By Ben Johnson| LifeSiteNews| Thu May 7, 2015 - 4:39 pm EST
May 7, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The age of fetal viability may be revised downward, as a new study has found that a significant number of babies born at 22 weeks will survive if they receive life-saving treatment.
Nearly one out of every four babies born at that early date was able to live after receiving medical treatment, according to a study published today in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Five percent of babies born at 22 weeks survived without any outside assistance, according to the Wall Street Journal.
In all, 18 of the 78 babies born at 22 weeks survived after being given treatment. Researchers found that 39 percent of these babies survived without even moderate impairments. Six of the survivors suffered from serious complications such as hearing loss, blindness, or cerebral palsy.
The rate improved for babies born at 23 weeks gestation: About one-third of those babies survived, half with no serious complications.
About 5,000 of the 18,000 babies born at a very premature age are born at 22 or 23 weeks of pregnancy.
“It confirms that if you don’t do anything, these babies will not make it, and if you do something, some of them will make it,” said Dr. David Burchfield, the University of Florida's chief of neonatology, who did not take part in the study.
“The study’s finding could herald a seachange in the way abortion is viewed in the U.S.,” according to Newsweek magazine, because the “right” to abortion is strictly tied to the presumptive age of fetal viability.
The Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that the Constitution had an implicit right to privacy, which included the right for women to obtain an abortion. However, after an unborn baby is viable on his or her own, states could place greater restrictions on the procedure.
The 1973 ruling defined viability at 28 weeks. Keeping up with trends in science, 1992's Planned Parenthood v. Casey revised that to 24 weeks.
As doctors are able to preserve life at an earlier and earlier stage, the age of viability has continued to plunge, a trend this study confirmed.
University of Iowa pediatrics professor Dr. Edward Bell told the New York Timesthat 22 weeks is the new age of viability, as far as he is concerned.
As the age of viability creeps downward, states could begin imposing greater pro-life protections for the unborn.
The new report found that no child born before 21 weeks survived, whether or not the baby received medical treatment.
Ten states currently have laws on the books barring abortion after 20 weeks, and the House of Representatives has contemplated passing a national ban on the practice. However, proponents of that limit are not arguing that a child could survive outside the womb but are instead asking the Supreme Court to recognize “a separate and independent compelling state interest in unborn human life that exists once the unborn child is capable of feeling pain,” said Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D., the director of state legislation at the National Right to Life Committee.
That legal strategy has led academics who support abortion-on-demand, such as American University political science professor Karen O'Connor, to speculate thatthe Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade.
A summary of the new study on the viability of premature babies at 22 weeks, entitled “Between-Hospital Variation in Treatment and Outcomes in Extremely Preterm Infants,” can be read here.
|
May 6, 2015|6:22 pm| The Christian Post|
Representatives of eight pro-life organizations based in Washington, D.C. signed a joint statement saying they will not comply with a new law passed by the City Council that would prevent them from making hiring and firing decisions based upon an employee's position on abortion.
"Despite the enactment of this unjust law, we will continue to hire employees who share our commitment to the dignity of every member of the human family. We will not abandon the purpose of our organizations in order to comply with this illegal and unjust law. We will vigorously resist any effort under RHNDA to violate our constitutionally protected fundamental rights," the Monday statement says, in part.
RHNDA is a reference to the "Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act," which went into effect in the District of Columbia this week. It states that employers in the capital city cannot take opinions about abortion or an employee's decision to have an abortion into account for hiring and firing.
The Act amends a previous D.C. law and says that employers may not discriminate based upon "reproductive health decision making, including a decision to use or access a particular drug, device or medical service, because of or on the basis of an employer's personal beliefs about such services."
Those signing the statement represent Alliance Defending Freedom, Americans United for Life, Concerned Women for America, Family Research Council, Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, March for Life, Susan B. Anthony List, and Association of Christian Schools International.
The U.S. House of Representatives additionally passed a resolution stating its disapproval of the D.C. law. The move was unusual. Twenty-five years have passed since the House passed a similar measure.
The City Council was initially responding to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby last summer, which allowed closely-held companies a religious exemption from the Affordable Care Act's birth control mandate. The Council first wanted to force employers to do what the Supreme Court said you could not force employers to do — violate their religious beliefs regarding birth control, including abortifacients. The Council backed off that idea and instead passed RHNDA.
