Life Advocacy Briefing

Mrs. Clinton on the Record

WHEN DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE HILLARY CLINTON APPEARED on NBC’s “Meet the Press” a week ago, she was asked two direct questions on her abortion posture, and the transcript of the exchange, reported by Pam Key for Breitbart.com, shows a mindless approach phrased in a way that is especially odd for one who claims to have worked as a lawyer. (At least she does not claim to have “taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago,” like the man she is seeking to succeed!)

Asked by interviewer Chuck Todd for her “‘straightforward position on the issue of abortion’” and quoted by Ms. Key, Mrs. Clinton claimed: “‘My position is in line with Roe v. Wade, that women have a constitutional right to make these moment [sic] intimate and personal and difficult decisions based on their conscience, their faith, their family, their doctor. And that is something that really goes to the core of privacy. And I want to maintain that constitutional protection,’” she said. “‘Under Roe v. Wade, as you know,’” she added, “‘there is room for reasonable kinds of restrictions after a certain point in time. I think the life, the health of the mother are clear. And those should be included even as one moves on in pregnancy. So I have been – I’ve had the same position for many years.’”

(In the above quote, as is typical of wild-west-abortion advocates, Mrs. Clinton ignores the Doe v. Bolton companion decision handed down with Roe to clarify that “medical factors” excusing the abortionist from accountability include emotional and psychological factors and such situational questions as “familial” factors and “the woman’s age,” rendering abortion-on-demand lethally legal throughout the nine months of a baby’s gestation.)

Then comes Mrs. Clinton’s truly noteworthy slip, in response to Mr. Todd’s “‘When or if does an unborn child have constitutional rights?’”

Said Mrs. Clinton, quoted by Breitbart News: “‘Well, under our laws currently, that is not something that exists. The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.’” She goes on with boiler-plate pro-abortion babble, but we’ll end the quote here to note: This vaunted champion of “abortion rights” called a developing little preborn child “‘the unborn person.’” Note especially the term “person,” as the Constitution expressly guarantees to every “person” the right to life. It was the Supreme Court’s refusal, in Roe and Doe, to acknowledge the personhood of the unborn child that Justice Harry Blackmun used to circumvent the actual, written Constitutional guarantees. And the Court acknowledged at the time that if the personhood of the unborn child could be shown, the Roe edict would fall of its own weight.

Here is the relevant passage from the 5th Amendment to the Constitution: “… nor shall any person … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” And again, from the 14th Amendment: “… nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

No wonder the Supreme Court acknowledged in 1973 that Roe/Doe could not stand if the personhood of the unborn child could be established.

And here is attorney Mrs. Clinton referring to the developing child as “the unborn person.” Why, Mrs. Clinton, given the clear words of the 5th and 14th Amendments, written to reflect the Declaration of Independence in its expression of the God-given right to Life, does “the unborn person” not have “constitutional rights?”

But Mrs. Clinton’s revelation of extremism was not even confined to the NBC appearance. A day later, she appeared on the notorious female-focused daytime discussion program “The View” and was asked a surprisingly probing question by co-host Paula Faris in an exchange later reported by former Reagan domestic policy chief Gary Bauer in his April 6 End of Day Memo for the Campaign for Working Families.

“[Ms.] Faris: ‘I want to ask you about some comments that you made over the weekend on “Meet the Press.” You said, quote, “the unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.” My question is, at what point does someone have constitutional rights, and are you saying that a child on its due date, just hours before delivery, still has no constitutional rights?’

“[Mrs.] Clinton: ‘Under our law that is the case, Paula. I support Roe v. Wade because I think it is an important – an important statement about the importance of a woman making this most difficult decision with consultation by whom she chooses: her doctor, her faith, her family. And under the law and under certainly that decision, that is the way we structure it.’

“Just to be clear,” comments Mr. Bauer, “Hillary Clinton is saying that a baby hours from being delivered could be aborted under Roe v. Wade, and she supports that. Hillary Clinton is pro-abortion until the moment of birth. Only a small percentage of voters – including women – would agree with that extreme position.”

Dismemberment Ban Goes to Governor

A BILL TO BAN DISMEMBERMENT ABORTIONS HAS PASSED both houses of the Mississippi legislature and is being submitted to Gov. Phil Bryant (R) for his signature.

The bill originated in the House, whose members voted 85-to-32 last Tuesday to accept Senate amendments; initial House passage was on an 83-to-33 roll call in February. The Senate approved the measure in late March by a vote of 40 to 6.

Dismemberment abortions – termed the “dilation & evacuation (D&E)” method by the abortion industry – are by far the most common form of abortion procedure employed in the killing of babies who are in the second trimester of their development.

