Categories
Blog life

Pro-life OB-GYN: A Patient Is a Person, No Matter How Small

By Dr. William R. Lile, D.O., FACOG

When does human life begin?

The simple questions in life are best answered with simple answers. Why would God send His Son to die for us? Answer: Because He loves us. The simple questions in life are made complex by those that reject the simple, yet true, answers.

So, when does human life begin? It begins at conception.

The thing that sets us as individuals apart from the other 7 billion people on the planet is our DNA. Our chromosomes are the blueprint of who we are. Our individual chromosomes are different from anyone that has ever lived, or ever will live.

Each of us is unique. Half of our DNA comes from our mothers and half from our fathers. Prior to the moment of conception, these reproductive cells had no new story–they were just haploid cells from our parents. However, at the moment of conception, our new story, as a new individual began.

This one cell will differentiate into the 40 trillion cells of an adult. All of the DNA carrying cells carry exact copies of that first cell.

However, there is one more miracle; cell differentiation. How do cells with the same copies of chromosomes divide into 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64…cells and yet we are a collection of many different types of cells with many different functions? It is called cell differentiation. Cells divide, one initiates the future nervous system and the other initiates the future circulatory system. How do these dividing cells, both with exact, complete blueprint copies, know which parts of the plans to follow?

Simple questions are best answered with simple answers. The simple answer? We don’t know. But such an amazing design can only be accomplished if there is a Divine designer.

Have you ordered a DNA analysis from 23andMe.com or Ancestry.com? The science is amazing. You collect 5cc of your DNA containing saliva. You mail it to either company and they analyze your unique DNA. They compare your DNA characteristics with DNA characteristics from millions of other people from around the globe. They can go back hundreds of years, and many generations to describe your ethnic heritage and history.

I sent my DNA off to be studied. Not only did they confirm my known genealogy, but they also told me about living relatives that I did not know about. Ancestry.com does not know that my mother’s side of the family is primarily from Pennsylvania and Virginia, or that my father’s side is from Mississippi and Arkansas. Yet they placed dozens of dots on the map of individuals with similar enough DNA to mine, that they must be relatives.

These dots were all in the states of Pennsylvania, Virginia, Mississippi, and Arkansas. An amazing revelation of my family history and who I am. The DNA that I submitted, and they studied is an exact copy of the DNA from that first cell formed when one cell from my mother and one cell from my father combined in the womb. The moment of conception! That is why our story, our lives, begins at conception.

“A patient is a person, no matter how small.”

A patient is a person, no matter how small. We treat the pre-born as patients while they are still in the womb. When I see a pregnant patient in my office, I am following two patients. The baby shares only half of its DNA with the mother. The other half comes from the father. The mother is the life support system for the baby, but the baby is a new person.

Every mother remembers that moment of seeing their baby for the first time on ultrasound. We can clearly see the heart beating less than 28 days after conception. The blood being circulated by the heart of the baby does not mix with the blood of the mother. In fact, often the mother and the baby have completely different blood types.

There are medical conditions where the mother has antibodies that can cross the placenta and attack the blood of the baby. We test for these antibodies on the first visit. Why would the mother’s body attack the baby? Because the baby is a new individual, a new person. Just like a transplanted kidney is matched as well as possible, there is always the risk that the host will reject the new kidney. The same is true for the baby in the womb.

In Rh isoimmunization, the mother’s antibodies are attacking the blood cells of the baby. If something is not done, the baby can go into heart failure and die in the womb from severe anemia. The baby needs a blood transfusion. How do you transfuse blood to a baby in the womb? We do it through Peri Umbilical Blood Sampling (PUBS).

We determine that the baby is anemic with ultrasound. We can measure the speed of blood cells passing through the Circle of Willis blood vessels in the brain and calculate the level of anemia of the baby. A transfusion is then scheduled.

Using ultrasound guidance, a long, thin needle is guided through the abdominal wall of the mother, through the wall of the womb, and directly into the vein of the umbilical cord. O negative blood can then be transfused directly into the vein of the umbilical cord of the baby. Blood that you might have donated to your local Red Cross Blood Bank.

We have performed this procedure as early as 19 weeks gestation at our hospital. A blood transfusion, four weeks before a baby can begin to survive in even the most advanced neonatal nursery.

