Blog born-alive Legislation

Pro-life House leaders hold press conference condemning Senate Dems for killing the Born-Alive Legislation

By Dave Andrusko

Jennifer Popik, J.D., director of federal legislation for National Right to Life, stressed the need for the Born-Alive Abortion Survivor Protection Act during a press conference on the Hill.

This morning, Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) and five of her pro-life House colleagues held a press conference to condemn Senate Democrats for failing to Advance the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (S. 311), sponsored by Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.). The final vote was 53-44 with all but three Democrats voting to block the bill from receiving the 60 votes necessary to move S.311 forward (“invoke cloture”). The bill would extend federal legal protection to babies who are born alive during an abortion.

In the House, Democrats have erected a procedural hurtle which prevents a similar bill from being heard. Along with her colleagues, Wagner urged House members to sign onto a “discharge petition” to force the same legislation to a vote on the floor of the House.

A discharge petition is a procedural tactic to circumvent the Speaker of the House when the Speaker opposes a measure. It allows an absolute majority of the House (218 lawmakers) to force a floor vote on a bill, even if pro-abortion leaders oppose the measure.

Rep. Wagner was joined by Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.), Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), Rep. Roger Marshall (R-KS), Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Tx.), and several prolife organizations who all made remarks. The message was united in expressing shock over the 44 members of the United States Senate who voted to protect what amounts to infanticide: willfully withholding life-saving care from a born-alive infant.

Center: Jennifer Popik, NRL director of federal legislation, flanked by pro-life Congresswomen Jacki Walorski (IN) and Ann Wagner (MO), lead sponsor of the Born-Alive legislation.

Action on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act comes on the heels of enormous controversy in New York and Virginia. In January, the New York legislature passed, and Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) signed, the so-called “Reproductive Health Act.” Among other provisions, the law repealed protections for infants born alive during an attempted abortion. Previously, New York law stipulated that a second physician be present to care for a child 20 weeks or older born alive during an abortion.

In Virginia, Gov. Ralph Northam (D) waded into the debate over a New York-style measure in the Commonwealth. In a radio interview during the Virginia legislature’s debate over the “repeal bill,” Northam said an infant born alive during an attempted abortion wouldn’t necessarily be entitled to immediate treatment other than being made “comfortable.” His comments touched off a torrent of criticism.

Jennifer Popik, J.D., director of Federal legislation for National Right to Life, told reporters,

You have to ask yourself, can we really trust the abortionist, who was seconds earlier, was attempting to end this life of this baby, to now provide treatment? We need clear standards of medical care for babies born-alive. That is why we need this enhanced version of the Born-Alive legislation.

We are appalled that pro-abortion Democratic senators would filibuster the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. They need to explain to tell their constituents why their allegiance to the abortion industry agenda should allow a practice that is tantamount to infanticide.

We call on all members of the House to sign the discharge petition and bring this bill to the floor for a vote. Let the American public see how much they truly care for the most vulnerable among us.

Documentation on the history of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 (1 U.S.C. §8) and related issues is available on the NRLC website at:

The post Pro-life House leaders hold press conference condemning Senate Dems for killing the Born-Alive Legislation appeared first on NRL News Today.

Blog life

“Let’s reaffirm that when we say every life is created equal, we actually mean it”—Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

By Dave Andrusko

This is just one man’s opinion, but I think pro-life President Trump was not exaggerating in the slightest when he characterized the willingness of Senate Democrats to allow abortion survivors to die untreated as “One of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress.”

Pro-infanticide Democrats—and you are pro-infanticide if you refuse to treat a born-alive abortion survivor as you would any other preemie of a similar age—brazenly wrapped their unconscionable actions in the usual tripe. But what else should we have expected?

They believe unborn babies are property and remain at the whim of their mother and the abortionist, even if they are no longer within their mother’s body. Looked at another way, “bodily autonomy” has no borders, which is why the trip from abortion to infanticide is as uncontroversial to the Planned Parenthood as crossing state lines. Do you no longer have the right to drive once you leave Maryland and cruise into Virginia?

