Category Archives: Abortion

Planned “Un-Parenthood” Strikes Again

The organization “Students for Life of America” has released yet another undercover video of a nurse at a New Jersey Planned “Un-Parenthood” facility describing how an abortion would be performed on a 22 week-old unborn child and admitting that some babies survive such abortions.  “It does happen,” the nurse said.

Well, here we are again with another YouTube.com or Eyeblast.tv video (www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=e46UqG8zSU) demonstrating either the illegality (i.e., not reporting minor girls pregnant by adult men) or immorality of Planned “Un-Parenthood” Clinics.

In the SFLA’s video, the nurse explains the late-term abortion procedure to the pregnant woman, while the woman questions the nurse about the details.  “Is the baby alive?” asks the pregnant woman.  “Usually not,” the nurse replies.  The woman asks if the baby could be born alive, to which the nurse responds: “Usually, for the most part no, but it does happen.  It’s an actual delivery,” her explanation continues, “but it wouldn’t be able to survive on its own, so eventually the baby does die.”

According to the Catholic News Agency, Kristan Hawkins, SFLA Executive Director, commented on the video: “I was absolutely stunned when the Planned Parenthood nurse revealed that allowing a baby to die after being born alive is a common practice for abortionists.  This is outright infanticide.”

SFLA has called on Congress to investigate Planned Parenthood, which reportedly receives about $300 million in taxpayer funding each year.  Apparently, there is not a law protecting those who survive abortions.  Critics of such a bill claim that such a law or requirement – to tend to the life birth – would burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.

Oh my gosh, when a human being survives the attempt to destroy them, they are left to die in order not to burden a physician and an almost-mother?  What kind of civilization thinks this way?

I’ll tell you what this is really about: if Planned “Un-Parenthood” saved the lives of babies who survive their abortions, then women would less likely come to them for abortions, and that would hurt Planned “Un-Parenthood’s” bottom line. 

According to National Right To Life (www.nrlc.org/News_and_views/july07/nv071907.html), the dedication of Planned Parenthood to abortion is…apparent: “against 264,943 abortions, Planned Parenthood saw just 12,548 prenatal clients. This means that it was 21 times more likely that a pregnant woman coming into a Planned Parenthood clinic would receive an abortion than receive prenatal care.  In 2005, in its entire nationwide network of over 860 clinics, Planned Parenthood saw just 248 infertility clients.  Put another way, this means Planned Parenthood Federation of America  treated just one infertility patient for every 1,068 abortions it performed.  Adoption services or referrals aren’t even mentioned.”

Planned “Un-Parenthood” is always screeching in its fundraising warning letters that it is about protecting women’s reproductive choices, but what one of its latest service reports shows is how rarely Planned Parenthood’s plans involve parenthood, and just how often they involve abortion, which is why I call it “Planned Un-Parenthood.”

Parental Notification Laws

There have been innumerable skirmishes all over America concerning whether or not parents should get notification, much less a say, in whether their kids can visit the museum of natural history during school hours (usually yes), get their ears pierced (also yes) or have an unborn baby scraped or sucked out of their bodies (ahh…that would be a “NO” if you ask Planned Un-Parenthood, the ACLU, and a host of other ultra-liberal, feminista organizations).

Generally, the concern these organizations present have to do almost solely with the imagined sociopathy of America’s parents: that they will savage or murder their pregnant daughters, or toss them bodily from their homes into the murky night and swampy streets. They have not, however, ever come up with any instances of that happening – but what do facts matter when you want to make sure an abortion is always available when a kid wants one?

For the third time in the last four years, California voters were asked to weigh in on teen abortion, determining whether doctors would be required to notify parents at least 48 hours before performing an abortion on a minor…you hear that?  ON A MINOR CHILD!

There are those who think abortions are so important to the well-being of children that they believe that children are capable of making that decision on their own.  That’s why a piece by Kenny Goldberg (KPBS-FM radio in San Diego) is so blatantly clear on the limitations of the thinking of children.

The Vista Community Clinic in California sees hundreds of teens a month for reproductive health issues.  Mr. Goldberg interviewed some of those teenage girls to see what their opinions and concerns were regarding their parents’ knowing about their abortion appointments.  Here is a typical example: “I don’t think I would tell my parents, because I feel like they would look at me as someone who’s already messed up – like early in my life, and I’d feel like I was a disappointment.”

Hey – that sounds like a valid reason to terminate the life of a baby in one’s body without a parent to talk to about alternatives or to help.

By the way, most of these parental notification initiatives allow for children who come from abusive families to notify another adult relative – like a grandparent or aunt/uncle – or ask a judge for a waiver.

With respect to those options, another teen says “Pregnancy already weighs on you enough.  So to even add court issues to that – that would just be insane – I mean, it would be so much harder to deal with.”

Come on folks – kids who worry about parental disappointment, and the burden of dealing with judges or other adults, clearly are not mature enough to make life-and-death decisions for another human being.

