Blog Roe v. Wade

“Askew, Misaligned, and Twisted to One Side”: Roe’s Devastating Impact on American Culture

By Jean Garton

Editor’s note. The late Dr. Garton authored one of the enduring classics of pro-life literature: “Who Broke the Baby? What the Abortion Slogans Really Mean. ” For decades she was a frequent contributor to National Right to Life News and National Right to Life News Today. We periodically repost one of her fabulous essays. This appeared in 2013.

Jean Garton

Words have always intrigued me, so my ears perk up when I hear one that is new. That happened a few months ago when my garage door decided to have a hissy fit. It went up and down, down and up, merrily clanking and banging along the way. When the serviceman arrived to check it out he discovered the problem. “Yup,” he said. “It’s definitely whopperjawed.”

Whopperjawed!?! What kind of word is that? When I couldn’t find it in the dictionary, I turned to the current fount and source of all knowledge: Google. There it was: ”whopperjawed” meaning askew, misaligned, and twisted to one side. That obviously described my garage door but, more certainly, describes our country today.

Nothing has caused the United States to be more askew morally; more misaligned culturally; or more twisted legally than the Supreme Court’s 1973 opinion on abortion.

Every January, since that destructive action which has taken the lives of more than 55 million unborn babies [now more than 60 million] , Americans have gathered across the country to participate in the March for Life to mark the infamous date. This year, the 40th anniversary of that decision, there are again marches in communities, state capitals, and at the national Capitol in Washington.

As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once said: There is nothing more powerful to dramatize a social evil than the tramp, tramp, tramp of marching feet. The thousands upon thousands of pro-life feet that will again march this year from one end of this country to the other serve to highlight the reality that there are two Americas—an America split over whether morality matters and whether truth matters.

The truth is that when life begins isn’t a matter of opinion any more. It is a matter of fact; of well-established science; and even of common knowledge. Anatomical studies have documented that the human body’s pain network is established by 20 weeks after fertilization, if not earlier. Neurologists report that unborn babies actually feel pain more intensely than do adults because the child’s pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop.

Given such medical evidence, is there any other conclusion we can draw except that abortion is inhumane and barbaric; a brutal action against the most defenseless of humans? The Right to Choose is simply a politically correct way to camouflage the torture and violence that abortion inflicts.

There is an adage that applies perfectly: people can have their own opinions, but they can’t have their own facts. And the fact is that today it is not enough to simply be human to enjoy the protection of the law. An unborn child must be a wanted human, a planned human, a human living outside the womb.

When it comes to abortion, the popular saying that “It’s Location, Location, Location,” takes on a life and death meaning. For all those helpless babies legally aborted since 1973, well, it’s just too bad. They were simply living in the wrong location.

So, here it is, 40 years later and males and females of all ages, colors, and political parties will gather to remember that day of injustice imposed by the Court in the name of choice. Some may wonder what good these events do anyway. I have wondered that myself as the years pass and the destruction continues. I participated in that first march in Washington and have joined a march in various states every year since 1973. What good does the tramp, tramp, tramp of feet do?

After the Court ruling I testified at hearings held by both the Senate and House on a Human Life Amendment. What good did those hearings do? I have given thousands of speeches, spoken numerous times in every state in the Union, and established the National Lutherans for Life organization. What good did any of those things do?

The answer is, to paraphrase Shakespeare, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Pro-Lifers, more things accomplished by your voices and values, your commitment and courage, than are found in your wildest dreams.”

Every step, every word, every meeting, every assembly of like-minded witnesses is like precious gold! First, those all give voice to the unborn children who can’t speak for themselves. Secondly, they give encouragement to the men and women in government who advocate for the unborn and their mothers. Third, they help cheer us on, causing us to realize that we’re not fighting the battle alone. And, fourth, these events are a reminder to the media, candidates, and political parties of why we are single-issue voters.

Not because we don’t care about the economy and unemployment; about the environment, immigration, education, terrorism, or a host of other current issues. We are single-issue voters because a candidate’s position about the sanctity of human life reveals the character and values of that candidate.

The late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus once put our responsibility this way: “So long as we have the gift of life we must protect the gift of life. So long as it is threatened, so long it must be defended. We have not yet seen the full fury of the storm that is upon us. But we have not the right to despair. Our entire struggle is premised not upon a victory to be achieved but a victory that has already been won.”

The Right to Choose has replaced what is right, and defending the right values and laws is seldom safe, easy, or popular. So it helps me to remember that ancient story when the giant, Goliath, came out against God’s people. The soldiers of Israel looked at that giant and thought: Ooh, he’s so big we can’t stop him.

