And Norman Wells of the Family Education Trust says researchers are essentially calling for the development of an abortion pill.
“To call a drug a contraceptive when it is designed and intended to be used after intercourse and potentially after fertilization is a complete misnomer,” he says.
“There is no such thing as an ‘after-sex contraceptive pill.’ It is a contradiction in terms,” he adds. “In their zeal to increase choices for women, the researchers have lost sight of the other person who is involved in every abortion no matter how early a pregnancy is ended.”
Dr. Elizabeth Raymond, from the New York-based technology firm Gynuity, and colleagues from the Karolinska Institute in Sweden say women would welcome drug companies developing the pill and that they “deserve all possible options” when it comes the issue.
Raymond says, “Twenty years ago, a multicountry survey specifically designed to investigate women’s feelings about a post-fertilization contraceptive pill found remarkably high acceptance.”
She says there seems to be no evidence that women have changed their minds since then, and that the current political environment needs refocusing.
She adds, “To meet the challenges of our increasingly complicated world, women deserve all possible options for controlling and preserving their reproductive health and lives.”
Thanks to a John Podhoretz tweet (by the way, if you don’t follow him, you should; his Twitter feed is constantly engaging and insightful), I came across a horrifying, sad article by blogger and career advice columnist Penelope Trunk.
It chronicles her two abortions—her first when she was in the midst of a professional volleyball career (it was relatively late-term) and the second when her post-volleyball career was “soaring.”
Before the first abortion, she learned she was pregnant relatively late—14 weeks in. She turned to her mother for advice.
“I told my mom I was pregnant,” Trunk writes. “She said, ‘Get an abortion.’
“I didn’t say anything. I wasn’t really thinking I had any choices. I didn’t have a job that could support a child. And I wasn’t sure if I was planning to marry my boyfriend, although we were living together. I knew that I had big ideas for my life, and I hadn’t figured things out yet.
“My mom got militant. ‘You’ll destroy your career possibilities.'”
Trunk then turned to friends for counsel:
“Here’s what else happened: Other women called. It turned out that many, many women I knew had had an abortion. This is not something women talk about. I mean, I had no idea how ubiquitous the procedure was, at least in my big-city, liberal, Jewish world.
“Each of those women told me that I should get an abortion so that I could keep my options open. ‘You’re a smart girl. You can do anything with your life right now. Don’t ruin it.'”
So she went to Planned Parenthood, and here’s what happened: “When I went back, I had a panic attack. I was on the table, in a hospital gown, screaming.
“The nurse asked me if I was a religious Christian.
“The boyfriend asked me if I was aware that my abortion would be basically illegal in seven more days.
“I couldn’t stop screaming. I was too scared. I felt absolutely sick that I was going to kill a baby. And, now that I know more about being a mother, I understand that hormones had already kicked in to make me want to keep the baby. We left. No abortion.”
But she persisted, and days later: “I scheduled another abortion. But it was past the time when Planned Parenthood will do an abortion. Now it was a very expensive one at a clinic that seemed to cater to women coming from Christian countries in South America. I knew that if I did not go through with it this time, no one would do the abortion. I was too far along.
“So I did it.
“I went to sleep with a baby and woke up without one. Groggy. Unsure about everything. Everything in the whole world.”
Trunk got pregnant again a few years later (and apparently after the volleyball phase of her career): “So the second time I got pregnant, I thought of killing myself. My career was soaring. I was 30 and I felt like I had everything going for me—great job, great boyfriend, and finally, for the first time ever, I had enough money to support myself. I hated that I put myself in the position of either losing all that or killing a baby.
“I didn’t tell anyone I was pregnant. I knew what they’d say.
“So I completely checked out emotionally. I scheduled the abortion like I was on autopilot. I told my boyfriend at the last minute and told him not to come with me.
“He said forget it. He’s coming with me.
“I remember staring at the wall. Telling myself to stop thinking of anything.
“The doctor asked me, ‘Do you understand what’s going to happen?’
“I said yes. That’s all I remember.”
