Author archives: Patrina Mosley

Is Anyone Surprised that Planned Parenthood Treats its Pregnant Employees Terribly?

by Patrina Mosley

December 21, 2018

Planned Parenthood is discriminating against pregnant women. Honestly, we already knew this to be true as Planned Parenthood commits over a third of the nation’s abortions. But the New York Times has uncovered that the hailed “champion of women” has been discriminating against their own female workers for being pregnant!

Managers have discriminated against pregnant women and new mothers, according to interviews with the current and former Planned Parenthood employees and with organizers from the Office and Professional Employees International Union, which represents some Planned Parenthood workers.

If this was fake news it would be the ultimate satire, but unfortunately, it does not appear that way. The new Planned Parenthood President, Dr. Leana Wen, has stated that “we must do better than we are now.” Here are just a few allegations from the report:

Tracy Webber, the former director of clinical services in White Plains, sued the organization for pregnancy discrimination in 2009, saying she had been fired four weeks after giving birth. Planned Parenthood settled for undisclosed terms.

In Miami, one current and two former employees said that women at a Planned Parenthood office were scared to tell managers they were pregnant. One of them said that, in conversations with supervisors, colleagues would often volunteer that they were not planning on having children or were gay or single.

[At a Planned Parenthood in California] supervisors openly debated whether candidates were likely to get pregnant in the near future and preferred those who were not … (Under the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act, it is illegal to consider whether a job candidate is or will become pregnant.)

In New York, Ta’Lisa Hairston was refused breaks and bedrest: “‘I had to hold back tears talking to pregnant women, telling them to take care of their pregnancies when I couldn’t take care of mine,’ she said. ‘It made me jealous.’”

Planned Parenthood “managers in some locations declined to hire pregnant job candidates, refused requests by expecting mothers to take breaks and in some cases pushed them out of their jobs after they gave birth, according to current and former employees in California, Texas, North Carolina and New York.”

You can find hypocrisy and injustices in any organization made up of people. However, when you have shown a pattern of disregard for the law and women’s safety as Planned Parenthood has, it’s highly suspect to lay claim to being “pro-woman” and deem yourself as a haven for “Care. No matter what.” Their habitual scandals make it obvious that they are in the business of profit, no matter what.

Failing to Report Statutory Rape and Sex Abuse

  • There are several recorded examples of Planned Parenthood supplying abortions to victims of sexual abuse and trafficking despite state mandatory reporting laws that make Planned Parenthood personnel mandatory reporters in most states. Planned Parenthood facilities in Arizona, Indiana, Tennessee, Alabama, Wisconsin, and Kentucky were willing to cover up sexual abuse.
  • In Fairbanks v. Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood was sued for refusing to report a 16-year-old girl’s abuse after she informed them that she was impregnated by her father who was sexually molesting her.

Willing to Aid and Abet Sex Trafficking

  • In a 2011 investigation, Live Action found that Planned Parenthood was willing and able to aid sex traffickers who were trafficking girls as young as 13 as part of a sex-slave ring. Their investigations exposed multiple Planned Parenthood facilities across New York, New Jersey, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.
  • A report on sex trafficking survivors showed that over a quarter had visited a Planned Parenthood facility while being trafficked. One victim said that they went to Planned Parenthood because “they didn’t ask any questions.”

Performing Services that it Knows Are Dangerous and Low-Quality

  • One of the most egregious examples of this is a Planned Parenthood in St. Louis, which has had several instances where witnesses have seen ambulances transporting women out of their facility on multiple occasions year after year. This same St. Louis Planned Parenthood facility had several deficiencies and health violations cited during an inspection by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services.
  • Cree Erwin died after receiving an abortion at a Kalamazoo, Mich. Planned Parenthood facility.
  • Despite widely reported dangers and adverse events reported by the FDA, Planned Parenthood continues to tell women that “the abortion pill is safe.” The FDA reported 1,445 more cases of adverse events from the abortion pill from 2012 to 2017.

These are just a few examples that show the irony in Planned Parenthood’s “pro-woman” reputation; more can be found in our publication, “Planned Parenthood is Not Pro-Woman.” All this is notwithstanding their participation in the sale of aborted baby parts, Medicaid fraud, supporting sexual exploitation as sex work, and the organization’s eugenic roots.

