” he says. “It's about protecting doctors who are doing this already. We have to understand that doctors have chosen to do this already even though it was illegal, and now the doctors are asking for the law to change so that they can avoid prosecution for doing illegal acts.”

Schadenberg has told OneNewsNow before that legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia is taking a slippery slope, but he now suggests now that in Belgium they have gone off a cliff. As a sidenote, the Canadian province of Ontario is trying to legalize euthanasia is using the Belgium law as a model.

- See more at:

Pro-Life Teacher Fired for Opposing Planned Parenthood

On Monday, the school board for the Portland Public School District (PPS) in Oregon voted to terminate the teaching contract of Bill Diss, a teacher who has been an outspoken opponent of Planned Parenthood.

Diss experienced censure in his teaching career beginning in 2007, when he publicly opposed the building of a new Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in downtown Portland. The current action follows Diss’ opposition to being forced to facilitate presenters from the Teen Outreach Program (TOP), a program administered by Planned Parenthood, coming into his tutorial session to recruit students.

“Bill Diss is a well-qualified teacher with a track record of success,” states Dana Cody, president and executive director of Life Legal Defense Foundation (LLDF). “As the circumstances surrounding this termination demonstrate, Mr. Diss has done nothing that would merit being fired from his job. LLDF will pursue every possible avenue in defending Mr. Diss’ rights in this matter and hopes to see his rights ultimately protected despite PPS’ actions.”

Diss has taught technology, math, computers and electronics at Benson High School since 2002. He has also taught several classes at the community college level. He is highly regarded in his abilities and his success, both by students, by their parents and by fellow teachers.


Posting this in this section of the forum, just to show how all of what we're witnessing now(in these potential last days) are tying in with each other...

Women mostly sought late-term abortions over relationship instability, financial woes: analysis

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 3, 2014 ( – While abortion advocates have long maintained that late-term abortions are almost always procured by devastated mothers whose babies have received fatal diagnoses and aren’t expected to survive long after birth, an analysis by a network of crisis pregnancy centers of a recent study paints a different picture.

When researchers with CareNet dug into the data of the recent Turnaway Study (see previous coverage here and here), which was conducted by pro-choice advocates, they found that most women in the study who sought late-term abortions were between the ages of 20 and 24 and were in unstable relationships and had financial problems.

These women typically discovered they were pregnant later (12 weeks on average, compared to 5 weeks for those who sought earlier abortions), and were more likely to fight with the father over whether to have the abortion at all.  It also took them longer to come up with the money for an abortion.

The CareNet team quoted one woman interviewed by the Turnaway Study’s authors who waited until 21 weeks to seek an abortion because, “I couldn’t afford it.”

“They told me it was going to be $650, [but] by the time I was able to raise the $650, they had to do a different procedure, and so the price went up,” the woman said. “The price jumped to $1,850 … and they don’t take insurance.”

The Turnaway Study tracked around 200 women who were refused abortions. Many of them sought late-term abortions, which was the reason they were turned away.

Chris Slattery, National Director of the EMC FrontLine Pregnancy centers, told LifeSiteNews the study “conforms to our experience” with women facing crisis pregnancies.

“Rarely do we find true medical emergencies amongst those considering abortion in late term pregnancies,” Slattery told LSN.  “We often find emotional coercion by family and close friends, abandonment by the father, and financial stress is what most often drives expectant mothers to abort late in pregnancy.”

About 15,000 late-term abortions are performed every year in the U.S. – about 1.5% of the total number.

“Women who consider late-term abortion often do so from a place of desperation, and, perhaps, fear,” said CareNet CEO Roland Warren. “Yet, abortion only complicates the difficulties in her situation — and late-term abortion involves not only real suffering for the fetus but also serious risks to maternal health.”

Abortion after 20 weeks’ gestation been the subject of considerable controversy over the past year, as mounting scientific evidence that babies begin to feel pain at that stage of development has prompted state and federal legislators to introduce ‘pain-capable unborn child protection’ laws banning the procedure after 20 weeks.

Additionally, the shocking case of Kermit Gosnell, an abortionist convicted of murder for severing the spines of babies born alive after botched procedures at his filthy West Philadelphia clinic, highlighted the irony of laws that say it’s perfectly legal to decapitate fully-grown infants inside the womb, but move the exact same baby just a few inches and seconds, and it becomes a capital offense.

Around the same time Gosnell was convicted, Live Action released a series of undercover videos exposing late-term abortionists as equally willing to murder babies born alive after abortion.  And the high profile death of a kindergarten teacher in Maryland after her botched late-term abortion raised public awareness even further, leading many to question why a woman would want to undergo such a risky procedure at all.
Judge: Docs can prescribe meds for aid in dying

What Should Be Done To A Country That Kills 56 Million Of Its Own People?

Do you know how many babies have been murdered in America since 1973?  It is a number that is almost too horrible to think about.  An astounding 56 million American babies have been killed by various abortion methods since Roe v. Wade was decided back in 1973.  So what should be done to a country that kills 56 million of its own people?  We rightly condemn other totalitarian regimes throughout history such as Nazi Germany, the USSR and Communist China that have killed millions (or tens of millions) of their own people.  But what about us?  What do we deserve for slaughtering more than 50 million of our own precious children on the altar of convenience?  What kind of punishment would be large enough to fit such a monstrous crime?  I hope that you will share what you think by posting a comment at the end of this article.  Sadly, most Americans don’t even think much about abortion these days.  Most Americans consider it to be a “political issue” that has already been “settled”.  But of course that is what most Germans thought about the treatment of the Jews during World War II as well.  And the truth is that the percentage of Americans that consider themselves to be “pro-choice” has been declining over time.  Perhaps it is still possible to see a shift on this issue in the United States.  We just need more people to start standing up for those that cannot stand up for themselves.  The following are 26 facts about abortion in America that every American should know…

#1 There have been more than 56 million abortions performed in the United States since Roe v. Wade was decided back in 1973.

#2 There have been well over a billion abortions performed around the world since 1980.

#3 When you total up all forms of abortion, including those caused by the abortion drug RU 486, the grand total comes to more than a million abortions performed in the United States every single year.

#4 Approximately 47 percent of the women that get an abortion each year in the United States have also had a previous abortion.

#5 The number of American babies killed by abortion each year is roughly equal to the number of U.S. military deaths that have occurred in all of the wars that the United States has ever been involved in combined.

