Category archives: Abortion

Democrats of Color Cross Party Lines to Support Life

by Patrina Mosley

May 10, 2019

A number of Democrats of color have defied party lines to support pro-life legislation in North Carolina, Illinois, New Mexico, and Nevada, according to this Washington Times article—proving “One’s party affiliation should not determine one’s conviction to be an advocate for life,” tweeted North Carolina Right to Life.

Sen. Don Davis crossed party lines and joined Senate Republicans in voting to overturn Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto of a bill providing born-alive protections for infants surviving a failed abortion.

The executive director of Illinois Right to Life, Mary Kate Knorr, credits such heroic efforts to the work of pro-life outreach from urban church ministries and the “the growing sense that such communities have not been well served by abortion.”

I agree.

As written in our Planned Parenthood is Not Pro-Woman publication, we see that the nation’s largest abortion supplier is only interested in targeting certain woman.

Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was a prominent eugenicist who wrote many notable articles in defense of eugenics and even authored a book called “The Pivot of Civilization.” In it, Sanger shared her views on creating a better society by eliminating the “unfit.” In establishing what she called the “Negro Project,” Sanger enlisted black leaders, particularly of the clergy, to convince them that birth control was in the African-American community’s best interests. As she once said to an ally, “We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Praise God that today urban clergy are the ones who are deciding to take up the call to rescue their community from the hands of the abortion industry.

Consider this: Today, Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion supplier and operates nearly 80 percent of its facilities within walking distance of black and Hispanic communities.

Thankfully abortions have declined overall, with a slight decline among ethnic groups, but African-American women are still 3.5 times more likely to have an abortion than Caucasian women.

According to the latest census data, just over 12 percent of the U.S. population is African-American, about 30 percent of all abortions are committed on black babies. Though the African-American population in America grew by 12 percent between 2000 and 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that the African-American population “grew at a slower rate than most other major race and ethnic groups in the country.”

This trend is most clearly demonstrated in New York, where more African-American babies are aborted than are born alive! According to New York’s abortion report, there were 82,189 abortions performed on New York residents in 2016. Out of the 47,718 total reported pregnancies experienced by non-Hispanic black women, almost half—49 percent—ended in abortion, and 47 percent made it out of the womb alive. What is most devastating is that this has been the trend in New York for years now.

A number of organizations have been exposing the racist nature of Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry, like The Radiance Foundation, CURE, L.E.A.R.N, Life Dynamics, Black Dignity, the Douglas Leadership Institute, and so many others!

We are so thankful for them and for the courageous black Democratic legislators who were willing to abandon the party’s extremity on abortion and acknowledge the fact that abortion does not help the black community—it eliminates them. The faithful work of urban faith ministries is also to be commended for continually sounding the alarm of the black genocide taking place in our backyards and for being willing to build a bridge on this issue of life with Democratic lawmakers.

Black Democratic politicians may be waking up to the fact that abortion is not in their communities’ best interest—it is actually to their detriment. Moreover, refusing to stand with a party who won’t support policies that extend compassion to newborns after a failed abortion goes beyond protecting their own racial group—it protects human society and their very souls. Hopefully, this is just the beginning of legislators of color who will stop and consider whether or not they should support policies that contribute to the erasure of their existence!

House Democrats are Allergic to the Truth When it Comes to Pro-Family Policies

by Connor Semelsberger

May 9, 2019

Yesterday, the House Appropriations Committee marked up a bill that will funds large federal health programs like the Title X Family Planning Program, Medicare, and Medicaid. 

Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) in her opening statement was quick to attack the Trump administration’s recent Protect Life Rule which would ensure separation between abortion clinics and family planning services in the Title X program. She concluded that this rule attacks the doctor-patient relationship by banning doctors from even talking about abortion or abortion services to patients. Clearly Rep. DeLauro did not read the regulation. While the regulation change does prohibit Title X clinics from referring for abortions, it still allows for nondirective pregnancy counseling in which clinics can discuss all available pregnancy options with women. Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala.) spoke up in defense of the Protect Life Rule saying, “Time and time again Americans have said they do not want their tax dollars paying for abortions.” Rep. DeLauro later claimed that this rule change will limit access to family planning services for women. Family Research Council recently published a brief explaining how the Title X rule change actually expands family planning options for women, not limits them.

