Life Advocacy Briefing

September 10, 2012

Calls Needed Urgently / Embracing the ‘A’ Word at the DNC / Quoteworthy
Reality Dawning? / Court Ignores Statute to OK Embryo Experiments
Texas’s Defunding of Planned Parenthood Upheld, for Now
Surprised? Abortion Riskier than Childbirth / Reminder of the Record

Calls Needed Urgently

CONGRESS RETURNS THIS WEEK, and that means the US Senate could, any time now, take up a vote to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

We urge our readers to call both homestate US Senators (1-202/224-3121) and ask them to vote “no” on the UN Disability Rights Treaty.

The treaty has deep implications for the cause of Life, as we reported last week, and for the sovereignty of the people of the United States.


Embracing the ‘A’ Word at the D.N.C.

AMONG THE SPEAKERS FOR ABORTION CELEBRATION NIGHT at the Democratic National Convention last Tuesday was Nancy Keenan, president of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). It was not her first DNC appearance; she addressed delegates also at the 2008 convention, notes Americans United for Life (AUL) president Charmaine Yoest PhD in a commentary published by National Review Online.

In 2008, Dr. Yoest notes, Ms. Keenan “attempted to appeal to moderates and fence-sitters on the abortion issue. She talked about unplanned pregnancy prevention, sex education and supporting women who choose an adoption plan for their unborn children.”

But at this year’s convention, the woolen gloves were off. “[Ms.] Keenan came right out of the gate,” writes Dr. Yoest, “with the boast: ‘We believe in the right to choose a safe, legal abortion, with dignity and privacy.’’ We note a couple of oxymorons in that statement; abortion is not “safe” no matter how often the courts insist it is “legal.” And, sad to say, there is little “dignity” in a mother subjecting her own child to an abortion.

Dr. Yoest raises also Ms. Keenan’s declaration “that ‘a woman considering an abortion should not be forced to have an ultrasound against her will’” – though ultrasound legislation is aimed at requiring the abortionist to give their customers an option of viewing the ultrasound, not at “forcing” the mother to do anything against her will.

The AUL president notes that Ms. Keenan’s ultrasound opposition “got little applause. Perhaps,” Dr. Yoest writes, “that’s because nearly half of Democrats support ultrasound legislation, along with many other commonsense restrictions.” Ultrasound legislation is mere common sense, notes Dr. Yoest, yet, she writes, “Opposition to [it] is a key plank of the ‘pro-woman’ platform.”

Dr. Yoest ends her commentary with a delicious ironic twist. “My favorite line of the night?” she writes. “‘I know this President,’” said Ms. Keenan. “‘And I can tell you that he cares deeply about the next generation of women in this country; his daughters, all of our daughters.’ The irony of abortion supporters professing their concern for the next generation,” notes Dr. Yoest, “never gets old.”



Former US Rep. Bart Stupak at a Democrats for Life event in Charlotte, NC, on Sept. 4, transcribed from a RedStateTV video posted on the Internet: “I am perplexed and disappointed that, having negotiated the Executive Order with the President, not only does the HHS mandate violate the Executive Order but it also violates statutory law. … I think it’s illegal.”


Reality Dawning?

THE OVER-THE-CLIFF ABORTION RADICALISM OF THE DEMOCRATS at their national convention is causing veteran journalists to wring their hands in public and has stimulated almost as much chatter as the media’s over-the-top pouncing on pro-life elements of the recently concluded Republican convention.

One of the fretting journalists last week was Margaret Carlson, a veteran reporter now writing commentaries for Bloomberg news service. Parts of her thinking-aloud piece on how far the Democrats were tilting are noteworthy, especially considering the source.

Noting that the phrase “‘Abortion should be safe, legal and rare’” (D-Clinton) “was in the 2004 [platform] but not in 2008’s or this year’s,” Ms. Carlson asks, “Can’t Democrats just throw a crumb to the many millions who are pro-choice but not pro-abortion?”

Acknowledging the glee with which Democrats had yelled “extremism” in response to Republican declarations, Ms. Carlson states, “Democrats have gone too far in the other direction, threatening their hold on the great American middle.”