I do know, from my years on the air, that there are many parents who would wholeheartedly support their child’s abortion so that they would get that problem out of the way so their kids could just get on with school and sports.  Unfortunately, they leave their child with a legacy of always knowing they eliminated their first child because of an inconvenience.  That’s better than facing some disappointment or legal procedure?

I believe parents ought to be with their children to help them through any and all crises…from not making the basketball team or cheerleaders, to facing the reality of having created a human life.

Grisly Photos on Anti-Abortion Ads

There were two trucks circling Bradenton, Florida last week.  Displayed on the sides and backs of the trucks were enlarged photos of dead fetuses in various poses.  Needless to say, this caused a bit of a stir.

The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, a Southern California-based anti-abortion group, was established in 1990, and conducts nationwide projects on anti-abortion messages usually involving large billboards, signs and photo murals.  Their initiative is to influence voters to select pro-life candidates.  Bill Calvin, the group’s regional director says, “We studied all the successful movements in American history.  We need to dramatize the injustice we are fighting.”

Pictures are worth a zillion words.  “Choice” or “women’s reproductive rights” are rather benign ways of describing the death of a human being.  In fact, it has been very smart of the pro-abortion folks to use such words and phrases, because in America, issues of choice and rights are very important.  Also, such words distract people from the realities by taking all passion and compassion–as well as horror–away from an act that terminates innocent human life (unlike the death penalty which terminates a guilty human life).

I thought long and hard about what I wanted to say about this truck and its photos, especially since children see them.  Then again, children see blatant sexuality and/or horrific violence on television, music videos and games, magazines, and the Internet.  All of those “every day” visual images don’t have a decent point to make – they are strictly for prurient motivations and making a dollar.

When my son was 5 years old I started teaching him about sex.  I told him that it was a special experience between a husband and wife that brought immense pleasure, good feelings between them, and often… a baby.  I went on to explain that he ought not engage in that behavior – sex – as a child because (a) he couldn’t take care of a wife and child, and (b) because the girl could get an abortion.  He said, “What’s an abortion?”  I replied, “It’s when the baby is taken out of the woman’s body.”  He said, “What happens to the baby?”  I said, “It dies.”  He said, looking astonished, “You mean they waste a perfectly good baby?”  I said slowly…”Yes.”

I have railed against feminist groups and Planned Un-Parenthood who don’t  want to give women who are considering an abortion a sonogram and then a day to think about their decision to terminate, keep or put the baby up for adoption.
    
The feminista types use words like harassment, offensive, disturbing, intimidation, shame and such to protect women from vividly seeing the realities of their baby in their bodies.

The same words have been used for these photographs.  Yes, they are disturbing…and they should offend … the act is offensive.

Planned Un-Parenthood and YouTube Naughty Bedfellows

SFLA, Students for Life of America, are furious because of video of one of their undercover investigations has been pulled from YouTube.  Evidently, according to Kristin Hawkins who heads the organization, “Last week SFLA posted a video on YouTube exposing Planned Parenthood in Charlotte, North Carolina, covering up statutory rape of a 15-year-old girl.”

Here’s the story: a college woman volunteering for SFLA entered a Planned Parenthood clinic in Charlotte, posing as a 15-year-old girl who had unprotected sex with the mother’s adult, shack-up boyfriend.  She told that staff that the stud had suggested she come to Planned Un-Parenthood and get the “morning-after” pill. 
    
Planned Un-Parenthood gave her the pills, and made an appointment for her to start taking birth control pills without parental knowledge or consent.  SFLA also proved that the crime was not reported by PP to local police, which is a violation of North Carolina Law.

According to Ms. Hawkins, YouTube said the tape had inappropriate content – damn right it did: it showed PP breaking laws…that’s pretty inappropriate.  As it turns out, YouTube has also yanked previous pro-life organization videos while it does, according to Ms. Hawkins, continue to play videos which show, for example, a young man desecrating the Eucharist.

To watch SF’s video visit studentsforlife.org

I’m always impressed with the star-studded and blinged out locals who attend the yearly Santa Barbara Planned Un-Parenthood fund raising events even with the ongoing  stream of information demonstrating their cavalier attitude towards minor women pregnant by adult men, their disrespect for parental rights, as well as their resistance to diving full force into the adoption realm.

Abortion Rights Still Popular, But…

Public opinion on the legality of abortion has remained relatively stable for well over a decade, with slight majorities of the public (54%) saying they favor keeping abortion legal.  The “but” is that fewer Americans have tended to express support for making abortion illegal in “all or most cases,” ranging from a low of 36% to a high of 48% over the same period of time. (pewresearch.org)

While men and women are about equally likely to express support for abortion rights (53% of men and 54% of women say it should be legal), women are more likely than men to say abortion should be legal in all cases.  Majorities of most age groups say that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, although support for legalized abortion is somewhat lower among those under age 30 (52%), compared with those aged 50-64 (58% — baby boomers).

According to the Pew Research findings:  “While the public generally tends to support legalized abortion, it is also clear that most Americans harbor concerns about the morality of abortion, and favor certain restrictions on its use.  For instance, most Americans (73%) believe that abortion is morally wrong in nearly “all” (24%) or “some” (49%) circumstances.  Only 24% say abortion is not a moral issue.”

That last group scares me.  Issues of right and wrong don’t pertain at all to the termination of a human life in utero?  I wonder if those same folks are card-carrying members of PETA.  I’m always struck by those who value a chicken over a human being.

Basically, “the public supports abortion when the physical or psychological health of the mother may be in danger, or when the pregnancy results from rape or incest.  Most Americans disapprove of abortion when the circumstances relate to economics, life choices, or a personal preference not to have a child.”  This heartens me.  As goes the value of human life…so goes civilization.

What Exactly Is Abortion?

A new draft regulation (which is still being revised and debated) from the Department of Health and Human Services will label most birth-control pills and intrauterine devices as “abortion,” because they can work by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus.  The regulation would consider those items as devices for destroying “the life of a human being.”  The current administration could enact the regulation at any point without Congressional approval.  The next President will have the power to reverse it.

The regulation’s stated purpose is to improve enforcement of existing Federal laws that protect some medical professionals’ “right to refuse to participate or assist in abortion.”  Evidently, the draft argues that “state laws too often coerce health-care workers into providing services they find immoral: requirements that emergency rooms offer rape victims the ‘morning-after’ pill, insurance plans cover contraception as part of prescription-drug benefits, and pharmacists fill prescriptions for birth control.  The draft regulation would weaken these laws by expanding the right of conscientious objection.” (Wall Street Journal, 7/31/08).

I’ve been aggravated by the objections of “Un”-Planned Parenthood and most women’s activist groups to the required 24 hour waiting period, after a woman receives a consultation and mandated description and visualization of her fetus, before a final decision about abortion is made.  I would equally be aggravated if women were not given sufficient informed consent to know what their options were, including the option of contraception.

If a health-care provider believes in good faith that any of these techniques is “killing a child,” then they have the moral and ethical obligation to make a referral, so that any woman can know all of her legal options.

I’d like Planned Parenthood to put an adoption service in every one of their clinics.

No First Amendment Rights for Conservative Students

I watched an amazing video on YouTube of a University of Wisconsin sophomore and student senator, Roderick King, knocking over 4000 white crosses that “Pointers for Life,” a pro-life club, obtained permission to place on campus grounds.  The display was meant to symbolize the 4,000 unborn babies who are aborted each and every day in the United States of America.

So far, no disciplinary action whatsoever has been taken against Mr. King, and the student government has decided to put the issue off until next semester….uh…that’s in the Fall.  I guess they figure we’ll all forget about it and they don’t have to punish one of “their own.”  Whom do I mean by that?

Ian Ivey, with The Leadership Institute, a conservative organization which trains and places conservative leaders into public policy positions, the media, and schools said:  “It was an astonishing thing to see the video of the student senator just with clearly no respect, no regard at all to either the rights of the students who had set up that display, or the intent of the display and the real meaning of that display.  This is the kind of thing that happens on college campuses on a regular basis, where conservatives face this kind of oppression…mostly from students, but especially from student government associations who are thoroughly dominated by a leftist agenda.”

Planned Parenthood Subsidized by Title X?

According to the Wall Street Journal (5/23/08), The Federal government distributes about $280 million a year among the thousands of clinics to subsidize the cost of birth control, cancer screening, HIV testing and other reproductive care for low-income patients.  Known as Title X, the program serves five million men and women a year.  By law the money can’t be used for abortion procedures.

But about one third of Title X patients receive their care at reproductive health clinics run by Planned Parenthood, which is also the nation’s largest abortion provider.  Critics say the federal grants indirectly subsidize Planned Parenthood’s abortion services by keeping a steady stream of money flowing into the clinics.

President Ronald Reagan imposed rules over two decades ago that barred clinics that received Title X money from performing abortions or referring patients to abortion clinics.  Opponents filed suit, and the regulations were put on hold for years as the court battle played out.  The United States Supreme Court eventually upheld the regulations – but a year and a half later, President Clinton rescinded them.

Since Mr. Bush took office, activists on the right have been pleading with him to reinstate the Reagan-era rules.  In one of his first official acts as President, he imposed restrictions on foreign family-planning aid, preventing U.S. grants from going to groups that perform or promote abortion.  He has declined, however, to implement that rule domestically. 

Planned Parenthood of America relies on government grants and contracts, including Title X, for roughly a third of its nearly $337 million budget, according to its recent financial support.  Before the Bush administration is over, a final push is being waged to pressure the President to use his executive authority to order the change.