#6 About one-third of all American women will have had an abortion by the age of 45.

#7 Approximately 3,000 Americans lost their lives as a result of the destruction of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11.  Every single day, more than 3,000 American babies are killed by abortion when you include all forms of abortion.

#8 The United States has the highest abortion rate in the western world.

#9 It has been reported that a staggering 41 percent of all New York City pregnancies end in abortion.

#10 Most women that get abortions in the United States claim to be Christian.  Protestant women get 42 percent of all abortions and Catholic women get 27 percent of all abortions.

#11 According to Pastor Clenard Childress, approximately 52 percent of all African-American pregnancies now end in abortion.

#12 About 18 percent of all abortions in the United States each year are performed on teenagers.

#13 One very shocking study found that 86 percent of all abortions are done for the sake of convenience.

#14 At 8 weeks or older, an unborn baby feels very real physical pain during an abortion.

#15 According to the Guttmacher Institute, the average cost of a first trimester abortion at the ten week mark is $451.

#16 The average cost of a ****l birth with no complications in the United States is now over $9,000.

#17 A Department of Homeland Security report that was released in January 2012 says that if you are “anti-abortion”, you are a potential terrorist.  Unfortunately, there have also been other government reports that have also identified “anti-abortion” protesters as potential threats to national security.

#18 A while back, one Philadelphia abortionist was charged with killing seven babies that were born alive, but witnesses claim that he actually slaughtered hundreds “of living, breathing newborn children by severing their spinal cords or slitting their necks.”

#19 Some abortion clinics have been caught selling aborted baby parts to medical researchers.

#20 Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger once said the following…

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

#21 In a 1922 book entitled “Woman, Morality, and Birth Control”, Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger wrote the following…

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race

#22 Planned Parenthood performs more than 300,000 abortions every single year.

#23 Planned Parenthood specifically targets the poor.  A staggering 72 percent of Planned Parenthood’s “customers” have incomes that are either equal to or beneath 150 percent of the federal poverty level.  And most of those “customers” live in minority neighborhoods.

#24 There are 30 Planned Parenthood executives that make more than $200,000 a year.  A few of them actually make more than $300,000 a year.

#25 Planned Parenthood receives hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government every single year.

#26 The following is a description of the five steps involved in a partial birth abortion…

1) Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby’s legs with forceps.

2) The baby’s leg is pulled out into the birth canal.

3) The abortionist delivers the baby’s entire body, except for the head.

4) The abortionist jams scissors into the baby’s skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the skull.

5) The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child’s brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

Are you disgusted yet?

You should be

It would be one thing if our nation had already repented for this tremendous slaughter and was looking back in horror on this great holocaust.

But that is not the case at all.  In fact, most of the country seems totally unconcerned about it.  Only a very small minority of Americans are troubled enough by abortion to do anything about it.

If we continue down this road as a nation, it is inevitable that we will end up paying a very great price.

And from time to time, it seems like we get a reminder that “someone up there” is not too pleased with us.

For example, on Sunday a “sewage pipe break” spewed black sewage all over the red carpet at the Golden Globe awards in Hollywood.

What do you think the odds are of such a thing happening at that specific moment by chance?

Was “someone up there” sending us a not too subtle message about what He thinks about our behavior?

North Carolina ultrasound abortion law ruled illegal by judge

Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday struck down a 2011 North Carolina law requiring abortion providers to perform an ultrasound and explain it to a woman before having an abortion, arguing it violated the constitutional right to free speech of doctors.

U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles found that a state does not have "the power to compel a health care provider to speak, in his or her own voice, the state's ideological message in favor of carrying a pregnancy to term."

The law "compels a health care provider to act as the state's courier and to disseminate the state's message discouraging abortion, in the provider's own voice, in the middle of a medical procedure, and under circumstances where it would seem the message is the provider's and not the state's," she added in her 42-page ruling.

"This is not allowed under the First Amendment," Eagles ruled.

The U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion nationwide in 1973, but lawmakers in more conservative states in recent years have enacted laws that seek to place restrictions on the procedure, especially on late-term abortions.

The ultrasound requirement of the law had been blocked by Eagles a few months after it was passed due to concerns over what she described as the "non-medical message" doctors were required to deliver.

The law required that an ultrasound image be presented and the sound of the fetal heartbeat be offered at least four hours before an abortion, though a woman is free to look away and ignore an explanation and medical description of what is on the screen.

The decision was hailed as a victory for the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood Federation of America which filed a lawsuit challenging the Women's Right to Know Act.

"Today's ruling protects the rights of women and their doctors from the ideological agenda of extremist lawmakers," said Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the ACLU of North Carolina.

"This law represented an egregious government intrusion into individuals' private medical decisions, and we are very pleased that it will not go into effect," she said.

Defenders of the law said it provided crucial information for women making a major and irrevocable decision.

"North Carolina's ultrasound requirement is no different than requiring speech for airlines and cigarette manufacturers for safety reasons," said Barbara Holt, president of North Carolina Right to Life. "The required information must be given even if the person hearing, seeing or reading the information finds the information upsetting, unnecessary or repetitive."

A Republican state legislator who advocated the law, House Majority Leader Paul Stam, was not immediately available to comment after normal business hours.

North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue, a Democrat and the state's first female governor, vetoed the measure in 2011 but the state Senate overrode the veto.

In her veto message, Perdue called the legislation a "dangerous intrusion into the confidential relationship that exists between women and their doctors."

When the law went into effect in October 2011, North Carolina joined 25 other states that require pre-abortion counseling that goes beyond basic medical "informed consent," according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit sexual health research organization.

It also became the tenth state to include the additional requirement of an ultrasound, which has drawn legal challenges in several states.

North Carolina has some of the country's toughest requirements for clinics performing abortions, including a requirement doctors be present when abortions are performed.

It also bans publicly funded health insurance programs from paying for most abortions, and authorizes state health officials to design rules for increased safety standards for abortion clinics.

In North Carolina, 17 percent of pregnancies end in induced abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

The case is Gretchen S. Stuart, M.D. et al v. Ralph C. Loomis, M.D. et al: 1:11-CV-804.

Husband of MTV Star Found Out His Child Was Aborted From a TV Commercial

As LifeNews reported earlier this month, MTV is filming one of its reality show stars having an abortion. Teen Mom 2′s trouble-plagued star Jenelle Evans got pregnant and had an abortion.