The Council also passed the Human Rights Amendment Act of 2014, which removed an exemption for religious schools to the city's gay discrimination ordinance. Religious schools in the district are still allowed to only hire adherents to their faith, but beliefs about homosexuality may not be a consideration. The change in the law also means that religious schools cannot reject student groups that endorse views about human sexuality that violate the schools' religious teachings.
ADF, a conservative legal group, has already stated that it will use its resources to defend the religious freedom of groups accused of violating either of these laws.
"Pro-life organizations in our nation's capital should not be forced to pay for abortions or hire those who oppose their pro-life beliefs," said ADF Senior Counsel Casey Mattox. "While the D.C. Council has retreated from this law's original goal, which was to force pro-life organizations to pay for abortions in violation of their conscience, RHNDA remains an unnecessary and illegal attack on pro-life conscience that Congress must stop and that we will fight, if necessary, in the courts."
|
by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 5/5/15 6:54 PM
The percentage of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome before birth and who eventually become victims of abortions is outlandishly high. Studies show somewhere in the neighborhood of 70-90 percent of unborn babies with Down syndrome are victimized by abortions.
To address the phenomenon, North Dakota eventually became the first state in the United States to ban abortions on babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome. With the governor’s signature on the ban in 2013, Republican Gov. Jack Dalrymple took that state in a decidedly pro-life direction.
Eventually a judge dismissed a legal challenge abortion activists brought against the legislation.
Now, the state of Ohio is considering a similar ban on abortions of babies with Down syndrome. Naturally, abortion backers have no problem with aborting babies simply because they have the disability.
Today, Ohio Right to Life’s Down Syndrome Non-Discrimination Act (H.B. 135) received its first legislative hearing as the Ohio House Committee on Community and Family Advancement heard sponsor testimony on Ohio Right to Life’s Down Syndrome Non-Discrimination Act. The legislation, sponsored by Representatives Sarah LaTourette and David Hall, could make Ohio a leader in protecting unborn babies with Down syndrome.
“Prohibiting discriminatory abortions is a critical step in Ohio’s efforts to sow a more empathetic and diverse culture across our state,” said Stephanie Ranade Krider, executive director of Ohio Right to Life. “Our culture is increasingly accepting of the marginalized members of our communities, as we should be. To refrain from extending this same level of protection and acceptance to our children in the womb would not only be inconsistent–it would be dangerously hypocritical.”
Families from around central Ohio joined Ohio Right to Life in the committee hearing in support of the legislation. Ohio Right to Life says that one of the primary goals of this legislation is to educate the public about discriminatory abortions and make the practice even more unconscionable in the public mind.
“I believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is wrong,” said Rep. Sarah LaTourette in her testimony. “But regardless of if you agree with me or not, I hope that you can see that this isn’t an issue about abortion – it’s an issue of discrimination. Discriminating against a person, not allowing them their God-given right to life, simply because they might have Down syndrome.”
To learn more about Ohio Right to Life’s Down Syndrome Non-Discrimination Act, click here.
|
Last week’s shocking story of a mom who paid $25,000 to kill her 8-month-old disabled preborn baby is, perhaps, one of the most extreme cases of a late-term abortion justification, but it’s not the only one, as a controversy in Texas shows.
The Dallas Morning News reports this week on Nicole Stewart, who is angry that a Texas legislator is trying to pass a ban on abortions past the 20-week mark. She says her abortion at 22 weeks was necessary. The News reports;
“Stewart and her husband were excited to visit their doctor in 2013 to learn that the baby they were expecting was a boy. But they left with a grave prognosis: Routine skull measurements were troubling, and it appeared part of the baby’s brain never developed.
“After more tests, visits to specialists and more consultations, the couple was told the baby they had affectionately nicknamed ‘Tutu’ probably wouldn’t survive the pregnancy, and if he did, the chances of his living for more than a year were slim.”
Stewart and her husband aborted Tutu at 22 weeks. She says that a law forbidding the abortion would be an insult to her family because “for someone else to dictate the terms of our grief … we both were devastated,” she told the paper.