The New York Times report further noted that “A dozen lawsuits filed against Planned Parenthood clinics in federal and state courts since 2013 accused managers of denying workers rest periods, lunch breaks or overtime pay, or retaliating against them for taking medical leave.”

PPFA President Wen said the organization is investigating the allegations of pregnancy discrimination and is conducting a review to determine the cost of providing paid maternity leave to its employees nationwide.

Seattle Planned Parenthood Manager Christine Charbonneau wasn’t pleased with the scrutiny. “It is easy to accuse someone of hypocrisy if you’re not the one trying to find $2 million out of thin air,” she said. “You try to be the Planned Parenthood that donors expect, and yet it is unattainable.”

It is interesting she should say that. While Planned Parenthood holds non-profit status, its total revenue for 2016-2017 was about $1.459 billion, the highest in its history. In 2016-2017, Planned Parenthood reported an excess of revenue over expenses of nearly $100 million.

When Planned Parenthood heard about the coverup of child sexual abuse at several of its affiliates, the organization swore to retrain its staff. Yet when Ramona Trevino, a former Planned Parenthood manager, asked how to better comply with mandatory reporting laws, her concerns were dismissed:

[I] went in really believing that Planned Parenthood could redeem themselves. They’re going to prove that they really do care about women and this is something that really concerns them. [The trainer] immediately shot me down and she said, ‘We’re not here to talk about that, Ramona. We’re here to teach you how to identify if you’re being videotaped or recorded or entrapped in any way.

Planned Parenthood’s treatment of pregnant women in the workplace is no doubt rooted in the fear that their obvious advertisement of life seen in their own employees might change the minds of their pregnant customers, which would take away profits to be had from these vulnerable women.

While Planned Parenthood has shown a keen interest in disregarding pregnant employees, they have always taken a special interest in targeting minority neighborhoods. Nearly 80 percent of Planned Parenthood facilities are within walking distance of black and Hispanic communities. In a series of undercover videos, Live Action exposed that Planned Parenthood facilities were willing to earmark money specifically donated for the abortions of African-American babies to “lower the number of blacks in America.”

The fact that Planned Parenthood has been referred to the DOJ and FBI for criminal investigation makes it more than clear that this organization does not deserve any more of our tax money or political protection.

This brings us back to the sad story of Ta’Lisa Hairston. After resigning from Planned Parenthood because of the terrible treatment she received from the organization during her pregnancy, the last thing Ms. Hairston heard from them was a letter asking her to donate money.

Obamacare and Abortion: Tell Us Your Story

by Patrina Mosley

December 13, 2018

In FRC and Charlotte Lozier Institute‘s fifth annual investigation into Obamacare funding of abortion, we found that Americans now have fewer plans than ever before and more locales than ever providing abortion-only plans. At the same time, Obamacare is becoming less and less affordable and some Americans are saying, “I just can’t do this anymore.” Obamacare enrollment is already reported to be down 12 percent from last year.

Some have opted for Christian healthcare share ministries and others are taking advantage of the new short-term plans extended under the Trump administration, particularly now since there is no penalty for not having Obamacare.

Because of the individual mandate in Obamacare, Americans were required to purchase health coverage or pay a tax penalty. Due to the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the individual mandate will no longer exist starting with the 2019 plan year. However, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia have all the imposed their own state mandates effective 2019. Vermont’s mandate will be effective for 2020 enrollment. Other states are also considering implementing their own individual mandates. You can visit here for more information.

The short-term plans, however, are limited to a 36-month duration, provide fewer benefits, will not always cover pre-existing conditions, are generally less expensive, and cannot be purchased with Obamacare subsidies. Basically, these are for healthy people and those who are still deciding what major coverage to buy but don’t want to go without any coverage in case of an emergency. To see what your short-term options are, you can go here.

As our investigations continue to shine a light on the dark entanglement of the taxpayer funding of abortion, we also want to hear from you, the consumer, to see how Obamacare is affecting your decision to choose between your healthcare and your conscience.

