Pro-lifers March on D.C. Amid Government Shutdown

Federal bureaucrats closed Washington D.C. on Friday in the face of the deadly winter weather front closing in on the city, but tens of thousands of citizens braved the weather in D.C. for the 43rd annual March for Life to denounce the deadly politics of Roe v. Wade that is responsible for killing scores of millions of unborn children.  The national mainstream media was virtually absent the event and only one 2016 presidential candidate showed up — a woman!

“The establishment media and political class don’t want us to talk about what the abortion industry is doing. You saw what happened when I talked about the horrific truth of the planned parenthood videos during a Republican debate. Unlike the media, you’ve watched the videos. You’ve seen an aborted baby, it’s legs kicking, it’s heart beating while the technician describes how they would keep these babies alive to harvest their organs.”
-- Carly Fiorina, Republican presidential candidate, at the March for Life

For background, read Planned Parenthood Caught Selling Aborted Babies on Video

Also read 'Free' Abortions Promised by Hillary Clinton for Planned Parenthood Endorsement





Also read President Obama Praises Abortion as Americans March Against It

-- From "As DC shuts down for a blizzard, a small, faithful crowd still joins the March for Life" by Michelle Boorstein, Washington Post 1/22/16

With much of the D.C. region in the midst of complete shut-down frenzy – grocery and sled stores were packed, though downtown D.C. was quiet — for what is predicted to be a historic snow storm, city officials had suggested to the March for Life organizers that they prioritize participants’ safety – what sounded like a hint to cancel. But actual snow held off for the first hour or so of the event, giving protesters a chance to rally at the foot of the Washington Monument, before the temperatures plunged and the snow began to fall as the march up to the Supreme Court began.

The overall scene was dramatically smaller than normal, with usually-crowded sidewalks and lawns all along the Mall instead dotted with protesters, including nuns and priests in their garb and packs of Catholic school students holding signs and wearing hats that matched their group. Evangelical leaders made a concerted effort this year to bring their activists to what is traditionally a strongly Catholic event and several national evangelical leaders spoke from the stage to the rally.

Among those in the crowd was Richard Stith, 71, an Indiana law professor who called himself a part of a segment he dubbed “lefties for life” — Catholics whom he said support issues like the death penalty and LGBT rights as part of “a consistent ethic for life.” He said he had been a member of a group called Socialists for Life as well and always felt welcome at the march.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Snowstorm keeps turnout low, but spirits stay high at March for Life" by Bradford Richardson, The Hill 1/22/16

Tens of thousands of the movement’s faithful — made up largely of high school and college students outfitted in matching jackets, scarves or hats — took to the streets to protest on the 43rd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.

Event organizers also took notice [of the youthful demographic], passing out signs proclaiming the arrival of the “Pro-Life Generation.”

“A lot of us are young people — the pro-life generation — who care about life from womb to tomb,” said Victor Esposito, 20, who was with a group of students from Catholic University of America wearing red embroidered scarves.

“There’s come this recognition that as more and more science and technology comes out, we begin to recognize that life really does start at conception,” he added.

The theme of the March, “Pro-life and pro-women go hand in hand,” sought to emphasize the gender diversity of the anti-abortion-rights movement, challenging the narrative that opposition to abortion constitutes a “war on women.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Fiorina becomes pro-life favorite through struggling presidential bid" by Paige Winfield Cunningham, Washington Examiner 1/22/16

In her trademark pointed and articulate style, Fiorina launched an attack on abortion rights and the groups that promote them . . . "You can scream and throw condoms at me all day long — you cannot scare me," Fiorina said, to cheers from the crowd of activists gathered on the National Mall. "I know the value of life."

While nearly all of Fiorina's Republican opponents hold the same positions on abortion, favoring more restrictions on it and backing recent efforts by Congress to block public funding for Planned Parenthood, Fiorina has eagerly embraced the topic in a way the others haven't.

"Ideological feminism now shuts down conversation on college campuses and in the media," Fiorina said at the March for Life. "If you are a conservative who doesn't believe the litany of the Left, you are waging a war on women."

There's broad feeling among the anti-abortion movement that it needs more focus on how abortion affects women, partially to counter the "war on women" messaging that Democrats, Planned Parenthood and other supporters of abortion rights have pushed. Fiorina agrees with that goal.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

New York Times Admits 22-week Fetus is a Baby!

In a stunning revelation, the liberal mainstream media have just discovered that pregnant women may, in fact, have "a person" developing in the womb — thanks to a study in The New England Journal of Medicine published yesterday concerning "fetal viability."

“[We now consider viability at 22 weeks,] but this is a pretty controversial area. I guess we would say that these babies deserve a chance. [But parents need to know that] the hospital that you go to might determine what happens to your baby.”
-- Edward Bell, study leader and pediatrics professor at the University of Iowa

For background, read Abortion Outlawed in Florida for Viable Fetuses

Also read about new abortion restriction laws requiring tests for viability after 20 weeks in Ohio and also in Missouri.

And read Study Shows Babies Can Hear the Abortionist Coming

What do the abortionists say?  Planned Parenthood President Asks, Who Cares When Life Begins?

In addition, read about the Georgia teacher ousted last month for revealing President Obama's position on infants who survive abortion.

-- From "Study of premature babies adds to questions for parents, doctors" by Pam Belluck, The New York Times 5/6/15

A new study of thousands of premature births found that a small minority of babies born a week or two before what is now generally considered the point of viability can be treated and survive, in some cases with relatively few health problems.

The findings may also have implications for the abortion debate. The Supreme Court has said states cannot ban abortion before a fetus is viable outside the womb, and 24 weeks has generally been cited by medical experts as the time of viability.

Recently, physicians who work with very premature infants have begun to consider it reasonable to offer active treatment for babies born at 23 weeks. A 2014 summary of a workshop that involved the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics said “in general, those born at 23 weeks of gestation should be considered potentially viable” as more than a quarter of them survive if treated intensively.

The study, involving nearly 5,000 babies born between 22 and 27 weeks gestation, found that 22-week-old babies did not survive without medical intervention. . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Study on premature babies raises questions about abortion and medical care" by Sarah Kaplan, Washington Post 5/7/15

[The study] is heartening news in the world of pediatrics. But it also adds to a list of questions for parents, doctors and lawmakers by challenging the accepted age for “viability” — a standard that has defined the debates about abortion and intensive neonatal care.

According to Neil Marlow, a neonatology expert at University College London, many doctors have assumed that 22 weeks was too early for a child to be a candidate for intensive care because fatality rates were so high. But the NEJM study shows that those high rates are in part due to doctors’ reluctance to attempt a painful intervention on a newborn that’s unlikely to survive.