But pro-life Republican senators understand, just as does 77% of Americans survived in a recent poll who agree “a baby who survives a failed abortion” should “be given the same medical treatment as any other baby born prematurely at the same age.”

Here are excerpts from yesterday’s remark from four senators. Tomorrow we will repost excerpts from four more.

Sen. Mitch McConnell

In just a few hours the senate will vote on advancing a straight-forward piece of legislation to protect newborn babies. This legislation is simple. It would simply require that medical professionals give the same standard care and medical treatment to newborn babies who have survived an attempted abortion as any other newborn baby would receive in any other circumstance. It isn’t about new restrictions on abortion, it isn’t about changing the options available to women. It’s just about recognizing that a newborn baby is a newborn baby, period. This bill would make clear that in the United States of America in the year 2019, the medical professionals on hand when a baby is born alive need to maintain their basic ethical and professional responsibilities to that newborn. It would make sure our laws reflect the fact that the human rights of newborn boys and girls are innate. They don’t come and go based on the circumstances of birth. Whatever the circumstances, if that medical professional comes face-to-face wi
th a baby who’s been born alive, they are looking at a human being with human rights, period. To be frank, Mr. President, it makes me uneasy that such a basic statement seems to be generating actual disagreement. Can the extreme far-left politics surrounding abortion really have come this far? Are we really supposed to think that it’s normal that there are now two sides debating whether a newborn — whether newborn living babies deserve medical attention? … Apart from the entire abortion debate they seem to be suggesting that newborn baby’s right to life may be contingent on the circumstances surrounding their birth. …[M]y colleagues across the aisle need to decide where they’ll take their cues on these moral questions. On the one hand there are a few extreme voices who decided some newborn lives are more disposable than others. On the other side is the entire rest of the country. I would urge my colleagues, let’s listen to the voices of the American people. Let’s reaffirm that — let’s reaffirm that when we say every life is created equal, we actually mean it. Let’s vote to advance the born alive abortion survivor’s protection act later today. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Sen. Deb Fischer

During my time in the Nebraska legislature, we passed the first statewide ban on abortion procedures after 20 weeks. Members from all points of the political spectrum, Republican, Democrat, pro-life, and pro-choice, came together to support that bill. Today we have the opportunity to come together, republicans and democrats, to stand up for the lives of newborn infants in the United States Senate. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act protects the life of children that survive an attempted abortion. Simply put, if a baby survives an abortion, he or she deserves the same medical care as any other child who is born prematurely. Without question, newborns deserve care, attention, and love. This should not be a divisive issue. This is an issue that is fundamental to what it means to be an American citizen and more so, what it means to be a human being. … Like most Nebraskans, I have been deeply disturbed by the actions in Virginia, New York, and the new extremes that have been pushed in the ensuing national debate that it is okay to deny newborn abortion survivors medical care. …These policies and lines of thought fly in the face of our core values, and they have to end. …In 2002, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act passed the House of Representatives by voice vote. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and it was signed into law by President Bush. We have the chance right now to build upon that 2002 consensus that those who survive an abortion are in fact people and clarify that they deserve medical care. Today we can come together to support this sound policy once more. We can clarify in light of the extremism that we’ve seen displayed recently that newborn abortion survivors deserve medical care.

