Thursday, February 1, 2018

Woman Holds Her 6-Month-Old Baby as She Testifies Against Bill Banning Late-Term Abortions

 NATIONAL   MICAIAH BILGER   JAN 31, 2018   |   1:12PM    JEFFERSON CITY, MO
Missouri lawmakers listened Tuesday as a woman held her infant son and told them not to ban late-term abortions.
She was one of several abortion activists and pro-life advocates who testified about a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks during a Missouri House hearing, the Columbia Missourian reports.
The legislation, state House Bill 1266, sponsored by state Rep. Donna Lichtenegger, R-Jackson, would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks when unborn babies are capable of feeling intense pain.
“If a nervous system is fully functional, it feels pain, so that’s why we are wanting to not have an abortion after 20 weeks,” Lichtenegger said, citing a strong body of scientific evidence.
But abortion activists came out in force to protest the bill. Rachel Goldberg, of Urbana, testified against the bill while holding her six-month old son, Ollie.
Goldberg said she had a late-term abortion in 2015 after another one of her children, an unborn son, was diagnosed with a fetal anomaly at 20 weeks of pregnancy, according to the local news. Reports do not mention if Goldberg explained any specifics about her son’s diagnosis.
“My biggest fear since hearing that there was something wrong with our son at my 20-week ultrasound is that someone would make him suffer, and that someone would force him to suffer for their own beliefs that had nothing to do with, or weren’t grounded in, medical research,” Goldberg said.
She said she had an abortion at 26 weeks of pregnancy in Colorado.
Goldberg said she did not want her unborn son to suffer, but there is a strong body of research indicating that her child did experience excruciating pain when he was aborted in her womb. At the 26-week mark, even prominent pro-abortion researchers admit unborn babies can feel pain.
However, many researchers point to evidence that unborn babies can feel pain much earlier. Researchers have fully established fetal pain at 20 weeks, though some say the capability of feeling pain may begin as early as 8 weeks.
Dr. Steven Zielinski, an internal medicine physician from Oregon, is one of the leading researchers into it. He first published reports in the 1980s to validate research showing evidence for unborn pain.
At 20 weeks, the unborn child has all the parts in place – the pain receptors, spinal cord, nerve tracts, and thalamus – needed for transmitting and feeling pain. The unborn child responds to touch as early as week 6; and by week 18, pain receptors have appeared throughout the child’s body.
Dr. Colleen A. Malloy, a professor of neonatology at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, told a U.S. Senate committee last year that “anesthesiologists, and surgeons use pain medication” for unborn babies at the 20-week stage when performing surgery, “because it’s supported by the literature completely.”
“I could never imagine subjecting my tiny patients to a horrific procedure such as those that involve limb detachment or cardiac injection,” Malloy added.
Currently, 16 states have pain-capable unborn child protection laws in effect, Kentucky being the most recent. A federal bill failed to pass the U.S. Senate Monday because there were not enough votes to overcome pro-abortion Democrats’ filibuster.
Together, these laws potentially are saving thousands of babies from painful, late-term abortions. There were at least 5,770 late-term abortions at or after 21 weeks of pregnancy in 2013 in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control. Another approximate 8,150 abortions took place between 18 weeks and 20 weeks, the CDC reports.

Cecile Richards Gives “State of Our Union” Address, Demands a “Right to Abortion”

 NATIONAL   STEVEN ERTELT   JAN 31, 2018   |   12:17PM    WASHINGTON, DC
Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards gave her own State of the Union address last night, and in it she demanded a right to abortion.
The head of the nation’s biggest abortion business has announced her resignation and will soon be stepping down from her position as its CEO. But Richards is still representing America’s biggest abortion company and she is not happy that a pro-life president in it is in office who is protecting unborn children and the rights of pro-life people.
As she is prone to do, Richards wrapped her comments in language about women’s health rather than admitting that Planned Parenthood is all about abortion. Planned Parenthood kills over 330,000 unborn children every single year and the number of patients it sees for non abortion reasons is on the decline. But you would never suspect that with the kind of language that Richards uses when talking about the subject.
Here is what Richards had to say, according to the Washington Times:
Cecile Richards, speaking at a “State of Our Union” forum in Washington, which coincided with President Trump’s State of the Union Address to Congress, said women have “beaten the odds by protecting access to affordable health care for millions of Americans and ensuring that Planned Parenthood’s doors are still open all across the United States of America.”
Ms. Richards said the Trump administration and GOP lawmakers have tried to use “the power of the state to deny women health care” and “their right to an abortion.”
“All I can say is come for us and we are going to come back roaring twice as strong next time,” Mrs. Richards said. “This is serious business because we have seen what happens when the power of the state is used against us.”
“If the government won’t change, we will change the government,” she said. “The good news is, like never before, women are the most powerful political force in this country.”
Richards expanded political advocacy at Planned Parenthood. Her background was in politics, not health care. Previously, she worked for pro-abortion House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and the liberal advocacy group America Votes. She is the daughter of former Texas Gov. Ann Richards.
During her tenure, Planned Parenthood saw huge drops in patient numbers and actual health services and scandal after scandal involving aborted baby body parts trafficking and sexual abuse cover-ups.
At the same time, the abortion chain reaped in record profits, including billions in taxpayer funding, and maintained a corner on the American abortion market. It ramped up its political advocacy and attacked numerous efforts to protect unborn and born babies from abortion.
Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion business in America, aborting approximately 320,000 unborn babies every year. Its most recent annual report showed a record income of $1.46 billion, with about half a billion dollars coming from taxpayers.
In December, the U.S. Department of Justice said it is investigating whether the abortion chain illegally sold aborted baby body parts.

8 States Try to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Pay for Abortions

 NATIONAL   TONY PERKINS   JAN 31, 2018   |   7:45PM    WASHINGTON, DC
For years under the Obama administration, the Little Sisters of the Poor and other faith-based organizations had to fight to continue to occupy the role they had always occupied in serving the public good.
While some large for-profit companies like Exxon and Pepsi were exempt from the HHS contraceptive mandate requiring employers to cover free drugs and services that can destroy human embryos, the previous administration refused to honor the request of faith-based nonprofits which objected both to the mandate and the accounting gimmicks imposed through regulations supposedly granting an “accommodation.”
It was a simple request; the organizations just didn’t want to be forced into something that violated their consciences. Why should Catholic nuns be forced to cover contraceptive or embryo destroying drugs in their health plans? The Obama administration shrugged, however, and insisted on forcing them to take part—which led to years of ongoing litigation after the Little Sisters and others stood their ground over the accounting gimmicks. This needless harassment of elderly nuns, whose mission is to take care of the poor, became an election issue, and then-candidate Trump promised to protect them if elected.
After entering office, President Trump did follow through, and last May issued an executive order protecting religious freedom and specifically mentioning the need to protect these faith-based groups from the unfair HHS mandate.
And this past October, his administration followed through on the executive order, with HHS issuing new rules exempting the Little Sisters and others from the mandate and the accounting gimmicks to which they were subject. These rules finally offer a proper exemption which the Obama-era rules never did, and consequently should end the years of litigation which the nuns and others have been caught up in.
Alas, it was not to be so. Enter a number of liberal, anti-faith state officials intent on political grandstanding. These folks are not happy with the nice solution provided by HHS, and have sued the Trump administration over these new rules.
Whether it is an inability to live and be happy with anything President Trump does, or a desire to continue steamrolling the Little Sisters at the behest of “women’s’ rights” (I suppose the “women’s’ rights” of the Little Sisters don’t matter much), these state politicians from liberal-leaning states have chosen to prolong needless litigation and use state resources to force those with moral and conscience objections to violate their deeply held beliefs.
So far, this group includes California (whose suit was joined by Delaware, Maryland, New York, and Virginia), Washington, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts – where just yesterday, a judge rejected an attempt by a religious school affected by the mandate to intervene in the lawsuit, asserting the DOJ can defend the case fine. Let us hope so. The DOJ should vigorously defend this common-sense rule issued by HHS, which is an effort to bring to an end, years of litigation.
Beyond the political grandstanding there is little justification for the suits against the Trump administration. The states have the legal power and authority to set contraception policy in their states, and can “issue” contraceptives to those they wish to—while leaving other states free to do differently. And they can do all this while leaving the Little Sisters out of it. So why not? The issue apparently is not a provision of contraceptives but rather preempting the choice of religious organizations like the Little Sisters from being able to choose healthcare plans and policies that reflect their religious beliefs.
LifeNews Note: Tony Perkins is the president of the Family Research Council.

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *