Skip to main content

Pro-Life Page

Tuesday, November 18, 2014
by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 11/17/14 12:36 PM
 
The pro-life group Priests for Life was one of the earliest organizations to file a lawsuit against the Obama
administration over its HHS mandate. The mandate compels religious groups to pay for birth control drugs
and drugs like ella that can cause very early abortions.
But, last week, a federal appeals court ruled that the Obama administration can force Priests for Life to
obey the HHS mandate. In a 3-0 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
concluded that the HHS mandate doesn’t abrogate the religious freedoms of Priests for Life or 11 other
religious groups that also challenged the mandate.
Responding to that decision, Father Frank Pavone, the
director of Priests for Life, says his organization will never
obey the mandate no matter what the government tries to
do. From a report:
 
A statement from the national director of Priests of
Life and Gospel of Life Ministries, Father Frank
Pavone, denounced the judgement as “absurd”.
“Priests for Life will not obey the mandate! Not
today. Not tomorrow. Now ever!” he said.
Father Pavone also told the Washington Times that “To ask a group of priests to cooperate in
the government’s plan to expand access to birth control and abortion-inducing drugs is about
as contrary to religious freedom as you can get.”
 
After Friday’s judgement, Father Pavone wrote on Facebook: “I am convinced that God will
bring us through this setback. Faithfulness to His plan will render success, by resisting those
who would throw religious freedom to the wind as in this case.
“Far from a political motivation, what galvanizes PFL in pursuing the appeal to the Supreme
Court is first, the commitment to our Catholic Church whose moral principles themselves
remain severely compromised in the Mandate; and second, as a needed agent to resist
brazen government intervention against religious freedom of the First Amendment. This is a
threat to ALL religious freedom…This is about any American. It is about life, religion and, yes,
even our freedom. It is about God’s sovereignty over Caesar.
 
The group is now hoping to take its case to the Supreme Court, where it hopes to receive a
favourable ruling, as in the Hobby Lobby case.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a favorable ruling in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.,
a landmark case addressing the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of business owners to operate their
family companies without violating their deeply held religious convictions. But that ruling applies only to
Hobby Lobby and similar businesses.
Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Samuel Alito handed down the decision for the high court, saying, “The
Supreme Court holds government can’t require closely held corporations with religious owners to provide
contraception coverage.”
 
The court ruled that the contraception mandate violated the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, a
1993 law and it held that the mandate “substantially burdens the exercise of religion” and that HHS didn’t
use the “least restrictive means” to promote this government interest, tests required by RFRA.
Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com
Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy joined in the
majority decision. Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor
dissented.
 
The Hobby Lobby decision only applies to companies, including Conestoga Wood Specialties, which had a
companion case pending before the Supreme Court. Non-profit groups like Priests for Life and Little Sisters
are still waiting for a Supreme Court ruling about their right to opt out of the mandate.
A December 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll shows Americans disagree with forcing companies like Hobby
Lobby to obey the mandate.
 
“Half of voters now oppose a government requirement that employers provide health insurance with free
contraceptives for their female employees,” Rasmussen reports.
The poll found: “The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 38% of Likely U.S.
Voters still believe businesses should be required by law to provide health insurance that covers all
government-approved contraceptives for women without co-payments or other charges to the patient.
Fifty-one percent (51%) disagree and say employers should not be required to provide health insurance
with this type of coverage. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.”
Another recent poll found 59 percent of Americans disagree with the mandate.
Monday, November 17, 2014

by Kristin Hawkins | LifeNews.com | 11/14/14 4:27 PM

These midterm elections, angry voters served the country with a clear message that the extreme liberal policies sweeping through the government must be stopped. The liberals lost big and perhaps even succumbed to their greatest weapon of recent past elections – the so-called “war on women.”

Voters, and women in particular, were fed up with the ridiculous rhetoric (condom shortages anyone?) and support of extreme policies, especially on abortion. Wendy Davis, who was nicknamed the “Abortion Barbie” because the filibuster that made her famous was solely in support of abortions on babies past the age of viability, went down in flames in Texas, losing her election by 20 points.