However, her husband had no idea she was pregnant or aborted his baby — until he found out from commercials for the show. From TruthRevolt:

The husband of the child, Courtland Rogers, recently released from jail where he served on drug charges, found out about the abortion of his child from a commercial for the the show.

As reported by the Mirror, Rogers told

“Nobody told me anything … I did not know that Jenelle had gotten pregnant and she didn’t talk to me about getting an abortion.” …

“It’s not fair that I found out about the pregnancy on a Teen Mom commercial.”

For her part, Jenelle seems unfazed. She is already pregnant again, this time by a third man, Nathan Griffith.

Pro-life people have frequently said that if an abortion is ever shown on television that it would change millions of minds against abortion. But with MTV at the helm, the abortion will likely be sanitized and shown as nothing more than a routine medical procedure — which will make it less likely to have much of an impact on abortion attitude or opinion.

Further complicating the issue is the fact that Teen Mom 2′s trouble-plagued star Jenelle Evans is defending her decision to have an abortion. That sets up what will likely be a pro-abortion spin on what could be an opportunity to talk about how abortion kills unborn children and hurts women.

Fox guards henhouse: Doctor killing patients oversees euthanasia law


In countries where euthanasia is legal there now is a lack of appreciation for life.

Belgium's euthanasia commission, which rules over the death business, went into effect in 2002 although euthanasia had already been taking place, and now the attitude in Belgium is degenerating further.

Rita Marker of the Patients Rights Council tells OneNewsNow that one example is Dr. Wim Distelmans, best known for giving lethal injections to twins who were going blind, and to the patient of a sex-change operation.

Marker, Rita (Patents Rights Council)His cohort is Dr. Marc Cosyns, whose views are even more radical and who has openly stated that he deliberately violates Belgium's euthanasia laws because he believes killing a person is part of medical practice.

Did anything happen to either doctor?

"No," Marker reports, "because Distelmans, who is the best known euthanasia provider in Belgium, happens to be the chairman of the committee in Belgium that is to determine whether or not the law was followed."

So he determines whether he has followed the laws, and for his friend as well.

Marker says that once killing patients is accepted, any other safeguards fall, including obedience to the law.

- See more at:

Lawmakers in Belgium Expected to Legalize Euthanasia for Childrenof All Ages


Lawmakers in Belgium are expected to approve legislation this week that will allow doctors to euthanize children.

Last month, the Belgian Senate voted 50-17 in favor of a bill that would allow terminally ill children to request euthanization. Belgium’s lower legislative house will vote on the legislation Thursday. Analysts say the lower house will most likely pass the measure.

According to reports, the bill will allow children to choose to intentionally end their lives via lethal injection. Euthanasia will be available to children of all ages—as long as the children understand what euthanasia is and have approval from parents and doctors.

Currently, the Netherlands is the only country in the world where child euthanization is legal. In the Netherlands, children must be over the age of 12 to intentionally and legally end their lives. However, the Belgian euthanization bill has no age restrictions.

Belgium first sanctioned adult euthanasia in 2002. Since then, the number of euthanasia cases has been increasing every year—from less than 300 in 2003 to approximately 1,500 in recent years.

ObamaCare patients with serious pre-existing diseases could face expensive drug costs

People with serious pre-existing diseases, precisely those the president aimed to help with ObamaCare, could find themselves paying for expensive drug treatments with no help from the health care exchanges.

Those with expensive diseases such as lupus or multiple sclerosis face something called a "closed drug formulary."

Dr. Scott Gottlieb of the American Enterprise Institute explains,"if the medicine that you need isn't on that list, it's not covered at all. You have to pay completely out of pocket to get that medicine, and the money you spend doesn't count against your deductible, and it doesn't count against your out of pocket limits, so you're basically on your own."

The plan had claimed it would rescue those with serious pre-existing conditions.

"So it could be that a MS patient could be expected to pay $62,000 just for one medication," says Dr. Daniel Kantor, who treats MS patients and others with neurological conditions near Jacksonville, Florida. "That’s a possiblity under the new ObamaCare going on right now."

In fact, one conservative group, Americans for Prosperity, is running an ad on exactly this subject, featuring a woman with lupus, an auto-immune disease.

She starts by saying, "I voted for Barack Obama for president. I thought ObamaCare was going to be a good thing."

But Emilie Lamb says she later got a letter saying her insurance was canceled because of ObamaCare, pushing her premiums from $52 to $373 a month.

"I'm having to work a second job, to pay for ObamaCare,” she adds. “For somebody with lupus, that's not an easy thing. If I can't afford to continue to pay for ObamaCare, I don't get my medicine. I don't get to see my doctors."

One of the problems is that drugs for some diseases such as MS do not have generic versions. So without cheaper alternatives and no help from ObamaCare, patients could face huge personal out-of-pocket bills, forcing some to skimp on their medications.

Kantor worries that "this may drive more patients" to not buy their medicines, "which we know is dangerous," he says. "We know MS can be a bad disease when you’re not treating it. When you’re treating it, for most people they handle it pretty well, but we know when you don’t treat (it), it’s the kind of disease where people end up in wheel chairs potentially."

In the commercial market, of course, drugs not on a preferred list would also be more expensive, but with a major difference, according to Gottlieb.

"You go outside that list, you have to pay out of pocket for it, but you do get some co-insurance, meaning the plans will pay some of the cost of that."

Some say ObamaCare hoped to do better on that problem but ran out of time. Matthew Eyles of Avalare Health, a consulting firm, says although officials wanted "to be able to make sure that all the systems were operational in 2014, they realized that they needed to give an extra year to get those systems changes in place."

Officials intend to try again next year.

Additional benefits cost more, though, meaning premiums would have to rise, or the networks of providers would shrink even further.

Well, surprised that lifesite news still advertises themselves on FB. Rolling Eyes

Nonetheless, yet another reason to get ride of your FB account(if you have one, that is).

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Donates $992 Million to Charity Funding Planned Parenthood

Philanthropy magazine released an article titled “A Look at the 50 Most Generous Donors of 2013.” Topping the list was Facebook CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, pediatrician Priscilla Chan.

In 2013 the couple donated 18 million shares of Facebook valued at $992.2 million to the Silicon Valley Community Foundation in Mountain View, California. The couple previously donated 19 million Facebook shares to the same foundation in 2012.

