The pro-life group Live Action is taking issue with YouTube over allegations of censorship.
Spokeswoman Lila Rose had posted videos proving that a caller offered donations to Planned Parenthood on the basis of using the money to abort black babies; and that the organization accepted the offer, in some cases "gleefully." But YouTube, according to a report from LifeNews.com, has blocked four videos over the past two months, labeling them as "inappropriate content."
"Those videos were up for over seven months. They garnered national media attention," says Rose. "They had together 160,000 views, and in just the past few weeks YouTube, one by one, has been taking them off [and] has been banning them from the website," she argues.
To Rose's knowledge, the videos did not violate YouTube policies. "[W]e are definitely concerned about this censorship. The videos need to be back up," she continues. "They tell an important story for the American public to know about this huge corporation that gets taxpayer money...."
Rose contends that Planned Parenthood receives roughly $300 milllion in taxpayer funds each year.
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - A stillborn Israeli baby who was pronounced dead by doctors "came back to life" on Monday after spending hours in a hospital refrigerator.
The baby, weighing only 600 grams at birth, spent at least five hours inside one of the hospital's refrigerated storage units, before her parents, who had taken her to be buried, began noticing some movement.
"We unwrapped her and felt she was moving. We didn't believe it at first. Then she began holding my mother's hand, and then we saw her open her mouth," said 26-year-old Faiza Magdoub, the baby's mother.
The baby was pronounced dead several hours earlier, after doctors at Western Galilee hospital in northern Israel were forced to abort her mother's pregnancy because of internal bleeding. Magdoub was 23 weeks into her pregnancy.
"We don't know how to explain this, so when we don't know how to explain things in the medical world we call it a miracle, and this is probably what happened," hospital deputy director Moshe Daniel said.
The baby was then taken to the hospital's neonatal intensive care unit for further treatment, but doctors were not sure how long she will live.
Motti Ravid, a professor of internal medicine, told Israel's Channel 10 that the low temperature inside the cooler had slowed down the baby's metabolism and likely helped her survive.
Over the past week and a half we've seen that size does not equal value, level of awareness does not make someone more or less human, where you are has no bearing on who you are, and degree of dependency does not affect personhood.
The end result of this is that the most common arguments for abortion are defeated, and we see that the unborn is human. As humans their life needs to be respected. Abortion is not the way to go about "getting rid of your problem." There are many couples in the world who want to have children but are unable to. Adoption is a great way to give your child life, and save yourself a lot of heartache, while fulfilling the dream of someone else. You have a choice.Choose life.
_______________
For more information visit
Life Training Institute: prolifetraining.com
Stand to Reason: str.org
The past several posts we've seen how size does not equal value, level of self-awareness does not make someone more or less human, and where you are has no bearing on who you are. The last commonly thought of difference between us and the fetus is degree of dependancy. After all, the unborn is dependent on its mother for nutrition. But we see that minors are dependant on their parents or guardians, and the elderly often dependant on their children - or diabetics dependent on insulin. So why would a fetus being dependent on his/her mother make him or her less human? It doesn't. Dependency on someone or something does not make one have more or less human or un-human.
__________________
For more information visit
Life Training Institute: prolifetraining.com
Stand to Reason: str.org
Size does not indicate value, and level of self-awareness does not make someone more or less human. So what is another commonly thought of different between the fetus in the womb, and you? Well, environment, of course! But this also does not affect human nature. You do not change in nature if you walk across the street or if you go to another country or if you visit outer space. So if you can travel these great differences and still remain a human, why would 8 inches down a birth canal suddenly make one human? It doesn't. Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Next time we will look at one more difference between us and the fetus.
_______________
For more information visit
Life Training Institute: prolifetraining.com
Stand to Reason: str.org
Last post I noted how size does not equal value, and does not give us a right to terminate a pregnancy based on how we are larger than the fetus. Another difference that comes to mind regarding fetus' and us is level of self-awareness. This, too, however, is not a good reason to terminate. A 14 year old is more self aware than a 4 year old, but not more valuable. A 40 year old is not more valuable than that same 14 year old, even though he may be more self aware. In the same way a 4 week old from conception is still valuable even if not very self aware. This is true because Self-awareness does not make one human.
Next time we'll look at another commonly thought of difference between us and those in the womb.
_______________
For more information visit
Life Training Institute: prolifetraining.com
Stand to Reason: str.org
What is the difference between you and the fetus in you? One of the first differences that come to mind, but does size really matter? Many say "the unborn is smaller than we are so we can kill it." But that doesn't work too well because, using that logic, next time someone larger than you comes along they have the right to kill you. So we realize that size does not equal value.
We will look at some other differences between us and fetus' in a few days.
_______________
For more information visit
Life Training Institute: prolifetraining.com
Stand to Reason: str.org
Women considering an abortion in South Dakota will receive more complete information about how the procedure will affect their bodies and what will actually happen to their unborn child thanks to a ruling by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
South Dakota passed a law in 2005 requiring abortionists to inform women that the procedure ends the life of a living human being, and that they could suffer physical harm from the procedure as well. Jordan Lorence, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), says Planned Parenthood immediately sued to block implementation of the law.
"They don't want to tell women all the facts because, if women decide not to get abortions based on that total package of information, Planned Parenthood wouldn't get money," Lorence explains. "The doctors, therefore, have a conflict of interest."
A three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit initially blocked the law from going into effect, but the full court recently ruled 8-7 that states can require doctors to provide "truthful, non-misleading" information to women who are considering an abortion -- even if that information may encourage them to choose to let the child live.