Sen. Ben Sasse

I rise today for a simple purpose, Madam President. I want to ask each and every one of my colleagues whether or not we’re okay with infanticide. This language is blunt. I recognize that. It is too blunt for many people in this body. But frankly, that is what we’re talking about here today. Infanticide is what the abortion survivors born alive protection act is actually about. … The bill’s terms are simple. A child born alive during a botched abortion would be given the same level of care that would be provided to any other baby born at that same gestational stage. That’s it. This bill isn’t about abortion. … This bill is exclusively about protecting babies that have already been born and are outside the womb. Every baby deserves a fighting chance, whether that 24-week-old baby fighting for air and fighting for life have been just taken her first breaths is at an abortion clinic where she survived a botched abortion or whether or not she is in a delivery room at the local hospital. … This place feels like about a third of the people here are currently running for president, so I’d like to quote a few of them over the course of the last couple months. We ought to “build a country where no one is forgotten, and no one is left behind”. Amen to that. “The people in our society who are most often targeted by predators are often the voiceless and the vulnerable.” That’s true. Another said — offered a promise to, “fight for other people’s kids as hard as I fight for my own kids.” Just last week, our colleague from Vermont announced his campaign by saying, “The mark of a great nation is how it treats its most vulnerable people.” Bernie Sanders was right. Well, now is the chance tonight in this body to make good on that promise. Now is the chance to protect one of the most vulnerable populations imaginable, tiny, defenseless little babies who just started to breathe on that — on that hospital table. Having just taken their first breath. But was that all just claptrap for the campaign trail and the sound bites or do people mean what they say around here? …

Madam President, tonight what we’re going to vote on in the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is a chance to see whether we’re serious when people say around here they want to protect the innocent, they want to speak up for the voiceless, they want to defend the defenseless. Tonight, we’re going to have the opportunity to do exactly that. …But the prospect of what we’re voting on here is actually threatening to one of the most powerful interest groups in America. The abortion industry has taken to attacking this bill wildly over the course of the last two weeks, even though, as we have made clear repeatedly and as the text of this bill makes indisputably clear, this bill has nothing to do with abortion itself, nothing in this bill changes the slightest letter of Roe v. Wade. …, In other words, unlike this legislation, Planned Parenthood and others refuse to draw any line between abortion and infanticide. That’s what their lobbying the last week has shown. That should tell us something about what these groups are really about. … Deep down, each of us knows that every member of our human family ought to be protected and deserves to be cherished and loved, and the love we see every day in the eyes of moms and dads for their newborn babies is an inescapable reminder of that most fundamental truth — love is stronger than power.

Sen. Joni Ernst

Mr. President, here this evening as we debate this very important bill, I’m hearing two different strategies, two different discussions about what’s actually on the floor in front of us. You see, my colleagues across the aisle are debating a bill that is not in front of us. They are talking about health care for women, which is abortion. That’s what they are talking about. This bill does not address abortion. It doesn’t address the women’s health care issues. What this bill does is address the health care of a baby that is born alive after a botched abortion. We’re not talking about abortion, folks. We are talking about the life of a child that is born. … Mr. President, in recent weeks we have witnessed the ugly truth about the far-reaching grasp of the abortion industry and its ever increasingly radicalized political agenda. Some politicians have not only defended aborting a child while a woman is in labor but have gone so far as to support the termination of a child after its birth. This assault on human dignity cannot stand. … Although previous laws were passed recognizing infants born alive during abortion proceedings as legal persons, there still exists a critical loophole that prevents abortionists from being held accountable to failing to follow these very laws. This legislation closes the gap and ensures that there are concrete enforcement measures to protect children who survive abortion attempts. We can all agree that any child who is born alive, whether through a natural birth or whether through a botched abortion, is a living person, a person who is worthy of the utmost dignity, compassion, and respect. This legislation ensures just that by simply requiring health care practitioners to treat those babies who survive an abortion attempt with the same degree of care any other baby born at the same gestational age would receive. This legislation is not meant to punish women or mothers during and often heart-wrenching and difficult experience. And, in fact, this legislation specifically prohibits mothers from being prosecuted. Instead, this bill quite simply imposes penalties for the intentional killing of a baby who has been born alive. …We, as a nation, can do better. We must protect those babies who are born alive.

The post “Let’s reaffirm that when we say every life is created equal, we actually mean it”—Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell appeared first on NRL News Today.

Abortion Blog Legislation

PPFA celebrates defeat of bill to treat abortion survivors

By Dave Andrusko

I mean this sincerely. Is there anything that could be done to an unborn baby in her mother’s womb that Planned Parenthood would say, “No, of course not. This goes too far, even for us.”

Answer? Of course not. Suck them out, dismember them, poison them—what difference does that make? The objective is to get those babies dead.