But little David with his slingshot looked at that same giant and said: Ooh, he’s so big I can’t miss.

The mess surrounding the life issues–whopperjawed though it is–is sooo big, that we can’t miss either if we recognize the importance of our individual work and witness. As Charlton Heston, the late actor famous for his movie role as Moses, once said to the Arizona House of Representatives:

Political correctness is just tyranny with manners, so I wish for you to be un-popular. Popularity is just history’s pocket change. But courage … courage is history’s true currency.

The Psalmist said much the same: Be of good courage and the Lord will strengthen your heart. (Psalm 27:14)

The post “Askew, Misaligned, and Twisted to One Side”: Roe’s Devastating Impact on American Culture appeared first on NRL News Today.


Take action right away to STOP Doctor Assisted Suicide in Nevada

Assisted Suicide Hearing Monday Feb 25 @ 3PM

Nevada Right to Life, along with our Nevadans Against Assisted Suicide Partners, opposes Doctor Assisted Suicide for many reasons, some of which are noted below.

Senator David Parks has introduced an Oregon-styled Doctor Assisted Suicide bill, SB165 that would turn doctors into killers Please take action by coming to the hearing, sending an email or making a phone call to our legislators asking them to oppose it, and/or registering your opinion online.

Polling in many states initially shows overwhelming support for doctor prescribed suicide until people learn more about it. Between January 1994 and the end of January 2019, there have been 269 legislative proposals in more than 39 states and the District of Columbia. Yet, over and over again, bills were either defeated, tabled for the session, withdrawn by sponsors, or languished with no action taken.

When broad coalitions of people rise up, it can be defeated. We need your voices!

EMAIL: Send a quick, respectful email to each of the senators on Health and Human Services Committee. Subject line “vote no on SB165.” Refer to background below for ideas to include.

Click to email Senators

Register your opposition to this deadly bill at the legislative poll site. Go to Go to Select a Bill, choose SB165 and say “No on SB165” or some other message. (See background below for ideas).

Register Opposition




Nevada Right to Life opposes SB165, Doctor Assisted Suicide for several reasons. Check out The Patient Rights Council’s Analysis of SB165

We’ve included the following bullet points. Read the article for deeper explanation of the bullet points.

Under SB 165:

• Doctor-prescribed suicide would become a “medical treatment.” If the Nevada bill is approved, will health insurance programs do the right thing – or the cheap thing?

• Under SB 165, the most marginalized individuals – poor, hardworking people – would be in particular danger.

• An individual with a controllable medical condition could be considered to have a terminal condition, making him or her eligible for doctor-prescribed suicide.

• Why is the definition of “terminal condition” so broad?

• Severely depressed or mentally ill patients could receive doctor-prescribed suicide, without having any form of counseling or mental examination.

• “Doctor shopping” could take place until a health care professional can be found to declare that the patient is qualified for the lethal prescription.

• Family members or health care providers and others could advise, suggest, encourage or exert subtle pressure on vulnerable individuals to request doctor-prescribed suicide.

• The written request for doctor-prescribed suicide could be witnessed by someone who would gain financially from the patient’s death.

• A person who would benefit financially from the person’s death could pick up and deliver the lethal prescription to the patient.

• Individuals could request doctor-prescribed suicide based on the fear of being a burden to others.

• Patients would have no protection once the assisted-suicide prescription is filled.

• Why aren’t there any safeguards at the most important part of the process – at the time the patient takes the drugs that will cause death?

• The death certificate would not reflect the actual cause of death.

The post Take action right away to STOP Doctor Assisted Suicide in Nevada appeared first on NRL News Today.


Even the Washington Post understands there is a tight bond between pro-lifers and President Trump—and why

By Dave Andrusko

Pro-life President Donald Trump

When reporters write about how much the pro-life community appreciates President Donald Trump, all too often they offer only one or two examples of why that would be the case. Not so with Paige Winfield Cunningham’s story in today’s Washington Post which ran under the 100% accurate headline, “Trump has done much for abortion foes and they love him for it.”

Her lead paragraph (and in boldface, no less) captures the dynamic perfectly:

Abortion foes are one group standing enthusiastically with President Trump as he seeks reelection next year, delighted the president has prioritized their cause over his two years in office and freshly invigorated by his eagerness to describe abortion in strong terms and call for its end.