Remember Connecticut’s Bracy family? In 2014, they had to sue their state and the federal government after being forced on to Connecticut’s Obamacare, which only offered plans that required them to pay for other people’s abortions. Due to pressure, the state of Connecticut now has at least one pro-life plan.

Tell us your story. We have provided our findings and encourage you to contact us with your experiences regarding abortion and Obamacare (either before or after enrollment in a plan) at info@obamacareabortion.com. Let us know what has and has not worked for you. One day we will win this battle, but in the meantime, we have to continue to fight and tell our stories!

Supreme Court Pass on Defunding Cases Reminds Us of the Horrors of Planned Parenthood

by Patrina Mosley

December 11, 2018

Many are upset at the Supreme Court’s decision to not review a set of cases that could have brought clarity to whether an individual has the right to sue their state government for withholding Medicaid funds from certain healthcare providers, some of which included Planned Parenthood. As pro-lifers think back to January 2018, we remember when President Trump rescinded Obama-era guidance that had made it harder for states to defund abortion-performing entities like Planned Parenthood. So, what just happened?

After undercover videos were released in 2015 that showed Planned Parenthood selling the remains of aborted baby parts, several states moved to defund them by withholding Medicaid funds. Pro-abortion individuals and Planned Parenthood themselves began to sue many of the states for this action. In 2016, pro-abortion President Obama took precautions and issued guidance that basically tried to scare states into not defunding entities that performed abortions, telling them they could be in violation of the law if they did so.

In reality, due to the Hyde Amendment, Medicaid dollars cannot go towards paying for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest or life endangerment, and most states follow this federal standard, although they do have the option to cover abortion using explicitly “state” Medicaid funds. However, Medicaid money is fungible for entities that perform other services aside from abortions, which many Americans do not like and thus have already made it clear that they do not want their tax dollars entangled with the abortion business.

Cases involving state attempts to defund entities like Planned Parenthood were split on the question of whether an individual has the right to sue states for withdrawing such funding. When cases involving Kansas and Louisiana’s attempts to withdraw this funding reached the Supreme Court, many were looking to the Court to bring clarity to this issue—but they did not. Instead, they just kicked the can down the road to be resolved another day. And no doubt that day for resolution will come. The underlying question to settle is whether states have the right to decide how to best use their Medicaid dollars.

However, it’s important to remember that the Supreme Court’s decision to punt this to another day does not block and nor should it discourage states from their pursuits to defund Planned Parenthood and reallocate their Medicaid funds to better healthcare options for women. President Trump’s action rescinding President Obama’s 2016 guidance freed states from the fear of federal government punishment if they decided to defund entities like Planned Parenthood, and states should continue to capitalize on this.

We will not forget the horrific scandals of Planned Parenthood that brought us to this place to begin with. From committing over a third of the nation’s abortions, to Medicaid fraud, botched abortions, declining services, and participation in the sale of aborted baby parts, Planned Parenthood is not a place that should qualify as healthcare and does not deserve our tax dollars. For every Planned Parenthood, there are 20 more qualified federal healthcare centers that do not perform abortions and yet provide more services for women. Let’s use them!

Christian Healthcare Alternatives to Obamacare

by Patrina Mosley

December 4, 2018

Family Research Council (FRC) and Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI) have released our fifth annual comprehensive review of elective abortion coverage under Obamacare on ObamacareAbortion.com. This resource will help any consumer who wants to find pro-life health plans.

Premiums have continued to sky-rocket and more locales than ever have no pro-life plans to choose from.

It can be tiring to have to choose between your healthcare needs, your pocket, and your conscience.

You may have wondered or heard from neighbors saying: “Why do all the good plans include the abortion coverage?” If you are dissatisfied with the insurance choices in your state, you may want to consider a healthcare sharing ministry. While healthcare sharing does not fix the problem of abortion funding in Obamacare, it does provide an option that respects our consciences and moral values.

In life, things (including medical emergencies) happen, and those within the Body of Christ should strive to take care of each other just as they did in the Book of Acts, during the early church. One of the ways Christians are continuing to care for one another today is by shouldering the burden of each other’s healthcare expenses. Does this mean that the early church in Acts practiced communism as we know it today, or that the teachings of Jesus promoted government-enforced socialism? No. But we are told that the Christians of that time did share all things in common. They voluntarily engaged in this way of life—serving one another—out of an overflow of the heart, because of what their Lord had done for them. (See here for more discussion on this issue.)