The Silicon Valley Community Foundation describes its organization as a “comprehensive center of philanthropy.” They partner with donors to fund for profit and non-profit organizations around the globe. On their website you can see a list of words that describe the values of their company. The first word listed is “collaboration.”

This word summarizes the work of Silicon Valley Community; they work as a middle-man between donors and companies, making it easy for donors to get their funds into organizations they support. They accept a number of assets such as real estate, stock, and mutual funds and offer their donors customized philanthropy services.

One of the organizations Silicon Valley Community Foundation collaborates with is Planned Parenthood. A copy of their 2012 Public Disclosure is available for online viewing. The disclosure reports that the SVCF donated over $480,000 to Planned Parenthood in 2012 alone. The donations benefited Planned Parenthoods in multiple cities: San Antonio, TX; New York, NY; San Jose, CA; Jacksonville, FL; and Burlington, VT.The donations ranged in amount from $5,000 to $361,750.

Donations were earmarked under broad terms such as “health,” “supporting families,” and “building community.” The annual donations to Planned Parenthood have almost doubled from 2011, when the SVCF report shows that SVCF gave close to $250,000.

Although Zuckerberg hasn’t publicly commented on the programs their gift will support, he did say their philanthropy would focus on children. Zuckerberg and his wife have every right to spend their money as they see fit. I’m grateful that they are donating to assist children in need. I only hope none of their funds will end up in the big pockets of Planned Parenthood.

As for Silicon Valley Community Foundation, they should cut ties with the taxpayer-funded abortion giant and funnel donations into the hundreds of Pregnancy Resource Centers, Crisis Pregnancy centers and homes for mothers. The Silicon Valley Community Foundation currently has assets of $2.9 billion, more than 1,600 philanthropic funds under management and over 60 local nonprofit partners. One can only dream of the impact those resources could have if directed into pro-life, pro-family, pro-women organizations. Perhaps someone should write Zuckerberg a letter.

South Dakota Lawmakers Reject Bill Banning Dismemberment of Babies During Abortions

Lawmakers in South Dakota rejected a bill on Thursday that would have banned the practice of dismembering and decapitating babies during abortion procedures.

H.B. 1241 was struck down by an 11-1 vote, including three of its sponsors who decided to table the measure.

The legislation provided criminal penalties for any doctor who intentionally injured an unborn child, and in some cases, placing them behind bars for life.

“No licensed physician may knowingly dismember a living unborn child with the intent of endangering the life or health of the child,” it read. “A violation of this section is a Class 2 felony. If a violation of this section involves the separation of the skull from the spine, then the penalty is a Class B felony.”

The legislation also outlined that the term dismember was defined as using any ”instrument or procedure for the purpose of disconnecting any bones at their joint, completely severing any bones, or removing any organs or limbs, including the spinal cord, arms, legs, and internal organs.”

“It just makes clear that a certain procedure that is totally horrific and gruesome to any reasonable person would not be an acceptable method of ending a child’s life, and that is to dismember or decapitate a living, unborn child,” sponsor Isaac Latterell (R-Tea) told the Argus Leader.

Latterell also wrote in a blog post that while the bill does not outlaw abortion altogether, he believes many practices are inhumane and must be exposed.
Connect with Christian News

“Imagine discovering that it was actually a veterinarian who regularly ripped the heads off of puppies and crushed their skulls. It would be hard to decide whether to call the police or to deal with the veterinarian yourself,” he wrote. “Now suppose you discovered that doctors regularly ripped the heads off of babies and tore apart their limbs while they were still alive. What would you do?”

“I will not sit silently by as our children’s lives are devalued to a place lower than dogs,” Latterell pledged.

But Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute said that the bill served as a back door means to effectively end abortion.

“It looks like it’s trying to ban abortion using language that is completely unfamiliar and very inflammatory,” she told the Huffington Post.

“Of course, pro-abortion groups say the bill is ‘inflammatory,’” Jennifer Mason of the pro-life group Personhood USA told reporters. “But why isn’t it the actual killing of innocent unborn babies that is inflammatory?”

“The text of the bill should be required reading for everyone in the country,” she stated. “[It's] what abortionists do to babies everyday in America.”

The majority of abortion procedures involve dismembering unborn children, including during the first trimester, where suction aspiration tears the baby into pieces through force.

As previously reported, last May, Dr. Anthony Levantino, a former abortionist who performed over 1,000 abortions over his tenure, also testified before Congress regarding the procedure used during a second trimester abortion, known as dilation and evacuation.

“Picture yourself reaching in with the Sopher clamp and grasping anything you can,” he said. “Once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard—really hard. You feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg about six inches long.”

“Reach in again and again with that clamp,” Levantino continued, “and tear out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs.”

“Many times a little face will come out and stare back at you,” he recalled.

The lone lawmaker to vote in favor of the South Dakota measure was Representative Manny Steele (R-Sioux Falls).

Judge sides with Kansas doctor in abortion case

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — A Kansas judge has overturned the state medical board's revocation of a doctor's license over her referrals of young patients for late-term abortions.

Shawnee County District Judge Franklin Theis ruled that State Board of Healing Arts failed to show that mental health exams provided by Dr. Ann Kristin Neuhaus in 2003 were inadequate. In a ruling that became public Monday, the judge ordered the board to reconsider its sanctions.

The board in 2012 revoked Neuhaus' license to provide charity care over her exams of 11 patients, ages 10 to 18, nine years earlier. The board had ratified the decision of a hearing officer, who concluded Neuhaus failed to meet accepted standards of medical care because her records did not show that she had done thorough exams.


Federal judge strikes down Arkansas early abortion ban

LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas (Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday struck down an Arkansas law that would ban most abortions starting at 12 weeks of pregnancy, one of the most restrictive such statutes enacted in the United States, declaring the measure unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled that the law "impermissibly infringes a woman's Fourteenth Amendment right to elect to terminate a pregnancy before viability" of the fetus, as established by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Webber had previously barred enforcement of the measure while she reviewed a legal challenge to it brought by two Arkansas abortion providers.

As enacted, the Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act would have banned most abortions at or after 12 weeks of pregnancy, if a fetal heartbeat could be detected by standard ultrasound.

Doctors who were found to violate the statute risked having their licenses revoked by the state medical board.

Exemptions were allowed in cases where the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, if the life of the mother were in danger, or in cases of a gross fetal abnormality that made its survival impossible.