But the legislator who proposed the bill, Rep. Matt Schaefer (R-Tyler) says it’s about protecting life:
“This is about protecting babies with disabilities from late-term abortion. It doesn’t matter if you’re healthy by our standards. … Your life is valuable to God, and we want to protect that life.”
On his Facebook page, Schaefer posted a story about the bill, saying as a preface:
“Fetal abnormalities should not justify taking the life of unborn babies. Unfortunately, Texas law allows that. Today we tried to end the practice of aborting babies with disabilities.”
His comments were met with fury from readers, who called him everything from “misogynistic” to “sick” to “the Bible whisperer,” as well as uttering a host of other insults and accusations.
While the bill is still in a flux in the state legislature, the issues are clear on both sides: those for and against a 20-week abortion ban say their justification is to end suffering.
The Dallas Morning News discusses the battle between Stewart and Schaefer’s bill:
“Schaefer, who supported the 20-week ban in 2013, said his vote was based in part on the idea that a fetus can feel pain at that point of development. Now, he says, even if the fetus suffers, it’s better to honor life than end it.
“‘Pain and suffering, living and dying is part of the human condition,’ he said.
“Stewart said that for her, protecting her son from pain was paramount.
“’The decision that we made was not for us,’ Stewart said. ‘It was about him. Every single day that I carried that child after knowing how unhealthy he was was heartbreaking for me.”’
The argument lies in the fact that fetal abnormalities and disabilities are often diagnosed later in pregnancy. OB/GYN Daniel Grossman says, “The test to detect genetic and chromosomal abnormalities is usually performed at about 15 or 16 weeks of pregnancy, but it isn’t a catchall.”
He adds: “physical malformations caused by different factors aren’t likely to be detected until 18 weeks or later.”
The implication is that since a parent may not discover defects until halfway through fetal development, it is somehow wrong to prevent them from killing the baby at that point.
Stewart’s argument is that Tutu was wanted and loved, but then he was diagnosed with abnormalities, so they chose abortion. She said she felt at peace after the abortion “because he was at peace.”
However, arguments in favor of 20-week abortion bans are generally centered around fetal pain—that is, proponents of these bans argue that the reason to ban abortions past 20-weeks is that the preborn baby is capable of feeling the pain that he or she is subjected to during an abortion.
While some medical experts argue when a preborn baby can feel pain (some say it’s at 20 weeks, while studies suggest it’s not until 26 or 28 weeks), without question, a baby the age of Rose— aborted at 8 months— can definitely feel pain. Tragically, Stewart asserts that baby Tutu actually will be spared from pain.
Such reasoning may be clinically comforting, but at what point can we take genuine comfort, knowing our decision to end a baby’s life may not have hurt the child in the process? Too much evidence exists that Tutu also felt pain.
While all pro-lifers agree abortion kills a child, some abortion advocates even believe that abortion past a certain point of gestation hurts preborn children. The trend toward justifying late-term abortions is disturbing; likewise, so is the media heroically reporting on the women who have made this decision.
A culture of convenience endorses ending a life we don’t want.
|
by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 5/1/15 5:15 PM
When it comes to the issue of abortion, does prayer work? The answer from the folks at 40 Days for Life and Bound4Life is a resounding yes.
The folks at Bound4Life have profiled one story of a little girl who thanked a rally of 15,000 people for their prayers, which saved her from abortion. here, 40 Days for Life leader David Bereit is talking about the effectiveness of prayer and the 40 Days campaigns:
In our work, unlike in pregnancy care centers, we rarely get to directly meet the lives saved. Bryan and Matt, you hear stories – I’ve heard lots of these testimonies, but I’ve only met five of the 10,000 children saved by 40 Days for Life campaigns (that we know of). Each of them were years apart, each was at a time when I needed that affirmation this is making an impact.
To be able to see that child means so much. I was recently in Los Angeles, where I saw a four year-old girl. I first met her when she was a baby, and now I got to introduce her to 15,000 people at OneLifeLA. She was wearing a shirt that said Your Prayers Saved Me. Her mom is now engaged to the girl’s dad because this beautiful girl Leah has brought so much joy to their lives.
Seeing the positive fruit of people’s prayers, of what God can do, and also continually allowing our hearts to be broken – those two things keep me engaged with the individual and the need.
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/01/little-girl-who-was-almost-aborted-tells-rally-with-15000-people-your-prayers-saved-me/
|
by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 4/30/15 5:56 PM
President Barack Obama apparently believes pro-life organizations should be forced to hire pro-abortion employees.
The House of Representatives is voting on Friday on a resolution to condemn a pro-abortion measure the District of Columbia City Council approved.
The local government of the nation’s capital approved the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act (RHNDA), which prevents employers from denying employment based on “their reproductive health decision-making.” Because the language provides no exemption for religious or political groups, it could be used to force pro-life groups to hire abortion advocates.
“We can’t exist if our purpose is to advocate for a pro-life position and we’re living under a regime which is telling us you can’t structure yourself as an organization and hire people to advocate for these issues,” Travis Weber, an attorney and Director of Family Research Council’s Center for Religious Liberty, told The Daily Signal. “It’s very controlling and it brings to mind an oppressive government monitoring of groups’ purposes.”
But, the House of Representatives will vote Friday on H.J. Res. 43, a resolution of disapproval sponsored by pro-life Rep. Diane Black to prevent implementation of the Reproductive Health Nondiscrimination Act (RHNDA).
However, if the House passes the bill, President Barack Obama says he will veto it. In an email LifeNews obtained, the White House announced the veto threat.
“The Administration strongly opposes H.J. Res. 43, which would overturn the District of Columbia’s Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014,” the White House said. “This legislation would give employers cover to fire employees for the personal decisions they make about birth control and their reproductive health. These personal decisions should not jeopardize anyone’s job or terms of employment.”
“The Act preserves the current exception in the District’s Human Rights Law for religious entities and does not impose additional requirements on employers, contrary to their personal beliefs, to provide insurance coverage related to reproductive health decisions,” it claims. “If the President were presented with H.J. Res. 43, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto this resolution.”
But the National Right to Life Committee, in a letter to members of Congress, outlined the many problems with the RHDNA measure the House resolution opposes.
The RHNDA prohibits employers within the District from engaging in “discrimination” on the basis of “decisions” reached by employees, or potential employees, regarding “reproductive health” matters. It is not disputed that abortion is among the matters encompassed by the term “reproductive health” as used in the new law. The scope of the RHNDA is very broad, covering any “decisions” that are “related to the use . . . of a particular . . . medical service . . .” [emphasis added]
The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) advocates for recognition that each unborn child is a member of the human family, and that each abortion stops a beating heart and ends the life of a developing human being. That viewpoint is shared by many women who once believed otherwise and submitted to abortions, and by many men who once believed otherwise and were complicit in abortion; such persons number among the most committed activists within our organization and other pro-life organizations. Yet it would be intolerable for an advocacy organization such as ours to be required to hire, or prohibited from firing, a person who makes a “decision” to engage in advocacy or any other activity that is directly antithetical to our core mission to lawfully advocate for the civil rights of the unborn.
Under the RHNDA, using any “decision . . . related to” abortion to inform decisions about hiring, firing, or benefits (among other things) would expose our organization both to enforcement actions by the District government bureaucracy, and to private lawsuits (some of which would likely be engendered by “sting” operations by pro-abortion advocates).
Some have suggested that we would be protected from such results by a clause in the pre-existing D.C. Human Rights Act that makes narrow allowance for “giving preference to persons of the same religion or political persuasion” as a controlling “religious or political organization.” But NRLC is neither a political nor a religious organization as those terms are used in the law. NRLC is not “operated, supervised or controlled by” any religious institution or political party, as the law requires to claim the narrow exemption. Moreover, our staff is made up of persons who are personally affiliated with a wide variety of religious bodies, or with none, and persons who belong to a variety of political parties, or to none.
Article I of the U.S. Constitution provides that Congress shall “exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever” with respect to the seat of government, the federal District. Therefore, the RHNDA has been enacted with legal authority delegated to the District Council by Congress; that local body has no other political authority whatever under the Constitution. It follows that members of Congress are responsible for, and accountable for, abuses of the legal authority that Congress has delegated to District officials. The RHNDA is just such an abuse of delegated power – it is a politically motivated attack on our organization and the other organizations that seek to vindicate the human rights of unborn children.
