Pro-Life Progress: License of Ohio Abortion Clinic Revoked, Maryland Late-Term Abortionist Quits

An abortion facility in Ohio run by one of the nation’s most notorious abortion doctors has had its operating license revoked by Rick Hodges, director of the state’s Department of Health, CBS News reported.

The license was revoked after abortionist Martin Haskell’s Women’s Med Center of Dayton failed to obtain a transfer agreement with area hospitals, a requirement for abortion facilities in Ohio, CBS News reported. The clinic also failed to name the required number of physicians to standby as backup for emergencies — the only way abortion facilities can be exempt from the transfer agreement.

The clinic plans to appeal the order and has 15 days to do so, according to Dayton Daily News.

As reported earlier by The Stream, Haskell is credited with being the first to scientifically describe partial-birth abortions, after having carried out 700 of the horrific procedures himself.

The closing of Women’s Med Center of Dayton is being credited in part to the pro-life non-profit Created Equal through its Killers Among Us project, which discouraged area physicians from supporting the abortion clinic. The campaign is “aimed at calling out doctors involved in abortions, which included posters, mailers and vehicles circulating through the doctors’ neighborhoods publicizing their names,” Dayton Daily News reported.

“Other ob/gyn’s in the community saw what was going on and didn’t want to be a part of it,” said Jennifer Branch, attorney for the clinic.

Created Equal celebrated in a news release Thursday, with National Director Mark Harrington saying “Our efforts combined with local activists have had an impact.”

Katie Franklin, spokeswoman for Ohio Right to Life, said the organization is “very grateful to see that action is being taken on this facility, and we are hoping thousands of lives in Dayton are saved in the long run.”

Maryland Late-Term Abortionist Walks Out of Clinic

News of the clinic’s revoked license follows the end of another abortionist’s practice — specifically, his practice of providing late-term abortions.

Operation Rescue, a pro-life activist organization, reported last week that Leroy Carhart of Maryland has officially stopped providing late-term abortions at Germantown Reproductive Health Services (GRHS). According to Operation Rescue, GRHS previously provided abortions through all nine months of pregnancy.

But many abortions performed by Carhart were far from safe. Possibly as many as 12 women were transported from his clinic to emergency rooms after botched abortion attempts, Operation Rescue reported in March. One of his patients died after complications following her abortion procedure at 33-weeks.

Operation Rescue President Troy Newman said Carhart’s retirement from late-term abortions is “something to be grateful for.”

“Carhart’s brand of very late-term abortions are morally reprehensible and very dangerous, having taken the lives of countless viable babies and two of his patients,” Newman continued. “We have worked for years to end this atrocity, and today, Maryland is free from the dangers posed by Carhart.”

Carhart still performs abortions up to 20 weeks at a facility near his hometown in Nebraska, according to Operation Rescue. (For more from the author of “Pro-Life Progress: License of Ohio Abortion Clinic Revoked, Maryland Late-Term Abortionist Quits” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Texas Abortion Providers Will Be Required to Bury or Cremate Aborted Babies, Abortionists React

The bodies of aborted children in Texas must be buried or cremated, according to a new rule adopted by the state’s Department of Health and Human Services. The rule, proposed by Gov. Greg Abbot in July, goes into effect on December 19th.

The rule essentially requires that the remains be treated like any other person’s remains, and prohibits their being disposed of in a landfill or by grinding up the bodies and discharging them into the sewer system. “I believe it is imperative to establish higher standards that reflect our respect for the sanctity of life,” Abbot said in an email.

Their bodies can no longer disposed of in the same way as what the New York Times called “other forms of biological medical waste.” The rules added provisions to the existing code, “that afford protection and dignity to the unborn consistent with the Legislature’s expression of its intent,” according to the preamble to the rules.

The new rules covers the bodies of children who miscarry in a hospital. It exempts parents who miscarry or abort children at home.

Abbot has also called for other changes in the law to protect the bodies of aborted children. In his 2016 Report to the People of Texas, Abbot had called for making “partial-birth abortion a felony in Texas” and also making it “illegal for doctors to risk a woman’s health by altering abortion procedures to preserve fetal body parts.” He added “we must criminalize any sale or transaction of fetal body parts or tissue in Texas by an abortion clinic for any purpose.”

The Abortion Reaction

The abortion industry reacted immediately. They are threatening to sue the state, claiming that the regulations restrict women’s right to abortion and that abortion providers will face extra costs.

“Texas politicians are at it again, inserting their personal beliefs into the health care decisions of Texas women,” Stephanie Toti, senior counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement reported by Texas Tribune after the measures were proposed this past summer. “The Center for Reproductive Rights is prepared to take further legal action to ensure that Texas women can continue to access abortion and other reproductive health care without interference by politicians.”

The state’s health department says the opposite is true — that the costs associated with funerals will be offset by costs currently incurred by hospitals and clinics to transport, incinerate or otherwise dispose of an unborn baby’s body. Its spokeswoman said that the department’s research showed the cost will be “offset by costs currently being spent by facilities on disposition for transportation, storage, incineration, steam disinfection and/or landfill disposal.”

The pro-abortion Texas Medical Association, the Texas Hospital Association and the Healthcare Waste Institute of the National Waste and Recycling Association opposed the new rule. It has also been opposed by the Funeral Consumers Alliance of Texas.

According to the New York Times, the head of the Texas branch of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas attacked what she called “the addition of non-medical ritual.” The new rules are “a thinly veiled attempt to shame Texans who have abortions and make it harder for the doctors who provide them,” she said.

The Pro-Life Response

Texas Right to Life Legislative Associate Emily Horne told The Stream that “we are appreciative of the new policy that provides dignity to pre-born children who have died. These laws give unborn children the same dignity that is already required of pre-born babies that die after 20 weeks. And, more is required because a death certificate is required after 20 weeks.”

Horne told The Stream that her organization will aim to “pass laws that will save some of these deaths from occurring in the first place” when the Texas legislature returns to session in January.

The new rule is “nothing revolutionary,” Horne said. “But you’re not hearing that. This law treats unborn babies with the dignity they deserve.” (For more from the author of “Texas Abortion Providers Will Be Required to Bury or Cremate Aborted Babies, Abortionists React” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Abortion Rates Down — Don’t Celebrate Just Yet

The Associated Press Wednesday reported that the number and rate of abortions have declined to their lowest levels in decades. The latest information from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) comes from 2013 data from 47 states. California, Maryland and New Hampshire do not report abortion numbers or rates.

The CDC reports that from 2012, 2013’s rates of abortion decreased by 5 percent. But before we do a victory dance, we should take a closer look at what this actually means. The CDC reports that 664,435 legal abortions were performed in 2013. The rate for 2013 was 12.5 abortions per 1,000 women ages 15-44, and a ratio of 200 abortions per 1,000 live births. So realistically, the 12.5 abortions per 1,000 women means absolutely nothing, since we have no idea of those women how many were pregnant. The number that actually matters is how many abortions per live births. That’s still 200 abortions per 1,000 live births. That’s a whopping 20 percent. Should we celebrate the fact that 20 percent of all babies conceived are murdered? Oh, and keep in mind that this does not account for the liberal states of California, Maryland and New Hampshire, which would certainly make this number higher.

Of course, we should be thankful that the overall numbers are down. But well over half a million legal abortions per year is not a cause to stand up and celebrate.

According to the CDC:

The majority of abortions in 2013 took place early in gestation: 91.6% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (7.1%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (1.3%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. In 2013, 22.2% of all abortions were early medical abortions. The percentage of abortions reported as early medical abortions increased 5% from 2012 to 2013.

While all abortions are performed after the heart has started to beat, 7.1 percent of abortions take place after the child was developed and growing and 1.3 percent when the child was viable. Almost a quarter of early medical abortions were performed using abortifacient drugs (two-step drug process the mother takes at home) and those increased by 5 percent over the year period studied.

AP reported that several factors comprised the abortion decline, including a drop in adolescent pregnancies, healthcare expanding coverage of birth control costs and increased use of long-term birth control methods, such as intrauterine devices and implants (some of which do not prohibit conception but do not allow the baby to implant into the uterus, thereby causing an “abortion”).

And what of the women who’ve suffered abortions and now live with the lifelong regret? AP will never report on those statistics. Many brave women have shared their stories of abortion on the “Silent No More Campaign” website, and have agreed to allow others to pass them along. Here are just a few of their stories:


It’s an understatement to say that I regret my decision. Not only did I take an innocent unborn life, but part of my life was robbed as well. My child will never get to call me mom or blow out his/her birthday candles. He/she never had the chance to live because someone else chose for that baby. My child would have been 17 years old last August and I’m 38 now with no children. … Please hear me, please trust me, abortion is not the easy way out! The reality of the decision will come back to haunt you later in life, (if not right away), emotionally and/or health wise!!!!!!!!!!!!!


It was a very traumatic experience. When I got home I felt extreme sadness. Within days that turned to regret, shame, depression, and post abortion stress syndrome. I was hurting and lost. I would give anything to have my baby back.

Ever since my abortion I have cut off anyone who advised me to have it. … I cannot forgive myself. I can’t stand seeing pregnant women or babies due to guilt. I have nightmares. I have flashes of what my babies would have been like. I am in extreme agony. I am trying to heal in post abortion individual counseling, and I’m also seeking help from an abortion group. I have turned to God for forgiveness. I have learned I cannot judge others if I don’t want to be judged. I have been in deep pain and am working on peace and forgiveness and slowly getting there and that’s why I am silent no more.


During the abortion experience I felt an overwhelming sense of fear mixed with despair and loneliness. I especially remember the gruff and rude doctor who performed the abortion. I recall feeling the suction pulling at my walls which caused a sharp pain. As I began to cry during the procedure, the doctor said, “Be still or you can do this yourself!” There was no sense of compassion in his voice, only coldness. When the abortion was over, I was rushed out of the facility with pain pills and antibiotics. The healthcare provider gave a cursory overview of the side effects and sent me on my way. I remember feeling empty, ashamed, and alone as I caught the bus to school.

As time went on the long term emotional consequences became evident. For example, I was very distant in my relationships with men. I lack trust in my personal relationships because the father of the child left me to make the difficult decision of aborting the baby. I am also very suspicious of healthcare providers because I believed the lie about the child being “just a bunch of cells.”

Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being and devastates the mother who lives with the consequences for the rest of her life. A slight decrease in the abortion rate is better than an increase, but it’s nothing to celebrate. When we see a zero-rate of abortion, we’ll have a party. Until then, there’s still a lot of work to do. (For more from the author of “Abortion Rates Down — Don’t Celebrate Just Yet” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Entitled Couple Live-Tweets Their Abortion Journey, but What About Their Baby’s Right to Live?

A blessing and a curse of the Internet is that it allows us to peek into the living rooms — even bedrooms — of other people’s lives. Often now, many people invite us into their lives purposely, and reveal intimate details intentionally, for altruism, pity — a redress of grievances — and so on. Last week, an Irish woman was so frustrated and outraged she couldn’t have an abortion in her country (abortions are banned in Ireland) that she trekked to Liverpool, England. She documented the entire journey live, Twitter-ranting, complaining, and justifying her decision as she went.

The circumstances

The Daily Mail reported that, using the name “Heartbroken&Punished,” an anonymous couple living in Ireland began tweeting the story of her unfolding abortion. The couple, who already has one living child with a several disability, left that child in care of family members in order to travel to Liverpool, about 150 miles away, to abort their unborn baby. Prenatal testing had revealed the unborn child had “Edwards syndrome, which is a fatal foetal abnormality.” The father said, “We were told that even if carried to full term, the period of life would be counted in the minutes and hours after birth.” According to the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, abortion is only legal in Ireland if the life of the mother is at risk.

In their pinned tweet, the couple writes that they tried several times to conceive, despite knowing that baby too would risk the same genetic abnormality as their first child. They were told if the wife gave birth to a child with Edwards, “if carried to full term the period of life would be counted in the minutes and hours after birth.” The father called it a “crushing sentence” and the “most humane thing possible to do to a baby that will never survive.”

The couple wrote about how they chose to document their journey because they “hope this may enlighten those who do not want to listen or even allow the people of this country to decide for themselves” since their government has “kicked the can down the road and we must decide if we can allow this to happen.”

The blame game

The majority of the tweets were aimed at the Irish government. In fact, almost every tweet along the journey includes the hashtag “it’s time to repeal,” referring to Ireland’s law. In 2014, less than 4,000 women travelled to the U.K. to receive an abortion due to Ireland’s strict law. The woman concluded because she decided to abort her children, due to the results of the genetic testing, her “country doesn’t care.”

Because of the unborn child’s diagnosis with Edward’s, the couple assumed they have no other choice but abortion and then assumed the government should allow it, simply so they don’t have to be inconvenienced. Both these conclusions, while understandable (and indeed heartbreaking) are misinformed.

Tell me: Is there anything more ironic than complaining about the hardship it’s been to travel to abort your child? More narcissistic than demanding you’re so entitled, your government should adjust its laws so you can terminate your baby? Indeed, nothing says your “country doesn’t care” more than forcing a woman to travel a few miles to abort her child. How selfish; how egocentric; how greedy.

Wrong on both counts

The idea of getting an abortion to end a pregnancy — especially in cases of rape, incest, or when a child will likely not survive long past birth — can be understandably attractive to a woman or her husband, it is still wrong. Adoption is always a viable, positive option that is truly a “win-win-win” for mom, baby, and a couple waiting to adopt — particularly in the case of rape or incest. And according to this news story, there are 14 times more couples in Ireland waiting to adopt than there are children to adopt. In the case of fetal abnormalities, like the unborn child of this couple, it would likely be more humane to allow the baby to be born and die a natural death. Babies feel pain during abortion as early as 8 weeks. (It appears this mother was about 12 weeks along.) This outcome, while still tragic, may have been less painful for baby, and less emotionally devastating for the parents — and it certainly would have avoided a trip to Liverpool. Abortion, contrary to popular belief, is rarely a humane option for baby or mom.

Not only that, but it’s deeply saddening to see the couple attempted to use this experience as a way to redress their grievances to their government — to appeal to change their abortion law. They essentially argued, “I want to terminate my baby. How dare the government not acquiesce to my every whim!” While the story did pick up traction, think of how upside down that sounds when the people of Ireland think abortion is a right and the government should provide it. I can assure you, the unborn babies growing in the wombs of Irish mothers are thankful for Ireland’s law, even if a few frustrated mothers are not. (For more from the author of “Entitled Couple Live-Tweets Their Abortion Journey, but What About Their Baby’s Right to Live?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Trump: ‘Very Important’ Supreme Court Nominee Will Overturn Roe v. Wade, Let States Control Abortion

In a wide-ranging interview with 60 Minutes that aired on Sunday night, President-elect Donald Trump reiterated his vow to nominate a Supreme Court justice who will vote to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

“I’m pro-life. The judges will be pro-life,” said Trump, adding that if Roe v. Wade “ever were overturned, it would go back to the states.” Pressed by reporter Lesley Stahl on the consequences of abortion legalization being left up to the individual states, Trump said that women who want abortions will “have to go to another state” if the one in which they live bans the procedure.

During the campaign, Trump promised to sign a late-term abortion ban, vowed to defund Planned Parenthood as long as it conducts abortions, and to make permanent an annually-approved budget rider that bans federal funding for most abortions. While Trump’s positions are being widely hailed by pro-life groups, Trump’s answer also suggests that he would not try to make abortion widely illegal outright.

As for the High Court itself, Trump has promised to make nominating a replacement for deceased Justice Antonin Scalia a top priority once in office. This promise and others on abortion and religious liberty helped drive faith-based voters to back Trump. ABC News reports that 57 percent of voters who considered the Court their number one issue backed Trump, compared to 40 percent for Clinton. Exit polls showed that over one-fifth of voters said the Court was their most important issue.

The full exchange between Trump and Stahl on abortion and the Court is below:

Lesley Stahl: One of the things you’re going to obviously get an opportunity to do, is name someone to the Supreme Court. And I assume you’ll do that quickly?

Donald Trump: Yes. Very important.

Lesley Stahl: During the campaign, you said that you would appoint justices who were against abortion rights. Will you appoint– are you looking to appoint a justice who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade?

Donald Trump: So look, here’s what’s going to happen– I’m going to– I’m pro-life. The judges will be pro-life. They’ll be very—

Lesley Stahl: But what about overturning this law–

Donald Trump: Well, there are a couple of things. They’ll be pro-life, they’ll be– in terms of the whole gun situation, we know the Second Amendment and everybody’s talking about the Second Amendment and they’re trying to dice it up and change it, they’re going to be very pro-Second Amendment. But having to do with abortion if it ever were overturned, it would go back to the states. So it would go back to the states and–

Lesley Stahl: Yeah, but then some women won’t be able to get an abortion?

Donald Trump: No, it’ll go back to the states.

Lesley Stahl: By state—no some —

Donald Trump: Yeah.

Donald Trump: Yeah, well, they’ll perhaps have to go, they’ll have to go to another state.

Lesley Stahl: And that’s OK?

Donald Trump: Well, we’ll see what happens. It’s got a long way to go, just so you understand. That has a long, long way to go.

(For more from the author of “Trump: ‘Very Important’ Supreme Court Nominee Will Overturn Roe v. Wade, Let States Control Abortion” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Abortions Are Down but Abortion Medication Use Is on the Rise. What Are Pro-Lifers to Do?

New data from Reuters shows more women are using an abortifacient to end their pregnancies — referred to as “abortion medication,” which seems a bit contradictory — than ever before, even though abortions overall are still declining. The data reveal not only the current state of abortion in this country, but also the effect pro-life lawmakers have had on the debate, and what lays ahead for the movement.

What is ‘abortion medication’?

Reuters, via Huffington Post, reported, “Medication abortion involves two drugs, taken over a day or two. The first, mifepristone, blocks the pregnancy sustaining hormone progesterone. The second, misoprostol, induces uterine contractions. Studies have shown medical abortions are effective up to 95 percent of the time.”

These drugs have been available for some time, but fewer FDA regulations that occurred in March increased availability and popularity. Doctors can now prescribe the pills up until mom is 10 weeks along, instead of seven. The guidelines also changed to reduce the “number of required medical visits and allowed trained professionals other than physicians, including nurse practitioners, to dispense the pills.” Its usage is now at 43 percent, up from 35 percent just six years ago. States like Michigan and Iowa have very few restrictions on the drugs, and so “medication abortions” make up nearly half of all abortions in Michigan and a little more than half in Iowa.

Why? Convenience. Tammi Kromenaker, director of the Red River Women’s Clinic in Fargo, North Dakota, said, “Women who ask for the medication prefer it because they can end a pregnancy at home, with a partner, in a manner more like a miscarriage.”

That said, the overall U.S. abortion rate continues to decline. In 2008, there were roughly 19 terminations per 1,000 women aged 15-44. In 2011, that had dropped to 16.9. And last year, it was at its lowest point since 1973.

What does this mean?

Let’s face it: This “medication” makes abortion even more convenient than it already is. Contrary to liberal talking points, abortions are quite easy to receive. In fact, in some states, teens don’t even have to tell their parents they’re getting one. Folks in Florida are up in arms that the Florida Supreme Court is considering implementing a 24-hour waiting period before a woman can have an abortion.

Pro-choice advocates will no doubt spin this bit of “good news” to their advantage, claiming once and for all that determined women will abort their children and no amount of effort from pro-life advocates can stop it. But this type of spin is normal.

Remember back in September, when Ushma D. Upadhyay, an associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, penned The New York Times op-ed about these very abortion drugs? She said, “my colleagues and I found that such laws are not just covers for restricting abortion access — they can actually harm women’s health.” Upadhayay continued, saying:

We need scientific research that evaluates these laws’ actual effects on women and their health. If state legislatures want to create policies around abortion, they should be based on evidence. When policy is not based on science, American women pay the price.

Since more women than ever before are utilizing these drugs, I guess American women aren’t suffering (she didn’t make the case for it regardless).

The Frisky observed “Just think about it: while TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws were exploding across the nation, reasonable guidelines for abortion pills were being developed. Today, more than 2.75 million U.S. women have used abortion pills since they were approved in 2000.” The Frisky went so far as to say it shows that regardless of what pro-life advocates do, nothing will stop a woman determined to end the life of her unborn child.

TRAP laws resulted in hundreds of clinics across the country shutting down and have forced women seeking abortions to travel long distances to obtain the procedure, delay having the procedure potentially until the second trimester, or to self-induce. The anti-abortion laws may close clinics, but they fail to actually achieve the anti-choice movement’s goal of stopping abortions from happening.

While fewer abortion clinics, due to TRAP laws, may have contributed to the rise in “abortion medication,” I’m not sure it supports the idea that pro-life advocates are failing. After all, there abortions have at their lowest number since Roe v. Wade. So women are having fewer abortions. Why this is happening seems more multi-faceted.

Pro-life lawmakers should press on, along with educators and families

The fact that the usage increased only when FDA regulations were reduced shows the power of regulation and legislation. As a small-government conservative, I’m hesitant to encourage regulation just to take up space. But pro-life lawmakers’ strategies to help reduce abortions, whether by defunding Planned Parenthood or imposing strict guidelines of the condition of abortion clinics, have contributed to the national reduction of abortions.

Lawmakers should continue to reduce abortions, by whatever creative, persuasive, and legal means necessary. A few mind-boggling videos caused a House Committee to investigate Planned Parenthood in 2015 and at least a dozen states have voted to defund it. I’d say that’s one way to accomplish the “anti-choice movement’s goal of stopping abortion from happening.”

It’s imperative women understand what an abortion entails and when life begins. Knowledge and education, via schools, communities, families, and friends, are key ways to discuss this “abortion medication.” If life begins at conception, which science supports, these drugs are ending a tiny baby’s life. This cannot be overstated. As I said in this space a few months ago,

his former abortion doctor explains that the abortion pill slowly starves a baby to death. ‘Dr. Anthony Levatino, an OB/GYN who did over 1200 abortions, uses medically accurate animations inside the womb to show how the abortion pill slowly starves a baby to death over a period of days. He also details how developed the baby is at this early stage and the abortion pill’s potentially dangerous effects on the mother.’

While a mother can’t see much at an ultrasound under 10 weeks — research show women are often moved to change their minds after seeing her baby on an ultrasound — she may be able to hear a heartbeat, which is often exciting. Finally, the most obvious answer for many pro-life advocates, and the hardest for a mother-to-be is to encourage mom to forgo the use of any “abortion medication,” and bring the baby to term. There are between one and two million couples waiting to adopt. There is a way that is safe for everyone, including mom and baby.

Pro-life advocates should not be discouraged at the news that “abortion medication” is increasing, but neither should they ignore what it says about a woman’s desire for convenience and privacy. While legislation can be a helpful tool in decreasing abortions, education, knowledge and support are key in continuing to reduce the number of aborted babies nationwide. (For more from the author of “Abortions Are Down but Abortion Medication Use Is on the Rise. What Are Pro-Lifers to Do?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Hillary Clinton and the Extreme Abortionist Culture

On the abortion issue alone, I believe that Christians should vote for Donald Trump as the only possible candidate to defeat the march of the death culture Hillary Clinton would lead if she were to be elected.

Pro-abortion feminists are growing ever more militant in their make-believe world that sees men and women as bitter rivals, if not outright enemies. They seem to view everything through a gender prism; people have to support Clinton not because she has a better agenda but because she’s a woman.

Don’t get me wrong; they also think she has a better agenda, but they are constantly thinking and speaking in terms of gender identification and loyalty. And all too often, they demonize men in the process — whom they perceive as a threat to women’s rights.

This adversarial culture the left fosters is not limited to gender. It includes race, economic “status” and every other imaginable category that can aid in their politics of division, on which their political power depends. WikiLeaks’ revelations have confirmed that such polarization is integral to the modern Democratic Party’s grand strategy for eventual one-party dominance.

If Clinton wins this election — despite the tsunami of corruption and scandal that surrounds her, in which she is knee-deep — she will believe she is politically bulletproof, and for good reason. She and husband Bill would never have behaved as cavalierly and recklessly as they have if they didn’t think they possess a lifetime get-out-of-jail-free card. I shudder to think what their mindset would be if Hillary were to be victorious.

She would pursue the abortion-on-demand agenda with abandon. She would appoint radical judges at all levels who share her worldview and her determination that the courts continue to rewrite laws that thwart the will of the people. She’d accelerate Barack Obama’s war on religious liberty through the courts, lawless executive orders and other administrative avenues.

Some will say I’m exaggerating here — that the left just wants to protect beleaguered women, who should have sole sovereignty over their “reproductive” decisions. Leftists aren’t pro-abortion; they have benign motives, focused exclusively on the mother’s choice and health.

Well, that may be true of some rank-and-file Democratic voters. But most leftist politicians, thought leaders and power brokers are pro-abortion extremists and coldly calculating in promoting their goals. They know that protecting the mother’s health is rarely involved in abortion decisions. They know that pro-life advocates, many of whom are women, don’t believe in suppressing women. But they also know that by characterizing pro-lifers as women-hating, totalitarian ogres, they will increase the odds that they’ll keep moving their pro-abortion football down the field toward the end zone marked “death.”

I wrote in 2004:

People I’ve debated on the (abortion) issue have generally taken the position that the baby in the womb is “potential life” or a clump of cells or a zygote. They seemed to sense that they would have no legitimate argument in favor of abortion if they admitted the baby was a life. But as secular and humanistic influences have gained ascendance in our culture, I’ve anticipated the day when moral relativists would become so brazen as to discard their reliance on the argument that “the fetus is not a human life.” Indeed, with the breathtaking scientific and technological advances — such as the discovery that a baby in the womb smiles and feels pain — it’s practically inevitable that the pro-aborts will be forced to abandon that argument.

Fast-forward 12 years and see how inevitable it actually was. Mary Elizabeth Williams, writing on Salon, asks, “So what if abortion ends life?” She writes: “Of all the diabolically clever moves the anti-choice lobby has ever pulled, surely one of the greatest has been its consistent co-opting of the word ‘life.’ Life! Who wants to argue with that? Who wants (to) be on the side of … not-life? … The ‘life’ conversation is often too thorny to even broach. Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice.”

I don’t like quoting just some of her statements and don’t want to mislead as to her intent, so I strongly urge you to read her entire piece, where you can judge for yourselves these comments in context. But I must share one more passage. She writes:

Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

I could comment on those assertions for hours but have run out of space. What do you mean “lest” you wind up looking as if you love death panels? That’s exactly what you look like, as cold and heartless as your words on the page.

Leftist advocates will applaud such amoral muscle flexing, but I appeal to less extreme liberals, Democrats and never-Trumpers to understand the depth of the depravity of this mindset and understand that if you help elect Clinton, you are, among many other frightening things, empowering this evil worldview. Should I refrain from calling it “evil” for fear of offense or being labeled intolerant or an extremist? I think not. You can take that up with the babies whose lives are hanging in the balance. (For more from the author of “Hillary Clinton and the Extreme Abortionist Culture” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Abortion by Pill on the Rise, Putting Women’s Health at Greater Risk

A new study by Reuters found that the rate of women aborting their children by medication has greatly increased, citing “innovative dispensing efforts in some states,” including abortion prescriptions by webcam or over the phone.

Medication abortions rose from 35 percent of Planned Parenthood’s abortions in 2010 to 43 percent of their abortions in 2014. Reuters speculates that new federal prescribing guidelines for the abortion pill Mifeprex will make that rate even higher now. In the last few months, demand for medication abortions tripled in Ohio, Texas and North Dakota, the three states most affected by that change, with some clinics reporting that almost one-third of abortions are now performed with the drugs, the news service reported.

Abortion proponents tout the switch as a boon to women’s health and safety. Pro-life doctors are concerned that this is willful ignorance of the dangers women face when they abort without medical supervision.

“Women who have had these abortions describe them far more difficult, painful, and bloody than the abortion industry led them to believe,” said Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D., Director of Education & Research at National Right to Life, in an email to The Stream. “These abortions are not only bloody and painful, but dangerous. We already know of more than a dozen women, several of them by name, who have died after using these drugs to induce their abortions. Some have bled to death, some have had undiscovered ectopic pregnancies rupture and others have died from aggressive rare infections. The more it is used, the more women will be exposed to these dangers.”

While more clinics are advertising the pills as an easy way to end a pregnancy — one poster reads: “Abortion. Yeah, we do that.” — doctors warn that abortion by pill is more traumatic than these women are prepared for. “It isn’t just the shock and betrayal that they’ll feel when they begin to cramp and bleed, when the process and the pain drag on and on, but when they encounter their aborted babies, when they see with their own eyes the bodies of their children, their eyes, their tiny fists, when they realize the lies that they have been told and the enormous loss that has really taken place,” O’Bannon said.

Having these abortions by web-cam or by mail won’t make them any better, just more dangerous as women scramble to find medical help who understand and can treat the unique problems associated with chemical abortions. They act as if having this at home will make the process comfortable and cozy, but the reality is that a woman is more likely to feel alone and abandoned at precisely the time when she is most vulnerable, when she is in the most pain and the most danger, trying to figure out if what she’s going through is just ordinary bodily assault of the abortion or something even worse.

Donna Harrison, MD, executive director of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told The Stream in an email, “The continuous fantasy that drug induced abortions are simple is the oft repeated mantra of the abortion industry. Drug-induced abortions are neither safe nor easy.”

Pro-life groups concerned for women’s safety warn that the new FDA guidelines mean the procedure will be riskier as doctors are not required to be physically present to the women to whom they prescribe the abortion pill. Abortion performed in an abortion facility by a doctor had its risks, O’Bannon noted, but the doctor knew them and how to treat them. “With web-cam abortions and abortions by mail, with abortionists getting less and less involved with their patients, it isn’t clear that any of this remains any more.”

Harrison cited a recent study in the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, which found that “the most common presentation was excessive bleeding (77.5%). Severe anemia was found in 12.5% of the patients and 5% of patients presented with shock…62.5% of the patients were found to have incomplete abortion, 22.5% had failed abortion and 7.5% of patients had incomplete abortion with sepsis. Surgical evacuation was performed in 67.5% of the patients, whereas 12.5% of the patients required surgical evacuation with blood transfusion.”

The study recommended against unsupervised medical abortion. “The abortion industry wants to minimize knowledge about these risks, and minimize involvement of physicians, in order to keep down their costs and boost their income,” Harrison said. “It is tragic that women are misled about the serious complications, including at least a ten-times increased risk of death from drug-induced abortion as compared with surgical abortion.”

“All of this suffering for women is for the convenience and profit of the abortionist,” Harrison concluded. (For more from the author of “Abortion by Pill on the Rise, Putting Women’s Health at Greater Risk” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Alabama Judge Finds Right to Gruesome Abortion Procedure and Allows Clinics Near Schools

Late last week, I warned Alabama Republicans that if they accede to the tyranny from judicial supremacy, it would run much deeper than the issue of marriage and Judge Roy Moore. Well, on Thursday a federal district judge engaged in nullification and blocked the state’s common sense abortion regulations. Do these same impotent Republicans believe this is also the law of the land? This case is particularly poignant because it is a quintessential example of why the federal judiciary must be stopped by blunt force, irrespective of who wins the presidential election.

Myron Thompson, a puny district judge for the Middle District of Alabama used his misconstrued ‘judicial veto” to block Alabama’s law barring abortion clinics within 2,000 feet of a K-8 public school. The liberal Carter-appointed judge also blocked the portion of the law barring the use of the “dilation and evacuation” method of abortion commonly used in the second trimester to tear apart the baby with forceps [watch this video demonstration of the particularly gruesome procedure if you can stomach it].

While any lower judge will obviously uphold the underlying bad precedent of Roe and Casey, this decision is part of a disturbing trend of lower courts expanding the concocted right to an abortion to new extremes and precluding states from enacting common sense limitations and regulations on the procedure and on clinics. Evidently, not only is there a right to an abortion that never existed in the Constitution and since our Founding, but judges are now saying that any restriction on the clinic or any procedure at any time is burdensome. Judge Thompson opined that the restriction on clinics near schools would shut down too many abortion facilities and place a burden that is “particularly devastating for low-income woman.” He also said that requiring doctors to first stop the heartbeat of the baby instead of tearing it apart limb by limb places a gratuitous burden and risk on the mother.

Why do we even have elections anymore when district courts — which were created by Congress, not the Constitution — can decide every social and political issue of our time?

Consider the following perverse constitutional jurisprudence in the legal system: the government can ban guns within range of schools, even though carrying a gun is an unalienable right explicit in the Bill of Rights. At the same time, a state cannot regulate the most gruesome abortions and ban the practice within range of schools, even though there isn’t a mention of the word “abortion” in the Constitution.

The Long-term problem with lower courts shutting down red states

Remember, even in the best case scenario — if Republicans win the White House, Congress, and the majority of state legislatures — there will be almost no policy benefit to such an electoral outcome. The courts will nullify the few good policies that Republicans actually enact, which are few and far between. Abortion regulations are a superlative example of how the lower courts are shutting down the debate over issues squarely within the purview of state governments. States have been unable to get common sense regulations on abortion clinics or defunding of Planned Parenthood past a single appeals court.

What about the Supreme Court?

There is a widely held myth that the high court hangs in the balance pending the outcome of the presidential election. In reality, Anthony Kennedy is about as far left as the other four liberals on Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence, especially as it relates to abortion. He already made it clear this year in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt that not only is abortion a fundamental right, but states cannot enact reasonable regulations on clinics that will in any way limit access to abortions. Replacing Scalia with an originalist or blocking the appointment of a Hillary pick will not alter the balance because the Left already has five votes in the ‘super legislature’ on almost all social issues. And few legal experts believe Chief Justice John Roberts would overturn Roe.

Ironically, although we’ve chronicled a torrent of court cases in recent months inhibiting states from exercising basic state powers, it will get a lot worse if we actually elect conservatives. Most Republican legislatures are as useless as Republicans in Washington and drift like balloons in the wind. Commensurate with the degree of righteous initiative that we desire from elected conservatives will come the blowback from the entrenched forces of legal warfare. Pick your favorite policies you want to see enacted in your state and just understand that the Left has the ability to place the law in court within days and usually succeed in obtaining an injunction.

This is why we must think beyond the failed judicial strategy of the past half century. It’s time to restore the courts to their original mandate — interpreting the law, not nullifying it. One idea I propose in Stolen Sovereignty is to begin with the lower courts and block them from adjudicating broadly political cases concerning issues such as abortion, marriage, religious liberty, election law, and immigration enforcement.

As we’ve noted before, district and appellate courts are created by Congress. The legislative branch of government has the power to abolish those courts, so members of Congress can certainly regulate their jurisdiction. In 1812, the Supreme Court ruled that the lower courts “possess no jurisdiction but what is given them by the power that creates them, and can be vested with none but what the power ceded to the general government will authorize them to confer.”

There is simply no reason a lower court judge should have the unilateral authority to veto every policy created by a legislature. However, there would still be an avenue for judicial review by bringing lawsuits in state court. The advantage here is that most state courts have some form of election or retention ballots for their judges. While plaintiffs would still have the ability to appeal directly to the Supreme Court, the limited resources of the high court would prevent it from intervening in many cases that the lower federal courts have been officiously asserting their will.

Thus, if by some miracle we have 20 Republican-controlled legislatures promoting good policy on an array of foundational issues, there is no way the Supreme Court could “police” them all like the numerous district courts do at present. All we need is a party actually committed to preserving the states and reining in the runaway judiciary. (For more from the author of “Alabama Judge Finds Right to Gruesome Abortion Procedure and Allows Clinics Near Schools” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


The Baby Elephant in the Room: Pro Abortion Researchers Attack Abortion Stigma

Abortion activists have removed the barriers to abortion across the West, with millions of women and men being part of abortion decisions and procedures.

Yet, despite the massive number of abortions, researchers and public health officials note the persistence of stigma associated with the procedure:

… abortion stigma can be observed at the individual level by measuring worries about the judgment by others, isolation, self-judgment (such as shame), and perceptions of community condemnation. (Cockrill et al., 2013)

Leila Hessini, writing in Rewire, takes it one step further and says that abortion stigma is a form of discrimination:

Abortion stigma occurs when people are labeled, dehumanized, or discriminated against due to their need for, or association with, abortion.

Students at Loyola University participated in a Student’s for Reproductive Choice activity with a papaya to help de-stigmatize abortion:

Students used a papaya to learn about vacuum aspiration abortions, claiming it’s similar to sucking out papaya seeds … a “teacher” tells a student how to insert the cannula into the papaya (uterus) and instructs her on how far to go and how to suck out the insides. … The purpose of the papaya workshop is for students to learn about aspiration abortions, and to destigmatize abortion in general.

Kate Cockrill, MPH is the co-founder of Sea Change, whose mission is to “transform the culture of reproductive stigma.”

The Sea Change website asks some questions about abortion stigma:

Why is abortion so hard to talk about?

Why does getting an abortion often feel illicit and shameful?

Why don’t we hear about the abortion experiences of our mothers, sisters, friends?

Cockrill and her colleagues talk about strategies to reduce and eliminate abortion stigma with the goal of lessening a woman’s isolation and building connection, social support and validation of their abortion decision:

We can imagine a world in which abortion stigma and shame do not taint the relationships of people with abortion experiences … People might talk regularly about their abortion experiences with co-workers, friends, and family members. …

Reduce the secrecy — remove the shame guilt and silence — and women are supported and empowered by their reproductive choices. Abortion is just another in a series of life events and transitions that women can share with friends and family.

Yet even here in the United States where abortion is displayed in media and television in a positive light, most of the women and men who experience this most common and intimate of medical procedures keep it a closely guarded secret.

The Lived Reality of Abortion — The Female Body is Not Pro-Choice

Pro-abortion researchers and public health officials look outside the individual for the source of stigma. The lens through which they look at a woman’s abortion experience is filtered through a narrative of abortion as an act of female autonomy and empowerment.

After all, abortion is as simple as sucking the seeds out of a papaya, right?

Women who have experienced the procedure have a different perspective*:

It was extremely painful, and I will never in my life forget the loud horrifying sound of the suction machine taking the life out of my body. — Cathy

Funny thing about the pro abortion language of bodily autonomy and choice — a woman’s body is not pro-choice.

Once conception occurs, and the pregnancy is developing normally, a woman’s body nurtures and protects the life in her womb. On an emotional and physiological level, a woman has to violate and sever an intimate communion between mother and developing child when that relationship and pregnancy is terminated.

The shame, guilt and unacknowledged loss called “disenfranchised grief” are common after the procedure. They are connected to a sense within a woman of violating something innate, deep within her identity and an intuitive sense that this intimate relationship has been severed.

The biggest impact abortion has had on me is that every time I look at my children I have now, I think about that little face I never saw and the child I have never known. — Aimee B.C., Canada

Women and also men may develop various addictions and become involved in abusive relationships and impulsive sex to dull their pain. Many others throw themselves into hyper-success drive to get far away from their guilt and grief.

I lost what I was trying to save with the abortion. I sacrificed my children on the altar of my ambition. Addictions came into my life as I tried to run from the pain. My misery drove me to my knees. — David

Pro-choice feminists Kate Michelman of NARAL and Gloria Steinem zealously promoted abortion rights after their abortions. Their natural post-abortion feelings of sadness, grief and guilt were channeled into abortion rights activism. Others become public health workers, researchers and volunteers spreading abortion rights around the globe.

Leslie shares about her pro-choice activism after an abortion:

I discovered I was pregnant and I had just landed my dream job as a TV Talk Show Host. A roommate drove me to an abortion clinic in Greensboro, N.C.

After graduation, I threw myself into the new job creating a façade of the perfect young career girl who had it all together … drinking, drugging and sleeping around … self destructing.

Trying to validate my choices, I became a strong pro-abortion supporter and at times militant with anyone who didn’t agree with my opinion.

Stigma as the Door to Recovery

Pro abortion public health officials imagine a world free of abortion stigma and shame.

Yet when a woman or man participates in the death of their unborn child, they naturally experience feelings of sadness, fear of judgment, and isolation in their secret shame. Even when there is a sense of relief after the procedure there are still feelings of grief, anxiety and emptiness.

The path to recovery, and the reduction and elimination of the feelings associated with abortion stigma, requires an affirmation of what was lost and the healing of the broken relationship between parent and child. This is best accomplished in a faith-based abortion recovery program with others who have experienced this loss.

Pro abortion ideology blinds abortion researchers like Kate Cockrill to the true source of abortion stigma and the effective remedy for women and men’s post abortion suffering.

It’s the baby elephant in the room of the pro abortion movement. (For more from the author of “The Baby Elephant in the Room: Pro Abortion Researchers Attack Abortion Stigma” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.