In other words symbolically, stylistically, and substantially, President Trump has made support for unborn babies a real priority. A POLITICO story from earlier this week began by trivializing the President’s “confrontation” with pro-abortion Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) over abortion as little more than an illustration of “how the president has ramped up his interest in issues dear to his hard-core religious supporters.”

Later in the same story, however, Gabby Orr wrote, “A White House official, who did not witness Trump’s confrontation with Coons, said it illustrates how the president “genuinely views abortion… and isn’t afraid to make the Democrats defend their extreme positions.”

President Trump was animated in his talk with Sen. Coons, to the point where, according to POLITICO’s Orr, he “laced into the Democratic senator over controversial moves to change statewide policies on abortion that have roiled New York and Virginia politics in recent weeks.”

The Post’s Cunningham offered multiple examples of the President’s activist posture on abortion, including the radically pro-abortion proposals in New York and Virginia. To name just a few…

Trump has gone after abortion providers and access to the procedure through agency regulations, judicial appointments and budget requests. He most recently used strong language to describe Virginia and New York measures making it easier to obtain abortions late in pregnancy, calling on Congress to pass antiabortion legislation and even personally confronting Democrats over the issue. …

With assurances of support from Trump, Republicans have been pushing the “Born-Alive Infant Protection Act” as a way of drawing attention to late-term abortions, after confusing and controversial remarks by Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D). The bill, sponsored by Sasse says an infant “born alive at any stage of development” is a person under federal law and clarifies the care they must receive.

There is nothing “confusing” but plenty that is “controversial” about what Gov. Northam said when he appeared on WTOP radio.

He defended the “Repeal Bill,” since defeated in committee, that the sponsor readily conceded allowed abortion through the third trimester—“40 weeks,” to quote sponsor state Del. Kathy Tran. Northam even defended failure to treat abortion survivors (beyond making them “comfortable”), if that’s what the woman and the abortionist want.

That is infanticide, plain and simple, a policy more and more Democrats tacitly support even as they hate it when people properly apply that description to what Democrats like Tran and Northam believe in.

There’s much more in Cunningham’s story.

Suffice it to say, our Movement has a champion in the White House, the importance of which cannot be overstated.

For example, she writes about the (expanded) Mexico City policy, conscience protection, and Trump’s two appointments to the Supreme Court, to name just three.

The post Even the Washington Post understands there is a tight bond between pro-lifers and President Trump—and why appeared first on NRL News Today.

Blog Euthanasia harvesting

Heart-Harvesting Euthanasia Promoted in Transplant Journal

By Wesley J. Smith

Doctor Stephane Mercier, Head visits a patient at the palliative care unit of the AP-HP Paul-Brousse Hospital in Villejuif near Paris, France, March 4, 2015. 
(Philippe Wojazer/Reuters)

My first anti-euthanasia column (Newsweek, 1993) worried that once euthanasia became normalized, it would lead to conjoined organ harvesting “as a plum to society.”

I was screamed at and labeled an alarmist. Oh Wesley, people assured me, that will never happen!

Yeah, right. The world’s most respected bioethicists have published serious articles in influential medical journals urging that doctors be allowed to harvest cognitively disabled patients while they are alive — known as ODE, e.g., “organ donation euthanasia” — as a means of cutting transplant waiting times.

That is not yet being done. But as I predicted all those years ago, organ harvesting after euthanasia is allowed in Netherlands and Belgium, and has been performed at least once in Canada.

Now, the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation — a respectable transplant medical journal, not a nut fringe Internet blog — has published an article proposing beating–heart harvesting as a form of euthanasia where medicalized homicide is legal.

Good grief.

First, the authors propose that doctors bring up organ transplantation to euthanasia seekers. From “Euthanasia Through Living Organ Donation”:

Current guidelines [in the Netherlands] state that only the patient should pose the question of organ donation, and only after a positive response to the euthanasia question, thus keeping both procedures strictly separated. However, it is our belief that a physician should always inform a patient who is medically suitable about the possibility of organ donation, even if this could disrupt the trust relationship, as many patients may choose not to ask about donation because they assume it is not possible in this context. Consent of the patient’s relatives for organ donation after euthanasia is not required.

Realize that the people who are harvested after euthanasia today are sometimes mentally ill, with no other underlying medical condition. Why? Because they have good organs. Others are disabled by neuromuscular conditions, who may also be harvested for the same reasons.

But why wait until the patients are dead? Let’s permit ODE, including live heart harvesting! First, they admit the obvious:

Because the proposed procedure does not involve patients who are brain dead, “living donation” is the correct term to use, even though this is normally used for people who donate their kidney, and do not die as a result of donation.

Yes, indeed: Taking out a beating heart will be 100 percent fatal.

The authors engage in the usual bioethical hand-wringing discussing objections, only to — voila! — conclude that heart harvesting would be peachy keen where euthanasia is legal. They even invoke the Hippocratic Oath!

Living donation in combination with euthanasia does not harm the patient more than organ donation after euthanasia does, or euthanasia without organ donation for that matter.

Making ODE possible, compared with neglecting the patient’s wish and not facilitating this procedure, respects the Hippocratic Oath, which mandates taking care of the organ donor and the recipient in the best possible way.

The Hippocratic Oath explicitly forbids euthanasia, but never mind.

The authors conclude:

The right of self-determination of the patient who meets the due diligence requirements for euthanasia should ideally give such a patient the possibility of also donating his heart, so that others can be helped and/or saved by as many donated organs as possible. Implementing ODE into practice should be approached with caution, however, as public perception may not yet be ready for this combination of procedures.

May the public never be ready to accept doctors’ taking a living patient — who may not even be physically ill — into a surgical suite, anesthetizing him, and then harvesting his beating heart.

Oh, Wesley, that will never happen! Yeah, right.

Those with eyes to see, let them see.

Editor’s note. Wesley’s great columns appear at National Review Online and are reposted with the author’s permission.

The post Heart-Harvesting Euthanasia Promoted in Transplant Journal appeared first on NRL News Today.


“We don’t make them pay a single cent, unlike places like Planned Parenthood.” A Crisis Pregnancy Center worker speaks out

By Sarah Terzo

Here is a picture of a room in a crisis pregnancy center that is filled with clothes to give to expectant mothers and poor parents

A woman who works at a crisis pregnancy center wrote:

“I started volunteering at my local secular crisis pregnancy center in the greater Seattle area, for 6 hours a week, in early September. It’s been several months and I already feel like I have learned a lot, not only about how to fold baby clothes into bundles or how to take clients in, but also about humanity and charity, and how misogynistic, classist, and racist the pro-choice attack on these centers is.

“To start off with, we provide all services for free. They are for low-income prgnant and parenting women. We have free baby clothes, toddler clothes, shoes, maternity clothes, pregnancy tests, breast pumps, nursing bras, diapers, baby wipes, bottles, baby/toddler dishes, formula, food, toys, books, car seats, strollers, cribs, cradles, jumpers, and any other pieces of furniture or big toys when we get them. I have seen pretty much anything you can think of that deals with pregnancy or parenting, come into the clinic. We also give referrals to various social services, such as WIC…..

“We don’t make them pay a single cent, unlike places like Planned Parenthood. So we truly offer purely free items for struggling families. Taking clinics like this away from all the people we have serviced, or trying to make it harder for us to provide these free items, is a gross attack on lower class people, especially since places like Planned Parenthood don’t bother to give any of these baby/toddler/maternity items to needy women. In fact you won’t find baby clothes or diapers or strollers or anything like that at any abortion clinic. Planned Parenthood doesn’t help you plan your parenthood at all, it just tries to eliminate it for you.

“It takes a ton of privilege to be able to tell people that because you want every clinic that helps women to provide abortions, poor women aren’t allowed to have free baby supplies…

“There is a lot of racial diversity in our clients as well. I have seen various people from all across the race and religion spectrum. People who are Pacific Islander, Arabic, Hispanic, Muslim, Ukrainian, Egyptian, African American, and so on and so forth. To take away free supplies from all these various minorities is racist and an injustice. They need help being able to afford these supplies and abortion clinics certainly aren’t going to help them. Higher rates of infant mortality due to systematic racism mean that every affordable baby supply is truly needed for a person of color. It is a privileged position to take that away.”

Kristin Monahan, “What I Learned from Volunteering at a Crisis Pregnancy Center” Secular Pro-Life Blog DECEMBER 18, 2018

Editor’s note. This appeared at Clinic Quotes and is reposted with permission.

The post “We don’t make them pay a single cent, unlike places like Planned Parenthood.” A Crisis Pregnancy Center worker speaks out appeared first on NRL News Today.

Blog Legislation

The ERA battle begins in Virginia

By Olivia Gans Turner, President, Virginia Society for Human Life (VSHL)

Yesterday the Virginia General Assembly opened with a flourish on the 400 year anniversary of government in the Commonwealth.

The members of the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee decided to bring out the pro-abortion Equal Rights Amendment as their first order of business in this historic year. The bill was carried by Senators Saslaw and Sturtevant.