The attacks on the president’s policies did not stop there, as Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) celebrated the fact that the spending bill eliminates the “abstinence only until marriage program” and increases funding for comprehensive sex education. What Congresswomen Lee was really referring to is the Sexual Risk-Avoidance Education program (SRA) which received $35 million this year. The SRA program is designed to encourage avoiding risky sexual behavior all together as opposed to simply reducing it. FRC’s Peter Sprigg wrote a brief explaining more about how SRA education helps eliminate sexual risk for teens. While Rep. Lee would make you believe that the only way to educate teens about sex is through her comprehensive sexual education programs, SRA education, which receives far less federal funding, is actually more effective.

Representative Lois Frankel (D-Fla.) followed along with her colleagues when she opposed a Born-Alive amendment offered by Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) that would ensure funding recipients do not allow an infant that is born alive after a failed abortion to be denied lifesaving care. Rep. Frankel couldn’t help herself from making the conversation about abortion access when she claimed that this amendment is a way to keep women from being in charge of their own bodies and intimidating doctors from performing abortions. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.) a mother of two children, responded by saying, “To hide behind the idea that this is about overturning the law of the land, you can say that, but that’s not the truth.” Requiring born-alive protections does not undermine abortion access in any way—it instead treats all infants who survive failed abortions as a patient that deserves the same lifesaving care guaranteed to all Americans. Since Rep. Frankel and other Democrats cannot seem to understand that infants do in fact survive failed abortions, Family Research Council published a blog outlining just the facts about the issue.

To end the mark-up, several Democratic members made lofty promises about the success of fetal tissue research to attack an amendment offered by Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) that would ban federal funding for research using tissue from aborted babies. In defending his amendment, Rep. Harris said, “It’s a straw man argument—Parkinson’s was never cured, Alzheimer’s is not being investigated using fetal cells—these are straw men.” Democrat politicians have little moral boundaries when it comes to achieving supposed medical “breakthroughs”—they will even take tissue from the most vulnerable among us just for a chance at new cures that never come.

Statements like these from Democratic leaders should come as no surprise, as time and time again they fail to read legislation, understand regulations, and listen to the facts. Even as the appropriations process continues with Democrats at the helm, we will continue to speak the truth and advocate for policies that respect the dignity of all human life and allow families to flourish.

Connor Semelsberger is the Legislative Assistant for Family Research Council.

9-Year-Old Reminds Us All of the Power of Prayer

by Daniel Hart

April 24, 2019

Love one another.” (John 13:34)

This pivotal verse from the 13th chapter of John’s gospel is the theme for this year’s National Day of Prayer on Thursday, May 2nd. It is an especially fitting theme at this moment in time in our nation, when our political differences threaten to tear our country apart at the seams. It’s a theme that is the very heart of Christianity, the central commandment that Christ gave to his disciples and followers—to love.

But what is love? In these days of confusion, when many feel entitled to their own truths, it is critical to define our terms. The Christian definition of love is to will the good of the other. This often means that we uphold beliefs that are not only deeply unpopular, but are even considered “hateful” and “bigoted”. Nevertheless, we sincerely believe that true love requires that we uphold them for the ultimate good of everyone. Simply put, if we believe that our beliefs are the Truth, then they are not merely true just for Christians but for all people.

While Christians must be unwavering in our belief of the Truth, we also must be pragmatic and reasonable in our relationships with non-believers and our political opponents. How do we even begin to go about convincing the world of the Truth? The beautiful thing about Christianity is that convincing people through our words and actions is only one tool we have in our arsenal. In the faith life, it quickly becomes clear that successfully evangelizing others is far beyond our own power. In reality, the most effective tool of evangelization is prayer (1 John 5:14). But too often, we Christians de-emphasize prayer in favor of what seems like more direct action, like shouting from the rooftops of social media.

Sometimes it takes the wisdom of children to remind us of the fundamental importance of prayer. Take Jack, a 9-year-old boy from New York. After Governor Andrew Cuomo enacted the most extreme state abortion expansion bill in the country in his home state, Jack decided he wanted to do something about it. With the help of his father, he started the website ConvertCuomo, which asks believers to commit to pray for Gov. Cuomo’s conversion by submitting a prayer pledge on the site.

For Jack, who comes from a strong Catholic upbringing, the “ConvertCuomo” project was an especially personal one. Gov. Cuomo, who is himself Catholic, went so far as to order One World Trade Center and other landmarks to be lit up in pink in order to celebrate his signing into law of the most radical state abortion expansion bill ever to be enacted in the U.S.“My mom and dad told me that he passed this bill and other things and it made me really upset,” Jack said. “So I wanted to think of something to do to stop abortion.”

As Jack recognizes, it is especially important to pray for those in authority like Gov. Cuomo who claim to be Catholic yet strongly support policies that his own faith teaches is a “grave offense” against moral law.

I pray two Our Fathers for Governor Cuomo every day,” Jack says, “sometimes three.”

Jack is keying in on an important truth for believers. If we want our political opponents and non-believers to have personal conversions of heart, praying for their conversion is the most loving thing we can do for them.

Let us join Jack’s prayer initiative and take up the vital task of loving one another through prayer.

Women Continue to Die After Taking the Abortion Pill

by Patrina Mosley

April 18, 2019

The FDA has updated their adverse events reports on Mifeprex, also known as “the abortion pill,” with two additional deaths since December 2018.

The previous report released last year on adverse events of the abortion regimen from 2000-2017 showed 22 deaths. Now, an update to the FDA’s Questions and Answers on Mifeprex states that “As of December 31, 2018, there were reports of 24 deaths of women associated with Mifeprex since the product was approved in September 2000, including two cases of ectopic pregnancy resulting in death; and several cases of severe systemic infection (also called sepsis), including some that were fatal.” To date, the report now documents nearly 4,200 adverse events, including deaths, hospitalizations and other serious complications.

Just between the years 2012 to 2017, the FDA released a report detailing 1,445 more adverse events from Mifeprex. In total, the number of adverse events from 2000 to 2018 is now 24 deaths, 97 ectopic pregnancies, 1,042 hospitalizations, 599 blood transfusions, and 412 infections (including 69 severe infections), with a total of 4,195 adverse events reported.

It is unbelievable that Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry would still market something as lethal as the abortion pill as “safe.” It certainly is not safe for the babies that are destroyed by its use and the women who are physically and emotionally harmed.

In a chemical abortion, it is common for a woman to experience severe cramping, contractions, and bleeding to expel the baby. According to the Mifeprex medication guide, this is expected and shows that the “treatment is working.” How pleasant.

These symptoms can last from several hours to several days, and they can be very intense and painful. Many women also experience nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and headache.

And these are the pills California wants to freely dispense on college campuses!

What makes chemical abortions unique from surgical abortions is that the mother will have to see and dispose of the remains of her aborted child.

A 2011 peer-reviewed synthesis on the mental health effects of abortion included a survey of 22 published studies combining data on 877,181 participants, showing that abortion increases the likelihood of depression, anxiety, and reckless behavior such as alcoholism, drug use, and sadly, suicide.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, medication abortions accounted for 31 percent of all nonhospital abortions in 2014, and for 45 percent of abortions before nine weeks’ gestation. The abortion pill can be used up until the 10th week of pregnancy.

How many more women will have to die before the abortion pill is banned?

California Is Trying to Turn College Health Centers Into Abortion Clinics with Taxpayer Dollars (Again)

by Patrina Mosley

April 12, 2019

Last week, the California State Senate Health Committee approved in a 7-3 vote Senate Bill 24, known as the “College Student Right to Access Act.” This bill would amend the state’s public health code to require student health care clinics at all 34 California public colleges and universities to “offer abortion by medication techniques”—a.k.a “the abortion pill”—starting on January 1, 2023.

You may remember a similar bill (SB 320) that went forward last year, sponsored by the same senator, Connie Leyva (D-Chino). Thankfully, this was vetoed by then Democrat Governor Jerry Brown, who saw the mandate as “unnecessary” since “the services required by this bill are widely available off-campus.” In his veto statement he says that “according to a study sponsored by supporters of this legislation, the average distance to abortion providers in campus communities varies from five to seven miles, not an unreasonable distance.”

The report he is referring to was commissioned by the University of California San Francisco (UCSF), which is advocating in favor of the campus abortion mandate! But thankfully, a distance of five to seven miles was too short even for Governor Brown, and only showed how college campuses are targeted by the abortion industry.

SB 24 and last year’s SB 320 are virtually identical, with some changes in grant amounts and deadlines for implementation; other than that, they are the same in function. This means Sen. Leyva and other sponsors of the bill made no effort to fix the serious flaws with this type of mandate raised by both sides of the debate. Yes, even the universities themselves are apprehensive!

To bring this bill up for a second time without addressing its many serious flaws shows a reckless disregard for the 400,000 young women on these 34 public campuses.

In a previous blog, you can see what potential risks and liabilities would come with forcing colleges to dispense the abortion pill. Just two concerns (among many) about SB 24 are that this type of mandate once again has vague funding language and has no mention of support for women who choose not to abort and instead choose to parent the child.

Like the previously failed mandate, SB 24 claims it would only take effect after $10.2 million in private funds have been raised for the costs of equipment and “readiness” as the legislation states, but the language of the bill leaves open the possibility of taxpayer-funded abortion after 2023. It provides no safeguards to prohibit state funds or student fees from paying for the ongoing support of the program. Public funding of abortion is something we already know that a majority of Americans strongly oppose, yet SB 24 takes no precautions to prevent that.

In addition, this legislation offers no maternal assistance for women who choose not to abort! It just supports abortions. The Institute for Women’s Policy Research found that over a quarter of all undergraduate students are raising dependent children—yet no assistance is offered for them. Parenthood and education are compatible, and there are plenty of women who can prove that. To have a bill that purposefully goes out of its way to take away women’s children rather than help them raise their babies and continue their education is a slap in the face to “women’s empowerment” and grossly disregards the human dignity of the unborn.

Any abortion, no matter what stage of pregnancy it occurs at, is a life-changing experience. Even an early-stage chemical abortion can be quite traumatic. What makes chemical abortions unique from surgical abortions is that the mother will have to see and dispose of the remains of her aborted child. It is more than obvious that mental trauma would occur to a young woman who sees her abortion take place in her college dorm room or in a student health center bathroom. Is this really a good thing for a young college woman? I think not.

All in all, this type of bill could care less for women—it only cares about expanding the business of abortion.

Abortion proponents consider this mandate as model legislation for other states to follow, and California is vying to be the first state to implement it.

The California State Senate Health Committee passed the bill. It will now be referred to the State Senate’s Education Committee before going before the full Senate for a vote.

Sitting California governor Gavin Newsom has already insinuated his support for the bill, and this has given activists for SB 24 more optimism. However, it is still unknown how much support will actually come from the public universities themselves who remain apprehensive of the considerable liability that they would have to take on.

To take action on this reckless bill, you can contact California legislators on our action page.

What if Abortion Laws Reflected the Actual Views of Americans?

by Cathy Ruse

April 11, 2019

On Saturday I led a panel discussion on “Abortion Until Birth: What Happened in New York, What Almost Happened in Virginia, and What Lies Ahead in the Federal Courts.”

