by Steven Ertelt | San Francisco, CA | LifeNews.com | 9/10/14 11:25 AM

San Francisco, California is closer to becoming the most pro-abortion city in the nation. That’s because the city is about to go on record opposing a ban on sex-selection abortions.

Why would banning abortions done simply because the unborn baby is a girl be a problem? City officials opposing the ban make the claim that somehow it is racist.

From the San Francisco Examiner story:

San Francisco would become the first jurisdiction in the country to go on record opposing sex-selective abortion bans if a resolution stating they perpetuate racial stereotypes, being introduced by Supervisor David Chiu today, is adopted by the Board of Supervisors.

Sex-selective abortion bans prohibit terminating a pregnancy on the basis of sex, and doctors who perform such abortions can face fines, jail time or lawsuits. The bans “encourage racial profiling of women by some medical providers,” according to Chiu’s resolution, and can lead to women being denied services.

“Lawmakers across the country have successfully advocated for sex-selective abortion bans by perpetuating false and harmful racial stereotypes that such laws are necessary to stop an influx of Asian immigrants from spreading this practice, and that Asian American communities do not value the lives of women,” states the resolution, which Chiu will announce at City Hall today.

So the excuse for justifying the sexist practice of banning sex-selection? Because Asian cultures tend to be the ones where the sex-selection abortion practice is most prevalent, banning it targets Asian-Americans.

Wesley Smith, a pro-life attorney who lives in California, commented on the logical absurdity.

“One would think that liberals–so opposed to real (and imagined) discrimination–would oppose abortion based on sexism. Nope,” he says. “San Francisco–where else?–could go on record opposingprotecting female (mostly) fetuses from being aborted because they are the wrong gender.”

“I wonder if pro abortion types would oppose banning eugenic gay-selection abortion if a test could detect the sexual orientation of a gestating fetus,” he concludes.

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 9/4/14 7:03 PM

In the face of mounting court losses, the Obama administration Wednesday abandoned its appeals in several abortion-pill mandate lawsuits. The surrender means that existing court orders which protect family businesses in those cases from violating their religious beliefs will stand while the lawsuits proceed.

The Obama administration is attempting to make Hobby Lobby and thousands of pro-life businesses and organizations comply with the HHS mandate that compels religious companies to pay for birth control and abortion-causing drugs for their employees.

As Alliance Defense Fund informed LifeNews today, administration’s defeat this summer at the U.S. Supreme Court in two cases — including the Hobby Lobby decision — appears to have prompted the Department of Justice to drop the appeals in The Seneca Hardwood Lumber Company v. Burwell, Armstrong v. Burwell, Briscoe v. Burwell, and the Hobby Lobby case itself.

The U.S. Courts of Appeal for the 3rd and 10th Circuits granted the administration’s requests Thursday.

“All Americans should oppose unjust laws that force people – under threat of punishment by the IRS – to give up their freedom to live and work according to their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “The administration was right to abandon its fight against the family businesses involved in these particular cases in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in June. In a free and diverse society, we respect the freedom to live out our convictions. For these families, that means not being forced to participate in distributing abortion drugs and devices.”

The Department of Health and Human Services mandate forces employers, regardless of their religious or moral convictions, to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception under threat of heavy financial penalties through the IRS. The preliminary injunctions that the federal district courts issued in all of the cases where the administration is dropping its appeals will remain in effect until the cases are litigated to conclusion.

On Tuesday, ADF attorneys representing the non-profit March for Life filed a motion for a permanent injunction in that organization’s lawsuit against the abortion-pill mandate. The motion argues that the administration’s recent rule changes concerning the mandate offer no relief for pro-life organizations that are not religious. If granted, the injunction would suspend enforcement of the mandate against the well-known pro-life organization, which has held an annual march in Washington, D.C., against abortion since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

“Clearly, pro-life organizations should be free to operate according to the foundational beliefs for which they exist,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “Abortion is the very tragedy March for Life and other pro-life groups oppose. We are asking the court to stop the government from forcing March for Life to act contrary to its core convictions while its lawsuit moves forward. If the government can continue to do that, there’s no limit to what other freedoms it can take away from anyone.”

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.

“HHS’s contraception mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion,” the decision reads, adding that the “decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates.” The opinion said the “plain terms of Religious Freedom Restoration Act” are “perfectly clear.”