Though we disagree with Ms. Carlson’s abortion viewpoint, we are pleased by her recognition of how radical current American abortion policy is under the Roe v. Wade edict. “Over the years,” she writes, “Roe’s legal framework has been eroded by loopholes large enough for an eight-month pregnant teenager to walk through. The ‘health-of-the-mother’ exception that enables abortions after viability takes into account psychological health. What 16-year-old wouldn’t be psychologically destabilized by an accidental pregnancy? … The health-of-the-mother exception is vast,” she writes, “encompassing age, emotional, familial and state-of-mind factors broad enough to include virtually any woman in any circumstances.”

We at Life Advocacy Resource Project have made the same point to pro-life candidates participating in our Winning with Life communicator coaching seminar. It is key to understanding the Mack-truck-sized loophole which “health-of-the-mother” language rips open.

We find it interesting that Ms. Carlson almost directly quotes the Supreme Court’s Doe v. Bolton ruling on medical factors “justifying” abortion – including all the way to the unborn child’s birth – even while claiming that Roe has “eroded” into such a legal situation. Doe was handed down the same day in 1973 as Roe; the 1973 Supreme Court meant to be this radical all along. What we see in Ms. Carlson’s discomfort with the latitude allowed in the “health” loophole is a liberal rationalizing her embrace of Roe while wanting to distance herself from the “health” excuse.

But that’s okay. If reality is dawning on Ms. Carlson, we’ll take her awakening even a little at a time, especially when she discovers logic in her musings before a broad national audience. May her verbal gulps move many of her readers to glimpse the same light. When someone of Margaret Carlson’s prestige within the mainstream media muses such questions aloud, we may be closer than we think to victory for Life.


Court Ignores Statute to OK Embryo Experiments

THE D.C. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REINFORCED its liberal reputation in late August with a ruling permitting the Obama Regime to continue forcing taxpayers to underwrite lethal experiments on embryonic human beings for the sake of an elusive fix for human maladies. The ruling was handed down despite an existing statute, known as the Dickey/Wicker Amendment, barring such funding.

“Americans should not be forced to pay for experiments that destroy human life, have produced no real-world treatments and violate federal law,” declared Steven H. Aden, senior counsel to the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF, formerly known as Alliance Defense Fund). “That [Dickey/Wicker] law’s clear intent has been utterly ignored.

“Congress designed that law,” noted Mr. Aden in an ADF news release, “so that Americans don’t pay any more precious taxpayer dollars for needless research made irrelevant by adult stemcell and other research. In the current economic climate,” he said, “it makes even less sense for the Obama Administration to use taxpayer money for this illegal and unethical purpose.”

The policy can yet be reversed by voters on Nov. 6.


Texas’s Defunding of Planned Parenthood Upheld, for Now

PLANNED PARENTHOOD LOST BIG in mid-August in their bid to restore Texas state funding for their empire despite a state law barring abortion purveyors from state funding under “a health program for low-income women,” reports Will Weissert for the Associated Press. The federally aided state program, reports AP, “is designed to provide services to women who might not otherwise qualify for Medicaid.”

Texas had appealed a federal district court ruling forcing taxpayers to keep funding Planned Parenthood while the lawsuit challenging the cutoff proceeds. A trial on the underlying lawsuit is scheduled for October.

Thanks to the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, Texas can maintain its funding ban while the case is heard.

In filing the lawsuit, Planned Parenthood claimed, reports AP, “the new Texas law violated its rights to free speech. Texas Atty. General Greg Abbott countered by arguing that lawmakers may decide which organizations receive state funds. … The three-judge appellate panel,” writes Mr. Weissert, “unanimously [found] that Planned Parenthood was unlikely to prevail in future arguments that its free-speech rights were violated.”

“At stake,” according to Texas Alliance for Life executive director Joe Pojman, quoted by, “is an estimated 17 million tax dollars per year for Planned Parenthood. … ‘We applaud the federal court’s decision to allow Texas to withhold tax dollars from Planned Parenthood,’” said Mr. Pojman, quoted by LifeSiteNews, “‘the state’s largest provider and promoter of abortion as a method of family planning.’”

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) issued a statement, notes Mr. Weissert, “call[ing the] ruling ‘a win for Texas women, our rule of law and our state’s priority to protect life.’”

Planned Parenthood Action Fund president Cecile Richards, reports AP, called the ruling “‘shocking.’”


Surprised? Abortion Riskier than Childbirth

ONE OF THE FALLACIES PROPAGATED ENDLESSLY by the abortion gang is that abortion is “safer” statistically than childbirth. Abortion mongers deploy this myth principally in third-world countries (where abortion continues to be taboo, for the most part) and in UN-promulgated fantasies, but the claque sometimes puts it out even here in America, where folks should respond with disbelief but where too many of our fellow citizens are so media-focused as to be oblivious even to the reality around them.

Now comes a study of 463,473 women from Denmark, documented over a 30-year period, reports Hilary White for, showing “that the risk of death following a first-trimester abortion is significantly increased compared to women delivering [from] a first pregnancy.

“The risk is considerably higher for abortion after 12 weeks gestation,” writes Ms. White, “from 331% after one year to 141% after a decade. Death rates associated with natural childbirth were lower than those associated with all three types of pregnancy loss in every year. The study,” she writes, “showed a significantly higher rate of death associated with later abortions than for natural birth for every time period over one year.”

The examination was conducted by David C. Reardon of the Elliot Institute and Priscilla K. Coleman of Bowling Green (OH) State University’s Dept. of Human Development & Family Studies, reports Ms. White, “look[ing] at medical and death records for the entire female population of Denmark born between 1962 and 1991 and who were alive in 1980.”


Reminder of the Record

From Sept. 4, 2012, End of Day Report by Gary Bauer, president, Campaign for Working Families

As an Illinois state senator:

  • Barack Obama twice voted “Present” – essentially “No” – on legislation to ban the gruesome late-term procedure known as partial-birth abortion. 68% of Americans supported legislation to ban partial-birth abortions. But not Barack Obama.
  • Obama twice voted “Present” on legislation requiring parental notification for abortions. 71% of Americans support parent consent legislation. But not Barack Obama.
  • Obama voted “Present” – meaning “No” – three times on legislation requiring that babies who survived abortions receive immediate medical treatment. Such legislation is so uncontroversial that even the pro-abortion group NARAL did not oppose it. But Barack Obama did. Refusing medical treatment for babies born alive – that’s extreme!

As a United States Senator:

  • Voted to increase taxpayer-funded spending on contraception by $100 million.
  • Voted to provide taxpayer funding to organizations that provide and promote abortion overseas.
  • Voted to filibuster the nomination of pro-life Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.
  • Voted to provide taxpayer funding of life-destroying embryonic stemcell research.
  • Voted against legislation that sought to prevent the transportation of minor girls by non-relatives across state lines for abortion.
  • Co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act, which would have declared abortion a “fundamental right” and repealed pro-life state laws, including parental notification, waiting periods and ultrasound laws.

As President:

  • Appointed NARAL’s legal director Dawn Johnsen to be an Asst. Attorney General.
  • Appointed Ellen Moran, executive director of EMILY’s List, to be White House Communications Director.
  • Appointed Melody Barnes, a former board member of EMILY’s List and Planned Parenthood, to be Director of the White House Office of Domestic Policy.
  • Issued an executive order repealing the Mexico City Policy, thereby allowing taxpayer funding of organizations that promote and provide abortions overseas. Only 35% of Americans support spending tax dollars to provide abortions overseas.
  • Issued an executive order repealing conscience clause protections for doctors and nurses who do not want to be forced to perform abortions. 77% of Americans oppose forcing medical professionals to participate in procedures or practices that violate their values.
  • Appointed pro-abortion Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.
  • Appointed pro-abortion Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.
  • Signed ObamaCare, which includes funding for abortions. 56% of likely voters want Obamacare repealed.
  • Is using ObamaCare to force religious institutions to pay for procedures and services that violate their values. Only 36% of Americans believe churches and religious institutions should be forced to pay for contraception and abortion-inducing drugs in violation of their core values.
  • Opposed legislation to ban abortions performed solely because of the baby’s sex. 77% of Americans support a ban on sex-selection abortions.
  • Vice President Joe Biden refused to “second-guess,” much less condemn, China’s brutal one-child policy, through which the Communist government has forced many women to have abortions against their will.