How this is accomplished is between the aborting women and her abortionist. If the baby were to suffer unimaginable pain, well such is the price of “bodily autonomy.”

I also mean this sincerely. What if a baby makes it through the abortion mill’s gauntlet and is born alive? Is there anything that could be done (besides, perhaps, wrapping her in a blanket) to save that baby that would be obligatory? That is, you must do because it is what is normally done to any premature baby born at the same age?

And the answer, of course, is no. Which is why Planned Parenthood celebrated the defeat of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (S. 130) sponsored by Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) Proponents had a majority but (thanks to nearly uniform Democrat opposition) not the 60 votes necessary to move forward (“invoke cloture”).

Here a couple of examples:

And from the President of PPFA

“Shame women”? “To require that medical professionals give the same standard care and medical treatment to newborn babies who have survived an attempted abortion as any other newborn baby would receive in any other circumstance,” as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said yesterday? Does even Dr. Wen believe this drivel?

“Stoke fear and division”? You mean among the 77% of Americans who agree that “a baby who survives a failed abortion would be given the same medical treatment as any other baby born prematurely at the same age”? I think it is Dr. Wen who is stoking division, wouldn’t you agree?

“Limit our access to health care and take way our rights”? Whose “health care” is being limited? The abortion survivor’s! Whose “rights” are being taken away? The child who no longer is insider her mother’s womb, that’s who.

What has taken place in states like New York and Virginia and Vermont and New Mexico and Illinois, to name just a few, someday will be seen as the bottoming out of the anti-life ethos. With a manufactured “crisis” about the overturning of Roe in the next 15 minutes, they are obliterating all limitations on abortion throughout all “40 weeks” (to quote the sponsor of the Virginia “Repeal Bill”) and declared open season on abortion survivors.

It is the natural progression (in a manner of speaking) of the anti-life ethos. There can never, ever be enough abortions. There can never, ever be requirements to treat abortion survivors as human beings with human rights.

They must be stopped.

The post PPFA celebrates defeat of bill to treat abortion survivors appeared first on NRL News Today.

Baby Blog Legislation

Senate Democrats voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children who survive abortions

By Dave Andrusko

Last night, shortly after Senate pro-abortion Democrats did what they are programmed to do—defending infanticide (“fourth trimester abortion”)—pro-life President Donald Trump blasted them in two tweets reproduced below. In just four sentences the President cut through all the anti-life rationalizations trotted out on the floor of the Senate why it is perfectly okay not to treat babies who survive the best efforts of Planned Parenthood abortionists to kill them.

As a poll conducted earlier this month conclusively demonstrated, the 44 Senators who voted against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act are completely out of step with the public. A survey conducted by McLaughlin & Associate of 1,000 likely general election voters found that 77% agree that “a baby who survives a failed abortion would be given the same medical treatment as any other baby born prematurely at the same age.”

But the consciences of pro-abortion Democrats are so deadened to normal human empathy that they believe we owe nothing to a little baby who miraculously beats the odds. Make the baby “comfortable,” was the counsel January 30 of embattled Va. Gov. Ralph Northam. Anything beyond that was up to the mother who had okayed the death of her child and the abortionist who has been foiled in his best attempts to snuff out the child’s life.

But that’s not how President Trump sees it. “One of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress,” the President said. To anyone not in the grip of the Planned Parenthood/NARAL/EMILY’s List, that is self-evidently true. To those who take their marching orders from this unholy trio, it’s just another opportunity to prove there is nothing—nothing—they will condemn if opposition can somehow be converted into support for “reproductive rights.”

I was in the office last night when the Senate voted 53-44 to proceed with a vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (S. 130) sponsored by Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.). But on a near-straight party vote, pro-abortion Democrats blocked the bill from receiving the 60 votes necessary to move forward (“invoke cloture”).

Those Senate Democrats who have already signaled they are running for President in 2020 were there to thwart extending legal protection to babies who are born alive following an abortion: Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Bernie Sanders (VT), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Cory Booker (NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), and Kamala Harris (CA).