Recent advances in fetal therapy have gone far beyond blood transfusions. Fetal surgery in the womb is now becoming common in centers in Boston, Philadelphia, Denver, Houston, and Cleveland. Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) performs over 150 fetal procedures each year. Heart surgeries on babies in the womb are being performed as early as 21 weeks gestation. Heart valve surgery, and atrial septal interventions are being performed on fetal hearts the size of a large grape. Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston is now performing laparoscopic corrective spina bifida surgery before 23 weeks gestation.

The babies in the womb are clearly patients. If they are patients, they are persons, and if they are persons, they deserve our protection.

Informed Consent Protects Pre-born Babies as Patients

Informed consent is a vital part of medical care today. It is not simply a form that you sign prior to a surgery. It is a process, whereby the risks, benefits, indications, and alternatives are reviewed before a surgery. How does surgery on a baby benefit the mother? Quite simply, it does not benefit the mother, the mother is at risk for bleeding and infection. So, who benefits?

All benefits are for the baby. This is a key concept; the baby in the womb is a patient.

According to a Committee Opinion released by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (Number 439, August 2009), “Seeking informed consent expresses respect for the patient as a person; it particularly respects a patient’s moral right to bodily integrity.”

If we are performing heart surgery, spine surgery and giving blood transfusions to the pre-born while still in the womb, they are patients. And if they are patients, they have a “moral right to bodily integrity.” Abortion deprives a patient of their moral right to bodily integrity.

In the Roe v. Wade majority opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun, he stated the if “personhood is established, the case for a constitutional right to abortion collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (Fourteenth) Amendment.” The pre-born are clearly patients, and if they are patients they are persons, and if they are persons, we have a moral and constitutional duty to protect them.

In Jeremiah 1:5, God says to Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; and I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

God knew all of us while we were in our mother’s womb. He had a plan for us, and sent His son Jesus Christ to die for us, conquer death and rise from the grave for us, so that if we place our trust in Jesus we can spend eternity with Him in Heaven. In return for eternity with Him in Heaven, we only have a short time to serve His Kingdom here on Earth, so that one day we will hear those words from Matthew 25:21… “Well done! Thou good and faithful servant.”

Dr. William Lile is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist. He has a private practice near Pensacola, Florida, is the founder of ‘Pro-life Doc’, and has produced a short pro-life teaching DVD titled “God’s Miracle of Life.”

Editor’s note. This appeared at Pregnancy Help News and is reposted with permission.

The post Pro-life OB-GYN: A Patient Is a Person, No Matter How Small appeared first on NRL News Today.

Categories
assisted suicide Blog Euthanasia Mercy Killing

Quebec man found guilty of manslaughter in the death of his wife.

He said it was a “mercy killing.”

By Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director – Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Michel Cadotte with his lawyers, Elfride Duclervil, left, and Nicolas Welt, in Montreal.
Allen McInnis / MONTREAL GAZETTE

Michel Cadotte, the Québec man who killed his wife, Jocelyne Lizette (60) by suffocation on February 20, 2017, was found guilty of manslaughter by a jury.

Cadotte, claimed that his wife wouldn’t have wanted to live this way. Cadotte had asked for euthanasia for his wife and was turned down because she was not capable of making the request. CTV news reported:

The trial has heard that a year earlier Cadotte sought a medically assisted death for his wife of 19 years and was told by centre staff she didn’t qualify. A head nurse at the Emilie Gamelin long-term care facility testified Cadotte admitted to her she suffocated his wife.

Nicolas Welt, the lawyer for Cadotte, argued that his client was not criminally responsible because of his state of mind at the time of the murder.

According to The National Post, “The crime had been framed in the media as a compassion killing — an offence that doesn’t exist in the Criminal Code,” adding that Justice Helene Di Salvo charged the jury with determining whether Cadotte was to be convicted of second-degree murder or manslaughter.

The National Post reported:

Cadotte’s lawyers had argued, without the jury present, that an acquittal should be possible, but the judge ruled it wasn’t an option.

The accused had admitted to killing Lizotte and the legal criteria had not been met for acquittal, Di Salvo ruled. In her final instructions, she told the jurors they should not take into account the potential sentence, because sentencing is the judge’s responsibility.

I agree with how the judge ruled and the decision of the Jury, but I expect that this court decision will be appealed.

Editor’s note. This appeared on Mr. Schadenberg’s blog and is reposted with permission.

The post Quebec man found guilty of manslaughter in the death of his wife. appeared first on NRL News Today.

Categories
assisted suicide Blog dying

“Dying Well” or scare tactics?