"The 8th Circuit realized that there's nothing unconstitutional about this," the ADF attorney comments. "This is not harming women in any way; in fact, it's helping them by giving them more information about abortion." And that all adds up, he says, to good news for those waging the battle on behalf of the unborn.
"[T]here's somewhat of a change -- a thaw, I would suggest -- in the way that the courts are viewing governmental restrictions and regulation of abortion. That's a good thing," notes the attorney. "And they are not just striking down all these laws and leaving Planned Parenthood and the other abortionists virtually unregulated, as they have in the past."
In addition to protecting the health of women and the lives of unborn children, Lorence says another positive change could result from the ruling. "Other state legislatures will probably be more inclined -- especially other states in the Midwest that are [under the jurisdiction of] the same circuit court -- to pass these kinds of informed consent laws," he shares.
Lorence believes the more information about abortion that is available to women, the fewer women will choose abortion.
A year ago today [July 17], Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) stood before Planned Parenthood (PP) and vowed that his first priority as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). According to NARAL Pro-Choice America, FOCA would "codify Roe v. Wade into law and guarantee a woman's right to choose in all 50 states." On April 7, 2007, when Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) introduced the Act in Congress, they knew that it was far more than a government "guarantee" of abortion. If enacted, FOCA would obliterate hundreds of state laws that protect women, parents, children, and health care workers, while forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for millions of abortions. It would overturn commonsense laws like parental notification, conscience protections, abortion waiting periods, informed consent, and regulations for women's health. In essence, FOCA would tilt the table for abortion. Obama's support of FOCA hits particularly close to home among African-Americans, whose women and children have been preyed upon for decades by the eugenically minded PP. This connection has been pointed out again to the NAACP, who held their 99th annual conference with a sizeable pro-life presence. Together with Dr. Alveda King, niece of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., black leaders from across the country demonstrated at the convention where both presidential candidates spoke. The pro-life coalition is part of the growing movement of African-Americans who understand the "biggest struggle for civil rights today is for the rights of the unborn." While the NAACP national leadership and Sen. Obama stubbornly champion the abortion industry, groups like PP are profiting from the disproportionate number of black pregnancies that end inside their walls. Given the devastating effect of abortion on one in every two black pregnancies, shouldn't the NAACP be leading the charge against it? Order Your Copy Now The Top Ten Myths About Abortion Additional Resources William McGurn: The NAACP and Black Abortions
by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor
July 14, 2008 source
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new poll finds half of voters don't know that presidential candidate John McCain is pro-life on abortion or that Barack Obama is pro-abortion. The survey shows that, when pro-life voters know that information, they support McCain by a three-to-one margin.
A new poll from the Pew Research Center finds voters are more interested in the 2008 election than they were the 2004 election, but they are less informed on where the candidates stand.
Pew finds that just 52 percent of voters rightly identify Obama as pro-abortion ("pro-choice" in the poll's terminology") and only 45 percent know John McCain is pro-life on abortion.
A stunning 38 percent of voters don't know where either Obama or McCain stand on the issue of abortion. Some ten percent wrongly identify Obama as pro-life and 17 percent think McCain supports abortion.
This information gap is important and a subsequent question shows whichever side of the abortion debate can frame the candidates first will likely help one of them win the election.
Among pro-life voters who know where the two candidates stand, McCain trounces Obama by a whopping 70-24 percentage point margin. Surprisingly, Obama has a one percent lead (43-42 percent) among pro-life voters who are uninformed about their abortion positions.
On the other side, pro-abortion groups will be working overtime to educate their supporters as well.
That's because Obama leads 71-24 percent among pro-abortion voters who know where the two candidates stand and he has a much smaller 48-40 percent lead among pro-abortion voters who don't.
The Pew poll also found that Democrats and Obama supporters are much more energized about Obama than Republicans and McCain backers are about McCain.
Compared with previous election cycles, voter engagement is up among all demographic groups, but has increased more among voters under age 50 than among older voters.
Uncharacteristically, the youngest voters -- those under age 30 -- are at least as knowledgeable, and in some cases more knowledgeable, about candidates' positions on abortion than are older voters.
The Pew poll found younger voters are more likely to know where the candidates stand on abortion than older voters, evangelicals were more likely than Catholics, and white voters were more likely than black voters to know -- especially concerning McCain.
One pattern that differs from previous surveys of political knowledge is that younger voters are significantly more knowledgeable about the candidates’ positions than are older voters. For example, 60% of voters 18-29 correctly say that Obama is pro-abortion, compared with just 51% of those ages 50-64 and just 41% of those ages 65 and older.
Obama denies protection for infants of botched abortions
Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 7/7/2008 6:00:00 AM
A pro-life activist in Illinois says Barack Obama has repeatedly mischaracterized his opposition to the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act while he was a state senator.
The Federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act was signed into law in 2002 after receiving unanimous support from the U.S. Senate. The measure that forces hospitals to give medical care to abortion survivors -- if warranted -- even received the backing of liberal senators Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts ), Barbara Boxer (D-California), and Hillary Clinton (D-New York).
Obama now says he did not support the Illinois measure because it "lacked the Federal language clarifying the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade."
Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek recently wrote a column for WorldNetDaily.com titled "Obama's biggest lie about supporting infanticide." She points out Obama actively opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act for three years in the Illinois senate.
"He voted against it. He was the sole senator speaking against it on the [Illinois] senate floor [for] two years. And the third year, he held the bill from being considered altogether in committee and killed the bill," Stanek contends.