I was joined by Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Greg Schleppenbach of the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops’ Pro-Life Secretariat, and Jeff Caruso of the Virginia Catholic Conference.

The following are excerpts of my introductory remarks.

***

One of the most celebrated phony arguments for a right to abortion is the Famous Violinist.

It’s a thought experiment, by a supposed moral philosopher (Judith Jarvis Thomson), and it goes like this:

Imagine you wake up in a hospital bed, and discover that your circulatory system has been connected up to the circulatory system of an unconscious famous violinist, lying beside you.

The violinist has a serious kidney infection, and a rare blood type—and you are the only match.

The hospital director comes in and says:

  • It was wrong for the Society of Music Lovers to kidnap you and place you in this difficult position.
  • But without the use of your kidneys, this man will die.
  • And, well, it’ll take 9 months for him to get well.

Are you morally obliged to make your kidneys available to this violinist for 9 months?

You’re supposed to conclude: no, you have the right to choose what happens in, and to, your body. You’re not obligated to put your body in service of another’s life, even that of a famous violinist.

The argument fails, of course. For many reasons. Chief among them is that mothers and children are natural allies, not enemies—not strangers on a hospital bed. 

But this is what modern abortion politics has done to our thinking.

The first American feminists never saw the child as the enemy. Elizabeth Cady Stanton said women had been treated as property; how degrading that we should treat our own children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.

What would they say about our abortion culture today?

According to the Guttmacher Institute, founded by Planned Parenthood, approximately 4 percent of abortions are done for the mother’s health. And 3 percent for “possible problems affecting the health of the [baby].”

Taken together, that’s 7 percent.

That means 93 percent of abortions are done on healthy women with healthy babies.

What are the reasons for these abortions?

Well, the women told Guttmacher they couldn’t afford a baby, they didn’t feel ready, they were having relationship problems. Or their husbands, or boyfriends, or parents wanted them to have the abortion.

There’s a pattern here, if you look for it. Of women who needed financial help, but no one gave it to them. Who needed emotional support, but no one provided it.

Of women who may have wanted the baby, but were surrounded by people who wanted the baby gone.

Feminists for Life says abortion is a reflection that we have failed to meet the needs of women—that: Women Deserve Better Than Abortion.  

They say the slogan “It’s my body, it’s my choice” has really become “it’s her problem.” The rest of us are off the hook.

The truth is, they know it’s a baby. And they’ve known it for a long time.

Even the Famous Violinist argument concedes there’s another person in the equation.

Planned Parenthood activist Amy Richards wrote an essay in the New York Times Magazine about being pregnant with triplets, and having two of her babies aborted.

After reciting a list of ways her life would change if she were to have triplets, she concluded, with a final lament, that she would have to “start shopping only at Costco and buying big jars of mayonnaise.”

She recounted how Peter, her boyfriend, stared at the sonogram screen and said, “There are three heartbeats, and we’re about to make two disappear.”

If you’re a Planned Parenthood activist, why tell your story this way? Why the heartbeats? Why the mayonnaise?

Very clearly, she’s telling us that she knows they’re really babies.

But she’s also clearly telling us that she doesn’t have to have a good reason to abort them—she can, just because she wants to.

And legally speaking, she’s quite right.

Forty-six years ago, the Supreme Court took abortion policy-making out of the hands of the people, and made abortion-until-birth a constitutional right.

Roe v. Wade made abortion legal before but also after viability, until birth, for “health” reasons.

And then Doe v. Bolton, defined “health” as “all factors”—“physical, emotional, psychological, familial, [or] the woman’s age.”

That’s why pro-lifers speak of “abortion on demand.” That’s why Amy Richards speaks of big jars of mayonnaise.

Most people have no idea how extreme U.S. abortion law is.

If American law on abortion reflected Americans’ views on abortion, the law would look very different.

And that’s exactly what politicians in New York were afraid of: That the people would get to have a say, again, on abortion policy.