Pro-life Americans certainly rejoiced at the outcome of the elections as they should. But where should the pro-life movement go from here as they have significant support for their positions at every level of government?

Instead of supporting any kind of divisive policies, like those who launched the various “war on women” campaigns, the pro-life movement should focus on issues that a healthy amount of all Americans support: supporting the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Act, which bans abortion after 20 weeks gestation; putting in place legal restrictions that forbid taxpayer dollars paying for abortions, either through Obamacare or another entity; and defunding Planned Parenthood.

According to a Washington Post/ABC poll, 64 percent of Americans support prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks, compared with 28 percent who are opposed. And several polls show that Americans are opposed to using taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions – a particular CNN survey shows 56% opposed to 39% in support of public funding for abortion.

Defunding the nation’s largest abortion chain, Planned Parenthood, shows a more even split. In 2011, The Hill did a survey that showed 42 percent in favor of cutting funding while 46 percent said it should be left alone. The poll had a margin of error of +/- three points. Planned Parenthood’s image of “women’s health” has taken a beating over the past several years as multiple undercover videos by Live Action show their employees willing to aid and abet sex traffickersand cover up the rape of young girls.

Former Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson revealed evidence recently that her former employer has abortion quotas. And Cecile Richards was almost comically called out for outright deception when she said her organization does mammograms and therefore should not have their funding cut from the Susan G. Komen Foundation. Planned Parenthood gets over $500 million a year in public funding.

These three areas are issues that not only pro-lifers agree on but many Americans. Why shouldn’t the new Congress start here and build support for these obvious unitive issues?

President Barack Obama is on the extreme idealistic end of all three of these goals. He fought tooth and nail for Planned Parenthood’s funding and almost shut down the government over it in 2011. He voted four different times against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act which would have protected babies born alive from botched abortions and forced doctors to save them. And he conned the last of the holdouts in his party to vote for Obamacare by signing a useless executive order saying that no taxpayer dollars would pay for abortions, which was a complete lie.

Voters elected the new Congress to stop President Obama in his tracks. Here is their chance to do something substantive to answer the voters.

Friday, November 14, 2014
by Sarah Terzo | LifeNews.com | 11/13/14 12:47 PM
 
One Chicago abortion clinic said the following on a brochure aimed at women considering abortions at the
clinic:
“From admission to recovery, patient ease and comfort are first considerations. She is
encouraged to ask questions, share feelings or misgivings.”
These were the actual instructions given to
the clinic workers:
 
“1. Don’t tell [the] patient. The abortion
will hurt.
2. Don’t discuss [the abortion]
procedure or the instruments to be
used in any detail.
3. Don’t answer too many questions.
Pamela Zekman and Pamela Warrick “The Abortion Profiteers” Chicago Sun-Times November 12, 1978
This article was from a long time ago but things in the abortion clinics haven’t changed much.
 
Former Planned Parenthood worker Catherine Anthony Adair :
“In fact, clinic workers would purposefully avoid providing information on fetal development,
what the child looked like, the child’s anatomical development and the pain he or she could
feel. I was continuously reminded that when referring to the baby, the appropriate terminology
was “clump of cells” or “contents of the uterus.”
Planned Parenthood’s mission is to pressure as many women into having an abortion as it
can. Those in charge know that can’t be accomplished if they refer to the child as a “baby.”
 
Then women would know what was really growing inside them: a little person with a beating
heart, functioning nervous system, tiny hands and feet. The child is entirely disregarded.
There is no counseling, no care, no waiting and no discussion. Once a pregnancy is
confirmed, it is off to termination.”
 
Catherine Anthony Adair “Planned Parenthood lies about itself” Washington Examiner, 11/22/11. Quoted in
Abortion Industry’s “Mission Is To Pressure Women”, Afterabortion.org, Elliot Institute, January 12, 2012.
 