These Christian healthcare sharing ministries operate on a system of voluntary contributions of Christian members who are wanting to systematically live out Galatians 6:2 (“Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way, you will fulfill the law of Christ”) by sharing medical costs among their members. Healthcare sharing ministries are exempt from the individual mandate of Obamacare. These ministries do not support abortion in any way and provide an alternative to the state and federal exchanges:

These three ministries have been certified and recognized as healthcare sharing ministries by the Department of Health & Human Services (via the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services).

The testimonials of how families have benefited from these ministries are encouraging to see, particularly with those who run their own business. “It’s a great alternative for families who are self-employed,” said one.

When another family who was having trouble paying the high premiums of Obamacare switched to a healthcare share ministry, the representatives even prayed with the family. These healthcare ministries are not only ministering to believers physically and financially but also spiritually and emotionally.

Today, there are over 1 million healthcare sharing participants with approximately 85 percent of those represented and supported by a ministry that is a member or affiliate of the Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries.

Believers are using whatever means they have to bless one another. This is not a redistribution of wealth where the government is dictating to us what we should do with our money, which is what Obamacare does by subsidizing the killing of innocent human beings through anti-life health insurance. Instead, participating in healthcare sharing ministries is a form of voluntary stewardship of what God has blessed us with in order to take care of our own bodies as well as the body of Christ.

We want to see all human life protected, and certainly do not want to further abortion by paying for it through our insurance plans. As long as health insurance plans cover abortion, and Obamacare becomes less and less affordable, we can pursue healthcare sharing options that have arisen to fill the gap. More options are available at the resources tab of Obamacareabortion.com, as well as information on what progress has been made to protect your conscience in healthcare choices.

Notre Dame Students Take a Stand Against Porn

by Patrina Mosley

November 2, 2018

Recent studies have shown that young adults aged 18-24 are the most frequent porn users—almost six in 10 young adults seek out porn either daily, weekly, or monthly. It’s no wonder why students at the University of Notre Dome are calling for pornography filters on their campus Wi-Fi as part of a “White Ribbon Against Pornography Week” campaign created by NCOSE. The original request came from the male students in a letter emphasizing that “pornography is an affront to human rights and catastrophic to individuals and relationships. We are calling for this action in order to stand up for the dignity of all people, especially women.”

We applaud these men for showing concern for the well-being of their female peers and their own sexual health.

Women and Pornography

What is unique about this story is that after the males issued their letter, the female students stood in solidarity by issuing their own response letter acknowledging that pornography consumption correlates to sexual assault and that women themselves struggle with pornography addiction:

We want a filter because we want to eliminate sexual assault and sexual abuse on our campus. We want a filter because we care deeply about Notre Dame students — including women — who struggle with pornography addictions.

To some, it may be shocking to see that pornography can no longer be labeled as just a man’s issue. With 76 percent of 18 to 30-year-old women reporting that they watch porn at least once a month, and with the term “porn for women” seeing a 359 percent growth among female users in just one year, pornography can no longer be siloed to one sex.

By and large, men prefer images and graphic sex sites; women prefer erotic stories and romance sites. The connection between erotic materials and women seeking online porn makes sense when the erotica genre generated $1.37 billion in sales, making it the “the single largest share of the fiction market,” with over 90 percent of the consumers being women. Female-targeted erotica novel series like Fifty Shades of Grey are being turned into movies (the film grossed over $1.3 billion). In a recent Marie Claire survey of 3,000 women who sought out internet porn, 40 percent said they sought erotic stories. Erotica has proven to be a gateway to more “hardcore” content, which has led to a rise in women consuming this type of pornography.

And when it comes to curbing sexual assault and harassment, these ladies are right for wanting to curtail the consumption of pornography.

A recent review found 50 peer-reviewed studies directly linking porn use to sexual violence. Pornography also has been shown to play a role in shaping how women think they should be treated, leading to an increased likelihood that they will become victims of sexual assault by physical coercion or other abusive behavior. When you have nearly 80 percent of adult males consuming pornography, of which 88 percent of pornographic scenes are sexually violent against women, how do you think this will affect sexual behavior? In the era of #MeToo, we must look seriously at how pornography is shaping our cultural beliefs about what is acceptable behavior. 