Unfortunately, the motion passed 8 to 6 to send the ERA to the full Senate for a vote soon.

The Democrats who supported it are Senators Edwards, Howell, Dance, Deeds, Ebbin, and Spruill.

Two Republicans, Senators Vogel and DeSteph, voted with the Democrats to pass the ERA.

Republican pro-life Senators Chase, Peake, Reeves, Ruff, Chafin and Cosgrove voted to oppose it.

The effect of the ERA in states that passed it has proven that the agenda is to dismantle pro-life laws, including to force states to pay for all abortions with tax dollars.

Yesterday’s vote is just the beginning of this fight. It is essential that our voices be heard.

The crowded room was full of angry faces demanding the ERA, but a good size group of committed ladies from all over Virginia had made the trip on short notice to attend this hearing and show our opposition to the ERA.

Only five speakers were allowed on each side so we selected a group of strong, educated and diverse ladies to represent our concerns. Miss Jacqueline Hawkins represented VSHL and her concerns of African American women and abortion after ERA.

Those of us tracking the votes on this issue were not surprised by yesterday’s vote count. We have work to do now. We need to focus on the House of Delegates members. That is where our messages can make a big difference!

We need to convince the Delegates that this issue matters to pro-life Virginians and that we are paying attention to their vote! Your messages help us do just that.

Please use this link to find your legislators and contact them today. Be polite but clear that you want them to oppose the ERA if it gets to a vote.

The post The ERA battle begins in Virginia appeared first on NRL News Today.

Blog Judicial

Nearly two years later, Kansas Supreme Court has not ruled whether there is a “right” to abortion in the state Constitution

By Dave Andrusko

It’s one of those stories that could have written pretty much anytime over, say, the last 18 months. The headline to AP reporter John Hanna’s story (as published in the Washington Post) is “Kansas abortion foes brace for state Supreme Court decision.”

Hanna is alluded to the mysterious inaction of the Kansas Supreme Court which heard a state challenge to a lower court injunction that enjoined Kansas’s ban on dismemberment abortions nearly two years ago.

The consensus across the board was that a majority of the justices seemed favorably disposed to the bizarre argument that 169 years after the state Constitution was drafted, a hitherto unknown right to privacy even broader than the Supreme Court found in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, had been discovered.

At the March 16, 2017, oral arguments, Janet Crepps, an abortion attorney for the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), maintained that the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act “victimized” women. She told the justices that second-trimester non-dismemberment abortion methods were “experimental” and “painful” for women and an affront to their “privacy, autonomy, dignity and bodily integrity.”

Solicitor General Stephen McAllister countered, “If the people of Kansas want to create a constitutional right to abortion, they have a ready mechanism for doing so — the constitutional amendment process. Kansans have not been shy about utilizing it.”

SB 95, which Kansas enacted in 2015, prohibit abortions in which the fully-formed unborn child is torn apart with sharp metal tools, bit by bit, while still alive, inside her mother. Nine states have subsequently passed laws banning dismemberment abortions of living unborn babies. They include Oklahoma (2015); West Virginia (2016); Mississippi (2016); Alabama (2016); Louisiana (2016); Arkansas (2017) ;. Texas (2017) ; Kentucky (2018); and Ohio (2018).

Back to Hanna’s story. Various theories are floated why the justices have not issued a decision. They include election politics (a decision that threatens to gut essentially all abortion laws –if not all– would have energized pro-lifers in the last election) to the idea that such a decision would be “a groundbreaking case of first impression,” Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt told Hanna, although he added, “but my goodness, two years?”

This is hardly the first time the abortion movement has turned to a state Constitution to create a protective wall around the “right” to abortion. For example, Hanna wrote,

California voters added a right to privacy to their state’s constitution in 1972, and courts there have struck down even restrictions on public funding for abortions. In 2000, Tennessee’s highest court declared that the state constitution protected abortion rights; abortion foes did not pass an amendment until 2014.

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled last year that the state constitution protected abortion rights.

With respect to Tennessee, Hanna is talking about “Amendment 1,” the successful 2014 ballot measure that stated “Nothing in this [state] Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion.”

Pro-abortionists contested that outcome all the up until last November when the United States Supreme Court agreed with a three judge panel of the Sixth Circuit which had unanimously concluded “…[I]t is time for uncertainty surrounding the people’s 2014 approval and ratification of Amendment 1 to be put to rest.”

The post Nearly two years later, Kansas Supreme Court has not ruled whether there is a “right” to abortion in the state Constitution appeared first on NRL News Today.