 
Read more at the Washington Examiner
but:
In their factsheet “THE TRUTH ABOUT CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTERS” NARAL Pro-Choice America
makes the following ironic statement:
Unfortunately, reports indicate that CPCs frequently misinform, mislead, and coerce women
with unintended or crisis pregnancies. Staff and volunteers at CPCs often use anti-abortion
propaganda to dissuade women from exercising their right to choose…”
 
It goes on to say:
“Women are entitled to accurate, comprehensive and unbiased medical information with which
they can make their own decisions.”
 
Thursday, November 13, 2014
by Cheryl Sullenger | LifeNews.com | 11/12/14 2:23 PM
 
Federal Court Judge Timothy Black, who formally served on the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood
in Cincinnati, has been appointed to hear a suit brought by that same abortion facility challenging Ohio’s
law that requires abortion clinic to maintain hospital transfer agreements.
“We are calling on Judge Black to recuse himself from this case because of his prior involvement as a
Planned Parenthood board member and president. It is wrong for him to sit in judgment of a case brought
by an organization with which he has been so deeply involved,” said Operation Rescue President Troy
Newman.
 
Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati has published a
questionnaire completed by Judge Black that was submitted
upon his nomination bu Pres. Barack Obama to the Federal
bench that identifies his involvement with Planned
Parenthood. On page three, the questionnaire states that
Black served from 1986-1989 as a Director of Planned
Parenthood Association of Cincinnati, which later morphed
into Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region. In 1988,
Black served as president of the organization’s Board of
Directors.
 
On Monday, Planned Parenthood of Southwest Ohio Region
brought suit against Ohio Department of Health Director
Richard Hodges and local hospitals challenging a provision of
Ohio’s abortion facility licensing law that requires abortion
clinics to maintain local hospital transfer agreements.
Planned Parenthood had previously been operating under an exemption to the law in the form of a
variance to the hospital transfer agreement provision. However, the Department of Health did not approved
its variance renewal application filed in May 2014, that named two doctors with long histories of malpractice
and other problems as the physicians responsible to treat Planned Parenthood’s abortion patients that
suffered abortion complications requiring hospitalization. The request for variance was amended on July
30 by Planned Parenthood to replace a third physician.
 
On October 14, 2014, the Department of Health sent Planned Parenthood a letter noting that it did not
meet the requirements for licensing under Ohio law and informed the abortion facility of its intent to deny
licensure, which would have forced Planned Parenthood to shut down their Cincinnati clinic. This prompted
Planned Parenthood to sue.
On Planned Parenthood’s variance application, it listed Cincinnati Obstetrician and Gynecologists David
Schwartz and Michael Drasnik.
Schwartz was honored just days ago at a November 1,
2014, Planned Parenthood Gala as its Diamond Award
winner. However, Schwartz has a shocking history of
numerous negligence and malpractice cases dating back
years, documentation of which is available on
AbortionDocs.org. Injuries to women listed in the cases
included botched delivery that resulted in an emergency
hysterectomy to save the patient’s life.
 
Draznik’s background is even worse. His malpractice cases
involve several botched laparoscopic surgeries that
perforated other internal organs resulting in life-threatening conditions to his patients. One woman
“crashed” as the result of an undetected bowl perforation and nearly died.
Draznik also has a criminal background involving domestic violence and criminal disorderly conduct.
 
Documents substantiating his legal woes are also available at AbortionDocs.org.
“Reading over Schwartz and Draznik’s extensive malpractice and criminal documents, it is obvious that the
Ohio Department of Health was exercising good judgment in rejecting Planned Parenthood’s variance
request and ordering them to comply with state licensing requirements as written,” said Newman. “This
lawsuit is a desperate measure to keep their income cash cow open and aborting, without respect to the
health and safety of women they purport to serve, who are left in the lurch should abortion complications
arise. This case is just too important to allow a Planned Parenthood crony to sit in judgment. We demand
Judge Black’s recusal and urge the appointment of a judge that can rule fairly and without bias.”
Operation Rescue urges the public to contact Judge Black’s office and respectfully leave a message for
him through his courtroom deputy demanding his recusal from Planned Parenthood v. Hodges in the
interest of justice.
 