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act: Just the Facts

by Patrina Mosley , Connor Semelsberger

March 22, 2019

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is a bill sponsored by Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) and Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) that requires lifesaving medical care be given to babies born alive after failed abortion attempts. This legislation has garnered national attention in the wake of a radical abortion agenda that is sweeping across states like New York, Virginia, Vermont, and Illinois. After a recent vote on the born-alive bill in the U.S. Senate that failed to pass, many Senators and Representatives are continuing to make the debate about abortion policy in general instead of focusing on the specific language of the bill, which is to protect innocent lives moments after birth. There has been much debate and false information on what this bill will do and the general nature of infants born alive after an abortion attempt. Here are the facts:

Aren’t late-term abortions only performed when the baby has a fetal abnormality?

  • No. Very few late-term abortions are performed on babies who have fatal birth defects. A study conducted in 2013 by the Guttmacher Institute suggests that most women seeking later term abortions are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomalies or life endangerment. The women in this study offered the same reasons for obtaining an abortion as those who seek abortion earlier in pregnancy.

Do babies actually survive failed abortions?

  • Yes. In fact, the CDC reports that from 2003-2014 at least 143 infants died after being born alive during an abortion procedure, and the report admits that this is almost certainly an underestimate. There are no federal abortion reporting requirements, which leaves a massive gap in state reporting.
  • Only six states require reporting on children who were born alive during abortion procedures, and as of 2017, only Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, and Oklahoma have reported this information. In 2013 Florida passed a born-alive protection act that stipulated reporting requirements. In 2017 alone, Florida reported that 11 babies were born alive during abortion procedures.

Here are two personal accounts of abortion survivors:

  • Gianna Jessen had been in the womb for seven months before her mother went to a Planned Parenthood to have a late-term saline abortion. (Saline abortions rarely if ever happen anymore in the United States for abortions up to 24 weeks gestation. This technique has been replaced with an equally gruesome one that dismembers a child limb from limb, known as a Dilation & Excavation, or “D&E.”) Saline abortions use a saline solution to poison the baby, which burns him or her inside and out, even burning off the outer layer of their skin. The child suffers in these conditions for over an hour until their demise, and the mother must deliver her dead child the next day. But Gianna survived. She was diagnosed with cerebral palsy due to oxygen deprivation in the abortion attempt, but today she only walks with a small limp!
  • Melissa Ohden’s biological mother had a saline abortion. But Melissa survived. After being born alive, it was found that she was seven months old. Today Melissa is a pro-life advocate with a master’s degree in social work and is the founder of the Abortion Survivors Network (ASN).

Aren’t there already laws in place against infanticide?

  • Currently, there is no federal criminal statute against taking the lives of born-alive infants; criminal charges are applied at the state level. In 2002, Congress did pass the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, but this law was only a definitional change stating that all infants who survive an abortion are full persons under the law. There has not been a single prosecution brought against an abortion doctor since this law was passed even though the CDC admits that this happened at least 143 times.
  • Twenty-nine states currently have some form of born-alive protections. However, New York state recently repealed their born-alive protections with the passage of the Reproductive Health Act, making it one of 21 states with no born-alive protections. That is why a federal law adding enforcement tools to prosecute doctors who deny life-saving medical care to infants who survive abortion is necessary.

Shouldn’t the decision to keep a child be between a woman and her doctor?

  • This bill does not prescribe specific medical procedures that doctors must perform. In fact, the language specifically reads: “Any health care practitioner present at the time the child is born alive shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”
  • The bill also requires that the child be rushed to the nearest hospital. Many contend that moving a child to a hospital might not be the best medical practice, but it is important that the born-alive infant be moved to a hospital because not all abortion clinics have the necessary equipment or trained staff to provide necessary care. Also, it would not be in the child’s best interest to have the abortion doctor, who moments before was trying to kill the child, provide life-saving care.