To be clear, Trunk doesn’t cast herself as unscathed by the process. She even goes on to point out that one can have careers and have children: “But also, here I am with two kids. So I know a bit about having kids and a career. And I want to tell you something: You don’t need to get an abortion to have a big career. Women who want big careers want them because something deep inside you drives you to change the world, lead a revolution, break new barriers.
“It doesn’t matter whether you have kids now or later, because they will always make your career more difficult. There is no time in your life when you are so stable in your work that kids won’t create an earthquake underneath that confidence.”
Yet this qualifier hardly redeems the sadness of the piece. The abortion debate is conducted on dishonest terms, with one side working mightily to confine the debate to cases of rape, incest and desperate women facing desperate circumstances.
But there’s another side of abortion—mass-scale killings for the sake of simple ambition to advance personal careers. In other words, here’s one woman’s “choice”—to hire a doctor to kill her own baby for the sake of volleyball.
It is striking how completely the idea of such an act inverts Judeo-Christian morality, which is saturated with an ethic of care, where self-denial is a prime virtue. Christians are quite directly called to deny self, even to the point of taking up one’s figurative cross to follow Christ. Yet the ethic of “choice” is simple: Kill others to pursue self-interest. I suppose if you want to make a career omelet, you have to break a few eggs.
In less than two generations, even the most “soaring” career will mean virtually nothing. At best, most of us will be a fond memory for surviving family and close friends. In three generations, even those memories will fade. In four generations, we’re simply a name on a family tree. But hundreds of thousands of Americans see that wisp of a career as important enough to kill a child to preserve.
It’s no surprise that Kermit Gosnell is guilty of murdering three babies during late-term abortions. Truth be known, he’s guilty of murdering more than 40,000 babies during his dark career, and only God knows how many of them were birthed before he snipped their spinal cord.
Found on the wrong side of the law at a time when abortion laws are growing stricter in many states, many pro-choice activists are distancing themselves from Gosnell in the wake of a guilty verdict and a possible death penalty.
The response is hypocritical at best.
Gosnell is far from the only late-term abortionist to murder babies—and the pro-abortion movement knows this all too well. Yet despite lobbying for the right to murder pre-born humans, even most of the staunchest pro-abortion supporters are too politically correct to publicly agree with Gosnell’s practices in his “house of horrors.”
Consider the reactions from pro-abortion groups, and listen closely to how their spokesmen work to spin it in order to distance themselves from Gosnell and blame the pro-life movement for Gosnell’s evil deeds.
Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, says, “Justice was served to Kermit Gosnelltoday, and he will pay the price for the atrocities he committed. We hope that the lessons of the trial do not fade with the verdict. Anti-choice politicians, and their unrelenting efforts to deny women access to safe and legal abortion care, will only drive more women to back-alley butchers like Kermit Gosnell.”
Hogue almost got away with the spin. She proclaimed Gosnell’s atrocities but quickly set her sights on bashing pro-life—or, as she calls them, “anti-choice”—politicians for working to preserve the sanctity of life. What’s more, she sideways blames the pro-life movement for the rise of back-alley butchers like Kermit Gosnell. Audacious.
Meanwhile, Eric Ferrero, vice president of communications at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, says, “This case has made clear that we must have and enforce laws that protect access to safe and legal abortion, and we must reject misguided laws that would limit women’s options and force them to seek treatment from criminals like Kermit Gosnell.”
Sounds like Ferrero took notes from Hogue. Again, the pro-abortion agenda is actually trying to use Gosnell’s guilt to its advantage. Did Ferrero forget, as the ACLJ revealed, that “a Planned Parenthood lobbyist testified against a law that would protect babies born alive after a botched abortion from being left to die, or worse yet, killed”? Planned Parenthood continues to speak out of both sides of its mouth. Anything to keep abortion legal.
Finally, Dr. Nancy Stanwood, the board chair-elect of Physicians for Reproductive Health, says, “As doctors who have women’s health at the forefront of our mission and our practices, we are relieved that Kermit Gosnell will no longer be able to take advantage of vulnerable women. In Pennsylvania and many other states with restrictive laws, women face incredible barriers that affect their ability to obtain quality care. Gosnell preyed on low-income women who had few options to obtain the care they needed. His practice was illegal, unethical and unsafe.”
Illegal, unethical and unsafe? Abortion may be legal, but it’s anything but ethical, and far too many botched abortions prove it’s not so safe after all. Stanwood takes a different approach than her more radical pro-abortion counterparts but nevertheless spins the Gosnell verdict to a dizzying point. She points out “restrictive laws” and essentially blames a lack of abortion options for low-income women for the establishment of Gosnell’s “house of horrors.”
I imagine the response from these pro-abortion spokesmen would have been much different if Gosnell was found innocent. In fact, before Gosnell was found guilty, many abortion supporters positioned the murders as mere “medical malpractice.” If Gosnell was cleared, radical pro-abortion groups likely would have pounced on the opportunity to paint him as a martyr for the cause of women’s rights.
Thank God, justice was served, at least in part, for Kermit Gosnell. As we await the sentencing, I pray that the fear of God will strike the hearts of every abortionist in this nation. I pray that more abortion mills will shut their doors for good. I pray that more legislatures would recognize personhood amendments and pass more restrictive laws. And I pray, most of all, that mothers would choose life for the pre-born babies inside of them. Amen.
In light of the recent trial of the abortion doctor, Kermit Gosnell, Planned Parenthood continues to stand with women across the country in reinforcing the importance of access to abortion that is safe, legal, and common.
The actions of Dr. Gosnell and the atmosphere of his clinic for reproductive health do not represent the experience of women who visit Planned Parenthood for access to birth control and other reproductive services.
Here are some important differences to keep in mind:
In abortions after the first trimester, Planned Parenthood physicians never “snip the necks” of babies outside the womb. We take great care to make sure that the snipping happens inside the birth canal moments before birth, not after.
Unlike Gosnell’s clinic, Planned Parenthood clinics do not have jars of baby parts or toilets overflowing with fetal remains. We make sure that the fetuses we dismember and extract from the womb are placed in sanitary medical bags and properly disposed of.
Unlike Gosnell’s clinic, Planned Parenthood does not pressure women into having abortions. At the same time, we oppose all legislation requiring a woman to see an ultrasound, because seeing the heartbeat and face of the fetus might cause her to question her right to choose.
Unlike Gosnell’s clinic, Planned Parenthood does not target vulnerable women from minority populations. The fact that most of our clinics are in the inner city and the largest percentage of abortions comes from minority groups has nothing to do with our business model.
Unlike Dr. Gosnell, Planned Parenthood doctors are professional and courteous and treat patients with respect. They perform abortions with surgical precision and a smile. The possibility of a botched abortion or a baby born alive is very rare. Women can rest assured – the doctor will not err; the fetus will not escape. Our doctors are highly skilled in stopping the heartbeats of the little ones.
The sad case of Dr. Gosnell’s trial is a powerful reminder of the importance of reproductive rights. When late-term abortions are regulated, women in desperation visit clinics like Dr. Gosnell’s. For this reason, we recommend loosening restrictions on abortion at all stages of pregnancy. Women have the right to a safe, sanitary procedure, and the child has, well, no rights at all.
As part of a 10-point agenda to advance “women’s equality,” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is calling for an abortion bill that opponents believe would allow for “late-term abortions on demand.”
In his recent State of the State address, Cuomo called for an expansion of laws addressing variouswomen’s issues. His Women’s Equity Bill links so-called ‘reproductive rights’ with equal pay, human trafficking, sexual harassment in the workplace, domestic violence, housing discrimination and other issues.
During the address Cuomo reinforced his stance on abortion: “Protect a woman’s freedom of choice. Enact a Reproductive Health Act, because it is her body, it is her choice.”
Although the governor offered no specifics about the Women’s Equity Bill in his address, it is expected that its provisions on abortion would likely be similar to those in the Reproductive Health Act, a bill introduced by Democratic state Sen. Andrea Stewart-Cousins, which contains language that would allow for abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy if it is “necessary to protect a woman’s health.”
That distinction differs from the exception of protecting a woman’s life—a point which, opponents of the bill say, is open to broad interpretation.
The New York State Catholic Conference describes the bill as “uncompromising in its terms and extremely sweeping in scope.” Cardinal Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York, called the plan “radical.” In a letter to Cuomo, Dolan cited New York state’s high abortion rate and stated, “I am hard pressed to think of a piece of legislation that is less needed or more harmful than this one.”
The Catholic Conference stated that the “health” exception has been “broadly interpreted by the courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors,” and deemed it an exception that would “allow more third-trimester abortions in New York State.” In a breakdown of the bill, the conference declared it would permit “unlimited late-term abortion on demand.”
The conference raised several additional concerns, including language in the bill that would allow a “licensed health care practitioner” to carry out the procedure, stating that the bill would “endanger the lives of women by allowing non-physicians to perform abortions.”
While New York State Democratic officials contend that the bill would simply reposition abortion as a public health issue rather than a criminal matter, pro-life groups remain opposed.
Democrats for Life of America have expressed concern that the bill would “supersede any reasonable restrictions on abortion, including parental notification.” The group declared that the bill is “out of touch with the views of most Democrats,” citing recent Gallup poll statistics on the Democratic constituency’s views on abortion.
This week, Stewart-Cousins praised Cuomo for his efforts and called on her colleagues to bring this “crucial legislation to the Senate floor as soon as possible,” saying it would “ensure that regardless of what takes place on the national level, a woman’s right to choose will always be protected in New York State.”
Her Nov. 26 opinion piece confirms her self-admitted shortcomings, as she confessed, “My feminism [is] not always on target, and my politics [are] not always appropriate. I sometimes behave badly.”
Attorney General Eric Holder‘s record for prosecuting people under FACE (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entry) is dismal. In fact, in Florida the charges against pro-life advocate Mary Susan Pine were dismissed and she was awarded damages.
I would bet Ms. Pieklo attended a government university because her critical thinking skills seem lacking. Since when is a report by the National Abortion Federation (NAF) considered unbiased information about clinic violence? Not only are NAF’s materials biased, they are false.
Take for example the resource guide provided at the NAF training on FACE on August 25, 2010, in Portland, Ore. The training materials included NAF’s guide, “Resource Guide: Violence Against Reproductive Health Care Providers.”
The guide materially misrepresents constitutionally protected speech and the constitutional rights of those who wish to express their views regarding abortion. Some examples of the misrepresentations in the resource guide are as follows:
Page 8 contains a brief history and description of the National Task Force on Violence Against Health Care Providers, comprised of members from the US Department of Justice (USDOJ) and the FBI, as well as other federal agencies. Listed among their duties is the “investigation and prosecution of incidents of abortion violence” and examination of “criminal anti-abortion activities.”
Yet, in the pages that follow, the resource guide labels legally permissible, constitutionally protected non-violent activity as threatening, violent and intimidating, and calls for the investigation and prosecution by the FBI and USDOJ of pro-life advocates who engage therein.
On page 20, under “Violence and Disruption Statistics” compiled by the NAF, picketing (an entirely lawful activity) is included as a “disruption” and accounts for 6,361 of the 8,180 reported incidents.
Page 15 includes a surreptitious insertion under the heading “History of Clinic Violence.” The listing names “the use of huge anti-abortion posters” and “graphic signs,” engagement in “campus campaigns,” and participation in “boycotts against abortion providers.”
The same discussion complains of “anti-abortion extremists” dissemination of information over the internet and their initiation of lawsuits for “alleged” freedom of speech violations. (It should be noted that many pro-life lawsuits have successfully proven freedom of speech violations.)
On page 67 the resource guide states that the USDOJ encourages enforcement of the FACE Act by gathering evidence on “leaflets or pamphlets” and “signs” distributed and carried by pro-life advocates. The discussion goes on to advise that the USDOJ “maintains a database of names, photos, license plates, etc. of anti-choice groups and individuals” and indicates they work “proactively” with local law enforcement. Also included is a watch-list on pages 39-41 of website names and addresses of numerous non-violent pro-life organizations.
Contrary to the impression given by the resource guide, none of the activities named are violent, nor are they unlawful. The attempt to label peaceful, legal speech activities as criminal activities is an old tactic, but fortunately a tactic which the First Amendment was created to prevent.
Ms. Pieklo would rather see the free speech and other civil rights of life advocates oppressed than allow their message to be communicated to women entering clinics, because those messages promote true, actual, informed choice. I guess that means that in actuality, Ms. Pieklo seems to be the anti-choice radical.
Source: CHARISMA NEWS.
Attorney Dana Codyis president and executive director of the Life Legal Defense Foundation. She has been championing the rights of women and the unborn for more than 20 years.
Dozens of babies were literally massacred in Orlando, Fla., on Tuesday in what area pro-lifers will remember as “free baby-killing day.”
Scores of pregnant young women—probably scared, anxious or resentful—lined up at the Orlando Women’s Center to take the abortion clinic up on its offer to brutally murder their pre-born babies—free of charge.
In a sickening marketing display that treats murder like a two-for-one special at McDonald’s, the pregnant women were only responsible to pay for a $150 state-required sonogram. That’s less than half the price of a regular abortion. It seems it was an offer too good for many scared, young pregnant and cash-strapped girls to refuse.
Emily Sarmiento, co-founder of the Orlando House of Prayer, sent me an email Tuesday afternoon reporting there were 40 to 50 women at the clinic waiting for abortions by pill. Lord, have mercy!
This abortion center was offering the equivalent to drive-thru abortions. The website says, “Time constraints? Have only two hours to be in the office? Make private appointment for consultation with Dr. Pendergraft … VIP and exclusive private appointments available … immediate appointments available.”
This is so sickening I’m almost at a loss for words. Pregnant young women who are considering abortion are already under immense pressure. This Orlando abortion clinic tapped into that pressure with a promise to do a rush job that leaves them little time to reconsider their decision. VIP and exclusive private appointments relegate abortion to box seats at an NBA game. What’s next? BOGO abortions?
And this Pedergraft … he’s known widely for late-term abortions, surgically murdering pre-born babies up to 24 weeks old. The abortion clinic’s website boasts that women were traveling hundreds or even thousands of miles to an abortionist to kill their 24-week old baby until he opened multiple centers in Florida.
Pray that the Lord would give this man dreams by day and visions by night that open his eyes to the reality of the murders he is committing. Pray that the Lord would open the eyes of his heart to see the love of Christ for these pre-born babies, for these pregnant women—and for him. Pray that that this and other abortion clinics shut down.
Prayer does work. Sarmiento sent me another email late last night, reporting some success from the efforts of sidewalk counselor John Barros and the outpouring of prayer that went forth throughout the day.
“John Barros preached the Word with the Spirit’s power, calling the 80 aborting moms and dads to listen to the voice of God in their conscience and get out of there,” Sarmiento said.
“Keishley came out of the door of the killing place with a smile on her face and announced in front of the crowd: ‘I heard His voice, John. I heard that voice.’ John sent Keishley over to a pregnancy center. And another couple left, saying, ‘We’re not doing this’.”
Of course, it’s always joyous to see babies saved from abortion, but Sarmiento reports that Barros was alone and has never seen so many infants slaughtered. She asks that we pray for him as he will be back there today.
Today is late-term killing day.
I urge you to pray. Pray not just for the abortionist, but pray for the women considering abortion. Pray for them to get a revelation of the precious life they carry within. And pray that the women who have had abortions would come to the knowledge of the saving grace of Christ, which rids them of the guilt and shame of abortion. Just pray. And don’t stop praying. Amen.