She says Obama's explanation for opposing the Illinois bill does not pass the straight-face test because, as a committee chairman, he blocked the measure's sponsor from adding the federal language protecting Roe vs. Wade. That federal provision says the bill does not deny or add rights to the species Homo sapiens before birth.
Stanek fought to stop "live-birth abortion" after holding a live aborted baby at a Chicago-area hospital where she worked as a registered nurse.
"Barack Obama is now saying that, had that provision been in the Illinois bill he would have voted for it, which is absolutely false – because in 2003, the senate sponsor tried to add that provision and Barack Obama, as the chairman of the committee where the bill was being held, disallowed him from adding that provision, disallowed me from testifying, disallowed the committee from even voting on it. So, it sat in committee for 22 months," Stanek explains.
She reveals it was not until Obama left the Illinois Senate that the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed in August of 2005.
This is a rather lengthy segment. I haven't had time to watch it yet, but as it was recommended by a trusted source, I, in turn, asked the opinion of a friend who had seen this segment. Again, I was told it was good. This is one episode from the video series Faces of Abortion where women talk about the aftermath of abortion in their lives. Faces of Abortion is produced by The Justice Foundation.
After you watch this episode, leave a comment and let me know what you think!
Note: This commentary was delivered by PFM President Mark Earley.
I have a difficult subject to talk to you about today, but the fact that it is difficult to talk about, and so many people avoid it, makes it all the more important.
You have heard us speak before on this broadcast about the sanctity and dignity of human life. But while it is easy to debate the issues surrounding abortion, it is less frequent that we stop and really think about the women and men who have been touched by it-or even think about how we can offer our compassion and help.
One newly developed outreach is doing just that. The campaign is called Abortion Changes You, and the purpose is to reach out to all those who have been impacted by abortion: from the woman who chose to abort and is still struggling with difficult emotions; to the man who was her partner; to the mom or dad who would have been grandparents, but instead suffer a silent loss; and to the boys or girls who later learn that they will never meet one of their siblings.
Here is the sad fact: One in three women in this country will have chosen to have an abortion by the age of 45. That's right-one in three. Given that, it is likely that you know someone who has been impacted by abortion.
That is why I am grateful that AbortionChangesYou.com and the companion book Changed are now available to begin to offer direct help for these hurting women, men, and children. Both website and book offer help in a way that is non-threatening and non-political, making them accessible to women and men from every walk of life. The book includes testimonies of people who have all been profoundly changed by abortion.
Rarely have I been as moved emotionally as I have been by reading these stories.
There is the teenage girl whose parents insisted she have an abortion; the husband who drove his wife to the abortion clinic against his own better judgment and later watches his marriage unravel. One is about a grandmother who each year, as the date nears of her daughter's abortion, silently mourns the loss of the grandchild she never knew. These stories will change you. They will make you look at this issue differently, just as the experience has changed the people involved.
The founder of the Abortion Changes You movement and author of the book Changed knows full well. Michaelene Fredenburg shares her own experience in the book. She says, "There are still many times that are painful for me. Mother's Day is particularly difficult. The year my child would have graduated from high school was filled with pain. . . . If my child had gone to college, she would have graduated this year. This child would now be a young woman with gifts and abilities, hopes and dreams, her whole life ahead of her. There will always be a hole in my heart," she says, "a hole in the fabric of our family and our community."
Some of you listening may be impacted by these words because abortion has touched your life in a deeply personal way; others of you may be moved to compassion to help others contemplating an abortion or dealing with its aftermath.
Either way, I want to encourage you to visit our website, BreakPoint.org, to find out how you can get a copy of the book Changed or find out more about the Abortion Changes You campaign.
The world's largest Internet search engine has denied a British Christian group's application to advertise because the group's website addresses abortion from a religious perspective.
The Christian Institute -- a United Kingdom-based charity that promotes biblical beliefs -- recently applied to place ads (referred to as "adverts" in Great Britain) on Google UK. But Christian Institute's Mike Judge says they were denied. "[W]e wanted to place [an ad] on the issue of abortion," explains Judge. "And we wanted to advertise some of the articles that are on our website regarding that issue.
The ad would have stated: "UK Abortion Law – Key views and news on abortion from the Christian Institute" – and included a link to the group's website. Currently searching the word "abortion" on Google UK returns paid ads for abortion clinics and pro-abortion lobbying groups, and that is why Google UK's response shocked Judge.
"Google banned the ad," he continues, "[b]ecause they don't allow religious sites to place adverts on the issue of abortion. But they're quite happy to accept abortion adverts from non-religious sites."
Judge believes Google UK's response is an infringement of free speech, which is unlawful under British law. He says even Google admits they rejected the ad based on religion.
But the British Equality Act of 2006 makes it illegal to discriminate on a number of grounds, including religion. The Christian Institutes' attorney has since sent a letter to Google UK demanding that they publish the ad within seven days, and that they pay attorney's fees.
"We have not heard anything back from Google, and it is very rapidly approaching the end of that deadline," says Judge.
If Google fails to respond, Judge says he will "rapidly" proceed with legal action. He adds that the Christian Institute is hopeful this dispute will establish the right of all Christian groups to advertise on Google worldwide, not just in the UK.
Pay close attention to the segment talking about statutory rape and the segment talking about Planned Parenthood's monetary profit. I was simply astounded at the report.
Abort73.com has been an invaluable resource as I studied abortion. You may have noticed this site cited in many of my earlier posts, but I wanted to dedicate a post specifically to this site to bring it to your attention. The opening video makes some very interesting points about abortion and I definitely encourage you all to check out the website!