Remember those six names when they trot out their “sympathy” for every underdog but the most vulnerable, the most powerless, and the most defenseless of all: the unborn child. Remember as well House Democrats who are thwarting a vote on a House version by ruling that a request for unanimous consent to move forward is “out of order.”

We’re running excerpts from several of the pro-life statements made last night as well as an examination/critique of an Associated Press story so vile you almost want to avert your eyes.

Keep strong. Evil will not rule the day indefinitely.

The post Senate Democrats voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children who survive abortions appeared first on NRL News Today.

Blog poll Polling

New poll finds overwhelming opposition to post-20 week abortions, huge increase in pro-life self-identification

By Dave Andrusko

In the first comprehensive survey since a surge of outrage over Democratic proposals for abortion on demand until birth and after, a Marist Poll released today shows a dramatic and substantive increase in pro-life attitudes and overwhelming opposition to post-20 week abortions. One pro-abortion website pointed to the influence of President Trump’s staunchly pro-life State of the Union address as helping to ignite the pro-life upsurge.

“The shift was led by Democrats and those under 45 years old, according to a survey taken Feb.12-17 in the wake of efforts in several states to legalize abortion up until birth,” according to a release from the Knights of Columbus which commissioned the poll.

Just last month, a similar Marist poll found an 18 point advantage among those who identified as pro-choice (55%) compared to those who identified a pro-life (37%). It is now tied at 47% each.

“The recent legal changes to late-term abortion and the debate which followed have not gone unnoticed by the general public,” said Barbara Carvalho, director of The Marist Poll. “In just one month, there has been a significant increase in the proportion of Americans who see themselves as pro-life and an equally notable decline in those who describe themselves as pro-choice.”

Carvalho added, “Current proposals that promote late-term abortion have reset the landscape and language on abortion in a pronounced – and very measurable – way,”

Carl Anderson, CEO of the Knights of Columbus, observed “Arguments in favor of late-term abortion are simply not convincing the American people. If anything, since these proposals have been unveiled, people are moving noticeably in the pro-life direction. It is now clear that these radical policies are being pursued despite the opposition of the majority of Americans of both parties.”


More than 2/3rds (67%) of Republicans identified as pro-life with Independents almost evenly split–46% pro-life to 48% pro-choice.

The biggest change was among Democrats. A little over 1/3rd (34%) now identify as pro-life. That is a jump of 14 points –from 20% to 34%– in just one month!

According to the poll, among younger Americans, 47% identified as pro-life to 48% pro-choice. In last month’s poll, 65% identified as pro-choice.

Limitations on abortion

The remarks of Va. Gov. Ralph Northam in support of a bill to legalize abortion up to “40 weeks” drew enormous attention. A whopping 71% oppose abortions after 20 weeks, which consists of 66% who say these abortions should be banned except to save the life of the mother, plus another 5% who think abortion should be outlawed completely. “Only 18 percent think abortion should be allowed at any time up until birth,” according to the Knights of Columbus.

“Those opposing abortion after 20 weeks, or overall, include: 59 percent of Democrats, 78 percent of independents and 82 percent of Republicans.”

The most interesting commentary on the new poll came from the pro-abortion Axios.

Under the sub-headline “Why it matters,” Alayna Treene wrote, “Republicans have been on the offensive about this issue since the State of the Union, when Trump seized on the outrage over Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s abortion comments and the passage of a New York law to promote a congressional ban on late-term abortions.”

  • In November, the Department of Health and Human Services proposed a new rule that would require insurers send customers separate bills for coverage provided for abortion services.
  • On Friday, the Trump administration issued a new rule barring organizations that provide abortion referrals, like Planned Parenthood, from receiving federal family planning money.

The post New poll finds overwhelming opposition to post-20 week abortions, huge increase in pro-life self-identification appeared first on NRL News Today.

Adoption Blog

“My birth parents decided to dream big: They chose adoption over abortion.”