Webber's decision let stand the law's requirement that a woman seeking an abortion first undergo an ultrasound to determine whether a fetal heartbeat is present.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the doctors in the lawsuit, applauded Wright's ruling.

"This ban would have inserted politicians into the deeply personal medical decisions of Arkansas women," said Rita Sklar, president of the organization's Arkansas chapter.

State Senator Jason Rapert, the primary sponsor of the measure, said he was "disturbed" by the ruling but added that the outcome "was not unexpected because of the posture of our courts for the last 40 years."

Rapert said he nonetheless was gratified that Wright had let stand "one of the strongest informed consent laws in the nation."

Governor Mike Beebe of Arkansas, a Democrat, vetoed the law after it was passed by the Republican-controlled state legislature in March 2013, citing its conflict with Supreme Court doctrine, but his veto was overridden.

The Arkansas attorney general, Dustin McDaniel, who had echoed Beebe's reservations about the bill, said he had not decided whether the state would appeal Wright's decision.

Rapert said he had urged McDaniel to defend the law, and said a national anti-abortion organization had volunteered to undertake the appeal "at no cost to the Arkansas taxpayers" if the attorney general would designate the group as "special counsel."

Alabama lawmakers earlier this month approved similar legislation. North Dakota passed a fetal heartbeat law last year that critics said could effectively ban abortions as early as six weeks after conception, but that measure was blocked by a federal judge in July.

About a dozen states, including Arkansas, have enacted prohibitions on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, though some of those measures have also been enjoined by federal courts.

Aborted babies incinerated to heat UK hospitals
The remains of more than 15,000 babies were incinerated as ‘clinical waste’ by hospitals in Britain with some used in ‘waste to energy’ plants The bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated as clinical waste, with some even used to heat hospitals, an investigation has found.

CJ wrote:
Aborted babies incinerated to heat UK hospitals
The remains of more than 15,000 babies were incinerated as ‘clinical waste’ by hospitals in Britain with some used in ‘waste to energy’ plants The bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated as clinical waste, with some even used to heat hospitals, an investigation has found.

From what I understand, PepsiCo's products have aborted fetal tissues in them.

Sick! No wonder why this land is cursed.

US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld Texas' tough abortion restrictions that have forced the closure of nearly 20 clinics around the state, saying the new rules don't jeopardize women's health.

A panel of judges at the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court judge who said the rules violate the U.S. Constitution and served no medical purpose. Despite the lower court's ruling, the appeals court already had allowed some rules to go into effect while it considered the case. The latest decision means more regulations will begin later this year, as scheduled, and sets the case up for a likely appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In its opinion, the appeals court said the law "on its face does not impose an undue burden on the life and health of a woman."

Planned Parenthood, which sued to block the law, called the ruling "terrible" and said that "safe and legal abortion will continue to be virtually impossible for thousands of Texas women to access."


Question Didn't they say TX's new abortion restrictions law are so strict, that 19 facilities closed? But somehow THIS?
New abortion clinic planned for Texas as law closes facilities

DALLAS (Reuters) - Planned Parenthood will open a $5 million surgical abortion facility in San Antonio in a few months as other providers have been forced to close because of stringent restrictions passed by Texas lawmakers last year.

The facility is expected to be completed by September, when new restrictions take effect, imposing surgical center standards for abortion clinics, even those that perform nonsurgical medication abortions.

Opponents of the regulations said they are a veiled attempt to shut clinics by imposing unnecessary and costly requirements, while supporters maintain they are aimed at protecting women's health and should be adopted by other states.

Since Texas enacted the law, which requires a physician to have admitting privileges at an appropriately equipped hospital within 30 miles, a third of clinics in the state have been closed, leaving 19 for a population of 26 million.

Once the ambulatory surgical center regulation goes into effect on September 1, only about six abortion clinics would likely be able to meet all of the new requirements, Planned Parenthood said. The six would be in San Antonio, Houston, Austin, Dallas and Fort Worth.

**Which is pretty much all of the big cities in TX, save maybe El Paso.

"Women may have the right to legal abortion in theory, but in practice, this right is vanishing for many women in Texas," Planned Parenthood South Texas spokeswoman Mara Posada said on Thursday.

More states have passed abortion restrictions during the last two years than in the previous decade, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group supporting the right to abortion whose reports are cited by both sides in the debate.

Texas, seen as an incubator of conservative policies, has garnered a great deal of attention because its regulations have so far survived court challenges while many others have not.

**Like I mentioned in other threads - TX is NOT this "conservative" state everyone tries to make it out to be. There are ALOT of megachurches here(ie-John Hagee, Ed Young Jr, Joel Osteen, just to name a few of the reprobates). With that being said - yes, I find it strange how other states haven't survived court challenges with this like TX has - maybe it's part of their Hegelian Dialectic game, I don't know.

"Texas has shown to other states what happens when restrictions are allowed to go into effect," said Elizabeth Nash, state issues manager for the Guttmacher Institute.

Two neighboring states - Oklahoma and Louisiana - are proposing similar admitting privileges restrictions, with the Oklahoma House of Representatives approving the measure by a wide margin last month.

**Didn't OK recently strike down its SSM ban, and allow a statute of Satan on state property? Isn't Louisiana predominantly runned by Catholics? Pt being that don't ignore the elephant in the room.

Last year, Texas was one of four states that adopted an admitting privileges requirement. Alabama and Wisconsin laws are currently blocked by pending litigation. North Dakota's only abortion facility was able to secure admitting privileges and remain open, the Guttmacher Institute said.

Admitting privileges allow a doctor, who is typically recognized as a staff member of a hospital, to admit a patient to that facility. It is common sense to make that a requirement for abortion providers, according to Joe Pojman, director of the anti-abortion group, Texas Alliance for Life.

"In the event of a serious complication from an abortion, the physician should be able to follow the patient to the emergency room to continue caring for his or her patient," Pojman said.

The provisions effectively shut down many abortion clinics in rural areas in Texas, a large state where hospitals are far removed from many clinics.

The Texas Hospital Association, which represents more the 400 hospitals, called the restrictions unnecessary because women experiencing abortion complications already can go to a hospital emergency room and be treated.

University Exhibit Celebrates Abortion as a ‘Life-Sustaining Act’

A display at the University of Michigan is raising concern among pro-life groups nationwide as it celebrates abortion as a ‘life-sustaining act’ that its creator believes is a ‘gift from God.’