In 1986, government scientists wrote a letter to the British journal Lancet and acknowledged that abortion is a cause of breast cancer. They wrote, "Induced abortion before first term pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer." (Lancet, 2/22/86, p. 436)
As of 2006, eight medical organizations recognize that abortion raises a woman's risk for breast cancer, independently of the risk of delaying the birth of a first child (a secondary effect that all experts already acknowledge). An additional medical organization, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, issued a statement in 2003 calling on doctors to inform patients about a "highly plausible" relationship between abortion and breast cancer. General counsel for that medical group wrote an article for its journal warning doctors that three women (two Americans, one Australian) successfully sued their abortion providers for neglecting to disclose the risks of breast cancer and emotional harm, although none of the women had developed the disease. Click here for more.
We begin tomorrow's podcast with a heartwarming chat about Father's Day. This post is anything but heartwarming.
A couple of days ago on National Review Online, Katheryn Jean Lopez wrote about the "countless" fathers of aborted unborn babies who'll feel "sadness and regret" this Sunday.
Here's the testimony of one of them Lopez highlights from Kathleen Parker's book, Save the Males: Why Men Matter Why Women Should Care.
With no foreknowledge of the abortion, one man writing on a website writes of "nauseating feelings of helplessness and dereliction of duty. ... " He displays a deep compassion for the child he will never father and the mother of his child. And even while feeling guilt over being party to "the thoughtless and criminally careless conception of a child" and anger for having no choice over what happened next, he expresses a profound sense of regret that he could not protect his girlfriend from the "violent procedure. ... Such a cold, soulless, and brutal experience."
There's a lot to unpack here. It could be that this man's feelings about his role in the abortion aren't all that common. But his "anger for having no choice" is a legitimate issue to consider. And Parker picks up this plight in her book.
More Parker from the article:
"Given that every baby has a father, at least technically, shouldn't men have a voice in the decision to abort? The feminist playbook has an absolute response: No. Men legally have no voice when it comes to abortion, even though the child is theirs to either love or disown. They can neither force a woman to carry a baby to term — Hallelujah! — nor force her to have an abortion. Ibid., chorus. Yet by law, men can be forced to become fathers against their will and held financially responsible until the child reaches adulthood. Is that fair, or is fairness mandated only when women are the beneficiaries?"
The state of parental politics and law today is such that "Woman is arbiter of the life force, while man is reduced to sperm and a wallet."
True. But woman is only the arbiter of life if first the man leads her down the path of fornication.
LONDON - A British baby has now become a cause célèbre for his mother and pro-life advocates in the United Kingdom for miraculously defying twin death sentences from abortion and genetics.
Finley Crampton's birth has overwhelmed his mother, Jodie Percival, who is happy that in the end her baby beat the enormous odds against him to be born a healthy boy.
Percival, 25, had decided to abort baby Finley at 8 weeks, because she carries a gene which triggers multicystic dysplastic kidney (MCDK) - a condition where cysts grow on the kidneys of an unborn baby. The condition is fatal when it affects both kidneys; however patients who have MCDK in one kidney can live normal lives, provided the other is healthy.
Percival's first child, Thane, had died from MCDK just 20 minutes after birth, and her second son, 20-month old Lewis also suffers from the disorder and now has one kidney. Percival and her fiancé Billy Crampton, 35, had been using the contraceptive pill to frustrate pregnancy when they discovered Percival was pregnant again. They opted to abort the baby.
"Deciding to terminate at eight weeks was just utterly horrible, but I couldn't cope with the anguish of losing another baby," Percival, 25, told the UK Daily Mail.
Miraculously, baby Finley survived the abortion attempt. Percival was unaware that her child had survived the abortion until she felt him move in her womb months later. A doctor's scan then confirmed Percival was 19 weeks pregnant.
"I couldn't believe it," said Percival. "This was the baby I thought I'd terminated. At first I was angry that this was happening to us, that the procedure had failed."
Percival first berated the hospital for the failed abortion, which the hospital insisted was a rare anomaly in the business of killing unborn babies.
Although the child in her womb was still under the 24-week limit abortion limit, Percival and Crampton decided to keep the baby, as he had survived the abortion and doctors said he would likely be born healthy with only minor damage from MCDK.
In November 2007, Finley was born three weeks premature, at 6lb 3oz, with just minor kidney scarring; doctors expect he will live a normal healthy life.
"I knew if that operation hadn't failed he wouldn't have been there," Percival told the Mail. "I just couldn't believe that this child had got through it all and looked so perfect."
"I still struggle to believe just what he has fought through. Now he's here I wouldn't change it for the world."
I normally don't comment on movies here, saving that for my other blog, but this was such an excellent movie I had to talk about it here. Bella is the winner of the 2006 People's Choice Award at the Toronto International Film Festival, and is refreshing in it's story and acting. This movie isn't about action and adventure, but it's a movie about life. Everyday life, and how two people cope with theirs. Part of what makes the movie so enjoyable for me is the acting feels real. When watching the movie I wasn't struck with the fake feel I get from so many typical Hollywood movies. This movie feels genuine, the tears and laughter seem real instead of put on to make money. I think a large part of that has to do with the case selected for this movie. They actually believe in the story and it's message, and aren't concerned solely about the money making aspect of the film. That makes this movie all the more real and powerful.
The movie is rated PG-13 (for thematic elements and brief disturbing images) largely for one scene. Most mature children probably 8 or 9 and up should be able to watch the movie and handle it well.