By Dave Andrusko

My immediate and necessary mea culpa. I love well done pro-life videos which, by the way, don’t need a gazillion dollars invested in producing them. All they need accomplish is to remind us either (a) abortion is viciously brutal and beneath us as a culture ; and/or (b) remind us that there is a better way: adoption.

Which brings us to Choose Life. Choose Us, which Joshua Goodwin, the Communications Director for freshman Rep. Rep. William Timmons, and some friends put together. Mr. Goodwin was kind enough to send along their video which, while less than two minutes long, packs a real wallop.

As we are told, Drew Micah, Brandon, Mia, Meredith, Carson, Brennan, and Alana are “real people” with “real stories” who are making a “real lives” which are having a “real impact.” All are alive today because their mothers choose life.

None of these eight delightful young people even hints they believe that life-affirming decision was easy. They know better. They look of the many tough circumstances—pregnant at 17, a marriage “ready to implode,” a mother of two little boys, abandoned by her husband, another mother “with no way to support a newborn baby.”

But their moms “choose life…choose us.”

One young man tells us she is “So glad she didn’t wish me away.”

Another added, “She saw what others couldn’t see.”

Still another young woman quietly expresses her gratitude that her mom “choose to give me the rest of my life.”

As Micah puts it, “My birth parents decided to dream big: they chose adoption over abortion.”

It’s a wonderful video. Please take out just a couple of minutes to watch Choose Life. Choose Us [] and share it widely.

The post “My birth parents decided to dream big: They chose adoption over abortion.” appeared first on NRL News Today.

Abortion Blog Judicial Missouri

Obama appointee refuses Planned Parenthood’s third request for injunction against Missouri law requiring admitting privileges

By Dave Andrusko

U.S. District Judge
Brian Wimes

Give Planned Parenthood credit. They keep testing Missouri’s law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a local hospital and they keep getting shot down.

On Friday Rudi Keller of the Columbia Daily Tribune reported that Obama appointee U.S. District Judge Brian Wimes “refused to issue a preliminary injunction that would have allowed Planned Parenthood to resume offering abortions in Columbia.” The ruling “was in response to a third request for an injunction, filed after the clinic was notified in December that it had met every licensing that it had met every licensing requirement except the hospital privileges rule.”

Judge Wimes found, according to Keller, “that attorneys for Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains had not shown that regulations requiring abortion providers have hospital privileges are a ‘substantial obstacle’ in the path of women seeking an abortion.”

As Keller observed, there are various criteria for determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction, including “irreparable harm” and a likelihood of winning a lawsuit. Judge Wimes zeroed in on the latter since that has been “most important factor” for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Planned Parenthood based its lawsuit on a litany of complaints (all vigorously contested by the state of Missouri), including an inability to find hospitals willing to give abortionists admitting privileges, overcrowding, and longer waiting times.

Judge Wimes wasn’t buying any of it:

In particular, Plaintiffs do not present evidence of attempts to find physicians with hospital privileges willing to provide abortion services at the Columbia Facility, or evidence of fewer doctors, longer wait times, and increased crowding at RHS [Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood] in St. Louis. …

“In sum, evidence of increased driving distance relative to the privileges requirement standing alone, for purposes of the motion for preliminary injunction, is not sufficient, even when weighed against the assertions of benefits conferred by the privileges requirement, to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.”

The impact of Judge Wimes’ ruling means that Missouri will have only clinic offering abortion “services”: Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri.

Missouri Attorney General
Eric Schmitt

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt’s office has vigorously defended the law. In court filing last January, Schmitt argued that the complication rate from abortions in Missouri “is almost double the national complication rate of 2.1 percent predicted by Plaintiffs’” and then cited a long history of health and safety violations at the Planned Parenthood clinic at Columbia.

He went to detail what Schmitt described as “the four layers, so to speak, of abortion complications” and how the law did not apply just to one abortion clinic.