“’4000 Years for Choice’ is an exhibition of posters about the age-old practices of abortion and contraception as a means to reclaim reproductive freedom as a deeply personal and life-sustaining act existing throughout all of human history,” a description on the university website outlines.

**So are they pushing for "religious freedom" too? Seriously - this has been the rotten fruit of this "religious freedom" agenda - God is NOT a respecter of persons!

The display was created by abortion activist Heather Ault, who reportedly was paid $1,000 to provide a lecture on campus surrounding reproduction and erect her art display on the topic.

“Contrary to what they are saying this display is not about pro-choice or even pro-abortion. This is about the history of women learning to control their reproductive system,” an unnamed university representative told Students for Life of America in a telephone conversation. “Heather is trying to get past the hanger and the idea of back alley dirty abortions and celebrate the ways women, and men for that matter, can control their reproductive system through birth control and even by aborting a fetus.”

The display features several posters that celebrate the different methods of contraception and abortion throughout history. Note cards created by Ault, which are not confirmed to be included in the exhibit, also assert that “abortion is a gift from God” and is “pro-family, pro-life, moral and good.”

“In 3000 BCE, ancient Egyptians contained a contraceptive recipe numbered Prescription Number 21,” one poster, entitled Affirm Ancient Contraception, reads. “It was called Recipe Not To Become Pregnant and called for crocodile feces, mixed with fermented dough, and placed in the ****.”

“Advocated by Emma Goldman and Margaret Sanger, they were sold widely through mail-order catalogues,” another poster, entitled Bless the Diaphragm, reads. “In 1884, Dr. Edward Bliss Foote wrote in his book Medical Common Sense, ‘It places conception entirely under the control of the wife, to whom it naturally belongs; for it is for her to say at what time and under what circumstances, she will become the mother, and the moral, religious, and physical instructress of offspring.’”

The exhibit, which is displayed in the main lobby of Lane Hall at the Women’s Studies building on campus, is sponsored by the Program for Sexual Rights and Reproductive Justice, the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Penny W. Stamps School of Art and Design.

“Why is the University of Michigan using taxpayer funds that declare that ‘abortion is a gift from God?’ Do they support this message?” asked Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life of America. “Abortion is never safe for women, legal or illegal, and for the University of Michigan to have the audacity to use taxpayer dollars and a taxpayer-funded building to push forth an agenda and human rights violation that the majority of Americans oppose is disgusting.”

Although the exhibit will remain on display until May 29th, Hawkins is calling for pro-life supporters across the nation to ask the university to remove the project from Lane Hall and ensure that only private funding is used in the future. Confused

Appeals court halts enforcement of Arizona abortion drug curbs

(Reuters) - A federal appeals court sided with abortion rights advocates on Tuesday in temporarily blocking Arizona from enforcing regulations that restrict access to abortion-inducing drugs by prohibiting off-label uses.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco issued a preliminary injunction stopping enforcement of the statute while opponents, including Planned Parenthood, sought to overturn it in court.

The FDA has approved RU-486, the so-called "abortion pill," for use within seven weeks' gestation. Doctors who have prescribed it later than that have made an off-label use that is not allowed under the Arizona rules.

At issue in this case is a physician's discretion to go "off-label" and use the drug as the doctor believes best in the circumstances.

Planned Parenthood and the Tucson Women's Center sued to overturn the rules and sought a temporary restraining order to stop them from going into effect while the lawsuit was being litigated.

They argued that the regulations could force women to travel to other states or prevent them from getting the procedure altogether.

"This means that women in Arizona will continue to have access to a safe, legal method of abortion for now. We hope the court will ultimately rule to protect the health and safety of women," Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Cecile Richards said after the 9th Circuit's ruling.

"If implemented, these misguided restrictions would force doctors to provide inferior, outdated, and less effective care to their patients - rather than providing care based on their expertise and 13 years of research in the medical field," Richards said.

The stay by the 9th Circuit comes after a federal judge in Arizona had refused earlier this week to block implementation of the rules.

A spokeswoman for the anti-abortion Center for Arizona Policy earlier has called that judge's decision denying a stay a "victory for women." Representatives for the center could not be reached for comment on Wednesday afternoon.

The rules were part of a package of items included in legislation signed into law by Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer in 2012, in what has been a continuing effort to seek ways to limit abortions in the southwestern state.

A provision at the heart of the law, banning abortions from 20 weeks gestation except in medical emergencies, was struck down last year by a federal court, but the drug provision remains intact.

In Arizona, the latest figures show that 32 percent of the 13,340 abortions performed in 2012 were non-surgical - all but a small percentage using RU-486, or mifepristone.

10 minute video - this is Good Old Fashion PREACHING, and the way it SHOULD be, in front of a Planned Parenthood event!(and not some MERE ranting and raving over abortion alone)

The Real problem is the Heart

Hebrews 10:14  For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Heb 10:15  Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
Heb 10:16  This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17  And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18  Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

Jude 1:3  Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Pro-lifers alarmed by Sen. Rand Paul’s abortion comments

A national pro-life group is raising questions about Sen. Rand Paul’s commitment to opposing abortion — potentially foreshadowing one of the chinks in the Kentucky Republican’s armor as he lays the foundation to run for the GOP nomination for president in 2016.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said Mr. Paul’s recent remarks on abortion during an appearance with former White House adviser David Axelrod at the University of Chicago Institute of Politics “certainly set off alarm bells for social conservatives.”

“Sen. Paul surprised a lot of conservatives with his nonchalant attitude on abortion and his role in ending it,” Mr. Perkins said in his most recent Washington Update post, titled “Rand Casts a Paul over Life Debate.” “As president, Axelrod wanted to know, how hard would his White House push to overturn Roe v. Wade? The Senator’s answer: not much. With the country so evenly divided on the issue, he thinks an incremental approach is best.”

Mr. Paul said that the debate is about “when life begins and we may not all have the same answer on it.”

Mr. Axelrod prodded Mr. Paul on the issue.

“There are two extremes,” Mr. Paul told him. “Where we are now is an extreme where there is no real regulation of abortion during entire gestation and then there are people on the other side who say, ‘Well, I don’t want any abortion during any of the thing without exceptions.’ Then there are people who say, ‘I want abortion without exceptions.’ “

“My personal religious belief is that life begins at the very beginning,” said Mr. Paul, who is sponsoring the Life Begins at Conception Act.