Blog Judicial

ACLU, PPFA ask Supreme Court to uphold decision rejecting Indiana’s “Dignity for the Unborn Act”

By Dave Andrusko

Late last month NRL News Today reported that a coalition of 18 state attorneys general, led by the Wisconsin attorney general, along with the governor of Mississippi had filed a 38-page friend of the court (“amicus”) brief asking the High Court to uphold Indiana’s HE 1337—the “Dignity for the Unborn Act” —which had been overturned by Obama appointee Judge Tonya Walton Pratt.

Judge Tonya Walton Pratt

As you recall, in 2016 HE 1337 was signed into law by then-Governor Mike Pence. The law bans abortion for the sole reasons of the child’s race, sex, national origin, or a potential disability such as Down syndrome.

The law was quickly challenged by Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union, and Judge Pratt dutifully obliged. Last April a divided panel of the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Pratt’s decision.

Now the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana (ACLU) and Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky (PPINK) had waded in. The core of their brief was included in excerpts quoted by Dan Carden of The Times of Northwest Indiana:

“Were states permitted to prohibit abortions for what they deemed to be a sufficiently important interest, it would invite impermissibly intrusive government inquiries into individuals’ most private decisions.”

“A woman could be required to demonstrate that she was not seeking her abortion for ‘incorrect’ reasons, and the sincerity of her explanation could become subject to governmental investigation.”

The amicus from the 18 state attorneys general and the governor of Mississippi beautifully summarized the issues at hand and why the law should be upheld beginning with its statement that “The Seventh Circuit’s decision below contains two holdings that, especially when taken together, exhibit an unprecedented, unlawful hostility to the States’ authority to honor human life and dignity.”

Pro-life Vice President Mike Pence

Referring specifically to the Anti-discrimination Provisions of HE 1337, the amicus notes that the Seventh Circuit panel invalidated the provision which

prohibits the elimination of classes of human beings through discriminatory abortion based upon race, gender, and disability because, in the Seventh Circuit’s view, [the 1992] Casey [Supreme Court decision] foreclosed any prohibition on pre-viability abortions, no matter the interest being sought, no matter how carefully tailored the law. But the plaintiffs in Casey specifically declined to challenge Pennsylvania’s discriminatory-abortion prohibition, and this Court, accordingly, did not rule upon that prohibition.

Nevertheless, the Seventh Circuit concluded that Casey controlled the outcome in this case because, in the Seventh Circuit’s view, Casey enshrined the right to pre-viability abortion as “categorical.” But this Court has never declared any right to be “categorical,” and Casey itself upheld one type of pre-viability abortion prohibition. Under a proper understanding of Casey’s undue-burden test, the Antidiscrimination Provision furthers the State’s compelling interest in prohibiting the discriminatory elimination of classes of human beings by race, gender, or disability. This issue is ripe for this Court’s review, as [Seventh Circuit] Judge Easterbrook, joined by Judges Sykes, Barrett and Brennan, explained. the amicus argues both that evil the Antidiscrimination Provision is intended to combat is “serious” and that “Iceland is a canary in the coal mine.”

They were referring to the truth, proudly embracing by medical authorities in Iceland that a positive test for Down syndrome results in abortion close to 100% of the time! The amicus also cites the rampant practice of sex-selective abortions in Asia which has resulted in 100 to 160 million “missing” women.

In its concluding paragraph, the brief explains why the prohibition must operate pre-viability:

Finally, that Indiana’s Antidiscrimination Provision includes pre-viability abortions does not affect its constitutionality because the State’s interests do not correspond to the unborn child’s stage of development. In the traditional abortion regulation context, this Court has held that the State’s interest in protecting an unborn child’s life is “not strong enough” to prohibit a pre-viability abortion. [See Casey.] The logic is that the more developed the unborn child, the stronger the State’s interest in keeping that child alive. This reasoning has no applicability where the strength of the State’s interests does not correspond to the unborn child’s stage of development. The State’s interest is the prevention of the discriminatory elimination of classes of human beings; it makes no difference from the point of view of that interest if unborn children with Down syndrome are systematically eliminated at 10 weeks or 25 weeks, if the result is the same.

Genetic screening for Down syndrome now regularly occurs
“as early as 10 weeks” into the pregnancy, well before the unborn child is viable. … So to prohibit effectively the discriminatory elimination of this class of society, the Provision must operate pre-viability.

The post ACLU, PPFA ask Supreme Court to uphold decision rejecting Indiana’s “Dignity for the Unborn Act” appeared first on NRL News Today.