Moral Ambiguity is Dissolving

The latest Barna research shows that just one in 20 young adults report talking with their friends about porn in a disapproving way.

But the evidence of its harmful effects are being brought to light. Much of the Notre Dame students’ letter cites the studies that acknowledge that pornography consumption is “associated with a host of issues: addiction, child sexual abuse, divorce, male fertility problems, sexual assault and the acceptance, normalization and sexualization of cruelty towards women. It contributes to prostitution, human trafficking and the proliferation of sexually transmitted diseases.” I encourage you to read the full letter.

Yet many do not want to debate the morality of pornography. They would rather ignore the fact that this generation has been the primary subject of what has been dubbed “The Largest Unregulated Social Experiment In History.” Recognizing among their own personal relationships that pornography harms both the individual and society, buyer’s remorse on porn is slowly growing. Its devastating effects are being studied and recognized.

A Public Health Crisis

Pornography has been officially declared a public health crisis in five states, and the U.K. Parliament has been called upon to address pornography usage like other public health hazards in order to tackle sexual harassment of girls and women.

Society now warns potential users of the addictive harms of nicotine. Hopefully one day we will see  pornography in the same way.

We’re In a Spiritual Battle of Good vs. Evil. Gosnell Proves It.

by Patrina Mosley

October 11, 2018

What if I told you that for over 30 years, a man was murdering babies that were born alive, collecting their remains in bags, jars, and milk cartons, committing medical malpractice on women to the point of death, illegally distributing drugs to addicts, and breaking several other state and federal laws. Do you think it would get the media’s attention? No. Why? Because this man, Kermit Gosnell, was an abortionist. Even those who find themselves mostly on the left found it appalling that this case received little to no attention.

Well, that’s about to change. In the new movie, Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer, tells the story of how a routine drug bust turned into an investigation of a house of horrors. The script for the movie was largely based on the courtroom transcripts of the Gosnell case to ensure accuracy.

At our Values Voter Summit, the star of Gosnell, Dean Cain, described how the scenes, taken straight from the case, were not sensationalized:

We were shooting this, I even turned to our director Nick—are we going a little overboard here? I mean this is a little much… I don’t want to give away too much… the stuff that was going on there… this can’t be real. Then he showed me the actual footage from the actual [police] raid and it looked almost identical. It’s so horrific that if you decided to make something horrific you’re not even scratching the surface. It’s where truth is much more strange than fiction. It was shocking, it was horrifying, and the moment you see that I don’t think there’s anything you could do but go for a homicide conviction.

This PG-13 movie does a tasteful but truthful job of allowing us to see what really happened on the road to getting justice for the atrocities committed at the sinister hands of Gosnell and the bureaucratic coverups that enabled him. The movie is neither “pro-life” nor “pro-abortion”—it’s a truthful telling of a story that should have gotten way more attention than it did.

In Gosnell, you will see that we are in a true spiritual battle of light versus darkness, good versus evil. Nothing displays that more than this movie.

The movie is opening on October12th, and it’s important that we support this film. Check here to find one of the 600 theaters showing the movie near you, and take your friends, your small groups, and your church.

An Answer to This Generation’s Identity Crisis: “Love Thy Body.”

by Patrina Mosley

October 2, 2018

At our annual Values Voter Summit last week, we hosted a student mixer that discussed the topic of gender identity and sexual orientation in this generation.

Tomorrow, we will have the opportunity to hear more on this subject from author Nancy Pearcey as she speaks at Family Research Council headquarters (register here to attend).

This topic comes in an age of transgenderism, LGBT discrimination laws, and national outcry over who gets to use which restroom—a time when gender is given to self-determination and may change daily. The nature of the sexual identity debate is often laced with animus and confusion and has profound implications for people as well as policies that will affect every citizen.

The Economist recently reported a flood of adolescent girls seeking treatment for gender dysphoria over the last eight years. In 2009, 41 percent of teens going to gender clinics in the U.K. were female. By 2017, that number jumped to nearly 70 percent.