Office of Judge Timothy Black
Courtroom Deputy Mary Rogers
Voice: (513) 564-7640
 
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 11/11/14 1:59 PM
 
A city in Georgia has a unique way of making sure abortions never happen there. The city of Rossville has
banned abortion clinics, with its mayor saying the people of the town want it to be a “peaceful city.”
Members of the city council unanimously passed
the measure banning abortion clinics, according
to the local newspaper. The measure forbids any
abortion facility within city limits.
 
Rossville Mayor Teddy Harris said the measure
would help keep the city “drama free.”
“We want to be a peaceful city,” Harris said.
“We don’t want to have any protesters.”
There is no abortion clinic in Rossville, and
the ordinance does allow for abortions to
occur within the city if they occur at a
hospital by a licensed physician, are deemed by that doctor to be necessary to save the
woman’s life, and the doctor can certify that the baby would not survive out of the womb.
 
As of 2011, there were 19 abortion clinics in the entire state of Georgia. Ninety-six percent of
counties — including Walker County, where Rossville is located — do not have a clinic.
“I just don’t think (clinics) are appropriate for our city, ” Harris said.
Thank the Rossville city council by going here.
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 11/10/14 4:56 PM
 
A new report sheds light on dozens of cases in England where mother are suing the government-run and
taxpayer-funded NHS health service after abortions they had failed to kill their unborn babies. The mothers
have won huge payouts — sometimes bringing in tens of thousands of dollars — after abortion procedures
went wrong. In some cases the abortions were supposedly done on babies with disabilities and the
mothers in question went on to have healthy babies after the failed abortions. The moms
who sued received cash for pain during birth and discomfort of pregnancy since
they went through with birth after the failed abortion. However, detractors are
blasting the lawsuits — saying the moms in question should feel blessed to be the mother of a healthy baby who didn’t die.
 
From the story:
 
Last night the former Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, hit out at the move, saying: ‘A
healthy child is an occasion for thanksgiving rather than for taking the NHS to the cleaners and
using up precious funds which could otherwise be more usefully employed.’
 
And TV presenter and mother-of-two Kirstie Allsopp, who has urged women to have children
while they are still young, said she understood that people who had suffered a serious medical
malpractice or had a disabled child needed support, but added: ‘It seems to me that to be able
to sue the NHS after the birth of a healthy baby is simply not something the majority of people
would agree with.
 
‘The NHS hasn’t got an infinite amount of money. I think parents in that position should think
twice.’
Monday, November 10, 2014
by Matthew Clark | LifeNews.com | 11/7/14 5:04 PM
 
 
The Supreme Court announced today that it would hear a major ObamaCare case that could deal a
crippling blow to President Obama’s prized pro-abortion health care law.
As the Wall Street Journal reports:
The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to review whether
consumers can receive subsidies through the Affordable Care Act for insurance
purchased through a federal exchange, taking up a key
piece of the Obama administration’s healthcare law.
The move puts before the high court one of several cases over the subsidies. The justices
accepted a challenge from Virginia that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in
Richmond, Va., had rejected. The Fourth Circuit in July found in favor of an Internal Revenue
Service rule extending tax credits to lower-income Americans who purchase coverage through
the federal insurance exchange.
 
As my ACLJ colleague David French explained earlier this year:
ObamaCare as passed by Congress stated quite clearly that IRS tax credits (better known as
ObamaCare “subsidies”) are available to subsidize insurance policies purchased through state
ObamaCare exchanges. It does not state that subsidies are available for insurance purchased
through the federal exchange.
After 36 states refused to create state exchanges, an action that had the effect of limiting the
law’s individual insurance mandate and employer mandate, the IRS decided to simply make
up a new regulation – without any statutory authority – that extended subsidies to insurance
purchased on the federal exchange and thereby dramatically expanded the individual and
employer mandates.
 