Blog Gosnell Media Bias NPR

NPR Won’t Accept Use of ‘Abortion Doctor’ in Ad for Movie on Kermit Gosnell

By Tim Graham

Matt Lewis at the Daily Beast reported a shocking little story out of National Public Radio on Tuesday. The producers of a new dramatic movie on notorious Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell — now serving three life sentences for killing three babies outside the womb in his seriously unsanitary inner-city abortion clinic — wanted to buy an advertising (or underwriting) announcement on the NPR cultural program Fresh Air with Terry Gross. (The chances of left-wing Terry Gross actually offering any publicity to this bad-abortionist movie are zero.)

But naturally, NPR took issue with the wording proposed for this announcement on the taxpayer-funded radio network:

The proposed ad was as follows, “Support for this NPR program comes from the film Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer. The film is the true story of abortionist Kermit Gosnell. A story the mainstream media tried to cover up because it reveals the truth about abortion.”

No dice. According to e-mails provided to The Daily Beast, NPR’s representative ran it up the legal flagpole and came back with a disappointing answer. In addition to other minor tweaks to the wording, their response stated, “The word ‘abortionist’ will also need to be changed to the neutral word ‘doctor.’”

Seeking to find an acceptable compromise, [Jack] Sullivan (who co-directed Dinesh D’Souza’s first two documentaries) next proposed simply using the term “abortion doctor.” This is a descriptive term that is morally neutral, he reasoned. Still, NPR refused to approve Sullivan’s compromise language. It was “Philadelphia doctor Kermit Gosnell” or bust.

NPR’s Senior Director of Media Relations Isabel Lara attempted to explain: “Sponsor credits that run on NPR are required to be value neutral to comply with FCC requirements and to avoid suggesting bias in NPR’s journalism.”

Baloney. Total baloney. Lewis underlined NPR uses the term “abortion

Liberal groups have their sponsor credits on all the time talking in gassy terms about being on “the front lines of social change.” The MacArthur Foundation is always “committed to building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world.” These may be vaguely idealistic, but they do suggest a liberal bias in NPR’s journalism.

Usually, the fervent complaints about underwriting come from NPR’s dominant audience on the Left, who get upset when “evil” fossil fuel industry groups like natural gas pay for announcements. The media-relations director could explain it more honestly: “Sponsor credits that run on NPR are required not to upset our liberal base.”

Editor’s note. This appeared at Newsbusters and is reposted with permission.

The post NPR Won’t Accept Use of ‘Abortion Doctor’ in Ad for Movie on Kermit Gosnell appeared first on NRL News Today.

Blog pro-life pro-lifers

“To put it simply, Evil cannot bear the counter-witness of truth”– Archbishop Chaput

By Dave Andrusko

A while back Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Philadelphia delivered a remarkable speech at the Pennsylvania Pro-life Federation Celebrate Life Banquet late last month. What he had to say has stuck with me going all the way back to September 2016 when I first read his remarks. I’d like to offer some very extensive excerpts from the entire speech which the Pennsylvania Pro-life Federation helpfully posted.

Read them carefully. These truly are pearls of wisdom.

For the past 43 years we’ve been living the consequences of Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that effectively legalized abortion on demand. And the abortion struggle of the past four decades teaches us a very useful lesson. Evil talks a lot about “tolerance” when it’s weak. When evil is strong, real tolerance gets kicked out the door. This in turn explains a lot about our current cultural climate. To put it simply: Evil cannot bear the counter-witness of truth. It cannot co-exist peacefully with goodness, because evil insists on being seen as right, and worshiped as being right. Therefore, the good must be made to seem hateful and wrong.

The very existence of people who refuse to accept evil and who seek to act virtuously burns the conscience of those who don’t. And so, quite logically, people like the people in this room, people who march and lobby and speak out to defend the unborn child will be – and are – reviled by political leaders and news media and abortion activists who turn the right to kill an unborn child into a shrine for personal choice.

Seventy years ago, abortion was a crime against humanity. Four decades ago, abortion supporters talked piously about the “tragedy” of abortion and the need to make it safe and rare. But not today. Not anymore.

Now abortion is not just a so-called “right,” but a right that claims positive dignity, the license to demonize its opponents and the precedence to interfere with constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, assembly and religion. We no longer tolerate abortion. We celebrate it. We venerate it as a totem.

People sometimes ask me if we can be optimistic, those of us who are religious believers, about the future of our country. My answer is always the same. Optimism and pessimism are equally dangerous for the believer because both God and the devil are full of surprises. But the virtue of hope is another matter. We have every reason to hope. Scripture tells us we must live in hope, and hope is a very different creature from optimism. Hope is the grace to trust that God is who He claims to be, and that in serving Him, we do something fertile and precious for the renewal of the world.