. . . the Supreme Court has long crafted its abortion rulings around the idea of viability. In Roe v. Wade the court ruled that states could not restrict abortions before the 28th week of pregnancy, at the time thought to be the earliest a newborn could survive on its own.

The 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, acknowledging that advances in neonatal care made survival of even more premature babies possible, detached the “viability” marker from the 28-week standard but left the sentiment of the original ruling intact: “We reaffirm … the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State,” read the majority opinion.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Hospital efforts to save very premature babies vary widely" by Marilynn Marchione, Associated Press 5/6/15

The study involved nearly 5,000 babies born before 27 weeks gestation at 24 hospitals in a research group run by the National Institutes of Health between April 2006 and March 2011.

Researchers looked at rates of comfort care versus active treatment, such as breathing machines, feeding tubes or heart resuscitation. Active treatment was given to 22 percent of babies born at 22 weeks, 72 percent of those at 23 weeks and nearly all beyond that.

Survival rates were higher for the actively treated babies — 23 percent versus 5 percent for all babies in the study born at 22 weeks, and 33 percent versus 24 percent for those born at 23 weeks.

About 12,000 babies each year in the United States are born between 22 and 25 weeks gestation. A full-term pregnancy is about 40 weeks.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "No Standard Treatment for Extreme Preemies - Practice differences appear to explain survival disparities" by Sarah Wickline Wallan, Staff Writer, MedPage Today 5/7/15

"This article raises important questions about what information should be given to parents during counseling about risks after an extremely preterm birth," Neil Marlow, DM, wrote in an accompanying editorial. "To give crude data on the survival rate among all such infants, regardless of whether treatment efforts were made, is misleading and helps to make poor survival a self-fulfilling prophecy."

"The NICHD NRN (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network) collects data only on live births in specialist hospitals and is not population-based; thus these data cannot be used to explore attitudes underlying the decision to provide or withhold treatment or to evaluate antepartum fetal deaths," added Marlow, who is from the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health at University College London.

"The study should prompt physicians, hospitals, state governments, and professional societies to accelerate efforts to provide perinatal regionalization programs that will optimize access of these extremely premature babies to level 3 and 4 perinatal centers that can provide skilled, experienced active treatment in the delivery room when parents and physicians decide in favor of active treatment," F. Sessions Cole, MD, director of the division of newborn medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, said in an email to MedPage Today.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Gallup poll, Americans Want Abortion Laws Changed

As Pro-life Laws Sweep America, Liberals Battle Back

Abortionists, Satanists Team Up vs. Missouri Law

Abortionists Stymied by New Oklahoma & Kansas Laws

Also read Congressman Xavier Becerra (D-Calif. and chairman of House Democratic Caucus) won't answer if unborn child 20 weeks into pregnancy is human being. (video)

Obama Touts Abortion; Americans March Against It

Although the media largely ignored hundreds of thousands of citizens on the streets across America this week, attention was paid to congressional Republicans debating how to reduce the killing of unborn children.  As Americans marched, the president praised ObamaCare for forcing all citizens to pay for the slaughter.

For background, read President Obama Praises Abortion on 41st Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

UPDATE 2/9/15 - Gallup Poll: Americans Want Abortion Laws Changed

Also read As Pro-life Laws Sweep America, Liberals Battle Back as well as 75% of Abortion Clinics Closed: Jan. 2015 vs. 1991





-- From "'Roe v. Wade' turns 42; thousands march in opposition" by John Bacon and Greg Toppo, USATODAY 1/22/15

After a brief rally at the Washington Monument, the crowd filled Constitution Avenue, stretching for several blocks as people headed for Capitol Hill.

The march was scheduled to pass in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, but as it neared the marble edifice, a small counterprotest stepped into the street and stopped the marchers. . . . The group, which numbered a few dozen, chanted, "Without these basic rights, women can't be free — abortion on demand and without apology."

Police quickly moved the abortion opponents to the curb and arrested most of the counterprotesters, restraining their arms behind them with plastic ties and carrying them off as the march members cheered. A few chanted, "Je-sus! Je-sus!" and "USA! USA!"

The march took place as congressional leaders canceled a vote, scheduled for Thursday, on an abortion bill sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz. The decision came after some members objected that the legislation was too restrictive and would hurt them with voters. Lawmakers instead approved a watered-down bill that would ban federal funding for abortions.

Franks' bill would have banned abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and provided exceptions for a woman's health and in cases of reported rape or incest involving a minor.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Traffic At A Virtual Standstill As Thousands Of Anti-Abortion Demonstrators Converge On San Francisco" posted at KCBS 1/24/15

Tens of thousands of people who oppose abortion gathered in San Francisco Saturday for the 11th Annual Walk for Life event. The event created major gridlock in The City, with traffic backed up all the way onto the Bay Bridge.

The Walk for Life in San Francisco is one of the largest in the country. It marks the anniversary of the 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe Vs. Wade that made abortion legal in this country. The event attracts more than 50,000 people from all over the country who come in by the busloads.

Pastor Clenard Childress was one of them. He came all the way from New Jersey. Childress said it is intellectually dishonest for a woman “to claim a right for herself and in so doing, take away the right of somebody else.”

“This is so hypocritical to me, that we are grateful that our mothers chose life, yet we want a child in the womb to be denied the access we have already gained,” he said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "White House signals Obama will veto abortion ban" by Irin Carmon, MSNBC 1/20/15

Thursday is, not coincidentally, the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade,  and the day when anti-abortion activists are marching on the National Mall in the annual March for Life, featuring several Republican elected officials. H.R. 36, which bans abortion at 20 weeks on the unscientific (and so far legally irrelevant) claim that fetuses feel pain at that point, passed the House in 2013 but never got a vote in the Senate — which may change now that Republicans control it. About 1% of abortions take place after 20 weeks.

The political strategy of the 20 week ban is clear: Force Democrats to get on the record about later abortions, which poll poorly unless accompanied by information about the difficult circumstances facing women who get them. The legal strategy is also pretty clear: Justice Anthony Kennedy, once a swing vote on abortion, signaled his distaste for later abortions in the last major Supreme Court abortion case, Gonzales v. Carhart. Anti-abortion strategists are hoping to get him to sign onto a 20-week ban with vivid talk of fetal pain, thus undercutting his repeated holding that it’s unconstitutional to ban abortion before a fetus can survive outside of the womb. So far, the Supreme Court has declined to hear recent abortion cases before them, including Arizona’s 20-week ban, which was held unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "House votes to block federal funding of abortion" by Natalie Villacorta, Politico 1/22/15

President Barack Obama lashed out at House passage Thursday of a bill that would permanently prohibit taxpayer funding for abortion. The House easily passed it after GOP leaders had to cancel a vote on another bill that would have banned most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, which got caught up in a fight about exemptions for rape victims.