Given the atrocities against born-alive infants committed by Dr. Kermit Gosnell that were revealed in his 2013 trial, it is essential that we enforce and strengthen the principle that born-alive infants are American citizens entitled to the full protection of our laws. We must never forget what happened in one of America’s most horrific homicide cases, and we must never allow it to happen again:

  • One employee testified in the trial that she witnessed Gosnell snip the necks of more than 30 babies.”
  • A 28-week-old baby boy was found frozen in a gallon water bottle.”
  • One of the babies was reportedly moving and breathing for 20 minutes before an employee cut the spinal cord.”
  • Gosnell severed the spine of one breathing, moving, born-alive baby and put the body in a plastic shoebox for disposal.”
  • When authorities searched Gosnell’s office, they found bags and bottles holding aborted fetuses scattered throughout the building.”
  • Many other horrific details were brought as evidence before a grand jury. You can find a comprehensive list in this Washington Examiner article of all the horrible offensives committed by Gosnell on helpless infants.

Having protections for abortion surviving infants is the issue at hand—not abortion rights or women’s rights. This is about offering medical care to a child who has now become the patient. We must decide as a country where we stand on this issue: to either pursue humane protections for those must vulnerable in our society or continue to subject innocent human life to the whims of abortionists like Kermit Gosnell.

FDA Orders Abortions by Mail to Cease

by Patrina Mosley

March 21, 2019

I bet you never thought you would see a headline like this.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is finally cracking down on organizations that sell abortion pills over the internet.

Organizations such as AidAccess.org and Rablon (who host a pharmacy network that includes sites like AbortionPillRx.com and AbortPregnancy.com) were issued letters from the FDA to immediately stop selling unapproved versions of mifepristone and misoprostol, drugs used in the abortion pill regime.

Aid Access has been under investigation since October. The company’s founder Dr. Rebecca Gomperts would take orders from U.S. women, get Indian pharmacies to fulfill the prescription, and then have them ship it.

Trusting another country to have the same pharmaceutical and sanitary standards to produce medicine is quite reckless—and of all the countries to trust, India should be last on the list. It is one of the leading exporters of the world’s counterfeit drugs.

In a warning letter issued to Aid Access, the FDA points out:

Unapproved new drugs do not have the same assurance of safety and effectiveness as those drugs subject to FDA oversight. Drugs that have circumvented regulatory safeguards may be contaminated; counterfeit, contain varying amounts of active ingredients, or contain different ingredients altogether.”

This is not Dr. Gomperts’ first offense. For years, her other organization called Women on Web has been supplying women in countries where abortion is illegal with ways “to perform their own medication-induced abortions at home.”

Her “care” sounds more like the under-the-table operations of World Health Organization, International Planned Parenthood Federation, and the UN who deceptively push “reproductive freedom”—contraception and abortion—on poor countries they believe are breeding too much, thereby perpetuating a population in poverty and the need for aid from other countries.

Although the “abortion pill” is legal in the United States, it has to be prescribed by an actual doctor, not ordered online like you’re shopping on Amazon. The drugs are only given out by certified health care providers in a doctor’s office, clinic, or hospital, although some states are experimenting with “telemed abortions” where women video chat with doctors to get the pills. How is this safer or any different from ordering pills online? One can only wonder. But the lack of consistency aside, the FDA putting online abortion pill sellers on notice is significant and underlines the fact that any chemical powerful enough to stop a natural process and kill a living child should not be handed out so carelessly.

Abortions overall are at an all-time low, but the use of medication abortions is at an all-time high. The latest statistics on abortion from Guttmacher show that over 30 percent of abortions in 2014 were chemical, and now make up 45 percent of all abortions obtained up to 9 weeks. The trend has been that the vast majority of abortions take place before 8 weeks gestation on women between the ages of 20-29. The CDC reports that from 2006 to 2015, the use of early medication abortion increased 114 percent.

We are now seeing that the abortion pill regimen is becoming the preferred method for women attempting abortion in the first trimester. With the rise in use of chemical abortions, the abortion industry is leaving no stone unturned to market them as “safe,” “natural,” and as easily accessible as candy.