Here’s how the IRS rule expanded ObamaCare:
“This broader [IRS] interpretation has major ramifications. By making credits more widely
available, the IRS Rule gives the individual and employer mandates—key provisions of the
ACA—broader effect than they would have if credits were limited to state-established
Exchanges. The individual mandate requires individuals to maintain “minimum essential
coverage” and, in general, enforces that requirement with a penalty. See 26 U.S.C. §
5000A(a)-(b). The penalty does not apply, however, to individuals for whom the annual cost of
the cheapest available coverage, less any tax credits, would exceed eight percent of their
projected household income. See id. § 5000A(e)(1)(A)-(B). By some estimates, credits will
determine on which side of the eight-percent threshold millions of individuals fall. See Br. of
Economic Scholars in Support of Appellees 18. Thus, by making tax credits available in the 36
states with federal Exchanges, the IRS Rule significantly increases the number of people who
must purchase health insurance or face a penalty.”
 
Put simply, if Congress had intended for subsidies to be made available through federal
exchanges, it should have said so.
 
He’s exactly right, and now the Supreme Court is going to take a very careful look.
The fact is if the subsidies don’t stand – the major funding mechanism that made it even remotely possible
for many families to comply with the individual mandate – then ObamaCare would likely collapse on itself.
We’ve always said ObamaCare was flawed and couldn’t sustain itself.
With a newly elected pro-life Senate, a major challenge to ObamaCare subsidies at the Supreme Court,
and the news that these subsidies are directly paying for abortion, the President’s prized pro-abortion
reconfiguration of America’s health care landscape may be in serious jeopardy.
 
Friday, November 7, 2014

By Lisa Bourne | Thu Nov 6, 2014 - 4:17 pm EST | LifeSiteNews.com|

Bolstered by a grassroots pro-life effort, Tennessee voters passed a constitutional amendment in Tuesday’s election that will allow the state to better protect its pregnant mothers and cease it from being the third-largest out-of-state abortion destination in the nation.

Amendment 1 passed with the support of nearly 53 percent of the state’s electorate despite supporters being outspent by abortion proponents by more than two to one,according to the Yes on Amendment 1 campaign’s webpage.   

"We are grateful to God and to the good people of Tennessee for this victory," Brian Harris, president of Tennessee Right to Life and a coordinator for Yes on 1, said in a statement provided to LifeSiteNews. "Despite millions of abortion dollars flooding our airwaves with deceptive ads, the people of Tennessee saw through the falsehoods and made their voices heard."

The Yes on 1 campaign raised and spent $1.5 million in contrast to at least $4 million reported by Planned Parenthood's "NO" campaign, Harris said, and 16 abortion facilities in Tennessee and across the country contributed a total of $3.5 million in a combined effort to defeat the pro-life amendment.

A 2000 Tennessee Supreme Court decision struck down regulations in the state, including a two-day waiting period, a requirement that a mother be fully informed about abortion, and a requirement that second-trimester abortions be performed in a hospital.

The state’s high court, which had deemed the existing law “overly burdensome” to women, left Tennessee to be a target for out-of-state abortions.

Tennessee’s eight surrounding states have laws requiring informed consent, waiting periods, and state health regulation of abortion facilities, drawing people to Tennessee for unregulated abortion. It is third in the nation for percentage of out-of-state abortions, with, for example, almost one-fourth of all abortions committed in Tennessee during 2010 being performed on mothers from out-of-state.

Amendment 1 allows Tennessee lawmakers to resume abortion regulations for their state.

The amendment reads:

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

State lawmakers are looking for abortion legislation to introduce in the next session,according to NBC affiliate WBIR, including clinic regulation and waiting periods, but it would be limited in scope and certainly not eliminate abortion in Tennessee.

Harris credits Amendment 1’s passage to a statewide grassroots campaign that relied heavily on volunteers and smaller financial contributions from individuals, churches, and pro-life organizations. 

"We recognized that we would never have the financial resources of the abortion industry so began planning long ago to build a team of advocates who could educate and organize their local communities," he said in the statement to LifeSiteNews. 

The effort paid off, he said, especially in rural areas of the state where volunteers raised funds and awareness of both Amendment and the 2000 State Supreme Court ruling.