A leading pro-life member of Congress says the vote is necessary to protect the religious liberties of pro-life groups.
“The upcoming House vote on the resolution to disapprove of the D.C. Council’s encroachment on religious liberty is a direct result of the persistent efforts of Republican Study Committee members,” Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX) said.
He told LifeNews: “We first flagged this issue when the D.C. Council passed the law and have been resolute in our belief that Congress has the right and the responsibility to act in defense of our constitutional freedom of belief. This is not about one city, but rather about preserving the First Amendment right to religious liberty for all Americans.”
A top pro-life advocate in Washington provides more background on what’s happened and how RHNDA abrogates the rights of pro-life groups.
“RHNDA was adopted by the D.C. City Council late last year and transmitted to Congress on March 6 for a Congressional review period of 30 legislative days. The law will be enacted at the expiration of the 30 day period unless a joint resolution of disapproval is enacted. On April 21 H.J. Res. 43 was approved by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on a party line vote of 20-16,” says Jonathan Imbody, Vice President for Government Relations for the Christian Medical Association.
He explains: “RHNDA could restrict the First Amendment freedoms of pro-life organizations in two ways: Force a religious or pro-life advocacy group to make personnel decisions inconsistent with their sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions about the sanctity of human life. Mandate that religious and pro-life advocacy organizations provide insurance coverage for surgical abortion.”
The resolution, H.J. Res. 43, disapproves of the District’s Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act (RHNDA), which requires employers to provide health insurance covering the termination of unborn children and to hire individuals who may advocate for those practices, even if that goes against the employer’s religious beliefs.
|
by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 4/29/15 4:50 PM
Should pro-life organizations be forced to hire pro-abortion employees? That’s the question the House of Representatives will answer on Friday when it votes on a resolution to condemn a measure the District of Columbia City Council approved.
The local government of the nation’s capital approved the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act (RHNDA), which prevents employers from denying employment based on “their reproductive health decision-making.” Because the language provides no exemption for religious or political groups, it could be used to force pro-life groups to hire abortion advocates.
“We can’t exist if our purpose is to advocate for a pro-life position and we’re living under a regime which is telling us you can’t structure yourself as an organization and hire people to advocate for these issues,” Travis Weber, an attorney and Director of Family Research Council’s Center for Religious Liberty, told The Daily Signal. “It’s very controlling and it brings to mind an oppressive government monitoring of groups’ purposes.”
But, the House of Representatives will vote Friday on H.J. Res. 43, a resolution of disapproval sponsored by pro-life Rep. Diane Black to prevent implementation of the Reproductive Health Nondiscrimination Act (RHNDA). A preceding debate on the resolution is scheduled for Thursday.
A leading pro-life member of Congress says the vote is necessary to protect the religious liberties of pro-life groups.
“The upcoming House vote on the resolution to disapprove of the D.C. Council’s encroachment on religious liberty is a direct result of the persistent efforts of Republican Study Committee members,” Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX) said.
He told LifeNews: “We first flagged this issue when the D.C. Council passed the law and have been resolute in our belief that Congress has the right and the responsibility to act in defense of our constitutional freedom of belief. This is not about one city, but rather about preserving the First Amendment right to religious liberty for all Americans.”
A top pro-life advocate in Washington provides more background on what’s happened and how RHNDA abrogates the rights of pro-life groups.
“RHNDA was adopted by the D.C. City Council late last year and transmitted to Congress on March 6 for a Congressional review period of 30 legislative days. The law will be enacted at the expiration of the 30 day period unless a joint resolution of disapproval is enacted. On April 21 H.J. Res. 43 was approved by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on a party line vote of 20-16,” says Jonathan Imbody, Vice President for Government Relations for the Christian Medical Association.
He explains: “RHNDA could restrict the First Amendment freedoms of pro-life organizations in two ways: Force a religious or pro-life advocacy group to make personnel decisions inconsistent with their sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions about the sanctity of human life. Mandate that religious and pro-life advocacy organizations provide insurance coverage for surgical abortion.”