Today, we are seeing gender confusion and gender dysphoria become more common among this generation, especially as many young people have taken up androgynous identities to be hip, cool, or in fashion. They have embraced the exploration of their sexuality to the point of denying truth. While the political Left exploits our youth to gain political points, the real heart of the matter is the philosophical attempt to erase God’s fingerprint on the design of mankind. One of the unique fingerprints of God our Creator is science. Our biological makeup speaks a truth louder than words—down to our XX and XY chromosomes. Researchers have identified over six thousand genes that are expressed differently in men and women.

In Nancy Pearcey’s new book, Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions about Life and Sexuality, she says:

The implication is that the physical structure of our bodies reveals clues to our personal identity. The way our bodies function provides rational grounds for our moral decisions. That’s why, as we will see, a Christian ethic always takes into account the facts of biology, whether addressing abortion (the scientific facts about when life begins) or sexuality (the facts about sexual differentiation and reproduction). A Christian ethic respects the teleology of nature in the body.

This is called a teleological view of nature, based on the Greek word telos, which means “purpose” or “goal.” It is evident that living things are structured for a purpose. Romans 1:20 says, “[f]or since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and the divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made … .”

If any of this interests you, please join us tomorrow and listen to Nancy Pearcey as she answers hard questions on life and sexuality from her new book, Love Thy Body.

To attend tomorrow’s event, register here!

California’s Campus Abortion Legislation Has Been Vetoed - Here’s What It Had Wrong

by Patrina Mosley

October 1, 2018

The California bill SB 320—also known as the “College Student Right to Access Act”—would have required the state’s 34 public universities with student health centers to provide abortion pills on campus to more than 400,000 female students by January 1, 2022. California would have been the first state to require access to chemical abortions on campus, which would have made SB 320—which shows reckless disregard for young women—model legislation for the rest of the country. This bill was sponsored by state Senator Connie M. Leyva (D-Chino) in conjunction with The Women’s Foundation of California, a publicly-funded liberal feminist organization that has succeeded in getting 32 of their sponsored bills signed by the governor.

Though SB 320 passed the senate and state assembly, Governor Jerry Brown thankfully vetoed this disastrous legislation just yesterday. In explaining his veto, Governor Brown observed that having to commute a few miles off-campus for an abortion is not an inconvenience for students.

SB 320’s title deceptively includes “right to access” language despite the fact that there is no proof that female students do not have access to abortion in California. In fact, California has more than 500 abortion providers, and abortion is covered by student health insurance plans and the state’s medical assistance program, Medi-Cal. Under Obamacare, students can remain on their parent’s health plans—all of which in California cover abortions.

Here are five serious flaws with SB 320 we should be aware of when this issue comes up again:

  • University student health center are not equipped to handle the liability involved in providing on-campus abortions. SB 320 does little to resolve the liability concerns for universities, who will be forced to be directly involved in providing abortions. Potential complications that can arise from taking the abortion pill range from excessive bleeding and infection to an incomplete abortion requiring surgery and even death. Also not addressed in the bill are admitting privileges to nearby hospitals or emergency assistance in case the young women experience a complication.
  • No verification of the unborn baby’s gestational age is required. These college health centers do not have ultrasound equipment, which are vitally important to determine the unborn baby’s gestational age and in order to diagnose the possibility of an ectopic pregnancy. This poses the very real danger of young women self-administering the abortion pill too late in the pregnancy, thereby increasing their chance of experiencing physically hazardous complications.
  • No pre-abortion counseling is offered. It is disturbingly common for a young woman who is pregnant to feel pressure from the father of her child as well as her family to abort, especially in abusive situations. Will college health centers be able to determine if women are being pressured or forced to have an abortion? A study published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons found that over 73 percent of women who have had abortions admitted that they experienced at least subtle forms of pressure to abort their babies.
  • There is no requirement to inform women of the health risks of taking the abortion pill. College health centers that dispense the abortion pill are not required to inform the young women of all the risks and complications that can result from ingesting the drug, unlike abortion clinics in a number of states that are required to. This begs the question: will there be counseling provided for a woman who may undergo shock and trauma in her dorm room at the sight of her abortion?
  • The bill’s funding mechanism is purposefully vague. SB 320 claims that it will rely on private funding until 2021, but this ignores the fact that a school clinic’s overhead is paid by taxpayers, and the language of the bill leaves open the possibility of taxpayer-funded abortion after 2021 by providing no safeguard to prohibit state funds or student fees from paying for the ongoing support of this program. Public funding of abortion is something that a majority of Americans strongly oppose. According to a recent Marist poll, 60 percent of Americans strongly oppose the use of their tax dollars to pay for abortions. With already-skyrocketing college tuition costs, students and parents will be less than enthusiastic about student fees being raised, especially if those fees go towards abortion-inducing pills.