Mr. Paul said the country is split between those who say “all life and no abortion” and those who say “all abortion and no life.”

“I think where the country is, is somewhere in the middle, and we are not changing any of the laws until the country is persuaded otherwise,” he said.

Mr. Perkins said the comments are concerning for social conservatives and said surveys show that the majority of the nation is pro-life.

“Obviously, no president has the power to unilaterally ban abortion, but he does have the power to make the issue a priority — something most Americans assumed Rand Paul would do,” he said. “Regardless of the GOP’s pick, conservatives expect their nominee to use the Oval Office to advance a culture of life. Changing minds is important, but what better way to accomplish it than using a national platform to talk about its importance?”

Read more:
Woman Who Had Abortion Before Roe v. Wade: ‘All I See Is Things Getting Worse’

Four years ago, Fran Moreland Johns realized that she better write her abortion story down so that young women could read it. “I decided to record some of the stories of people like me, who had abortions before Roe, because we’re dying off!” Moreland Johns explained.

But when she started doing the research for a potential book, and collecting stories from women who had chosen to have risky abortions, her focus quickly changed. She realized that writing about unsafe abortions didn’t just involve talking to women who ended a pregnancy four decades ago. Young women today are still having similar experiences, even while Roe v. Wade stands.

“I very quickly began hearing the same stories happening right now — and I thought, oh my lord, we’re going right back there,” Moreland Johns said. “So it became more of a cause than a book.”

Moreland Johns’ book, Perilous Times: An inside look at abortion before — and after — Roe v. Wade, ended up including a mix of stories from women of all ages. For instance, one of the women who agreed to be interviewed, Trish, had an illegal abortion in 1946 with the help of a compassionate physician who recorded it as an appendectomy. Another interview subject, Rachel, landed in the hospital in 2009 after she took an abortion-inducing drug obtained by her boyfriend. Carol, a mother of four, had an illegal abortion in the early 1960s after she became pregnant in the midst of going through a divorce. Meanwhile, Mandy didn’t have the money for a legal abortion in 2009 and now has two children under the age of two with serious health problems.

You don’t have any choices. So you do desperate things.

“I hate to be a pessimist, but all I see is things getting worse,” Moreland Johns said. “What propelled Roe was that we had dead women everywhere. It became hard for anybody to ignore the fact that people were dying because they didn’t have safe options. Now, people are still dying, but it’s different. It may not be a problem in major cities. But if you’re poor, if you’re a minority, if you live too far away — you don’t have any choices. So you do desperate things.”

That may be supported by Moreland Johns’ anecdotal evidence, but it’s also backed up by research in the field. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the global rate of unsafe abortions has actually been on the rise since 1995. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there’s a direct relationship between the countries with harsh abortion bans and the countries where women are resorting to dangerous methods of ending a pregnancy. Even though abortion is technically legal in this country, the United States isn’t exempt from this trend. Women here are increasingly buying abortion-inducing drugs on the internet and trying to end pregnancies on their own.

This is a particularly big problem in areas with high rates of poverty and significant barriers to legal abortion clinics. For instance, the rate of self-induced abortions in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley — an impoverished border community that lacks access to basic health services — is one of the highest in the nation. Now that Texas has enacted harsh new restrictions on abortion that are forcing dozens of clinics to close, the situation is getting even worse. Women are increasingly crossing the border into Mexico to buy abortion pills on the black market.

**Yes, the whole hoopla in the TX legislature last year passing this massive anti-abortion bill AND Wendy Davis ranting all night was just that...a SMOKESCREEN! Be ye not deceived by these illusions...

“Those are the people who are hurt. They’re poor, they’re rural, they don’t have any power,” Moreland Johns pointed out. “That’s what moves me and keeps me moving on this.”

They’re poor, they’re rural, they don’t have any power.

And just like doctors in the decades before Roe had to pretend to perform a different procedure in order to help women end a pregnancy, some medical professionals are still unable to provide safe abortion care out in the open. The anti-choice community has turned its attention to abortion doctors, attempting to make it too difficult for them to continue practicing, and unnecessary regulations are increasingly resulting in doctors’ licenses getting yanked. In order to ensure women don’t die from black market abortion drugs, doctors can legally provide “miscarriage management” even if they’re not allowed to perform abortions.

It makes sense, then, that the women who had abortions before Roe aren’t the only ones noticing a dangerous effort to roll back those rights. Last year, a group of one hundred OB-GYNs published an op-ed warning that women’s access to legal abortion has regressed further than doctors who were alive during the 1970s believed would ever be possible.

Moreland Johns doesn’t have a background in activism, and she says she didn’t set out to do anything dramatic. But she wanted to help women tell their stories, and try to put a human face on the desperate need for legal abortion rights.

“You didn’t talk about it in the olden days, and I’m afraid people still don’t,” Moreland Johns, who shared her own abortion story for the first time in Perilous Times, noted. “There’s still a huge amount of shame and guilt attached to having had a perfectly legal abortion for perfectly good reasons. That’s part of what slows down the movement for rights, and I think we have to change that.”

Other reproductive rights advocates agree. There’s a growing movement to eliminate the persistent stigma surrounding abortion by creating safe spaces for women to tell their stories. Activists are encouraging the estimated one in three U.S. women who have had abortions to help other people understand that it’s an issue that impacts a huge swath of the country — and eventually encourage policy change in this area.

I hope we don’t ever give up and abandon women as they were abandoned before 1973.

And some women like Moreland Johns, who had abortions before the procedure was legalized, are using their stories as cautionary tales to remind Americans that 1.2 million women used to resort to unsafe abortions every year before Roe v. Wade.

“We can’t ban it and have it go away. If we ban it, people will die,” Moreland Johns said. “I hope we don’t ever give up and abandon women as they were abandoned before 1973. That’s my hope.”

Star of ‘YouTube Abortion’ Video is a Horror Movie Actress

Posted By admin On May 6, 2014 @ 3:33 pm In Featured Stories,Paul Watson Articles,Tile | No Comments

Emily Letts featured in slasher film about children being slaughtered

Paul Joseph Watson
May 6, 2014

Widespread revulsion in response to a video in which a woman celebrates her abortion by putting the video on YouTube is very apropos given that its star, Emily Letts, is an actress whose most recent movie was a horror flick centered around the slaughter of children.