Jennifer LeClaireis news editor at Charisma. She is also the author of several books, including Did the Spirit of God Say That? You can email Jennifer email@example.com or visit her website here. You can also join Jennifer on Facebook or follow her on Twitter.
A woman who claimed to be a supporter of abortion violently attacked peaceful pro-life protesters yesterday outside Southwestern Women’s Options, a late-term abortion clinic in Albuquerque, N.M., inflicting wounds that left one protester bloody.
The woman was angry and told the pro-lifers that she had once had an abortion.
She then began to viciously punch and kick Bud Shaver, a former Operation Rescue intern, and a woman named Chris.
She used keys as a weapon, inflicting a deep gash on Shaver’s head that paramedics said required stitches.
Shaver, who works with Project Defend Life, began videotaping after the attack began, but images he captured show an angry and violent flurry of punches and kicks as the pro-lifers threw up their arms in a defensive posture.
After the attack, the woman walked into the abortion clinic but left a few moments later, driving away before police could respond to Shaver’s 911 call for help.
Shaver told Operation Rescue that the woman was a passerby that stopped, but she did not appear to be a patient of the clinic.
Police and paramedics eventually responded but the perpetrator was not apprehended, even though her description and license plate number were reported to the officers as well as the 911 dispatcher.
“The lax way in which the police are handling acts of violence against pro-lifer who are peacefully exercising their Constitutional Rights and offering practical help to need women is shocking,” says Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.
“It sends the wrong message that violence on the part of abortion supporters is acceptable.
We pray that this troubled woman is brought to justice and gets the help she needs with her anger and grief issues.”
Ironically, this attack occurred just days after Operation Rescue released a powerful 911 recording made from another abortion clinic in Albuquerque, UNM Center for Reproductive Health, where a woman could clearly be heard struggling for life.
Operation Rescue has also obtained a series of 911 emergency recordings made from Southwestern Women’s Options where the violent attack took place that clearly indicate life-threatening abortion complications that required emergency hospitalization.
OR plans to release the first of these recordings later this week.
Operation Rescue is asking the public to help protect peaceful pro-life activists and their ability to continue saving lives by calling the Albuquerque Chief of Police and demanding the arrest of the woman who attacked Shaver and his associates.
In a nation that murders more than a million babies a year, a new Gallup poll indicates that Americans are divided on whether to allow abortions.
While many accept women who decide to have abortions, a majority believes the procedure is morally wrong.
A disturbing Gallup poll released Monday reveals that for the first time since 2008, more Americans consider themselves “pro-choice” than “pro-life,” with 49 percent identifying themselves as the former and 45 percent the latter.
The good news is there seems to be more of a consensus on the morality issue.
Fifty-one percent say abortion is “morally wrong,” while only 39 percent say it is “morally acceptable.”
These numbers are consistent with Americans’ views since 2007.
The poll also asks “if abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances or illegal in all circumstances.”
This question is Gallup‘s longest-running measure of American’s views on abortion.
The poll indicates that Americans are rather conservative in their answers, with 61 percent believing abortion should be legal in “only a few circumstances or no circumstances.”
On the other hand, 37 percent think abortion should be legal “in all or most circumstances.”
While Gallup seeks to find Americans’ opinions on abortion, Guttmacher looked at abortion rates in different groups of American women.
While research finds that abortions have decreased among most groups from 2000 to 2008, rates have gone up for poor women—those with family incomes less than 100 percent of the federal poverty level.
The survey indicates that poor women accounted for 42 percent of all abortions in 2008, and their abortion rate increased 18 percent from 2000 to 2008.
“That abortion is becoming increasingly concentrated among poor women suggests the need for better contraceptive access and family planning counseling.
It certainly appears these women are being underserved,” study author Rachel K. Jones says.
“Antiabortion restrictions and cuts to publicly funded family planning services disproportionately affect poor women, making it even more difficult for them to gain access to the contraceptive and abortion services they need.”
On the other hand, abortion rates decreased 18 percent among African American women.
Teen abortion rates also declined 22 percent; the 15 to 17 age group only accounted for 6 percent of all abortions.