By Nancy Valko

via Youtube

I discovered that former San Francisco Chronicle reporter Katy Butler is now publishing yet another book on dying well (her first book “Knocking on Heaven’s Door” was a best seller) when I read her lead essay in the February 8, 2019 Wall Street Journal article titled “Preparing for a Good End of Life.”

However, I recognized her name from reading her 2014 interview with Compassion and Choices, the well-funded former Hemlock Society that promotes physician-assisted suicide.

In that interview, she urged people to back the 2014 “Better Care. Lower Cost Act” sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon “to improve appropriate medical support for people with chronic illness” and to “advocate to reduce payments to doctors who perform futile ‘Hail Mary’ surgeries, tests and treatments near the end of life.” [All boldface is added.]

Ms. Butler also added that “we have an epidemic of unnecessary suffering at the end of life, and what’s more, it’s expensive!”

In that interview, Ms. Butler also talked about how her mother was “exhausted from nonstop caregiving” and how they fought doctors to have her father’s pacemaker turned off after he developed dementia, couldn’t walk to the neighborhood pool, became deaf and “too blind to read the New York Times-his last remaining pleasure.”

Ms. Butler said she was glad to learn “from Judith Schwartz at Compassion and Choices that we each have a constitutional right to refuse any medical treatment or ask for its withdrawal.” (Compassion and Choices also promotes VSED, the voluntary stopping of eating and drinking, as well as terminal sedation as two legal options to hasten death in states without physician-assisted suicide laws.)

SCARE TACTICS?

In the Wall Street Journal article, Ms. Butler flatly states–without a source–that “Pain is a major barrier to a peaceful death, and nearly half of dying Americans suffer from uncontrolled pain.”

However, in an article “Pain Control at the End of Life.” June Dahl, PhD, a professor of pharmacology at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, and a founder of the American Alliance of Cancer Pain Initiatives, states that

“Thanks to recent advances in pain treatments, roughly 90 to 95 percent of all dying patients should be able to experience substantial relief from pain.”

Although Ms. Butler doesn’t mention physician-assisted suicide specifically, she does strongly advocate taking control of how we die, especially as we get older, because “Advanced medicine is replete with treatments (ventilator, dialysis, defibrillators, feeding tubes, to name a few) that postpone death and prolong misery without restoring health.”

She writes that “The best way to achieve a peaceful death is by planning ahead and enlisting the help of loved ones.”

In the Wall Street Journal article, she approvingly writes:

“When Liz Salmi’s mentor lay unconscious on a ventilator in a dark, windowless ICU room, attended by a cacophony of hisses and electronic bloops, she and other close friends lobbied for a better setup. All monitors but one were silenced, a doctor removed the breathing tube, and nurses and aides gurneyed her dying friend quickly into the ICU’s “best room”—a sunny spot, with windows opening to the outdoors.”

In this instance, note that the friends–apparently not the family or a “living will”– lobbied the doctor to remove (not try to wean off) the ventilator. I am not surprised since I have personally heard some doctors say that, if in doubt, it might be legally safer not to treat rather than treat a patient because of the risk of a future lawsuit.

These kinds of articles and books are being used as “end-of-life education” for both the public and professionals. Can this be dangerous?

CAN WHAT YOU SAY POTENTIALLY BE USED AGAINST YOU?

My own mother often told me “I never want to be a burden on you children.” Then she developed Alzheimer’s and a terminal thyroid cancer. I was asked if the family wanted her fed if she got worse. “Of course, if she needs it”, I responded. My mother should die from her condition, not from starvation and dehydration.

I never told the doctors her comment about not wanting to be a burden because she wasn’t a burden. Mom died shortly after she went to a nursing home for safety reasons and we spoon-fed her at the end. She had no pain, thanks to a short course of radiation and chemo that she tolerated. My last memory of my mother was her smiling and enjoying the attention of her family before she died in her sleep.

In 1990, 2 years after my mother’s death, Nancy Cruzan died after 12 long days without a feeding tube, even after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Missouri could require “clear and convincing evidence” that she would not want a feeding tube if she was in a “vegetative state.” At the time of the decision, there was no evidence of this.

However, Nancy’s parents later returned to a Missouri court with some of Nancy’s former co-workers who testified that they recalled her saying she would never want to live “like a vegetable.”

Three years later in a letter published in the Journal of the American Medical Association by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the future architects of Obamacare, acknowledged that this “proof” of Nancy Cruzan’s alleged statement rested only on “fairly vague and insubstantial comments to other people.”

However and most disturbing, he also wrote that:

“…increasingly it will be our collective determination as to what lives are worth living that will decide how incompetent patients are treated. We need to begin to articulate and justify these collective determinations.” The American Journal of Medicine January 1993 Volume 94 p. 115.

CONCLUSION

As a hospice and critical care nurse, I strove to make sure dying patients and their families had a good death, either in a hospital or other institution or at home.

Personally, my husband and I also made a careful durable power of attorney document that only designates each other as our decision maker with the right to make decisions about our care rather than signing a “living will” to refuse potential future treatments or set possible future conditions like dementia where we would want treatment stopped or withheld. Instead, we want all current options, risks and benefits of treatment fully explained to the decision maker based on the current condition.

I also encourage people to check out information sites like the Healthcare Advocacy and Leadership organization (I am an advisor) and magazines like “Informed-A Guide for Critical Medical Decisions” which has sections explaining ventilators, CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation), feeding tubes, use and misuse of opioids and sedatives as well as other end of life considerations.

Death is a journey we all will take someday. Especially in today’s world, we should protect ourselves and our loved ones by trying to ensure a truly good death.

Editor’s note. This appears on Nancy’s blog and is reposted with permission.

The post “Dying Well” or scare tactics? appeared first on NRL News Today.

Categories
Blog Born-Alive Survivors of Abortion Legislation

Pro-Abortion Senate Democrats Block Bill to Protect Born-Alive Survivors of Abortion

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Senate today voted 53-44 to advance the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (S. 130) sponsored by Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), but pro-abortion Democrats, in a near-party-line-vote, blocked the bill from receiving the 60 votes necessary to move forward (“invoke cloture”). The bill would extend federal legal protection to babies who are born alive during an abortion.

“Today we saw the extremism of the abortion industry’s agenda on full display,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “The 44 members of the United States Senate who voted against this bill now need to explain to their constituents why they believe abortion is such an absolute ‘right’ that it protects what amounts to infanticide: willfully withholding life-saving care from a born-alive infant.”

Senate action on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act comes on the heels of 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.

“Thanks to the governors of New York and Virginia, and 44 pro-abortion Democrat Senators, the extreme pro-abortion agenda has been laid bare for all to see,” Tobias added. “They believe it should be legal to kill unborn babies, for absolutely any reason, at any time up to and including the moment of their birth, and even in the moments after they are born.”

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: www.nrlc.org/federal/bornaliveinfants

The post Pro-Abortion Senate Democrats Block Bill to Protect Born-Alive Survivors of Abortion appeared first on NRL News Today.

Categories
Blog Born-Alive Survivors of Abortion Legislation

Pro-Abortion Senate Democrats Block Bill to Protect Born-Alive Survivors of Abortion

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Senate today voted 53-44 to advance the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (S. 130) sponsored by Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), but pro-abortion Democrats, in a near-party-line-vote, blocked the bill from receiving the 60 votes necessary to move forward (“invoke cloture”). The bill would extend federal legal protection to babies who are born alive during an abortion.

“Today we saw the extremism of the abortion industry’s agenda on full display,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “The 44 members of the United States Senate who voted against this bill now need to explain to their constituents why they believe abortion is such an absolute ‘right’ that it protects what amounts to infanticide: willfully withholding life-saving care from a born-alive infant.”

Senate action on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act comes on the heels of 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.

“Thanks to the governors of New York and Virginia, and 44 pro-abortion Democrat Senators, the extreme pro-abortion agenda has been laid bare for all to see,” Tobias added. “They believe it should be legal to kill unborn babies, for absolutely any reason, at any time up to and including the moment of their birth, and even in the moments after they are born.”

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: www.nrlc.org/federal/bornaliveinfants

The post Pro-Abortion Senate Democrats Block Bill to Protect Born-Alive Survivors of Abortion appeared first on NRL News Today.

Categories
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.”

SELF-IDENTIFICATION

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.

Categories
Blog New York Ultrasound

Pro-Life group will show live ultrasound in NY Times Square

By Texas Right to Life

The Pro-Life, Christian group, Focus on the Family has announced a plan to show the world that, without a doubt, a child in the womb is a living human being. The group is calling the campaign SEE LIFE CLEARLY, and the 12-week national campaign will culminate with a Pro-Life event in Times Square on May 4 that will include live-streaming 4-D ultrasounds on marquees in the heart of New York City.

According to the Christian Post, Focus on the Family says the campaign is “our bold and determined response to the heartbreaking New York legislation that endorses later-term abortion and the Virginia governor’s shocking and unapologetic endorsement of infanticide.” In January, the nation was shocked by New York’s passage of sweeping anti-Life legislation that expanded late-term abortion.

The New York laws, some of the most anti-Life in the nation, include allowing abortion at any stage of pregnancy for reasons related to the “health” of the mother. This deceptive terminology means that the woman’s physical or mental health, as evaluated by the abortionist, can be the reason for an abortion, which means that effectively abortions can be justified at any stage of pregnancy for virtually any reason.

The inhumane legislation means that now babies born alive in an attempted abortion in New York have no protection under the law and can be left to die without consequences for the abortionist or medical personnel involved.

Additionally, the law removes penalties for taking the life of a preborn child under any circumstances. The nation looked on in horror as a man who murdered his girlfriend and her preborn child was not charged for the death of the baby his girlfriend died trying to protect.

In response to the barbarity of these anti-Life laws, the Focus on the Family campaign is aimed at simply and irrefutably showing the world that the child in the womb is a human being deserving of the Right to Life. Writing about the campaign and the reaction thus far, Jim Daly, president of Focus on the Family said, “There has been a collective moral outcry – even from people who have been otherwise apathetic to the issue of abortion. It’s as if in a single voice the public has said, ‘Enough is enough!’”

Times Square has significance because of the anti-Life laws in New York, but also because the iconic public place is representative of our nation. Daly writes, “It’s the perfect location. Times Square is known as “The Crossroads of the World,” and we’re at a crossroad as a nation regarding life.”

Ultrasound technology has changed the abortion conversation in our nation. No longer can abortion activists claim that the baby in the womb is a “clump of cells” or a “parasite.” We all know this is a baby. As Daly said in an interview with CBN News, “And with the 4-D technology that we have, it looks like a picture of a 1-year-old.” He added, “There is no way a person is going to be able to say, ‘That is not a child.’ It is a child and we want everybody to see it.”

Appearing with Daly on Fox News, Senator Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska) voiced his disapproval of the anti-Life New York laws saying, “The reality is, what New York did is try to strip protections from babies right up until the moment of birth and then they went out and they said let’s celebrate this and light up the World Trade Center in pink lights.” He explained, “The pro-life movement is pro-compassion, it’s pro-baby, it’s pro-mom, and it’s pro-science.”

The Pro-Life movement is indeed one of compassion, for both preborn babies and for women. Every abortion ends a unique human Life. Abortions committed against babies who can undeniably feel pain and who are developed enough even to survive on their own outside the womb are particularly disturbing for almost all Americans. Women at every stage of pregnancy deserve to know that a preborn baby is a living human being.

The Focus on the Family campaign to broadcast to the world the faces of the preborn is a simple and powerful way to silence the anti-Life rhetoric about “choice” and “empowerment.” Although pro-abortion politicians lit towers in New York pink celebrating euphemisms like so-called “women’s rights” (by which they mean elective abortion on-demand), the faces of the preborn who will appear in Times Square on May 4 require no euphemisms or explanation.

The post Pro-Life group will show live ultrasound in NY Times Square appeared first on NRL News Today.

Categories
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 [https://www.facebook.com/adoptedlife1/videos/vb.2310438558986664/336643756950168/?type=2&theater] and share it widely.

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

Categories
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.

Categories
Abortion Blog Ireland

Leading Irish hospital makes willingness to do abortions a condition of employment

By Michael Cook

Dublin’s National Maternity Hospital

Only doctors who are willing to perform abortions will be considered for two consultant posts at Dublin’s National Maternity Hospital (NMH). The hospital is advertising for a consultant anesthetist and a consultant in obstetrics and gynaecology.

According to a statement from the NMH the positions include the “provision of termination-of-pregnancy services, and are for individuals willing to contribute to the provision of these services.”

A source at the hospital told the Irish Times that conscientious objection guidelines for existing staff would remain as they were before.

Baroness Nuala O’Loan, of Northern Ireland, recently warned that the Republic would be entering “uncharted territory” if it made willingness to perform abortions a condition of employment. What if doctors changed their mind, feeling in conscience that they could no longer participate in abortions, she asked.

After a referendum last year which allowed abortion to be legalised, Ireland is expanding its services quickly to provide abortions. The health department’s budget provides €7 million in funding for abortion services this year and €12 million in 2020.

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

The post Leading Irish hospital makes willingness to do abortions a condition of employment appeared first on NRL News Today.