Bella has won several awards in addition to the People's Choice. Along with other accolades Edward James Olmos chose this movie to open the LA International Film Festival. At that time he said, "It is one of the most impressive landmark films to open our festival in 10 years ... a film people have to see, it really captures the heart and makes you think. It is one of the best films to come out in a long time." (emphasis mine)
I certainly agree, and highly recommend this movie. I hope to add Bella to my movie collection very shortly. Official Movie Site
Washington, DC-area resident Emma Jean Butler and her daughter are suing a local Planned Parenthood clinic. The girl became pregnant due to a rape at age 13, and had an abortion at the facility after she turned 14.
The next day, she was rushed to an emergency room where doctors had to repair damage from severe abdominal bleeding, severe injury to the cervix, significant uterine perforation, and a small bowel tear. In addition, parts of the baby were found in the girl's abdomen.
It was tragedy on top of tragedy, says Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life of America, in what she describes as a "poster case for abortion."
"This is what the pro-abortion movement has demanded, that we have legalized abortion in all nine months," notes Hawkins. " ... [T]his is a poster case, and they almost killed this young girl."
The victim will never be able to have children. She and her mother are asking for $50 million in damages.
Planned Parenthood denies the injuries happened, and believe they are not liable because an informed consent document was signed. But Hawkins emphasizes the case is not an isolated one.
--
Thanks to the reader who brought this to my attention! --S.A.
The following is taken from a rather lengthy letter from FotF. Take a look and see much you know about abortion.
...Our staff recently joined with our great friends at the Alliance Defense Fund and Concerned Women for America to create a unique survey called the “Roe IQ Test,” which gauges each respondent’s knowledge and attitudes concerning these infamous 1973 Supreme Court decisions. It includes 12 questions, and I assure you that the answers to several of the questions are surprising. To be honest, when I first saw the test I wasn’t sure I would be able to answer each question correctly myself. I have included the full survey below, and I encourage you to take a few minutes to look it over and consider the questions. ...
The answers to the following questions are included in a separate key at the end of this letter. Please don’t look ahead — see how many of these questions you are able to answer off the top of your head, without doing any outside research.
Now, to the test:
Note: The U.S. Supreme Court’s control over abortion laws is significantly influenced by two 1973 decisions: Roe v. Wade (Roe) and Doe v. Bolton (Doe). To keep things simple, this I.Q test considers both rulings but refers to the better known of the two cases, Roe. So, Roe represents both Roe and Doe in the questions.
1) Which most accurately describes when a woman may have an abortion under Roe? A. Anytime during the first three months (first trimester) of her pregnancy B. Anytime during the first six months (second trimester) of her pregnancy C. Anytime during her entire pregnancy D. Anytime during the first three months, but can have an abortion later if the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest
2) Which best describes the limitations Roe places on why a woman may have an abortion? A. No limitations B. Only in case of rape, incest, or when the woman’s life is in danger C. No limitations during the first three months of pregnancy, but only medically necessary abortions after that
3) True or False. Roe allowed late-term abortions. A. True B. False
4) True or False. If Roe were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, abortion would immediately become illegal in the United States. A. True B. False
5) According to the Centers for Disease Control, about how many abortions have been performed in the United States since the Roe decision in 1973? A. Less than 10 million B. 10-19 million C. 20-29 million D. 30-39 million E. 40-49 million F. 50-59 million G. More than 60 million
6) At what age does Roe require minor girls to have parental notification before an abortion? A. Parental notification is not required B. Girls 18 and younger C. Girls 16 and younger D. Girls 13 and younger
7) True or False. Roe allowed sex-selection abortions — abortions performed because of the sex of the baby (For example: parents wanting a boy instead of a girl — and vice-versa). A. True B. False
8) What percentage of abortions are performed because of rape or incest? A. More than 16 percent B. 11-15 percent C. 6-10 percent D. 2-5 percent E. Fewer than 1 percent
9) Which of our nation’s founding documents contains the phrase “right to an abortion”? A. Declaration of Independence B. U.S. Constitution C. Bill of Rights D. None of the Above E. All of the Above
10) Which Supreme Court Justice said the following about Roe: “Roe v. Wade . . . ventured too far in the change it ordered and presented an inadequate justification for its action.” A. Justice Samuel Alito B. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg C. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor D. Justice Antonin Scalia E. Justice Clarence Thomas
11) Which country’s laws make it easiest to have an abortion? A. Finland B. Great Britain C. Ireland D. United States E. Mexico
12) Under Roe, which of these are allowed to perform abortions? A. Licensed physician B. Nurse practitioner C. Resident assistant D. Registered nurse E. All of the above
Are you confident in your answers to the preceding questions? Now take a look at the key included with this letter to find out how you scored. I missed one question when I first took the survey, giving me a score of 92 percent. Which answer did I get wrong? Question #10 tripped me up, as I did not even consider the possibility that an ultra-liberal justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, could have said anything negative about the Roe decision. But there you have it.
If your schedule permits, we would appreciate you logging onto our online version of the exam and transferring your original answers for official tabulation. This can be found at www.roeiqtest.com. Please note that the online survey includes an additional eight questions that don’t involve “right” or “wrong” answers, but are rather designed to identify certain demographical characteristics of each respondent. By answering Questions 13-20 on our Internet survey, you will help our research staff gain a clearer picture of the beliefs and backgrounds of the survey respondents. Rest assured that you will remain completely anonymous.
Another part of this letter talking about the long-term complications frequently associated with abortion can be found here.
This letter may be reproduced without change and in its entirety for noncommercial and nonpolitical purposes without prior permission from Focus on the Family.