The resolution, H.J. Res. 43, disapproves of the District’s Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act (RHNDA), which requires employers to provide health insurance covering the termination of unborn children and to hire individuals who may advocate for those practices, even if that goes against the employer’s religious beliefs.
|
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
These days, one of the most dangerous places to be pro-life is California. The Golden State has mandated churches to cover abortion, and is now seeking to turn pro-life pregnancy centers into abortion counseling centers.
On April 14, the state Assembly Health Committee passed AB 775, also known as the “Bully Bill,” on a 12 to 5 vote. AB 775 would mandate pregnancy care clinics to post a notice stating: “California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services, prenatal care, and abortion, for eligible women.”
AB 775 would also require pregnancy care centers that provide counseling but not medical care to note that the clinic “is not licensed as a medical facility by the State of California.” Both types of pregnancy care facilities would also be required to use the statements in all advertising.
The bill’s next hearing is Tuesday, April 28, with the Assembly Judiciary Committee, and pro-lifers are asking individuals to make their voices heard.
Jonathan Keller, executive director of the California Family Council and California Family Alliance (CFA), says:
“Remarkably, AB 775 would turn every Pregnancy Resource Center (PRC) into a state-mandated abortion referral service. The bill would force over 160 PRCs in California to use their lobbies, websites, and literature to promote state-funded ‘free’ abortions, a direct violation of their moral standards. Violators would face heavy fines of at least $500 for each infraction.”
CFA notes there was “passionate testimony from over 80 pro-life citizens who attended the hearing” for AB775, yet it passed on a party-line vote with Democrats in favor of the bill.
CFA reports: “As currently amended, the bill would force over 160 PRCs in California to use their lobbies, websites, forms and literature to promote state-funded ‘free’ abortions, a direct violation of the moral standards of most PRCs. Violators face heavy fines of $500-$1,000 for each infraction.”
Attorney Heather Hacker from Alliance Defending Freedom said:
“AB 775 unconstitutionally compels pro-life pregnancy centers and licensed medical clinics to espouse a government-sponsored message about abortion. This violates the First Amendment and other similar laws have been struck down across the country.”
However, there are free legal resources for these pro-life pregnancy resource centers, too. Keller from CFA talked with Brad Dacus with the Pacific Justice Institute, a law firm prepared to help PRCs fight this unconstitutional mandate pro-bono.
Above all, it is vital that pro-lifers speak out unceasingly against this bill, which would force pro-life clinics to promote abortion against freedom of conscience and religious liberty. Without a vocal outcry, bills like this advance and lead to other types of legislation. This is an example of the true “anti-choice” mentality, which forces individuals into the promotion of death. CFA recommends:
“If your representative serves on the committee, CFA is asking that you make a brief appearance at the lawmaker’s district office to register your concern in person. We are facing well-heeled opposition by pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice California.”
Californians may contact their legislators and demand that the right to free speech be upheld.
|
by Brad Mattes | LifeNews.com | 4/24/15 5:05 PM|
Breast cancer. Two of the scariest words a woman can hear.
You’d think people who claim to advocate for women would do everything possible to educate them about their risks. You’d think they’d offer all the information and all the research.
But the abortion industry has a vested interest in making sure women don’t hear about the link between abortion and breast cancer. In fact, they deny it exists, even in the face of another medical entity warning young girls of the risk.
Earlier this month, after considering research, the American College of Pediatricians firmly reiterated its stand on the abortion and breast cancer (ABC) link. The president of the College flatly stated, “When one considers the normal anatomy and physiology of the breast it becomes clear that this link is causal not merely correlational.”
Here’s the link in a nutshell: before pregnancy, lobules in the breast are immature and undifferentiated—not yet milk-producing cells. Days after conception, though, estrogen levels start rising, triggering changes. By the end of the first trimester, estrogen is up by 2,000 percent. By 20 weeks into pregnancy, lobules have increased so much that breast volume doubles. In the last 20 weeks, the lobules mature until they can produce milk. At 40 weeks, 85 percent of the lobules have differentiated and matured into Type 4 cells, known to be more cancer-resistant.