Harris gave special credit to clergy and religious leaders throughout Tennessee who made support for the amendment a priority.  

"In the end this could be characterized as pastors and pulpits in opposition to Planned Parenthood's abortion-profiteering,” Harris said. “We owe a debt of gratitude to men and women of faith who refused to accept Tennessee's designation as an abortion destination and who actively used their influence to promote the protection of innocent human life."

Abortion legislation passed in the next session is expected to go into effect July 1.

Thursday, November 6, 2014
By Abby Johnson | Wed Nov 5, 2014 - 11:40 am EST | LifesiteNews.com 
 
I recently spoke at an amazing pro-life conference in Washington State. After my talk, I had a
woman come up to me and tell me that I should really tone down my message. She said that
she is sure that my message will offend people. She said that I should try to find “common
language” with those who support abortion.
Okay, let’s explore that.
 
"Women's health"? I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.
“Common language” sounds nice, but when you actually look at the differences behind that
language, you see it just isn’t possible. Here are eight reasons why finding a "common
language" with pro-aborts is impossible:
 
1. When I say, “I want women to have access to authentic female healthcare,” I mean that I
want women to have access to healthcare that supports their natural femininity. I mean that I
want women to have access to healthcare that doesn’t include the use of contraception and
abortion.
Maybe it’s time to worry less about delivering watered down
messages and speak truth in love without compromise.
When an abortion supporter says, “I want women to have access to authentic female
healthcare,” they mean that they believe women should have easy (and free) access to pills
that suppress their fertility. They mean that they believe that taking the lives of unborn
children is part of healthcare.
 
2. When I say, “I want women to have control over their bodies,” I mean that I want women
to know and embrace their fertility. I want women to value their bodies, not simply be seen as
a sex object. I want women and men to understand the dignity of their sexuality. I want
women to understand that the most beautiful thing a woman’s body does is to grow other
human beings.
When an abortion supporter says, “I want women to have control over their bodies,” that is a
rallying cry for abortion. They mean that women should be able to control and kill the
separate human being in their body. They mean that they want women to hate their fertility,
to see it as enslavement, and in response to that, to “fix” their unbroken fertility with pills and
other invasive methods of birth control.
 
3. When I say, “I want women to be safe,” I mean that women deserve better than abortion. I
mean that I want women to stay away from abortion because it is not safe for them. I want
women to understand the physical and emotional consequences related to abortion.
Follow Abby Johnson on Facebook
When an abortion supporter says, “I want women to be safe,” they mean that they want
women to have unlimited access to abortion services without any additional barriers…even if
those barriers are there to protect women.
 
4. When I say, “I want women to choose what’s best for them,” I mean that I want women to
make choices that don’t involving harming themselves or killing another human being. I want
women to know that there are other choices besides abortion…choices they can live with and
have no regret.
When an abortion supporter says, “I want women to choose what’s best for them,” they
almost always mean abortion. Abortion supporters have attempted to normalize abortion in a
way that makes it seem “okay” to take the life of another human being. They aren’t interested
in a woman actually making a choice. They are interested in women having abortions.
 
5. When I say, “I want us to take care of children,” I mean that we should take care of all
children…born and unborn. I mean that we should all stand up for those in our foster care
systems. I mean that we should sacrifice our luxuries for children and their mothers.
When an abortion supporter says, “I want us to take care of children,” they mean that we
should only care for those who are already born. And what they really mean is that it is only
the pro-life movement’s responsibility to care for children in foster care. They mean that it’s
only our responsibility to provide for women and their children. They mean that they are not
willing to sacrifice their own luxuries, but we are to sacrifice ours.
 
6. When I say, “I stand for equal rights,” I mean equal rights for all persons…from the
moment of conception until natural death. I mean that I believe in the equal human dignity of
all persons, no matter the “contribution” they make to society.
When an abortion supporter says, “I stand for equal rights,” they mean that they only stand
for the rights of those who are contributors to society. They are quick to marginalize the most
vulnerable among us: the unborn, the elderly and the differently-abled.
 