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 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.

by Katie Yoder | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 9/3/14 11:49 AM

Well this is worth a thumbs-up: the networks are choosing “baby” over “fetus” to describe one very special unborn baby this morning.

During their morning broadcast news shows, NBC and ABC featured a now-viral ultrasound of a baby in the womb giving the thumbs-up. Hosts gushed over the “incredible” and “cute” shot – and, in a surprising move, repeatedly used the word “baby.”

The father, Brandon Hopkins, originally posted the picture on Reddit, where it went viral. He and his wife announced they’re expecting twins in January. 

On Sept. 2, NBC “Today” Co-host Willie Geist recognized how “a baby who hasn’t even been born yet” became “a huge hit on social media” through an “incredible shot.” Geist never once uttered “fetus,” except to explain the baby’s viral nickname:  “Some are calling the baby the ‘Fonzie Fetus’ after Henry Winkler’s character on ‘Happy Days,’” he explained.

Similarly, during ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Co-host Amy Robach acknowledged “a couple’s baby clearly giving a thumbs-up.” “Look how cute that is!” she gushed. Story continues after the video.

Other broadcast news shows followed suit the same day, with “Morning Joe” Co-host Mika Brzezinski noting the “baby” as well as “Fox and Friends” Co-host Steve Doocy. Fox’s lower third used both terms: “Baby Fonzie: Fetus Gives Thumbs-up in Ultrasound.”

This latest move by NBC and ABC contrasts with the media’s (lack of) coverage on life events – but signals a change. An NBC host also recently admitted “life in the womb” is “much busier in there than you might expect.”

UPDATE: CBS joined in on the network coverage during “Evening News with Scott Pelley.” Stepping in as anchor for the Sept. 2 show, Charlie Rose referred to the “internet star” as a “baby” multiple times.

ABC showed the ultrasound again, the same evening, during “World News Tonight with David Muir.” Muir highlighted the famous “little guy or girl” as well as ultrasounds sent in by viewers.

by Steven Ertelt | Austin, TX | LifeNews.com | 9/1/14 3:58 PM

Late Sunday night, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed an emergency request with a federal appeals court to uphold a pro-life law credited with closing multiple abortion clinics and cutting abortions 13 percent, saving an estimated 9,900 babies from abortion.

The legislation, House Bill 2 (HB2), requires abortion facilities to meet the same safety standards of other Ambulatory Surgical Centers in the state, ensures that abortionists have admitting privileges at a local hospital, and bans painful late abortions on fully formed babies.

The admitting privileges portion of the law was the portion responsible for closing abortion clinics and, because so many shut down or stopped doing abortions, Judge Lee Yeakel claimed that constituted an undue burden on women.

“The ambulatory-surgical-center requirement is unconstitutional because it imposes an undue burden on the right of women throughout Texas to seek a previability abortion,” Yeakel ruled.

AP reported that Yeakel also ordered the McAllen and El Paso areas to be exempted from a separate provision of the law requiring abortion doctors to obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital bhecause few abortion clinics are in that area and women would have to drive far to get to another one.

Planned Parenthood did not challenge the law’s prohibition on abortions that take place at 20 weeks or later, a provision based on evidence that demonstrates the baby can feel pain at that stage. Pro-life Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed the omnibus HB 2 bill into law in July 2013.

Abbott criticized Yeakel in his motion to the appellate court, saying the district judge “failed even to mention (much less follow) precedent” from the appellate court and U.S. Supreme Court. Abbott asked for a response from the appeals court by Friday and he said he thinks it will overturn the judge’s decision.

In fact, in March, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling upholding the Texas law Wendy Davis opposed that was responsible for closing abortion clinics in the Lone Star State. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Lee Yeakel of the Western District Court in Austin and restored key portions of a pro-life law.

In their decision, the appeals court upheld sections of the law that require abortionists hold admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, and that the dangerous RU-486 abortion drug be administered according to FDA procedure.

The judges wrote, “The district court held that parts of both provisions were unconstitutional and granted, in substantial part, the requested injunctive relief.  A motions panel of this court granted a stay pending appeal, and the Supreme Court upheld the stay.  We conclude that both of the challenged provisions are constitutional and, therefore, reverse and render judgment, with one exception, for the State.”

Abortion clinics appealed that decision to the Supreme Court and Justice Scalia issued a ruling saying the high court would not stop the law while the case continued.

That kicked the lawsuit abortion advocates filed against the law back to Judge Yeakel, who ruled today on the admitting privileges portion of the law and blocked it from going into effect as planned next week.