Our lives matter not because of who we are. They matter because of who God is. His mercy, his justice, his love — these are the things that move the galaxies and reach into the womb to touch the unborn child with the grandeur of being human. And we become more truly human ourselves by seeing the humanity in the poor, the weak, the elderly and the unborn child — and then fighting for it.

… [The Archbishop spoke of how our Movement is falsely but perpetually, being written off as dead. Then]

As I was gathering my thoughts for tonight, a line from Psalm 89 came back to me again and again: [Lord,] make us know the shortness of our life that we may gain wisdom of heart. The time we have in this world is brief. The choices we make have real substance – precisely because we come this way in life only once, and the world will be better or worse for our passing.

So our presence here together tonight has a meaning much larger than a nice meal and a good conversation about shared values. It’s an opportunity to remember that God put us here for a purpose. He’s asking us turn our hearts to building the kind of world that embodies his love and honors the sanctity of the human children he created.

[He followed with a list of don’ts and a few do’s, including]

[D]on’t let yourselves be bullied into silence.

Democracy depends on people of conviction carrying their beliefs into public debate — respectfully, legally and non-violently, but vigorously and without apology. Real pluralism demands that people with different beliefs should pursue their beliefs energetically in the public square. This is the only way a public debate can be honest and fruitful. We should never apologize for being prolife, or for advancing our beliefs in private or in public.

[D]on’t let divisions take root [within the Movement]. …

[D]on’t create or accept false oppositions.

Dialectical thinking, and by that I mean the idea that most of our options involve “either/or” choices, is deeply misleading. Back during the 2008 presidential election, we saw the emergence of so-called prolife voices that argued we should stop fighting the legal struggle over abortion. Instead we should join with “pro-choice” supporters to seek “common ground.”

Their argument was simple: Why fight a losing battle on the legal, cultural and moral fronts since — according to them — we haven’t yet made serious progress in ending legalized abortion? Let’s drop the “divisive” political battle, they said, and instead let’s all work together to tackle the economic and health issues that might eventually reduce abortions.

Of course, many of these voices turned out to be flacks for the Obama presidential campaign. In reality, the Obama White House has been extraordinary for its refusal to compromise on anything involving so-called “reproductive rights,” and for its belligerent hostility to prolife and religious liberty concerns.

But we need to look beyond the current White House to recent American history. Did Americans take a gradual, social-improvement road to “reducing” racism? No. We passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nor have I ever heard anyone suggest that the best way to deal with murder, rape or domestic abuse is to improve people’s access to psychotherapy and job training. We make sexual assault illegal — even though we know it will still sometimes tragically occur — because it’s gravely evil. It’s an act of violence, and the law should proscribe it. Of course, we also have a duty to improve the social conditions that can breed domestic and sexual violence. But that doesn’t change the need for a law.

Likewise, if we really believe that abortion is an intimate act of violence, then we can’t aim at anything less than ending abortion. It doesn’t matter that some abortions have always occurred, and that some abortions will always occur. If we really believe that abortion kills a developing, human life, then we can never be satisfied with mere “reductions” in the body count.

[F]inally, don’t hate the adversary. …

And then Archbishop Chaput ended on a note of encouragement that none of us should ever forget:

Pennsylvania is a long way from South Dakota [where he once served as a young bishop]. It has its own beauties and its own problems. But the human realities are very much the same. Pennsylvanians can be a skeptical breed. The cultural, legal and political terrain here can be very rough. It takes people of exceptional character, people with the courage to fight the good fight at great personal cost, to endure and achieve anything good.

A lot of those good people are in this room tonight. Your character, your faith and your dedication to the sanctity of the human person matter. They matter not just now; and not just here in our Commonwealth; and not just for the thousands of people your work influences without even knowing their names. Your commitment to human life matters eternally, because some lives will be lived only because your voice at the decisive moment for a young mother made them possible.

So no matter how tired you get,  no matter how hard the work becomes, no matter who praises you or who condemns you, the only thing that finally matters is this: God is good; he never abandons his people; and because of his love, and because of the witness of people like you in the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation, the future is ours. And the best is yet to come.

So may God bless the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation, and send it the supporters and resources and generous donors it needs, because we’ve never needed its witness and its service to human dignity more than we do today.

The post “To put it simply, Evil cannot bear the counter-witness of truth”– Archbishop Chaput appeared first on NRL News Today.