7. When I say, “I am for choice,” I mean that I am for choices that don’t involve killing a
human being. I mean that I support women making wise choices before they get pregnant. I
am for women choosing to make adoption plans, choosing to be single parents, choosing to
marry the father of their child and raising that child together, choosing to still pursue a career
and education after having a child, choosing to ask their parents and support system for help
when raising their child.
When an abortion supporter says, “I am for choice,” they really only mean the choice of
abortion. Period.
 
8. When I say, “I want women to feel empowered,” I mean that I want women to embrace
their bodies, their fertility and their children. I want women to know that they don’t have to
choose between their baby and their education…that they don’t have to choose between their
baby and a career…that they don’t have to choose between their baby and a man. I want
women to know that there are hundreds of people who will support them in their decision to
parent or place their child for adoption. I want them to know that abortion strips you of your
power. I want them to know that empowerment does not come from pitting a woman against
her child.
 
When an abortion supporter says, “I want women to feel empowered,” they mean that women
are too weak to be moms and complete their education. They mean that you have to choose
between being a mom and having a successful career. They mean that they actually have no
idea what empowerment really is.
Abby, how can you possibly say these things? How can you possibly know what abortion
supporters mean when they say these things?? Well, because I have said these things on both
sides of this issue. I know the meaning behind these phrases as an abortion supporter,
because I was one for eight years.
I speak on this issue because I get it. I get how people are blinded by language. And honestly, I
get how people are blinded by our desire to “meet in the middle.” But when you look at the
reality of abortion, there is no middle ground. You either support the killing of the unborn or
you don’t. There is no grey area.
How do we convert people? How do we help them see that the meaning behind our language
is totally different?
 
Well, we just speak charitable truth. We love people. And sometimes that truth and love
offends. We have to be okay with that.
Maybe it’s time to worry less about delivering watered down messages and speak truth in love
without compromise. Maybe we should worry less about offending those who are far away
from the truth. Maybe we should worry more about being compassionate, loving and planting
seeds of truth…even if it’s a hard truth.
I say it’s time to stop apologizing for delivering our message of truth. I will never be sorry for
speaking the truth in love.
 
Wednesday, November 5, 2014

by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 11/5/14 12:12 AM

Tennessee voters have given the Volunteer State a chance t enact the kind of pro-life laws that have dropped abortions to historic lows in state after state across the nation.

They approved Amendment 1 to help ensure nothing int he state constitution could be used to secure an unlimited right to abortion. With 86%of the vote counter, Amendment 1 won with a 54-46 percent margin.

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

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

Brain Harris, the Tennessee Right to Life president, told LifeNews previously that the 2000 ruling in Planned Parenthood of Middle Tennessee v. Sundquist made it so “common sense protections were immediately stripped from state law books including informed consent for women considering abortion, a 48 hour waiting period and a requirement that second and third trimester abortions be performed in regulated hospitals rather than out-patient abortion facilities.”

“We are grateful to God and to the good people of Tennessee for this victory,” Harris said.  “Despite millions of abortion dollars flooding our airwaves with deceptive ads, the people of Tennessee saw through the falsehoods and made their voices heard.”

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

“We recognized that we would never have the financial resources of the abortion industry so began planning long ago to build a team of advocates who could educate and organize their local communities,” Harris said. “That effort paid off, especially in rural regions of the state where volunteers raised funds and awareness of both the amendment and the 2000 court ruling in Planned Parenthood of Middle Tennessee v Sundquist, a decision which claimed a fundamental right to abortion.”

Harris also gave special credit to clergy and religious leaders throughout the state who made support for the Amendment a priority.

“In the end this could be characterized as pastors and pulpits in opposition to Planned Parenthood’s abortion-profiteering.  We owe a debt of gratitude to men and women of faith who refused to accept Tennessee’s designation as an abortion destination and who actively used their influence to promote the protection of innocent human life.”

The text of the amendment returns authority for abortion regulation to the people of Tennessee and their state legislators and reads as follows: “Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.”.