Fourth, there are the abortion complications that would have occurred but did not, because since 2007 Missouri has imposed reasonable regulations on abortion facilities designed to promote women’s health and safety. In claiming that the St. Louis facility has a strong safety record (which it does not), Plaintiffs overlook that, for the entire relevant time period, the St. Louis facility complied with both the ASC requirements and the hospital-privileges requirement that have been challenged in this case. Even more complications, and more severe complications, would undoubtedly have occurred if abortion facilities had been radically deregulated as Plaintiffs wish.

This point is especially important because the hospital-privileges requirement and other regulations are not directed only to Plaintiffs, or only to the Columbia facility. Rather, they are statewide requirements that prevent abuses and promote safety not just at Plaintiffs’ facilities, but also for “the shoddiest operators” and “the worst providers” [a quote from a Chicago Tribune story].

The post Obama appointee refuses Planned Parenthood’s third request for injunction against Missouri law requiring admitting privileges appeared first on NRL News Today.

Abortion Blog Legislation

Indiana House overwhelmingly approves ban on dismemberment abortions

By Dave Andrusko

Indiana Speaker of the House Brian Bosma

By an overwhelming 71-25 margin, the Indiana House Thursday passed House Bill 1211 which would ban the dismemberment of living unborn children. The measure now moves to the state Senate.

Ten states have already passed dismemberment abortion bans, one of the highest priorities of NRLC’s state affiliates.

Already a very pro-life state, legislators spoke of the impact of recent abortion-on- demand throughout pregnancy legislation passed in New York and proposed in Virginia, the Indianapolis Star reported.

“It just places such a low value on life,” House Speaker Brian Bosma said. “So yes, I think it has reinvigorated those who considered themselves to be pro-life to take action,” Kaitlin Lange reported.

Dismemberment abortions are gruesome even by the ugly standards of the abortion industry. The abortionist dilates the woman’s cervix and then uses scissors, forceps or clamps to rip apart the unborn child.

Lange reported that Corrine Youngs, an attorney for Indiana Right to Life, showed an ultrasound of her twins at 11 weeks in the womb.

“Do we think it’s good public policy or not to perform this on a still-living human being?” Rep. Peggy Mayfield, the bill’s author, asked. “I think the public outcry, especially (after recent action in other statehouses), just dictates that we address some procedures for what they are and, in our role of a policymaking body, decide what is the direction that we want to go as a state.”

Added Indiana Right to Life President and CEO Mike Fichter “Thursday’s historic vote brings us one step closer to ending barbaric dismemberment abortions in Indiana.

“We look forward to the Senate taking equally decisive action in the weeks ahead.”

As NRL News Today reported, Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has asked the Supreme Court to review the decision by U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Walton Pratt to block the ultrasound provision in the “2016 Dignity for the Unborn Act.”

The Act, signed into law by then-Gov. Mike Pence, contained a requirement that any woman seeking an abortion must be given the opportunity to view an ultrasound of her unborn baby at least 18 hours prior to an abortion. The ultrasound provision was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood in July 2016 in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt ruling, but remained in effect until Pratt’s injunction in April 2017.

The post Indiana House overwhelmingly approves ban on dismemberment abortions appeared first on NRL News Today.

Abortion Blog

Are there no limits to human brokenness?

By Dave Andrusko

Burlington Bishop Christopher Coyne

On February 15, addressing Vermont’s proposed abortion-until-birth law (since easily passed in the House of Representatives), Bishop Christopher Coyne of Burlington asked this question: “Do we really want to allow this? Do we really want to test the limits of where human brokenness can take us? Please God, no.”

By a vote of 106-36, the Democratic-controlled House said, in effect, we’ll take our chances. Much better the right to break an unborn baby to smithereens than break the unholy alliance between Planned Parenthood and the Democratic Party. After all, how many dollars do unborn babies pour into the coffers of state and national Democratic office holders?

“Planned Parenthood says trust us, and everybody loves Planned Parenthood here,” Mary Hahn Beerworth, executive director of Vermont Right to Life, told the Washington Times. “They’ve dominated the state for decades.”

Beerworth added, “But they’re not thinking, or they don’t care, that somebody could just move here tomorrow and undercut Planned Parenthood for price and run a Gosnell-like clinic.”

Not so, Eileen Sullivan, spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, told the Washington Times. She said Gosnell “ran a criminal enterprise, not a health care facility.”

“His case makes clear that we must enforce the laws already in existence that protect access to safe and legal abortion,” Sullivan said.

Of course, to “protect access to safe and legal abortion” requires not only that the state have no limitations on abortion–that already is the case in Vermont, as Beerworth told NRL News Today—but also to explicitly reject even the most marginal limitation on the right to kill your unborn baby.

And that includes even rejecting a state ban on partial-birth abortion. You read that right. A federal ban passed constitutional muster with the Supreme Court, which always meant that the Planned Parenthood types would try to make sure these incredibly vicious abortions of nearly-delivered babies could be protected under state law.

Vermont’s mind-numbingly violent assault on clearly viable unborn babies is of piece with what we saw enacted in New York but (so far) thwarted in places like the Commonwealth of Virginia. Nothing but nothing can quench their lust for death on demand throughout all “40 weeks” of pregnancy, to quote the sponsor of Virginia’s abortion on demand “Repeal bill.”

Does it surprise anyone that the Virginia governor quickly extended the logic to say that beyond keeping an abortion survivor “comfortable,” it ought to be entirely up to the mother and the abortionist whether anything is done?

Of course not.

And you can be sure if Planned Parenthood has its way that will be the standard of non-care for all abortion survivors everywhere.

The post Are there no limits to human brokenness? appeared first on NRL News Today.

Abortion Blog

By 106-36, Vermont House adopts radically pro-abortion measure, including protection for partial-birth abortions

By Dave Andrusko

It was not like a surprise when the Vermont House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted 106-36 Thursday in favor in what Mary Hahn Beerworth, executive director of Vermont Right to Life, aptly described as “unlimited, unrestricted and unregulated abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy.”After all, the state House, like the state Senate, is firmly under the control of militantly pro-abortion Democrats whose savagery has only picked up speed. And they have veto-proof majorities in both houses, although there is no indication the governor would veto H.57.

Beerworth told NRL News Today there was no amendment, no matter how commonsense to H.57 that stood a chance against the Democrat machine. All these went down to defeat: “to protect minor girls, to limit abortions on unborn babies in the later stages of development, to provide informed consent (including alternatives to abortion), to providing regulation and inspection of abortion clinics, and other amendments.”

But if ever there was a gauge just far how Democrats are willing to go, they shot down a proposed amendment to codify in Vermont state law a ban on the partial-birth abortion procedure. The federal ban on partial-birth abortion was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007 in Gonzales v. Carhart.

In case you forgot this sickening “technique,” the abortionist pulls a living baby feet-first out of the womb and into the birth canal, except for the head, which the abortionist purposely keeps lodged just inside the cervix. The abortionist punctures the base of the baby’s skull with a surgical instrument, inserts a tube into the wound, and sucks the baby’s brains out.

“Pro-abortion legislators walked in lock step with Planned Parenthood and the ACLU as they read on the House floor the talking points that were rather obviously provided to them by both pro-abortion organizations, “Beerworth said. “The legislators who fought against H. 57 included both pro-life and pro-choice members of the Vermont House of Representatives. Rep. Bob Bancroft, of Westford, identifies himself as pro-choice. But the fact that H 57 lacked any concern for young girls and women, or any concern for a viable unborn baby, compelled him to offer over eight amendments to the abortion bill.”

Of course, “Abortion already is legal in Vermont throughout all nine months of pregnancy with no regulations or restrictions on its practice,” Beerworth explained. “ Not a single one.”

The significant change “in passing this legislation will not be in what is legal in Vermont,” Beerworth added. “The change is that the Vermont Legislature will move from passive acceptance of unrestricted abortion to intentional enactment” [].

The post By 106-36, Vermont House adopts radically pro-abortion measure, including protection for partial-birth abortions appeared first on NRL News Today.