The House vote took place on the anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. Anti-abortion protesters had come to Washington for the annual March for Life.

More than 50 angry march participants showed up outside the office of Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.), who pulled her co-sponsorship of the 20-week ban because of the requirement that rape victims report the crime to law enforcement authorities in order to obtain an exemption.

The House did easily pass H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2015, sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.). White House advisers said they would recommend a veto should the bill reach the president’s desk.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Statement by the President on the 42nd Anniversary of Roe v. Wade" posted at WhiteHouse.gov 1/22/15

I am deeply committed to protecting this core constitutional right, and I believe that efforts like H.R. 7, the bill the House considered today, would intrude on women's reproductive freedom and access to health care and unnecessarily restrict the private insurance choices that consumers have today. The federal government should not be injecting itself into decisions best made between women, their families, and their doctors.  I am also deeply committed to continuing our work to reduce unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, promote adoptions, and minimize the need for abortion.

Today, as we reflect on this critical moment in our history, may we all rededicate ourselves to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons.

To read the entire statement from President Obama above, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 1/22/16: From "Statement by the President on the 43rd Anniversary of Roe v. Wade" posted at WhiteHouse.gov

Today, we mark the 43rd anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, which affirmed a woman’s freedom to make her own choices about her body and her health. The decision supports the broader principle that the government should not intrude on private decisions made between a woman and her doctor. As we commemorate this day, we also redouble our commitment to protecting these constitutional rights, including protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her right to reproductive freedom from efforts to undermine or overturn them. In America, every single one of us deserves the rights, freedoms, and opportunities to fulfill our dreams.

To read the entire statement from President Obama above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Taxpayers Provide Almost Half of Planned Parenthood's $Billion$

And read Planned Parenthood Reports its Abortions & Profits Increased Last Year

Pro-life Laws Sweep America; Liberals Battle Back

As abortion-restricting legislation reaches new heights at the state level across the nation, congressional pro-life legislators are planning unprecedented efforts to save lives of the unborn, while pro-abortion Republicans hold firm: “I’ve been supporting a woman’s right to choose throughout my time in public life. [I want to] make sure that we don’t overturn Roe v. Wade . . .” says Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Illinois).

UPDATE 4/7/15: Now Illegal to Rip Unborn Babies Limb From Limb in Kansas & Oklahoma

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

75% of Abortion Clinics Closed: Jan. 2015 vs. 1991

Abortionists Lament Ever-greater State Limits

Missouri Legislators Override Governor's Veto: Pro-life Law

Democrats Restrict Abortion in Louisiana and South Carolina

Also read Abortion Rates Plunge: Liberals Fume, Call for More Access

-- From "GOP hopes it’s cracked the abortion code" by Burgess Everett and Lauren French, Politico 1/12/15

Now, with Congress and two-thirds of state legislatures under GOP control, the party hopes the 20-week [gestation limit for abortion] offers a moment of unity while aligning Republicans with polls that show most Americans support such a [limit] . . . an easy-to-explain proposal they believe will animate their base without alienating swing voters who might be turned off by a frontal assault on Roe v. Wade. The 20th week — about halfway through a typical pregnancy — approaches the point when a fetus is viable outside the womb. It’s also the time at which anti-abortion activists maintain that unborn fetuses can feel pain.

Their first salvo will come from the House, where GOP leaders plan to vote on a federal 20-week abortion ban on Jan. 22. That’s the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade and falls on the same day as the March for Life, an annual mass demonstration of anti-abortion activists on the streets of Washington.

And eight major potential Republican presidential hopefuls are on board with the national ban, cementing the party’s abortion plank long before primary season. Besides [former Florida governor Jeb] Bush and [Kentucky Sen. Rand] Paul, that list includes Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas, Govs. Mike Pence of Indiana and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas. Huckabee and Bush are the two candidates who have taken the most concrete steps toward running.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "The GOP wants to take the abortion wars national again" by Irin Carmon, MSNBC 1/8/15

. . . Monday, the first day of the new session, Rep. Trent Franks and Rep. Marsha Blackburn reintroduced the tendentiously named “Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.” It bans abortion after 20 weeks on the medically-disputed theory that fetuses can feel pain at that point.

Republicans are now surely feeling confident after a focus on reproductive rights didn’t deter a GOP wave in the midterm elections, including in purple Colorado. And the optics have improved, too. Thanks to that election, they’ve gone from two anti-abortion women in the Senate, Sen. Kelly Ayotte and Sen. Deb Fischer, to four, with the addition of Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa and Sen. Shelly Moore Capito of West Virginia. Capito ran as a moderate, but has already voted for the House version.

Meanwhile, one way or another, the Supreme Court is expected to address the abortion issue after long avoiding it. Ever since Justice Anthony Kennedy expressed his distaste for later abortions in Gonzales v. Carhart, the decision upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, anti-abortion legal strategists have been hoping to use a 20 week ban to chip away at Roe v. Wade.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "GOP renews funding fight against Planned Parenthood" by Sarah Ferris, The Hill 1/8/15

More than 80 House Republicans are again seeking to block federal funding for abortion providers like Planned Parenthood, saying they want to defund "the big abortion industry.”

"Planned Parenthood and organizations like it that profit off the destruction of innocent life do not deserve one more dime from American taxpayers,” Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) wrote in a release Thursday after reintroducing the bill.

Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), co-chairman of the Pro-Life Caucus, said the federal government should not be supporting Planned Parenthood at all, describing the nonprofit as “Child Abuse, Incorporated.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Planned Parenthood Reports its Abortions & Profits Increased Last Year

And read Taxpayers Provide Almost Half of Planned Parenthood's $Billion$

From "Abortion Restrictions Pick Up Steam in GOP-Led States" by Arian Campo-Flores and Cameron McWhirter, Wall Street Journal 1/11/15

GOP gains in legislatures across the U.S. are boosting abortion foes seeking to spread restrictive laws to more states or devise new approaches to limit the procedure, advocates on both sides say.

Antiabortion bills have been filed in advance of this year’s legislative sessions in at least 10 states, including Missouri, South Carolina and Texas, with more sure to come, said Elizabeth Nash, state-issues manager at the Guttmacher Institute. The proposals range from declaring that “personhood” begins at fertilization to requiring medical professionals to conduct ultrasounds on pregnant women and display the results to them.

The National Right to Life Committee, a federation of antiabortion groups, plans to push for abortion bans after about 20 weeks of pregnancy in states such as South Carolina and West Virginia, said Mary Spaulding Balch, director of state legislation. Such measures, already in effect in 10 states, rely on the contested argument that fetuses can feel pain at that point.