While California schools are going out of their way to provide abortions to female students who may be pregnant, the bill does nothing to fortify access to knowing their rights under Title IX, if they choose to keep their baby. All public and private schools, school districts, colleges, and universities receiving any federal funds must comply with Title IX which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex—including pregnancy and parental status in educational programs and activities. A student has the right to file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights if they believe their school has violated this federal law. To learn more about how Title IX protects you from discrimination at school if you are pregnant or parenting, go here.

Stay tuned for more on this topic from Family Research Council.

A Bill Allowing College Campus Abortions Shows Reckless Disregard for Young Women

by Patrina Mosley

September 17, 2018

Safe, legal, and rare.”

That’s how the Democrats described their position on abortion over 20 years ago. Nevertheless, in just one year, 321,384 lives were aborted by Planned Parenthood, and nearly 60 million lives have been lost to abortion in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade.

First off, anything legal is hardly ever rare, and when it comes to abortions, it doesn’t take a genius to know they are not safe—physically or psychologically.

We know the phrase “safe, legal, and rare” was just political coaxing mixed with just enough moral undertones to put people’s consciences at ease about abortion rights. But as usual, when you give the Left an inch, they build a highway.

Now, Democrats in California want young women to have as many abortions as they want, right from their dorm rooms. This is the purpose of California bill SB 320, the first bill of its kind, which has made its way onto Governor Jerry Brown’s desk.

SB 320—deceptively titled the “College Student Right to Access Act”—would require public universities with on-campus student health centers to provide abortion pills to young college-aged women by January 1, 2022. If signed, California would be the first state to require access to chemical abortions on-campus, and abortion activists will make SB 320 model legislation for the rest of the country.

Legal abortion has created a pathway for bills like SB 320 that try to reinforce the idea that abortion is healthcare. Elective abortion—the taking of innocent unborn life—should never be considered healthcare, and if anything, legislation like SB 320 shows a reckless disregard for the health of young women and presumes that education and motherhood are not compatible.

We’ve known since 2006 that the abortion pill regimen is dangerous, with thousands of reported adverse health events, including several deaths. Recently, the FDA reported 1,445 more adverse events from 2012-2017. Since the introduction of the abortion pill in 2000, the drug has caused 22 deaths, 97 ectopic pregnancies, 1,041 hospitalizations, 598 blood transfusions as a result of blood loss, 411 infections, and 69 severe infections, with a total of 4,185 adverse events reported.

A former Planned Parenthood manager, Abby Johnson, had this experience with her medical abortion:

A blood clot the size of a lemon had fallen into my bath water. Was that my baby? I knew this huge clot was not going to go down the drain, so I reached down to pick it up. I was able to grasp the large clot with both hands and move it to the toilet.

Then came the excruciating pain again. I jumped out of the shower and sat on the toilet. Another lemon sized blood clot. Then another. And another. I thought I was dying. This couldn’t be normal. Planned Parenthood didn’t ever tell me this could happen.

One of SB 320’s co-sponsors, ACT for Women and Girls, says SB 320 is “about making sure that our young people are prepared for their life.”

Can you imagine the mental trauma that would occur to a young woman who sees her abortion take place in her college dorm room, while at the same time enduring the physical trauma of excruciating pain?

We know already that abortion negatively impacts a woman’s mental health. One study in the British Journal of Psychiatry analyzed 22 studies that detailed women who were post-abortive and found that they were more likely to have issues with substance abuse and had greater anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts than non-abortive women.