Stay tuned for more developments on the rise of the abortion pill in our midst.

Basic Human Decency Starts with Protecting Babies on Their Birthday

by Caleb Seals

March 20, 2019

When it comes to abortion, the political Left always trots out the same line: “It’s the woman’s right to choose whatever she wants with her own body.” Pro-lifers respond to this by speaking up for the rights of the unborn baby’s body. But after the recent passage of New York’s extreme abortion law and Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s pro-infanticide comments, we are no longer talking about defending the unborn, we are talking about defending the born. Let that sink in.  

Consequently, Senator Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) sponsored the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act in the Senate, which basically states that if a child survives an attempted abortion, he or she must be given normal care in order to survive. Unfortunately, only 53 members in the Senate voted for the child’s right to live. In the House, Democrats have blocked the bill 18 times so far.

Senator Tim Scott (R-S.C.) spoke on the Senate floor a day after the vote: “We are a nation that must continue to value life, and for some reason, somehow, this body missed that opportunity to reinforce that value system before the American public, to say each child born, no matter your state, no matter your challenges: you have intrinsic value.” He elaborated: “There is nothing to debate regarding the sanctity of born children.”

Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) shared Senator Scott’s outrage in a piece for Fox News: “What a tragedy for our country. Tennesseans and all Americans should demand better of their representatives.”

President Trump echoed Senator Blackburn’s sentiment by tweeting, “Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children. The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth…This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress. If there is one thing we should agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.”

The reason why the “woman’s right to choose” argument in this context is dishonest is because the baby is no longer part of the woman’s body. The baby is born. The baby is breathing air. The baby’s heart is beating and its eyes are blinking. The baby feels pain and emotion. The baby has dreams and cravings. The baby has thoughts and feelings. The baby has intrinsic value. The baby has life. The woman should never have the right to take life away from the most innocent among us.

The president is right—if there is one thing we should agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.

To send a message to Congress that all newborn babies should be welcomed with warmth and care, join thousands of Americans in our End Birth Day Abortion campaign. We will send a newborn baby hat in your name to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to remind her and her Democratic colleagues of the reality of their pro-infanticide position.

Caleb Seals is an intern at Family Research Council.

Interview: Pro-Life Rhode Island Student Says She Couldn’t Stay Silent

by Patrina Mosley

March 15, 2019

Many of us still can’t believe we have to have a debate over whether it’s okay to kill a child up until the day of birth—and now even after birth! It may seem like we are in dark times, coincidently at a time when we have one of the most pro-life administrations ever in office.

In the last two years, we have seen significant pro-life turnarounds, and the abortion business feels threatened. As the forces of darkness are emboldening lawmakers, that aggressiveness is also emboldening ordinary Americans and churches to take a pro-life stand.

Take, for instance, Melissa Cifuentes, a Rhode Island college student who testified against her state’s new radical abortion bill. It all started with her pastor having enough of the culture of death. When his own state decided to follow in the footsteps of New York’s birthday abortion law, he encouraged his flock to get up and speak up!

Thank you to churches like this who are empowering their members to engage the culture with truth, justice, and boldness. Watch our interview with Melissa to see how that message resulted in her becoming a willing servant of God and a voice for the voiceless.

As states are pushing their own extreme abortion laws, it’s been a battle just to get Congress to have a vote on whether or not a child who is born alive after a failed abortion attempt should be given reasonable medical care or be left to die! All newborns should be protected and cared for, but gaps in the law put some babies who are born alive in danger.

This is why we have launched our “End Birth Day Abortion” campaign, designed to call attention to this atrocity and pass the Born-Alive Survivor’s Protection Act. For every donation of $9, we’ll deliver one baby hat on your behalf to U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Every elected leader of our country—whether Democrat or Republican—should be made to answer for where they stand on this issue, for it is a moral, not a political, issue. Join Americans across the nation in sending a powerful reminder that young lives should be welcomed with the warmth of a baby hat, not death.

Archives