Although pro-life advocates hailed the law as a decision for women’s health, by ensuring abortion practitioner hold the same admitting privileges at local hospitals as legitimate doctors do, that shut down or temporarily closed abortion doctors who could not meet that standard.

Had the law been upheld, abortion activists feared Texas may have only seven abortion clinics insteadof 19.

When the panel reviewed the bill, they found that the state acted within its prerogative to regulate the medical profession by heeding these patient-centered concerns and requiring abortion practitioners to obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. The state also found that it would be safer for patients to drive further to receive an abortion at a surgical facility with a credentialed and privileged physician than to seek an abortion at a nearby, substandard clinic. The bottom line is women deserve better than substandard care.

Additionally the opinion written by Judge Edith Jones explained why admitting privileges are necessary. She said, “Requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges would also promote the continuity of care in all cases, reducing the risk of injury caused by miscommunication and misdiagnosis when a patient is transferred from one health care provider to another.”

Judge Jones also noted that Planned Parenthood conceded that at least 210 women in Texasannually must be hospitalized after seeking an abortion.

Abortion is not a safe medical procedure.

Although abortion proponents argue that having an abortion is like having a tooth extracted, forty-two years of choice has not served women well. From botched abortions and injured women, to decades of psychological pain, infertility, and higher chances of developing breast cancer, women deserve to know the truth about the so-called “five-minute, painless” abortion.

This legislation acknowledges the fact that abortion hurts women and mandates that the state implements measures to ensure that women are given the highest standard of care possible. This is especially necessary in scenarios where women experience complications from abortion, such as hemorrhage, uterine perforation, or infection from an incomplete abortion. In the past, the delay in care has caused women unnecessary trauma, injury, and even death.

For example, a Chicago woman died at a Planned Parenthood facility after a botched second trimester abortion because she did not receive immediate care after an abortionist perforated her uterus.

by Kristi Burton Brown | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 9/1/14 6:49 PM

(LiveActionNews) — Like many young couples, Richard and Linda Bannon wanted to have a family of their own. But Linda, the oldest of five children, was born with Holt-Oram syndrome. Holt-Oram syndrome is “characterized by skeletal abnormalities of the hands and arms (upper limbs) and heart problems.” For Linda, it meant that she was born without arms.

Holt-Oram syndrome can be passed down to a child, even if just one parent has it. Through ultrasound images, the Bannons learned that their son also had Holt-Oram syndrome. Little Timmy, too, would be born without arms.

Despite her disability, Linda says that her lack of arms has hardly affected her life at all. She was blessed to grow up with parents who treated her the same as they treated her siblings, and she also met and married her husband, Richard – a man who genuinely loves and cares for her – in her early twenties.

Linda shares that abortion was suggested to her and Richard as an option for Timmy, but she says:

[I]t was never even a consideration of ours. We want a family. We want to have a baby.

Perhaps it was strange for Linda to hear a doctor suggest that she might want to kill her baby boy who was just like her. Linda leads a happy and fulfilled life, and she personally knows that a lack of arms does not stop a person from being a very loved individual with a wonderful life.

Sometimes, those with disabilities see more clearly than the rest of society. This is true in Linda Bannon’s case. She (and her husband) saw the value of little Timmy long before his birth. They saw past his lack of arms to the valuable little person he already was and always will be.

The Bannons wanted “a baby.” They did not expect “a perfect baby” who was required to be 100% perfect in the eyes of the world. Instead, they expected that their baby, no matter his disabilities, would be loved.

And Linda and Richard continued saying “yes” to life, no matter the difficulties that arose.

Little Timmy had heart surgery at eight days old, and stayed in the hospital for two months. 

[D}espite his difficult start in life, like his mother, Timmy would not allow his disability to get in the way.

Timmy says:

I’m just like the other kids. Just like ‘em. And I’ll be like just like them every time of my life.

While it is clear that Timmy will experience hard circumstances and trying times throughout his life, what matters is that he is alive. His mother worries if he will find companionship one day, but many, many parents have the same worries for their “normal” children. Many elderly people need someone to care for them – disabled or not. Timmy is really not that different at all.

And, thanks to his parents’ choice for life, Timmy Bannon is here to experience the good and the bad of life. He is here to swim, to go to school, and – even if he couldn’t do a single “normal” thing – he is here to know the love of two parents who chose life for him despite the odds or any doctor’s opinion.