Instead of “preparing” women for life, the abortion pill is setting them up to be more traumatized through life.

SB 320 does not prepare men or women for life, to take responsibility for their actions, and make wise, moral choices.

In reality, having the abortion pill readily available steps from college dorm rooms does nothing but incentivize the prevailing hook-up culture. Will the future of college “sex weeks” not only include condoms but abortion pills too?

Neither does it enhance the dignity of women. Instead, SB 320 treats women as sex objects, implying that “if she wakes up pregnant, it’s no big deal, since she can easily go to the health center to get some abortion pills.”

No accountability, no responsibility—the gifts of modern feminism.

Modern feminists place opposition between education, work, and family for women. If you’re a young college student who thinks she is pregnant, modern feminists say abortion is the safest route to ensure you will not be uneducated and poor (as if this is the worst thing that can happen to you… the slight elitism should not go unnoticed). Feminists proudly tout they are pro-choice, but the only choice they are in favor of is telling you to abort your child.

There are serious concerns that are not addressed in SB 320 that make the bill look rushed and politicized. SB 320 disregards the risks to women’s health, the potential liability to schools, and unclear fungibility of taxpayer funds. The bill’s funding mechanism is purposefully vague. Private funding until 2021 ignores the fact that a school clinic’s overhead is paid by taxpayers, and the language of the bill leaves open taxpayer-funded abortion after that.

SB 320 leaves more questions than answers in giving women unsupervised access to abortion.

As the abortion industry creates victims, the pro-life movement creates victors.

For instance, 24-year-old single mom Briana Williams graduated from Harvard Law School with her one-year-old daughter, and many other students have shared their stories.

SB 320 is not empowering or safe for women. Better options are prevailing, and those efforts should be supported and funded. Tell Governor Brown how this bill will harm young women and place public universities at risk.

Resources for Women with Unplanned Pregnancies

Pregnantoncampus.com

Pregnant on Campus is an initiative started by Students for Life of America to empower women to choose life by providing resources and support for pregnant and parenting students on campus.

AbortionPillReversal.com

If a woman takes the first pill of the abortion pill regime and then has second thoughts, there is still a way to stop the process. For more information, visit AbortionPillReversal.com. For emergencies, there is a hotline at 877-558-0333.

Find a Pregnancy Center Near You

Care Net pregnancy centers offer accurate and helpful information in a compassionate environment. If you think you may be pregnant and are in search of information about pregnancy options, a free pregnancy test, or post-decision support, the experts at your local Care Net pregnancy center can help. Search here to find one near you.

Planned Parenthood’s New President Can’t Erase Its Atrocities

by Patrina Mosley

September 14, 2018

The new Planned Parenthood president, Leana Wen, has been announced and it is clear from her background that she carries all the Left’s qualifiers for being anti-Trump, which will only matter for so long. Planned Parenthood’s attempts to be relevant do not make Wen a shield for the atrocities Planned Parenthood clinics are committing and profiting from every day.

The fact that Planned Parenthood has placed its scandal-ridden organization into the hands of a physician does nothing to dignify abortion as a form of healthcare. It only makes taking the Hippocratic oath to “do no harm” hypocritical. The organization’s introductory video asserts that “having a physician as the head of Planned Parenthood is a sign that what we are doing is mainstream medical care.” Why is it not? Because, Cree Erwin-Sheppard is dead, Jamie Lee Morales is dead, and a 20-year old woman at an unlicensed Planned Parenthood abortion clinic is dead, all due to botched abortions. These are just a few recent examples.

Abortion is the number one killer of African-Americans. Leana Wen, the former Health Commissioner of the predominately African-American community of Baltimore City, should know this. Nearly 80 percent of Planned Parenthood’s centers are located within walking distance of mainly African-American and Hispanic communities.

Planned Parenthood has aborted over 321,000 babies just in the last year—and yet according to the organization, this is to be “understood as a fundamental human right.” The fact that over 60 million lives have been extinguished in the U.S. alone from abortions is the single greatest human rights violation we are facing. Planned Parenthood should be defunded, and the DOJ should follow through with their investigation into Planned Parenthood’s scandalous activities based off congressional referrals. 

  • Page 1 of 2
  • 1
  • 2
Archives