Children are a Heritage from the Lord by Dr. James C. Dobson January 2008
Royal college warns abortions can lead to mental illness
Sarah-Kate Templeton, Health Editor
Women may be at risk of mental health breakdowns if they have abortions, a medical royal college has warned. The Royal College of Psychiatrists says women should not be allowed to have an abortion until they are counselled on the possible risk to their mental health.
This overturns the consensus that has stood for decades that the risk to mental health of continuing with an unwanted pregnancy outweighs the risks of living with the possible regrets of having an abortion.
MPs will shortly vote on a proposal to reduce the upper time limit for abortions “for social reasons” from 24 weeks to 20 weeks, a move not backed by the government. A Sunday Times poll today shows 59% of women would support such a reduction, with only 28% backing the status quo. Taken together, just under half (48%) of men and women want a reduction to 20 weeks, while 35% want to retain 24 weeks.
Some MPs also want women to have a “cooling off” period in which they would be made aware of the possible consequences of the abortion, including the impact on their mental health, before they could go ahead.
More than 90% of the 200,000 terminations in Britain every year are believed to be carried out because doctors believe that continuing with the pregnancy would cause greater mental strain.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists recommends updating abortion information leaflets to include details of the risks of depression. “Consent cannot be informed without the provision of adequate and appropriate information,” it says.
Several studies, including research published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry in 2006, concluded that abortion in young women might be associated with risks of mental health problems.
The controversy intensified earlier this year when an inquest in Cornwall heard that a talented artist hanged herself because she was overcome with grief after aborting her twins. Emma Beck, 30, left a note saying: “Living is hell for me. I should never have had an abortion. I see now I would have been a good mum. I want to be with my babies; they need me, no one else does.”
The college’s revised stance was welcomed by Nadine Dorries, a Conservative MP campaigning for a statutory cooling-off period: “For doctors to process a woman’s request for an abortion without providing the support, information and help women need at this time of crisis I regard almost as a form of abuse,” she said.
Dawn Primarolo, the health minister, will this week appeal to MPs to ignore attempts to reduce the time limit on abortion when new laws on fertility treatment and embryo research come before parliament.
Dr Peter Saunders, general secretary of the Christian Medical Fellowship, said: “How can a doctor now justify an abortion [on mental health grounds] if psychiatrists are questioning whether there is any clear evidence that continuing with the pregnancy leads to mental health problems.”
WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS SICKENING GRAPHIC IMAGES. YOUNG CHILDREN SHOULD NOT READ FURTHER.
Dilate and Evacuate, more commonly known as D&E, is an abortive process that takes place over two to three days. First, the cervix is numbed, and then dilators are inserted to open the uterus. Overnight, these expand.[1] When the dilators are removed the doctor has access into the uterus. S/he then proceeds tears the baby apart by using specialized forceps and the pieces of the child are removed from the womb one at the time. Larger babies’ heads must first often be crushed to fix through the cervix.
The doctor then scraps the wall of the uterus trying to get out all of the remaining pieces from the womb. This is a very dangerous process as the uterus can be punctured, and a punctured uterus means hemorrhaging. After the doctor scraps the uterus, the baby must be reassembled to make sure all of the pieces are been removed from the uterus so infection does not set in.[2] [1] Feminist Women’s HealthCenter
http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/ab-procedures.htm (accessed 18 October 2007)
In 1973, abortion was legalized in America; this decision was made off of lies and hypothetical situations.
Norma McCorvey (see picture), more commonly known as “Jane Roe,” lied about being raped, and, in fact, never had an abortion.[1] By the time abortion was legalized, her child that she was carrying when she started the lawsuit was 2 years old.[2] She now actively speaks out against this "procedure."
The Does’ case for the legalization of abortion was completely hypothetical, as Mrs. Doe was not pregnant or planning on becoming pregnant. Nevertheless, they presented a case for her need for an abortion if she ever became pregnant.[3]
This is the story of abortion's legal beginnings in America.
I lived in Germany during the Nazi holocaust. I considered myself a Christian. I attended church since I was a small boy. We had heard the stories of what was happening to the Jews, but like most people today in this coutnry, we tried to distance ourselves from the reality of what was really taking place. What could anyone do to stop it?
A railroad track ran behind our small church, and each Sunday morning we would hear the whistle from a distance and then the clacking of the wheels moving over the track. We became disturbed when one Sunday we noticed cries coming from the train as it passed by. We grimly realized that the train was carrying Jews. They were like cattle in those cars!
Week after week that train whistle would blow. We would dread to hear the sound of those old wheels because we knew that the Jews would begin to cry out to us as they passed out church. It was so terribly disturbing! We could do nothing to help these poor miserable people, yet their screams tormented us. We knew exactly at what time that whistle would blow, and we decided the only way to keep from being so disturbed by the cries was to start singing our hymns. By the time that train came rumbling past the church yard, we were singing at the top of our voices. If some of the screams reached our ears, we'd just sing a little louder until we could hear them no more. Years have passed and no one talks about it much anymore, but I still hear that train whistle in my sleep. I can still hear them crying our for help. God forgive all of us who called ourselves Christians, yet did nothing to intervene.
Now, so many years later, I see it happening all over again in America. God forgive you as Americans for you have blocked our the screams of millions of your own children. The holocaust is here. the response is the same as it was in my country -- Silence!
The story of an elderly gentleman he told to Penny Lea, quoted in the brochure, "Sing a Little Louder," by Penny Lea.
WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGE AHEAD THAT YOUNG CHILDREN SHOULD NOT VIEW.
Saline Injection is done by inserting a long needle through the mother’s abdomen and then injecting a solution of concentrated salt into the amniotic fluid. The baby dies through salt poisoning, dehydration, hemorrhages, failures of organs, and experiences convulsions. The child’s skin is chemically burned by the salt as well. It can take several hours for the baby to die in this manner. One to two days later the mother goes into labor and delivers her dead child.
WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES AHEAD. CHILDREN SHOULD NOT VIEW THESE.
Around 4,000 women have a particular “procedure” performed every day in America alone. 88% of abortions occur in the first trimester, before the thirteenth week. 1.3 million babies are aborted every year.[1] Almost 50,000,000 unborn babies have been killed since the legalization of abortion in 1973.[2]That is 8x the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust.[3]60x the number of dead in the Rwanda genocide.[4]And it is 42x the number of men and women lost in the Civil, World, Korean, Vietnam, Gulf, and continuing war on terrorism combined.[5] Life ends for an unborn child every 21 seconds.[6] That means that every ten minutes, 28 babies die of an abortion.[7] This is genocide.
information from Pro-life flyer from the North Carolina Right to Life, Inc., published by Heritage House ’76, Inc. Flyer titled: “American War Casualties”
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom: 3,386 dead
U.S. Department of Defense <http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1189> (accessed 27 October 2007)
[6] 60 seconds in a minute, 24 hours a day: 60x24=1440 (minutes in a day).
4,000 unborn die a day: 1440x4000=0.36 (unborn die per minute)
60 seconds in a minute: 0.36x60=21.6 (seconds between the death of the unborn)
[7] 60 seconds in a minute; 10 minutes in the speech: 60x10=600 (seconds in 10 minutes)
21.6 (seconds between the death of the unborn)
600/21.6=27.8 (unborn babies that die in 10 minutes time)
The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) conducted an in-depth study in July 2007 titled “Long-Term Complications Associated with Induced Abortion.” It contains a wealth of extensive research demonstrating the devastating physical and emotional effects of abortion on women. Although there is solid research to verify their conclusions, not surprisingly, these findings have been almost completely ignored by the mainstream media and by left-leaning elements of the medical profession. In fact, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has stated: “Long term risks sometimes attributed to surgical abortion include potential effects on reproductive function, cancer incidence, and psychological sequelae. However, the medical literature, when carefully evaluated, clearly indicates no significant negative impact on any of these factors with surgical abortion.”
AAPLOG’s research demonstrates how faulty this conclusion is. Their study opens with this telling statement: “We are aware of no studies that demonstrate a better mental or physical health outcome for aborted women, compared to those who choose to deliver. On the contrary, there is ample evidence that induced abortion in many cases is associated with significant degradation of emotional health, physical health and reproductive health.”
Specifically, AAPLOG’s study cites links between abortion and depression, substance abuse, suicide, placenta previa (a dangerous medical condition), breast cancer, premature birth, and low birth weight among post-abortion women.
Consider these examples from the report:
• A study in New Zealand found that at age 25, 42 percent of women in the study group who had had an abortion also experienced major depression at some stage during the past four years. This was nearly double the rate of those who had never been pregnant and 35 percent higher than those who had chosen to continue a pregnancy.
• Data from California shows that compared with women who had previously given birth, women who aborted were 929 percent more likely to use marijuana, 460 percent more likely to use other illicit drugs, and 122 percent more likely to use alcohol during their next pregnancy.
• A University of Minnesota study on teen suicide found that the rate of attempted suicide in the six months prior to the study increased tenfold for teens who had aborted during those previous six months.
• Researchers at South Glomorgan Health Authority in Great Britain found that after abortions, there were 8.9 suicide attempts per 1,000, compared with 1.9 suicide attempts per 1,000 among those who gave birth.
• Studies also show a link between abortion and placentia previa (a condition in which the placenta is implanted abnormally low in the uterine cavity) during subsequent pregnancies.
• Although controversial, research continues to suggest a link between abortion and the subsequent risk of developing breast cancer. More than 41 studies worldwide (including 16 conducted in America) have reported data on the risk of breast cancer among women with a history of induced abortion. A full 29 (70 percent) of these studies reported an increased risk, with 13 (or 81 percent) of the American studies reporting an increased risk.
• More than 50 studies have demonstrated a statistically significant increase in premature birth or low birth weight risk in women with prior induced abortions. Consider, for example, that in Ireland, where induced abortion is illegal, the prematurity rate in 2003 was 5.48 percent, less than half the U.S. rate of 12.3 percent.
These bullet points do not even begin to scratch the surface of the wide body of research demonstrating the links between abortion and physical and emotional difficulties for post-abortion women. Again, this information is widely ignored or discounted by liberal politicians, activists, and medical organizations. You would think that shocking statistics of this nature would make the front page of The New York Times and that groups such as the National Organization for Women (NOW) would be screaming in protest about the indignities and abuses that have been heaped upon women at the hands of the abortion industry. Instead, the facts are buried or ignored and we are told that the right to an abortion is the hallmark of female empowerment.
For the past 35 years the pro-life community has been emphasizing the fact that every abortion leaves “one dead and one wounded.” At the same time, pro-abortion forces have been proclaiming that “everybody wins” in the era of legalized abortion. Nothing could be further from the truth.
taken from: Children are a Heritage from the Lord by Dr. James C. Dobson January 2008 This letter may be reproduced without change and in its entirety for noncommercial and nonpolitical purposes without prior permission from Focus on the Family.
A shocking set of recordings was released this week that could prove disastrous for Planned Parenthood's ties with the African-American community. Lila Rose, a pro-life student and reporter at UCLA, launched an undercover investigation aimed at exposing the racism of the nation's largest abortion merchant. With the help of an actor, she contacted Planned Parenthood clinics in seven states, inquiring if they would be willing to accept a donation earmarked for the abortion of black babies. The results were jaw-dropping.