Letts’ story went viral today [1] after she penned a Cosmopolitan piece describing her decision to film her abortion and post it on YouTube as an “inspiration” for other women who are scared or guilty about terminating their pregnancy.

However, the most common reaction to the clip was abject disgust given that in the video Letts virtually celebrates killing her baby, smiling and humming throughout the procedure while describing herself as “lucky,” enjoying what she later described as “a special memory for me”.

At the end of the abortion, Letts blithely exclaims “Yay!….Cool. I feel good,” before explaining how she kept a sonogram of the baby as a memento.

Letts’ treatment of the abortion, which at the very least should be undertaken in a somber and regretful manner, as some kind of positive achievement prompted widespread denunciation.

Many will find it ironic – or just plain sick – that Letts is an actress [2] who most recently played a role in a late night horror flick called Hallows’ Eve [3], a low budget “slasher” movie in which teenagers are violently murdered by a vengeful killer.

She also took a role in a 2010 movie called Clap on Clap Off [4] about a girl who “discovers that she has gonorrhea in her throat”. In a clip [5] from the film, Letts states, “the best way to get over someone is to get under someone else”.

The fact that Letts is an actress based in Philadelphia was also highlighted by [6].

Given that she’s an actress from Philly, some will even question the legitimacy of Letts’ story. Was she put up to the publicity stunt by someone else or was the entire performance entirely of her own making?

Whatever the case, her story has attracted widespread condemnation even from many on the left, who are equally disgusted at the practice of abortion being celebrated even if they support a woman’s right to choose.

A Huffington Post poll [7] is currently running 60-40 in favor of a majority who think that Letts’ PR stunt was “delusional” and that “an abortion is never a ‘positive experience”.

Report: 1 in 3 Babies Aborted in Detroit

A new report about the high number of abortions in Detroit, considered by many to be a failed city because of its financial devastation, reveals that an estimated 31 percent of pregnancies there end in abortion, what one doctor compared to the worst rates on earth.

“We’re seeing a picture that looks more like some Third World country than someplace in the United States,” Dr. Susan Schooley, head of the Department of Family Medicine at Henry Ford Hospital, told The Detroit News.

Among the worst abortion rates around the globe are repressive nations like Vietnam, where there are 83 abortions per 1,000 women, the Russian Federation, where the rate is 68, and Ukraine, where the rate is 57 per 1,000 women.

Continue reading this story >>
Arizona Abortion Restrictions To Remain Blocked

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The nation's strictest rules on the use of abortion drugs are likely to be struck down and will continue to be blocked while a lawsuit against them plays out, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Arizona regulations appear to be an unconstitutional "undue burden on a woman's right to abortion" and kept in place its injunction on them. The decision reverses a lower court ruling that found the rules legal.

Planned Parenthood Arizona and the Tucson Women's Center are challenging the regulations, which would ban women from taking the most common abortion-inducing drug — RU-486 — after the seventh week of pregnancy. Women had been allowed to take the abortion pill through nine weeks of pregnancy.

The rules also require that the drug be administered only at the FDA-approved dosage and that both doses be taken at a clinic. The usual dosage is lower, and it's normally taken at home, decreasing the cost and chance of complications.


Free birth control becoming standard for women

WASHINGTON (AP) — More than half of privately insured women are getting free birth control under President Barack Obama's health law, a major coverage shift that's likely to advance.

This week the Supreme Court allowed some employers with religious scruples to opt out, but most companies appear to be going in the opposite direction.

Recent data from the IMS Institute document a sharp change during 2013. The share of privately insured women who got their birth control pills without a copayment jumped to 56 percent, from 14 percent in 2012. The law's requirement that most health plans cover birth control as prevention, at no additional cost to women, took full effect in 2013.

The average annual saving for women was $269. "It's a big number," said institute director Michael Kleinrock. The institute is the research arm of IMS Health, a Connecticut-based technology company that uses pharmacy records to track prescription drug sales.

The core of Obama's law — taxpayer-subsidized coverage for the uninsured — benefits a relatively small share of Americans. But free preventive care— from flu shots to colonoscopies —is a dividend of sorts for the majority with employer coverage.

Expanded preventive coverage hasn't gotten as much attention as another bonus for the already insured: the provision that allows young adults to remain on their parents' policy until they turn 26. That may start to change with all the discussion of birth control.

Business groups and employee benefits consultants say they see little chance that employers will roll back contraceptive coverage as a result of the Supreme Court ruling. The court carved out a space for "closely held" companies whose owners object on religious grounds. Most companies don't fit that niche.

"I don't think you will see a broad impact," said Neil Trautwein, the top employee benefits expert for the National Retail Federation. "It's a commonly offered benefit for many employers, including retailers."

The court decision involved "a very unique set of facts," Trautwein added. "Intense religious beliefs, closely held companies and the vehement objection to contraceptive coverage."

Before the Supreme Court ruling, some "grandfathered" plans unchanged since the health care law passed were already exempt from covering prevention at no cost, but that number is expected to shrink over time as employers make coverage changes.

IMS says it is still too early to discern the health care law's ultimate impact on birth control.

At least for now, it doesn't seem like more women are going on birth control because it's free. The number of prescriptions for oral contraceptives that were filled grew in 2013, but at about the same rate as in recent years.

There's also not much evidence of a shift to costlier long-acting contraceptives, such as hormonal implants. More reliable than the pill, they are gaining popularity in other economically advanced countries.

"Awareness of the provisions of the law has not been very clear sometimes," said Kleinrock. "Certainly this is something we are going to be watching."

Birth control use is virtually universal in the United States, but about half of all pregnancies are still unplanned. Forgetting to take the pill is a major reason.

As recently as the 1990s, many health insurance plans didn't even cover birth control. Protests, court cases and new state laws changed that. Obama's law is taking it another step.

Many medical groups see a strong rationale for free birth control. Contraception can help make a woman's next pregnancy healthier by spacing births far enough apart, generally 18 months to two years. Closely spaced births carry a risk of such problems as prematurity, low birth weight, even autism. And even modest copays for medical care can discourage its use.

"It's one of the most concrete ways that women have seen that the Affordable Care Act is helping them," said Amy Allina, deputy director of the National Women's Health Network, an advocacy that supports the law's requirement. Forum Index -> HEALTH and Medical NEWS Page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum