Posts

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

/0 Comments/in , /by

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

/0 Comments/in , /by

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

/0 Comments/in , /by

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

/0 Comments/in , /by

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

/0 Comments/in , /by

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.

Christian University Under Fire for ‘Deep Ties’ With Abortion Industry, Planned Parenthood

/0 Comments/in , /by

“In all of its endeavors, Whitworth University seeks to advance its founder’s mission of equipping students to ‘honor God, follow Christ and serve humanity,'” the school’s website reads.

And yet the Presbyterian-affiliated school is partnering with Planned Parenthood.

Whitworth University is facilitating and promoting Planned Parenthood student internships for college credit, where student interns are “professionally trained.” Whitworth lists the nation’s largest abortion chain as their “community partner” and allows them to have a booth at their school volunteer fair to recruit students.

The prestigious Christian school also sends out flyers listing Planned Parenthood as a resource for pregnant students.

Last spring, Whitworth hosted a fetal tissue research discussion event, where they highlighted the “upside” of abortion as donating baby body parts and sought to discredit the Center for Medical Progress videos as “highly edited.” (Read more from “Christian University Under Fire for ‘Deep Ties’ With Abortion Industry, Planned Parenthood” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary Supports Abortion ‘at 9 Months’: Trump Doubles Down in New Interview

/0 Comments/in , /by

In a new interview, Donald Trump doubled down on his criticism of Hillary Clinton for supporting late-term abortion.

“According to the rules of Hillary, you can take the baby at nine months and you can imagine what you have to do to that baby to get it out,” he told CBN. “And you can take that baby at nine months and you can abort. And a day prior to birth you can take the baby. And I said it’s unacceptable.”

During the first few minutes of last week’s third and final presidential debate, Trump went on the offense against Clinton for supporting abortion on demand and voting in favor of partial-birth abortion.

“If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby,” he said. “Now, you can say that that’s okay, and Hillary can say that that’s okay, but it’s not okay with me because based on what she’s saying and based on where she’s going and where she’s been, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month on the final day, and that’s not acceptable.” (Read more from “Hillary Supports Abortion ‘at 9 Months’: Trump Doubles Down in New Interview” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Rebuking the Unholy Pro-Abortion Coalition

/0 Comments/in , /by

Many years ago, while participating in an Operation Rescue sit-in at an abortion clinic near Washington, D.C., I was struck by the make-up of the pro-abortion protesters. They were largely a mix of atheists, Satanists and gays, and they proudly identified as such. What a coalition!

I remember asking myself, “Why would homosexuals be so adamant about this — adamant enough to show up early in the morning to protest our event — when, for the most part, it’s not relevant to their lives, since they’re not having babies?”

To this day, colleagues of mine who share the gospel outside abortion clinics and offer pro-life alternatives are accosted by this same unholy coalition, often led by aggressive LGBT protesters. Why?

Just this week, after I posted some pro-life tweets in the aftermath of the final presidential debate, the two men who immediately challenged my views were a gay pastor and a Satanist.

Was this just a coincidence? I think not.

I had tweeted, “I urge every Hillary supporter to take time to study late term abortion. She aggressively supports this barbarism. Don’t be partner to it.”

The gay pastor argued that, while not being pro-abortion himself, late-term abortions were only done for the life and health of the mother.

The problem with that, of course, is twofold; First, it does not reduce the barbarity of the procedure; second, “the life and health of the mother” can be twisted to mean almost anything, allowing late-term abortions for things like alleged “mental duress.”

So, this gay pastor’s defense of this horrific procedure was baseless. But it was not surprising, given the moral compromise he already lives in as a practicing homosexual who pastors a “gay-affirming” church.

In similar fashion, Harry Knox, a prominent gay activist, moved from leading the religion branch of the Human Rights Campaign to heading up the Religious Coalition on Reproductive Choice. No surprise!

As for the Satanist, he was more direct in his tweets, using mild profanity in attacking me before affirming a woman’s right to choose. This too was no surprise.

Now, I’m fully aware that many women agonize over their decisions to abort and that some of the decisions are gut wrenching and heartbreaking, perhaps even more so with late-term abortions.

Dr. George Tiller, who was murdered by a demented pro-life activist, actually performed baptisms on some of the aborted babies, dressing them up and joining together with the families in what must surely have been one of the most perverted and macabre religious scenes imaginable. He even gave the babies funerals.

Kill the baby, baptize the baby, bury the baby. How sick!

But this leads me back to the question of why, undoubtedly, the vast majority of Satanists, atheists and gays are pro-abortion.

I’m sure that there are, in fact, pro-life atheists and gays, although they must be a small minority in their communities. And I seriously doubt that there are many (or even any?) pro-life Satanists.

So, the question again is: Why?

The Anti-Life

I believe the answer is primarily twofold: First, these people reject biblical morality; second, these people reject the God of life.

As for the first point, it’s obvious that most of these pro-abortionists would not be moved by a scriptural presentation of the pro-life position. It would either be rejected with scorn, as in, “Who cares what your dumb book says?” Or, in the case of those who profess some kind of biblical faith (like the aforementioned gay pastor), it would be met with a reinterpretation of the clear biblical witness, just as other passages must be reinterpreted in order to justify the sinful practices in their lives.

As for the second point, just ask yourself, on average, who has bigger families, Bible-affirming Christians (and Jews who affirm the Hebrew Scriptures), or atheists, Satanists and gays? Who puts more emphasis on babies and children? Who opposes euthanasia more vigorously?

You see, the battle over abortion is not merely a social and political battle. It is also a spiritual battle, which is why I will flatly and unashamedly rebuke professing Christians — especially fellow-leaders — who are strongly “pro-choice.” In reality, they are anti-life.

By all means, let us address holistically the many problems surrounding abortion — including problems of poverty, education, childcare, adoption, family structure, sexual abuse and more — and let us truly be pro-life, from conception until old age and death.

But let us not join together with the forces of darkness that promote abortion on demand until the last day of pregnancy. To do so is to join forces with a coalition from hell. And you can quote me on that. (For more from the author of “Rebuking the Unholy Pro-Abortion Coalition” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Partial-Birth Abortions Are Not ‘Scare Rhetoric.’ They Are Real.

/0 Comments/in , /by

Only minutes into Wednesday night’s third and final presidential debate, moderator Chris Wallace broached one of the most controversial issues splitting Republicans and Democrats: abortion — and specifically, partial-birth abortion. While Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton quickly dismissed Republican nominee Donald Trump’s description of partial-birth abortion as “scare rhetoric,” the facts are against her.

Partial-Birth Abortion: Where do Trump and Clinton Stand?

After asking each candidate their stance on Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that legalized abortion nationally in 1973, Wallace turned to Clinton. “You have been quoted as saying that the fetus has no constitutional rights. You also voted against a ban on late term partial birth abortions. Why?”

Clinton’s answer was couched with claims that the government shouldn’t make such “personal” decisions for mothers. She also said that Roe v. Wade allows regulations on partial-birth abortion, though she admitted to opposing a ban on the practice as a senator. Here’s her full answer:

Because Roe v. Wade very clearly sets out that there can be regulations on abortion so long as the life and the health of the mother are taken into account. And when I voted as a senator, I did not think that that was the case. The kinds of cases that fall at the end of pregnancy are often the most heartbreaking, painful decisions for families to make. I have met with women who have, toward the end of their pregnancy, get the worst news one could get. That their health is in jeopardy if they continue to carry to term. Or that something terrible has happened or just been discovered about the pregnancy. I do not think the United States government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions. So you can regulate if you are doing so with the life and the health of the mother taken into account.

Trump responded that he thinks the practice of partial-birth abortions is “terrible.”

If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month you can take baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby. Now, you can say that that is okay and Hillary can say that that is okay, but it’s not okay with me. Because based on what she is saying and based on where she’s going and where she’s been, you can take baby and rip the baby out of the womb. In the ninth month. On the final day. And that’s not acceptable.

Clinton and Supporters Deny Realities of Partial-Birth Abortion

Clinton immediately attempted to discount Trump’s description of partial-birth abortion. “Well that is not what happens in these cases,” She said. “And using that kind of scare rhetoric is just terribly unfortunate.”

Viewers’ reactions on Twitter reveal that many people bought Clinton’s “scare rhetoric” narrative, believing was Trump was either lying or grossly misinformed when saying that abortions could still take place at nine months.

The social media-driven news outlet @nowthisnews tweeted, “No, Trump, you can’t rip the baby out of the womb.’” User @LoriSums alleged that “No one is taking full-term babies out of womb and sacrificing them.”

Others on Twitter like @shondarimes and @JillFilipovic claimed that Trump had “accidentally” described a C-section.

These people who are denying the reality of partial-birth abortion are either misinformed themselves or actively trying hide the reality.

Abortion Doctor Describes Partial-Birth Abortions

Inconveniently for them, a Dr. Amna Dermish of Texas, an abortion provider, was caught on tape almost exactly one year ago describing the process of pulling a baby out of the womb and harvesting its organs up to 22 weeks into the pregnancy — and her clinic only stops there “because of the ban” Texas has in place. The process she describes is identical to partial-birth abortion.

Here’s what she said to the investigator from the Center for Medical Progress, who posed as an organ buyer. The video itself is below.

Dermish assures the potential organ buyer, “My aim is usually to get the specimens out pretty intact.” She uses laminaria sticks to slowly dilate the cervix and prompt labor.

Then, in an uncut sequence, Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Dermish walks the organ buyer through the method she uses for infants older than 18 weeks.

She uses ultrasound guidance to convert a second-trimester fetus to a feet-first breech presentation.

“With a further gestation, I will sometimes do that [deliver breech] if it’s a cephalic [head-first] presentation, just cause it’s easier to get … convert to breech, grab the spine.”

This is a textbook description of partial-birth abortion, which is illegal. The baby is alive and mostly outside of the mother’s body when it is killed.

For an even more detailed and medically verified explanation of this exact procedure, click here. As a side note, the “20-weekers” that Dermish describes aborting in the video below — the “specimens” that are more difficult to keep “intact” — are capable of feeling pain even more acutely than adults.

Democrats’ Extreme Positions on Abortion

Here are a few other facts Clinton supporters should look into before denying the reality of nine-month or partial-birth abortions, courtesy of The Federalist on Thursday:

The Democratic Party is on record as supporting abortions up to nine months

The Democratic Party has fought to protect the right to have an abortion based on gender, race and disability discrimination

Though partial-birth abortion is currently illegal, Democrats have previously advocated for its legalization.

So, it is Hillary Clinton and her supporters who are incorrect on the facts. To summarize:

Yes, you can rip a baby out of the womb. At the time of the undercover video above, Dermish said her Austin, Texas clinic alone did it 25 times a day. No, dismembering a baby with a sopher clamp as its heart beats inside the womb is not the same as a C-section. Yes, abortion up to nine months is federally legal because of Roe v. Wade. And yes, partial-birth abortions are real. They are technically illegal. And they happen — not as rarely as Democrats would like us to believe. (For more from the author of “Partial-Birth Abortions Are Not ‘Scare Rhetoric.’ They Are Real.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

These Abortion Parties Are the Most Disgusting Thing You Will Read About This Week

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Over 30 parties celebrating abortion were held all over the country Saturday night in tandem with a concert in Cleveland. Hosted by “All Access,” a coalition of groups such as NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood, and the Center for Reproductive Rights, the parties gathered attendees in Chicago, Miami, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and even remote places like Sioux Falls, S.D.

The Cleveland event was headlined by Sia, a Grammy-nominated singer whose song “Cheap Thrills” dominated the Billboard Hot 100 this summer. Leslie Jones, a comedian who starred in this year’s “Ghostbusters” revival, and Jessica Williams, a former correspondent on “The Daily Show,” also performed at the event. Despite the big names, however, the venue wasn’t packed:

The photo above was posted 40 minutes before the start of the concert. And while the venue filled out more by the start of the concert, it was by no means packed:

All Access tries hard to portray abortion as a matter of routine health care, as well as a social and religious good. On the All Access website, a rabbi argues that denying abortion rights “rob us of our religious dignity” and restrict women’s “full agency over their own bodies.” Some of the smaller parties around the country got creative in celebrating abortion: The All Access party in South Bend, Ind., featured 200 flags citing reasons why abortion is a social good.

Supporters used the hashtag #Access4All, along with #BeBoldEndHyde, referencing the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal funds being used by Medicaid to pay for abortions (in most cases). For the first time this year, the Democratic Party platform included language to repeal the Hyde Amendment, further deepening the political divide over abortion.

Ignoring the obvious, one supporter maintained, per the South Bend Tribune, “Abortion shouldn’t be politicized and separated out as a controversial issue.” (For more from the author of “These Abortion Parties Are the Most Disgusting Thing You Will Read About This Week” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.