Rose was appalled to discover that every last clinic agreed. Not one employee objected or questioned the request, even when the actor insisted that the purpose was to "lower the number of black people" in America. When the caller phoned an Ohio branch, he was told that Planned Parenthood "will accept the money for whatever reason." Read the outrageous transcript from the Idaho clinic, which is also available with Rose's other recordings in a montage at [I will post the video at the end of this article]
Actor: ...I really faced trouble with affirmative action, and I don't want my kids to be disadvantaged against black kids.
Planned Parenthood: Yes, absolutely.
Actor: And we don't, you know, we just think the less black kids out there the better.
Planned Parenthood: (Laughs) Understandable, understandable... This is the first time I've had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I'm excited and want to make sure I don't leave anything out.
Students at UCLA are so infuriated by the investigation that they are petitioning the university to cut all affiliation with Planned Parenthood. What few people realize is that the organization has a history of racism that has been ingrained since Planned Parenthood's earliest days, when founder Margaret Sanger advocated negative eugenics and spoke to a woman's branch of the KKK (Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography, 1938, p. 336-367). However, as is customary for Planned Parenthood, the organization has managed for decades to cover its tracks--and the facts. That task has just been made monumentally more difficult. Abortion has taken the innocent lives of over 14 million black children--a national tragedy that has begun uniting and mobilizing African-Americans across party, state, and financial lines.
Today, FRC [Family Research Council] hosted a press conference to kick off the National Black Pro-Life Gathering in Washington, D.C. whichdrew pastors, parents, leaders, and activists from across America to commemorate Black History Month by calling on abortion merchants like Planned Parenthood to stop preying on their community. As these abortion clinics continue to demonstrate that blood money is not colorblind, we call on Congress to de-fund and disavow Planned Parenthood. Taxpayers should not be forced to spend over $300 million on an organization whose scruples are for sale, even to those who seek racial genocide.
NOTE: there are a few sensual images that could have been left out of this video
Follow-up Article
No, Planned Parenthood,Virginia Isn't Santa Clause
Representatives for Planned Parenthood are scrambling to explain how seven of its branches were caught on tape agreeing to accept bigotry-inspired donations. When recordings of the undercover investigation were released this week, spokesmen from Idaho to Ohio desperately tried to explain away the incidents. Rebecca Poedy, the executive director of Planned ParenthoodIdaho, where a vice president for development was caught exclaiming how "excited" she was to receive money from a donor who wanted to reduce the state's black population, says her employee was misunderstood. "We need to train our staff to handle calls from people that are coming with offensive agendas," Poedy told reporters. Unfortunately for Planned Parenthood, thetapes speak for themselves as to whose agenda is truly offensive. "Planned Parenthood firmly and unequivocally denounces racial bias in the delivery of health care... [T]his employee made a serious mistake." Apparently the mistake was not considered serious enough for the employee to be fired. In Ohio, where a clinic worker agreed to accept a donation from a man who said, "There's definitely way too many black people in [the state]," no disciplinary action was taken. Lila Rose, the UCLA student who organized the calls, believes Planned Parenthood's PR nightmare has just begun. Rose plans to release the audio from other clinic calls in the upcoming months to expose the organization's deep-rooted prejudice. As the evidence against Planned Parenthood continues to mount, so too does the reluctance of state lawmakers to fund the organization. For the first time in 10 years, the Virginia Senate voted yesterday to strip all funding for Planned Parenthood because it performs and promotes abortion. The amendment, offered by Sen. Ken Cuccinelli (R), withstood the Democrats' fiercest challenge. After hours of trying to dissuade Sen. Charles Colgan (D) from voting in favor of the amendment, Democrats finally succumbed to a 20-20 tie, in which Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling (R) cast the deciding vote to sever ties with Planned Parenthood. The bill now heads to Gov. Tim Kaine's (D) desk, where he should have ample reason--after this racial controversy--to distance Virginia from this squalor. Please, if you live in Virginia, contact Gov. Kaine by phone at (804) 786-2211 or through email at www.governor.virginia.gov/AboutTheGovernor/contactGovernor.cfm and encourage him to stop using taxpayer dollars to fund Virginia's abortion mills. If you live elsewhere, why not urge your state to do the same?
I hope you find useful information here at Abortion Information. My goal for this blog is to provide up to date, relevant information for those who are considering abortion as an option, or just want to find out more about abortion. Please leave comments here or email me at sophiesperspective[at]gmail[dot]com.
I'm here to help you so please talk to me and let me know how I can best serve you.
Know that as I seek to present the most accurate information to you that I will, occasionally, post information that shows the aftermath of having an abortion. These images are not easy to see as they often include large amounts of blood, but they are accurate depictions.
It would be wrong of me to withhold information from just so you don't get queasy. I am not going to be sneaky about it and make you look at something you don't want to. Each post containing graphic images will be clearly marked.
The pro-life group Live Action is taking issue with YouTube over allegations of censorship.
Next time we will look at one more difference between us and the fetus.
We will look at some other differences between us and fetus' in a few days.
Washington, DC (
A pro-life activist in Illinois says 
The world's largest Internet search engine has denied a British Christian group's application to advertise because the group's website addresses abortion from a religious perspective. 
Washington, DC-area resident Emma Jean Butler and her daughter are suing a local Planned Parenthood clinic. The girl became pregnant due to a rape at age 13, and had an abortion at the facility after she turned 14.
Posts