Meanwhile, Americans United for Life intends to continue promoting a package of measures it has championed in recent years that include restrictions on the use of abortion-inducing drugs and stiffer regulations for clinics, [AUL President Charmaine] Yoest said. The group also will keep pressing for laws that require abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, an approach that has triggered litigation across the country and resulted in the closure of about half the clinics in Texas.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Abortion Hostility Depends on Your Zip Code" by Lindsay Menard-Freeman, posted at Huffington Post 1/7/15

From 2011 to 2014, the number of legislative restrictions against abortion rights skyrocketed to 231, quadrupling the number of restrictions within just three years. In 2014 alone, legislators enacted 26 brand new measures to restrict access to abortion rights.

According to a new report by the Guttmacher Institute, the number of measures enacted are not just surging, but the severity of these 'hostility' classifications is alarming and threatening to women's rights.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

From "Abortion by ZIP Code" by Lucia Graves and Libby Isenstein, National Journal 1/6/15

A recent analysis of state abortion laws by the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-rights think tank, categorized states with four to five abortion restrictions as "hostile" to abortion, and placed states with more than five restrictions into the "extremely hostile" camp.

It's not just a matter of outright abortion bans. The restrictive measures include a variety of measures making abortions more difficult to obtain, from expanding mandatory waiting periods to making it more difficult for minors to access those services.

But there is a silver lining for abortion advocates. Over the past year, some lawmakers have pushed back against the rising tide of restrictions, introducing 95 measures designed to expand access to abortion in 17 states. While the win is dubious—only four of those measures have actually been signed into law—that still accounts for more pro-abortion measures than have been introduced in any year since 1990.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "In Just the Last Four Years, States Have Enacted 231 Abortion Restrictions" posted at the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute 1/5/15

. . . In 2000, 31% of women of reproductive age lived in a state hostile to abortion rights, with no women living in a state with enough restrictions to be considered extremely hostile. By 2014, 57% of women lived in a state that is either hostile or extremely hostile to abortion rights.

[The 2014] midterm election results provide good reason to be concerned about a renewed focus on restricting abortion in the upcoming 2015 legislative sessions. Republican legislators, who overwhelmingly oppose abortion rights, solidified their dominance in the states. Republicans will now control both legislative chambers in 30 states, three more than in 2014; in 23 of those states, the governor will also be Republican. Democrats will control both legislative chambers and the governor’s mansion in only seven states. In addition, the ballot initiative approved in Tennessee likely will open the door to additional restrictions in that state.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

All Abortion Outlawed by Georgia City Council

Abortion advocates say that Roe v. Wade is being challenged by the city council of Rossville, Georgia because it voted unanimously on a first reading in favor of Ordinance #481 to ban all abortion except to save the life of the mother.  Rossville currently has no abortion clinics, but Mayor Teddy Harris said that the council is taking a proactive stance to keep the city peaceful.

For background, read 2014 Election: Christians Defeat Abortionists in Tennessee Vote and also read Abortion Clinic Closings Set Record; Abortionists Admit Defeat





-- From "Rossville bans abortion clinics, pill mills" by Hannah Smith, Chattanooga Times Free Press 11/11/14

In a work meeting before they would sign the ordinances, council members asked Rossville Mayor Teddy Harris what had prompted these two ordinances to come up. He said a town resident had come to him asking if the methadone clinic in the city was legal. That clinic is, but Harris said the question got him thinking about other businesses they might wish to keep outside of Rossville.

There is no abortion clinic in Rossville, and the ordinance does allow for abortions to occur within the city if they occur at a hospital by a licensed physician, are deemed by that doctor to be necessary to save the woman's life, and the doctor can certify that the baby would not survive out of the womb.

The same logic was used for why they want to keep pill mills out of the city. Pill mills are clinics that claim to be pain centers many times, but in reality illegally dispense controlled pain medications to those who may be addicted or do not have a prescription.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Rossville lawmakers rethink abortion ordinance" by Mike O’Neal, The Catoosa County News 11/16/14

As originally written, Rossville’s ordinance is more restrictive than state or federal law.

Rossville’s ordinance goes beyond state law by stating, in section 2(d):

“It shall not be unlawful for a licensed physician to prescribe that abortion services take place within the limits of the city of Rossville, provided that the physician finds the abortion services are necessary in order to save the life of the mother, the abortion services are per-formed in a hospital and the physician can certify that the unborn child would not be able to live outside of the womb.”

After questions about the legality of the council’s action were raised, mayor Teddy Harris said the ordinance is being reviewed and will be rewritten as necessary to comply with all state and federal statutes.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read President Obama Praises Abortion on 41st Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

Christians Defeat Abortionists in Tennessee Vote

Despite abortionists' campaigns outspending pro-lifers 3-to-1, yesterday the voters of Tennessee ended 14 years of judicial tyranny by overturning a 2000 ruling by the state Supreme Court that gave abortionists ultimate power over the people and made Tennessee an abortion magnet for surrounding states.

“Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.”
-- Amendment 1, as approved by voters

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Missouri Legislators Override Governor's Veto: Pro-life Law

Democrats Restrict Abortion in Louisiana and South Carolina

Ohio Abortion Clinics Close After New Law

Cutting Oklahoma Abortions in Half: Judges OK New Law

Most Texas Abortion Clinics Now Closed by Court

Abortion Clinic Closings Set Record; Abortionists Admit Defeat



-- From "New era for abortion in Tennessee; voters open door for more regulation" by Kevin Hardy, Chattanooga Times Free Press 11/5/14

With the approval of constitutional Amendment 1, the Legislature will be empowered to pass more regulations on abortions -- an ability that was deterred by a 2000 Tennessee Supreme Court ruling that said the state constitution was more protective of a woman's right to an abortion than the U.S. Constitution.

Currently, Tennessee has some abortion regulations, including the requirement of parental consent for minors and a requirement that physicians who perform abortions must have admitting privileges to hospitals. But with the approval of the constitutional amendment, legislators will be empowered to follow the same course as Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi, all of which are quickly losing abortion providers.

Tennessee could regulate -- and thus limit -- abortions by mandating certain standards for abortion facilities, require mandatory ultrasounds for abortion patients or enact waiting periods on abortions.

Abortion opponents positioned the amendment as a safeguard for women and children.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Tennessee abortion measure passes" by Anita Wadhwani, USA TODAY 11/5/14

. . . It also was one of the most expensive ballot measures in Tennessee history.

In the first three weeks of October alone, the "No" campaign spent more than $3.4 million on its efforts to defeat the measure. Most of the contributions came from Planned Parenthood affiliates in Tennessee and other states, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union. The two groups are the primary organizers of the "No" campaign.

"Obviously for those of us who believe life is sacred, this was the necessary first step toward protection not only for the unborn but for women and girls who fall prey to people looking to profit from untimely or unexpected pregnancies," said Brian Harris, president of Tennessee Right to Life and a coordinator for the "Yes on 1" campaign, who has devoted much of the past 14 years fighting for the measure to get on the ballot.

Harris said his group's next step is returning to the legislature to persuade lawmakers to restore a package of laws stricken by a 2000 state Supreme Court decision, including requiring a short waiting period for women seeking an abortion, a requirement to provide educational materials and greater regulation of abortion facilities.

One in four abortions in Tennessee is sought by a woman from out of state. . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Tennessee Voters Approve Amendment 1, Will Allow Pro-Life Laws to Stop Abortions" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 11/5/14

The amendment is necessary because the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled 4-1 in 2000 that the state constitution allows unlimited abortions. It is necessary, pro-life advocates say, to be able to pass laws to limit and reduce abortions. The ruling claimed the Tennessee Constitution contains a fundamental abortion right even broader than Roe v. Wade or the federal constitution and it resulted in the striking down of numerous pro-life Tennessee laws that were helping women and limiting abortions.

Subsequently the 2000 ruling was also used as precedent to strike state law requiring the inspection, regulation and licensure of abortion facilities in Tennessee, he explained. All of those pro-life protections — which have reduced abortions in some states by as much as 50 percent — could be restored now that the amendment has been approved

[Brian] Harris told LifeNews that Yes on 1 coordinated a statewide grassroots campaign heavy on volunteers and smaller financial contributions from individuals, churches and pro-life organizations.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Abortionists Battle to Kill Without Clinics

And read Learn to be Abortionist in 6-weeks, Free Online

Obama Praises Abortion on Roe 41st Anniversary

As hundreds of thousands of pro-life Americans marched on Washington D.C., the abortion-loving President Obama said of the Supreme Court's 1973 abortion ruling "we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle" -- it is right that over 56 million American babies have been murdered in the womb, so far.

For background, read how Pro-lifers Crowded D.C. last year, just like in previous years, and read about the history of President Obama's abortion advocacy.

Also read President Obama's 2012 Proclamation: Girls Need Abortion Rights for Equality

UPDATE 9/16/14 - ObamaCare Lies: Taxpayers Now Fund Abortions, Says Gov't Study

-- From "Obama praises 'Roe vs. Wade'" by David Jackson, USA TODAY 1/22/14

President Obama has put out his annual statement on the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, praising the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that struck down anti-abortion laws.

Abortion opponents have gathered in Washington, D.C., for their annual rally against the high court decision handed down 41 years ago Wednesday.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Statement by the President on Roe v. Wade Anniversary" posted at WhiteHouse.gov 1/22/14

Today, as we reflect on the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle: that every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health.  . . .  Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams [except for babies in the womb!].

To read the entire statement above, CLICK HERE.

From "Thousands of abortion foes brave cold to join March for Life in Washington" by Michelle Boorstein and Carol Morello, Washington Post 1/22/14

The world’s largest anti­abortion event, held on the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, grows younger each year. The Mall between Seventh Street and the Washington Monument was full for a few hours with youth groups from across the eastern half of the country.

Abortion has been legal in the United States for these young people’s entire lives, and the movement’s leaders say the latest generation of activists is creating a more upbeat culture. . . .

The March for Life is the culmination each year of several days of meetings, Masses and training sessions for abortion opponents. Included was a workshop Wednesday morning for anti­abortion bloggers at the Family Research Council.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "'We Are Winning' the Fight Against Abortion, Says Rep. Chris Smith at 41st Annual March for Life Rally" by Michael Gryboski, Christian Post Reporter 1/22/14

"By the grace of God and because of you … we are winning," declared [New Jersey Republican Congressman Chris] Smith, whose House Bill 7, or the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," will soon be up for a vote in the House of Representatives.

"To the youth, especially, never quit or grow weary or discouraged. Your generation will end abortion."

Tom Hogan, grand marshal for the 2014 March for Life and longtime supporter of the pro-life cause, told The Christian Post about the strength of the march, despite the frigid weather.

"There is a big movement across the United States and particularly from younger people. Every year I notice in the march that the age group gets younger and younger," said Hogan. "I would say also that it seems to be that mostly at the state legislatures or state level that a lot of this is going on. I don't see it at the federal level."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Parties Seize on Abortion Issues in Midterm Race" by Jeremy W. Petersjan, New York Times 1/20/14

Abortion is becoming an unexpectedly animating issue in the 2014 midterm elections. Republicans, through state ballot initiatives and legislation in Congress, are using it to stoke enthusiasm among core supporters. Democrats, mindful of how potent the subject has been in recent campaigns like last year’s governor’s race in Virginia, are looking to rally female voters by portraying their conservative opponents as callous on women’s issues.

Aware that their candidates at times have struck the wrong tone on issues of women’s health, Republicans in some states are now framing abortion in an economic context, arguing, for example, that the new federal health law uses public money to subsidize abortion coverage. In the House in the coming weeks, Republicans will make passing the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” one of their top priorities this year.

“I don’t think this is a niche issue anymore,” said Drew Lieberman, a vice president at Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, a political consultancy concern, who has advised Democratic congressional candidates and has done polling for Naral Pro-Choice America.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read President Obama Asks God to Bless Planned Parenthood

The battle:  Report Says Not Enough Abortions - ObamaCare the Answer and so ObamaCare Covers Abortion & Pays Abortionists

In addition, read Democrats' Life Mission is to Kill the Unborn, Says Mississippi Governor

New Yorkers Could Become Extinct due to Abortions

Gov. Andrew Cuomo has announced a plan to increase abortion in New York state, already the abortion capital of America.  In New York City, the majority of black children never make it out of the womb alive and nearly half of all pregnancies end in abortion.

“If Cuomo’s legislation succeeds, New York will be sanctioning unrestricted, virtually unregulated, and taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand, making it the most radically pro-abortion state in the nation.”
-- Dr. Charmaine Yoest, Americans United for Life

For background, read Black Genocide in New York City (nearly 2 of 3 killed in womb) and also read New York City Liberals Choose Abortion NOT Procreation



-- From "Cuomo to push his abortion proposal amid obstacles" by The Associated Press 6/3/13

Cuomo drew swift opposition in January after he issued his rousing, repeated battle cry of: "Because it's her body, it's her choice!" in his State of the State address that ignited supporters seeking expansion of abortion rights. But Cuomo has framed his proposal as simply protecting the current rights under the Roe v. Wade court decision in 1973, which is widely supported in public opinion polls and in the Senate and Assembly.

"The women's equality bill language has been crafted in a way that creates a real litmus test on Roe v. Wade for members of both parties, making it impossible to vote against for anyone who wants to say they support a woman's right to choose," said Cuomo spokesman Matt Wing.

New York state law enacted three years before Roe v. Wade allows late-term abortions after 24 weeks only when a woman's life is danger. The 1973 federal law allows late-term abortions if a woman's health is danger — a lower hurdle.

Supporters of Cuomo's proposal also see a need to protect women in the event Roe v. Wade is struck down by a more conservative U.S. Supreme Court.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.



From "Cuomo Women’s Rights Plan May Hinge on Abortion Proposal" by Jesse McKinley, New York Times 6/5/13

The governor has made the proposal a central part of his plan to reclaim New York’s progressive mantle . . .

In the Assembly, where Democrats have a big majority, the abortion measure is likely to pass. But in the Senate, where Democrats hold a narrow numerical majority but do not have a functional majority, even if the measure came to the floor for a vote, it is not clear what would happen; most but not all Senate Democrats support abortion rights, and most but not all Senate Republicans oppose abortion.

Senator Jeffrey D. Klein, a Bronx Democrat who leads the four-member Independent Democratic Conference that shares control of the Senate, said he supported an even broader plan for women’s rights than the governor’s 10-point act, but also hoped “that abortion does not become a political football used to divide legislators.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Poll: Two-thirds support Cuomo’s abortion plan" by Jimmy Vielkind, Capitol bureau, Times Union (Albany, NY) 6/6/13

A poll released this morning by Quinnipiac University finds two-thirds of New Yorkers surveyed back Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s proposal to create an affirmative right to an abortion and codify in state law federal court rulings that allow women to have a late-term abortion for health reasons.

Quinnipiac broke down its response to the Cuomo-proposal question by age, race, gender and party affiliation. Republicans were split, with 46 percent of those surveyed indicating support compared to 45 percent who were opposed and 9 percent who were unsure. Support among men and women was roughly the same — within the poll’s three percent margin of error. The poll found 58 percent of self-identified Catholics supported the proposal, compared to 32 percent who said they oppose it.

Different polls, including one commissioned by the pro-life Chiaroscuro Foundation, have phrased questions differently and found less support for abortion.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Cuomo’s Bill for Late-Term Abortions Would Protect Kermit Gosnells" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 6/4/13

“The technical impact of Gov. Cuomo’s efforts would be to block commonsense regulations of abortion—an often dangerous medical procedure, especially later in pregnancy,” said [AUL's Charmaine] Yoest. “He essentially creates a ‘Back-Alley Abortionists Empowerment Act’ that will remove the few legal protections in place in New York and sanction an environment where more women will be victimized and hurt by an unregulated and unrestrained abortion industry.”

. . . abortion advocates have argued that New York needs Governor Cuomo’s legislation to ensure that abortion is permitted and protected in the state should Roe v. Wade be overturned or further undermined. However, in the 1994 decision Hope v. Perales, the due process provision of the New York Constitution was interpreted as protecting a woman’s right to abortion in the state.

“In light of recent, tragic deaths at the hands of Big Abortion, advancing legislation that enables abortionists to harm more women and girls makes no legal sense at all,” said Dr. Yoest. “The headlines are full of news of women’s health being neglected in abortion clinics. Governor Cuomo should not champion a bill that would unleash such victimization on New York women.”

The Reproductive Health Act would . . . Allow non-physicians to perform abortions; Prevent any limitation on use of taxpayer funds to curtail New York’s Medicaid policy of paying for abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Statement of the Bishops of New York State on Abortion Bill" by Timothy Cardinal Dolan and the Bishops of New York State 6/4/13

We are profoundly distressed by the introduction of a bill in New York State today that would ease restrictions in state law on late-term abortion and runs the serious risk of broadly expanding abortion access at all stages of gestation. This legislation would add a broad and undefined “health” exception for late-term abortion and would repeal the portion of the penal law that governs abortion policy, opening the door for non-doctors to perform abortions and potentially decriminalizing even forced or coerced abortions. In addition, we find the conscience protection in the bill to be vague and insufficient, and we are concerned about the religious liberty of our health facilities. While the bill’s proponents say it will simply “codify” federal law, it is selective in its codification. Nowhere does it address the portions of federal laws that limit abortion, such as the ban on taxpayer funding, the ban on partial birth abortion or protections for unborn victims of violence.

To read the entire statement above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Russians Face Extinction from Abortion

Liberal Court Forces Roe v. Wade back to Supremes

With myriad new state laws restricting abortion in the earliest weeks of gestation, Tuesday's ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals striking down Arizona's 2012 20-week abortion law will most certainly force the Supreme Court to hear the case and thus "open Pandora's box."

For background, read details of the Arizona law and the previous lower court ruling.

In addition, read Pro-lifers Prevail: More Abortion Restriction Laws and also read Pro-life Legislation Floods America as well as Eroding Roe v. Wade State-by-state

-- From "Arizona abortion ban struck down" by The Associated Press 5/21/13

A three-judge panel of the court said the law violated a woman's constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy before a fetus can survive outside the womb. "Viability" is generally considered to begin at 24 weeks. Normal pregnancies run about 40 weeks.

Nine other states have enacted similar bans at 20 weeks or even earlier. Several bans have been placed on hold or struck down by other courts.

Judge Marsha S. Berzon, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based court, said such bans before viability violated a long string of U.S. Supreme Court rulings starting with the seminal Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Appeals court: Arizona abortion restriction unconstitutional" by Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services 5/21/13

In a unanimous decision, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that the law on what states can and cannot restrict have varied since the landmark 1973 case of Roe v. Wade. That ruling barred states from banning a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy, at least during the first trimester.

Berzon said states can regulate the mode and manner of terminating a pregnancy prior to viability — but not more.

"It may not proscribe a woman from electing abortion, nor may it impose an undue burden on her choice through regulation,” she wrote.

But it is not likely the last word. Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, who personally argued the case to the appellate court, has said he sees the law as a chance to have the whole issue revisited by the U.S. Supreme Court.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Arizona Law Limiting Abortions Tossed Out" by Tim Hull, Courthouse News Service 5/21/13

After Arizona House Bill 2036 became law in April 2012, three doctors sued to stop it from going into effect. Paul Isaacson, William Clewell and Hugh Miller, with help from the ACLU of Arizona, won an emergency injunction . . .

In a concurrence in which [9th Circuit] Judge Andrew Kleinfeld appeared to be apologizing for following Supreme Court precedent, he pointed out . . . "Were the statute limited to protecting fetuses from unnecessary infliction of excruciating pain before their death, Arizona might regulate abortions at or after 20 weeks by requiring anesthetization of the fetuses about to be killed, much as it requires anesthetization of prisoners prior to killing them when the death penalty is carried out."

Kleinfeld lamented that viability remains the "'critical fact' that controls constitutionality," because its definition "changes as medicine changes."

"The briefs make good arguments for why viability should not have the constitutional significance it does, but under controlling Supreme Court decisions, it does indeed have that significance," he wrote.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Abortion ban after 20 weeks rejected" by Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services 5/22/13

Montgomery said he believes the [Supreme Court] justices will conclude the state has a right to impose restrictions -- even strict ones -- on abortions for legitimate reasons.

But Montgomery may have an uphill fight, especially if the justices see Montgomery's defense of the Arizona law as a bid to overturn Roe v. Wade and its 40 years of precedent. So Montgomery said he'll try instead to ask the high court to find the Arizona law is a legitimate exception.

But he's prepared for a direct challenge.

"I would certainly prefer, not as an advocate in the right-to-life issue but as an attorney, for the court to address head-on whether or not the presumptions that Roe was premised on truly exist to this day and can fairly be said to demand ongoing deference as a matter of precedent," Montgomery said. "I don't think it can."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Appeals Court Strikes Down Arizona Law Banning Abortions at 20 Weeks" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 5/21/13

The ruling does not affect similar laws passed in other states except the law in Idaho, which is also covered under the jurisdiction of the [9th Circuit] appeals court.

The Center for Arizona Policy helped draft HB 2036, known as the Mother’s Health and Safety Act, and testified in support of the bill and complained when the ACLU sued.

“Once again, we see supposed ‘pro-woman’ organizations fight to protect abortion-on-demand despite the serious risks abortion presents to new moms,” said Cathi Herrod, President of Center for Arizona Policy. “The medical evidence presented during committee hearings make it clear that abortions after 20 weeks present a much greater risk to the life of the women. There is also substantial medical evidence that preborn children can feel pain at this age.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Pro-life Laws Sweeping States, Roe Challenge Soon

The ultimate challenge to Roe v. Wade is nearing the U.S. Supreme Court much faster than anyone had predicted.  Several states have just enacted, or are about to pass, new laws restricting abortion, some of which may conflict with the 1973 and subsequent rulings by the Supremes.

For background, read Pro-lifers Prevail: More Abortion Restriction Laws and also read Pro-life Legislation Floods America as well as Eroding Roe v. Wade State-by-state

UPDATE 7/8/13: Abortionists Lament Ever-greater State Limits

UPDATE 4/9/13: Alabama governor signs bill, takes effect July 1st, might close all abortion clinics in state

-- From "Alabama Legislature Passes New Limits on Abortion Clinics" by Erik Eckholm, New York Times 4/3/13

The Alabama Legislature late Tuesday adopted stringent new regulations for abortion clinics that supporters called a step to protect women but that others called medically unnecessary and a disguised effort to force the closing of the state’s five abortion clinics.

The bill, like measures passed last year in Mississippi and Tennessee and last month in North Dakota, would require that doctors performing abortions have admitting privileges at local hospitals. Several of Alabama’s clinics rely on doctors who fly in from out of state, and given the hostile political climate it appears unlikely that nearby hospitals would grant them such privileges, said Nikema Williams, vice president for public policy of Planned Parenthood Southeast, which runs two of the clinics.

Another clause in the Alabama bill would require clinics to meet the building, equipment and staffing standards of ambulatory surgery centers, which would require some clinics to spend millions of dollars altering buildings, and buying beds and monitoring equipment, for what they say is no relevant medical purpose.

The bill will be sent to Gov. Robert Bentley, a Republican, who previously said he planned to sign it. The American Civil Liberties Union said that if the bill becomes law it is likely to sue to block it.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Kan. House passes sweeping anti-abortion bill" by The Associated Press 4/8/13

The House gave final approval Friday to the measure [by a 90-30 vote], which blocks tax breaks for abortion providers and outlaws abortions performed solely because of the baby's sex.

The measure also declares that life begins "at fertilization," language that abortion opponents call a statement of principle and not an outright ban on abortion, though the bill's opponents are skeptical.

The bill also prohibits abortion providers from being involved in public school sex education classes and spells out in greater detail what information doctors must provide to patients before performing abortions.

Senators voted 28-10 for a compromise version of the bill reconciling differences between the two chambers.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Kansas set to enact life-starts-'at fertilization' abortion law" by Kevin Murphy, Reuters 4/6/13

If the bill is signed into law, Kansas will become the eighth state declaring that life begins at fertilization, said Elizabeth Nash, state issues manager of the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute, which researches abortion-related laws nationwide.

While it would not supplant Kansas law banning most abortions after the 22nd week of pregnancy, it does set the state up to more swiftly outlaw all abortions should the U.S. Supreme Court revisit its 1973 ruling making abortion legal, Nash said.

States that already have such language are Missouri, Kentucky, Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, North Dakota and Ohio, Nash said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Kansas Passes Three Pro-Life Bills, Bans Sex-Selection Abortion" by Kathy Ostrowski, LifeNews.com 4/8/13

Abortion supporters continue to mischaracterize these bills—even during debate in both chambers Friday night–so here are some needed corrections. Under these pro-life bills:

*   only abortions done solely for sex selection are banned, otherwise abortions for any reason, including rape, remain legal until the 22nd week of pregnancy, and after that time, can be obtained to preserve the life of the mother or prevent irreversible and substantial physical damage to her;

*   hospitals suffer no penalties for treating life-of-the-mother crises including both ectopic pregnancies and emergencies throughout 9 months;

*   the updated informed consent materials (created by KDHE since 1997) do not contain misinformation, do not say abortion causes breast cancer, and do not force any abortion provider to tell women ANYTHING because the materials are written and online;

*   the acknowledgment that ‘life begins at fertilization’ is language approved in 1989 by the U.S. Supreme Court, and adopted by 13 other states–it does not challenge abortion decisions at the federal or state level;

*   there was no money “taken” from the KUMC budget for the adult stem center, and the center is not hostage to politics, but is expanding on successful medical treatments ALREADY under way at KUMC and across the state.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

N. Dakota Pro-life Laws Slammed by Media, Doctors

The North Dakota Medical Association is denouncing legislation just passed and currently being debated that limit abortion after six weeks gestation ("heartbeat bill") and that defines life at conception ("personhood").  Doctors say they must have a right to decide issues of life in consultation with their patients irrespective of government lawmaking.

Doctors think they're above the law?!  It's contagious (they caught it from activist judges).

For background, read Arkansas 12-week Abortion Law Most Restrictive in U.S. and also read Pro-lifers Prevail: More Abortion Restriction Laws

So far, Personhood Legislation is Battling Uphill in Courts

UPDATE 3/27/13: Gov. signs bills, prepares for legal attack from abortionists

-- From "ND Senate approves 'heartbeat' abortion ban" by James Macpherson, Associated Press 3/18/13

The North Dakota Senate on Friday approved banning abortions as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, sending what would be the most stringent abortion restrictions in the U.S. to the state's Republican governor [Jack Dalrymple, who is pro-life,] for his signature.