The exposure of immature lobules to estrogen is when they’re quickly growing and changing. It’s at this time they’re most vulnerable to breast cancer. If a woman has an abortion before 32 weeks, her lobules and ducts have increased and been exposed to an estrogen bombardment, but they never get the chance to mature into the protective Type 3s and 4s. She only has more Type 1s and Type 2s—more places for cancer to form.
Metastatic breast cancer is on the rise in the US among women ages 25 to 39. And it’s not just here: other countries where abortion has increased also show a rise in breast cancer. Studies also show that risk increases with every subsequent abortion, as the lobules are stimulated again and again with estrogen but never allowed to mature. Learn more about the ABC link on our website.
Both Planned Parenthood and—amazingly—Susan G. Komen for the Cure deny the link. Planned Parenthood calls it a myth. Planned Parenthood and Komen don’t have any trouble talking about other risk factors for breast cancer. But they won’t talk about abortion. Planned Parenthood starts its explanation by smearing those who do want women to have full information. Komen lumps abortion right up there with “left-handedness” as a non-factor.
Komen’s recent experience with Planned Parenthood’s mafia thuggery explains why they deny the ABC link. But Planned Parenthood’s zeal for all things abortion is understood by the millions of dollars they rake in by committing abortions.
Imagine the loss of income to Planned Parenthood should the truth about the ABC link be widely known. Killing babies is their cash cow and they’ll protect it at all costs, even when Komen gets in the way. It’s not about safeguarding the health of women. It’s all about the money.
Each year thousands more are diagnosed with those two frightening words, “breast cancer.” Imagine the number of women who could be spared this horrible and often deadly experience if the abortion industry would come clean and stop putting ideology over the lives of countless women. Sounds like a real war on women, if you ask me.
Begin helping women today. Get informed and then share your life-saving knowledge with others. We’re on the side of more information to empower women. You can read the College’s full statement here.
|
by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 4/24/15 3:34 PM
On April 21st, Carafem, a new abortion facility in Washington D.C., launched an ad campaign that attempts to destigmatize abortion. Their 30-second video ad features three women who are trying to avoid using the word “abortion” when another woman interrupts their conversation and boldly says, “wait a minute, you guys are talking about abortion.” The video ends with Carafem’s motto, “Abortion. Yeah, we do that.
As LifeNews previously reported, the facility, CaraFem, is opening this month and will offer hot tea and comfy robes. The “clinic” will also feature wood floors, plush upholstery and resemble a high-end salon or spa.
CaraFem president, Christopher Purdy, said, “We don’t want to talk in hushed tones. We use the A-word.” He added, “It’s fresh, it’s modern, it’s clean, it’s caring. That’s the brand we’re trying to create.” Planned Parenthood, of course, praised the new approach. Eric Ferrero, a spokesman for the abortion giant, said, “We still do a lot of work with people who are less supportive of abortion, and one way we need to communicate is in a more empathetic framework that kind of says, ‘Look, these are really complicated personal issues.”
However, pro-life groups believe the “fresh” approach will fail.
The president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, Marjorie Dannenfelser, said “Even people who support abortion rights don’t necessarily see it as something to celebrate. They want to think about [abortion] as a necessary evil.” National Right to Life president, Carol Tobias, added, “Abortion is not pleasant and trying to put pretty wrappings around the procedure isn’t going to make any difference.”
Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, the director of a group called Third Way, acknowledged that most people still don’t see abortion in a positive light. She said, “Most people in this country do not think abortion is a good thing on its face, even if they deeply believe it should be legal.” Nevertheless, Hatalsky still believes the group’s efforts to destigmitize abortion will attract young passionate activists who will help change public opinion.
I don’t know about you but I think it’s going to take a lot more than pretty floors and furniture to change public opinion on abortion. First of all, whether an abortion takes place at a run-down Gosnell-like facility or at a “high-end salon,” abortion always, 100% of the time, kills an unborn child and hurts the family involved.
Secondly, after abortion over 65% of women suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and post abortive women are six-times more likely to commit suicide than women who have given birth. Also, many women describe their abortion experience as ‘a nightmare,’ with 60% reporting that it felt like ’Part of me died.’
So to put it mildly, better branding, “abortion spas,” and all the positive talk in the world will never change the horror of abortion or the devastation it brings.
|