It's one of several anti-abortion measures the state Legislature has weighed this session. The vote came with almost no debate in the Senate and after the same chamber approved another measure that would make North Dakota the first to ban abortions based on genetic defects such as Down syndrome.

That measure would also ban abortion based on gender selection. The Guttmacher Institute, which tracks abortion laws throughout the country, says Pennsylvania, Arizona and Oklahoma already have such laws.

Some supporters of the so-called fetal heartbeat measure have said they hope to send a message that North Dakota is anti-abortion and aims to challenge the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which legalized abortion up until a fetus is considered viable, usually at 22 to 24 weeks.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "North Dakota looks at more abortion restrictions" by Dave Kolpack, Associated Press 3/18/13

The "personhood" measures would ban abortions by defining human life as beginning with conception. It's drawing opposition from some doctors who say it could cause problems for infertile couples seeking to use in vitro fertilization to conceive, but supporters insist that's addressed in the legislation.

Dr. Stephanie Dahl, a Fargo infertility specialist, said Monday that the personhood measures could ban in vitro fertilization and force doctors to leave the state rather than face health care restrictions or possible criminal penalties. In vitro fertilization, or IVF, involves mixing egg and sperm in a laboratory dish and transferring resulting embryos into the womb.

One of the key players in the anti-abortion campaign, state Sen. Margaret Sitte, a Republican from Bismarck, said she was "floored" by the assertions about limitations on in vitro fertilization. She said the proposals allow exceptions for the "screening, collecting, preparing, transferring, or cryopreserving a human being created through in vitro fertilization for the purpose of being transferred to a human uterus." Sitte said that clause was crafted with Dahl's help.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Anti-abortion attorney says ND bill won’t survive legal challenge" by Wendy Reuer, Forum News Service 3/18/13

Paul Linton, a Chicago-based attorney who has assisted other states with anti-abortion measures and served as general counsel to Americans United for Life . . . did not give an estimation of what litigation would cost, [but] if defeated, the state would pay not only its counsel, the attorney general, but the courts could also force the state to pay for attorney fees of those challenging the bill.

House Bill 1456 prohibits an abortion if a detectable heartbeat is found. . . . Another bill that passed, House Bill 1305, would ban abortions for gender selection or fetal anomalies.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "North Dakota has funds to fight over abortion" by The Associated Press 3/19/13

As oil-rich North Dakota moves toward outlawing most abortions, it's in a better position than most states for what could be a long and costly court battle over its restrictions.

Abortion-rights activists have promised a legal battle if the measures become law.

North Dakota has a budget surplus nearing $2 billion, thanks to new-found oil wealth.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read IVF: 'Creating' Life & Aborting Life in addition, read Lab Creates Human Life with 3 Biological Parents

Pro-lifers Prevail: More Abortion Restriction Laws

While establishment Republicans are now pushing to recreate the Party nationally toward a pro-homosexual stance, and ignoring its traditional pro-life position, conservative Republicans in state legislatures, along with the help of some Democrats, are passing more restrictive abortion legislation than ever.

With withering public support for baby-killing, abortionists have only one hope: activist pro-abortion courts.

Last week, Arkansas enacted a dramatic law restricting abortion after 12 weeks gestation.

"There are so many battles in so many states that are very similar that I think the bulk of the [Arkansas] law will, without question, make itself up to the [Supreme] Court."
-- Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony List

For background, read Pro-life Legislation Floods America and also read Eroding Roe v. Wade State-by-state as well as Pro-life Position Prevails in Polls

UPDATE 7/8/13: Abortionists Lament Ever-greater State Limits

-- From "Anti-abortion law makes Arkansas ground zero in intensifying national debates" by Shannon Bream, FoxNews.com 3/11/13

. . . Pro-choice groups, citing Roe v. Wade and subsequent Supreme Court precedents, feel confident it's a fight they will win.

"The [Arkansas] bill is clearly unconstitutional, clearly inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent," Louise Melling, the American Civil Liberties Union's deputy legal director, said. ACLU officials said they are planning to jointly file a legal challenge with the Center for Reproductive Rights before the Arkansas law is set to go into effect.

While the so-called "Heartbeat Law" is hashed out in court, [State Sen. Jason Rapert, the Republican who authored the law,] says he plans to introduce a measure that would ban state officials from allowing any state or federal funds from flowing to organizations that perform abortions, namely Planned Parenthood.

If he succeeds, Arkansas would join a number of other states that have blocked funding to the family planning organization, including Colorado, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Wisconsin.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Why Have So Many States Banned Abortion?" by Chris Good, ABC News 3/12/13

Abortions are becoming illegal in America at a rapid clip.

Before 2010, no states banned abortions outright at any stage of pregnancy. Nebraska started the trend with a 20-week abortion ban in April 2010. In 2011, Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, and Oklahoma followed suit, and in 2012, Arizona, Georgia, and Louisiana passed curbs of their own. Last week, Arkansas became the first state to approve an abortion ban this year.

Abortion-rights activists are worried about a ban under consideration in North Dakota, plus a continuing wave of regulations on abortion clinics that, activists say, have forced clinics to close by making it impossible for them to operate. More of those regulations have advanced in recent years, too, opponents warn.

Combined with two major court cases that shifted the legal standards for limiting abortions, GOP gains at the state level have made it easier for groups like Americans United for Life (AUL), a national anti-abortion group that drafts model legislation in Washington, D.C., and works to pass it through state legislatures.

If states keep passing laws, and anti-abortion activists get their way, the Supreme Court may have to decide whether it will take up the issue once again.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Arkansas’s Abortion Ban and One Man’s Strong Will" by Erik Eckholm, New York Times 3/11/13

Fetal heartbeat laws are already under consideration by legislatures in Ohio, Kansas and North Dakota, and have a good chance of passage in the coming year, their proponents believe, even though legal experts say they have little chance of surviving in federal courts.

Similar proposals are less far along in Kentucky, Mississippi and Wyoming.

Evangelical groups like the Family Research Council in Washington are among the enthusiastic promoters of fetal-heartbeat limits. But traditional leaders of the anti-abortion movement, like National Right to Life and the Roman Catholic Church, think such laws will quickly be overturned in federal courts, reinforcing the existing limit set by the Supreme Court that women have a constitutional right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy.

The largest anti-abortion groups prefer an incremental strategy that has resulted in hundreds of state laws to narrow abortion rights, like requiring women to have sonograms beforehand and imposing longer waiting periods.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.