What? Planned Parenthood May Have Violated Federal Law?

THE NEBRASKA STATE AUDITOR IS THE LATEST STATE OFFICIAL TO UNCOVER improprieties on the part of Planned Parenthood, according to a LifeSiteNews.com report by Ben Johnson.

“Taxpayers may have spent more than $19,000 on illegal abortions at Planned Parenthood facilities in Nebraska in the last year alone,” writes Mr. Johnson, who adds findings in a 341-page report by Auditor Charlie Janssen that “more than 98% of all family planning dollars the office inspected lacked proper substantiation.”

The auditor’s “investigative team found,” reports LifeSiteNews, “that the state Planned Parenthood affiliate had illegally billed federal Title X [Ten] family planning services – which is supposed to pay for contraception, STDs and breast and cervical cancer screenings – for performing abortions instead.”

Language included in the federal Title X statute, notes Mr. Johnson, “states that ‘none of the funds appropriated under this title shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.’” That language appears to be violated every time Planned Parenthood receives a cent of Title X funding, and in Nebraska, at least, it appears to be violated flagrantly via payment for abortion costs themselves. Could this be happening elsewhere, do you suppose?

Measurable Beneficial Effect

PARENTAL NOTIFICATION LEGISLATION HAS BEEN INSTALLED in many states for so long that its effect may be difficult to measure. But new figures out of Illinois have once more confirmed the life-saving value of such initiatives.

Illinois’s Parental Notification Act dates back to 1995, but the will of the legislature was stymied through court challenges – and political complicity of the state’s Attorney General with the abortion lobby – for nearly two decades. Consequently, 2014 figures released at Christmastime by the state’s Public Health Department offer yet more proof of the strategy’s efficacy.

The 2014 data represent the first full year of the Parental Notification Act’s implementation, and they show, according to the Chicago-based Mauck & Baker law firm quoted by IllinoisReview.com, “the abortion rate for minors fell by nearly 28% from the year prior, representing over 500 lives. …

“‘This precipitous drop occurred in the first full year that the Illinois Parental Notification Act of 1995 went into effect,’ the [law] firm said in a press release,” notes Illinois Review. “‘The law requires abortion clinics to simply notify parents 48 hours in advance of when their minor daughters are seeking to have an abortion. Both the law and medicine agree,’” commented the firm, “‘that the health and well-being of minors are best served when their parents and guardians can help them with such weighty and life-altering decisions. …

“‘Minors are best served when they are fully informed and can benefit from their parents’ wisdom and support,’ says Richard Baker of Mauck & Baker,” quoted by Illinois Review. “‘Each young girl is important. Parents are important. And each unborn life is important,’” he asserted.

Goliath Goes After David Again

Commentary by Family Research Council president Tony Perkins in his April 6, 2016, FRC Action Update

Planned Parenthood has kept its head down these last few weeks, but the organization is plenty busy behind the scenes. In the back-and-forth with Center for Medical Progress’s (CMP) David Daleiden, Cecile Richards’s group is using every weapon at its disposal to put the baby organ trafficking scandal behind it – including California Attorney General Kamala Harris. The candidate for [US] Senate is apparently responsible for this week’s raid on Daleiden’s apartment and the seizure of all his undercover video footage. A hard-core abortion supporter (who was financially supported by Planned Parenthood and has “Stand with Planned Parenthood” on her campaign website), Harris is repaying Richards by trying to muzzle the organization’s biggest threat: a pro-lifer with hours and hours of damning evidence about the group’s dark business of selling baby body parts.

“Ironically, while seizing my First Amendment work product,” Daleiden said, “they ignored documents showing the illicit scheme between StemExpress and Planned Parenthood,” he said. “This is no surprise – Planned Parenthood’s bought-and-paid-for [Attorney General] has steadfastly refused to enforce the law against the baby-body-parts traffickers in our state, or even investigate them – while at the same time doing their bidding to harass and intimidate citizen journalists.” The Left’s double standard is astounding. Any other whistleblower would have been hailed a hero, but because abortion is the liberals’ Holy Grail, officials like Harris are more than willing to use the heavy handedness of government against anyone who challenges it.

Did government officials search the home of the animal rights activist who invaded a slaughterhouse to highlight the mistreatment of pigs in Minnesota? Of course not. Instead, USDA rushed out a statement pledging to investigate. “The actions depicted in the video under review are completely unacceptable, and if we can verify the video’s authenticity, we will aggressively investigate the case and take appropriate action.”

David Daleiden’s videos were about children – innocent unborn children who were inhumanely harvested and sold for their pieces. And yet, he is the hunted.

Thank goodness for House Republicans, who refuse to let Planned Parenthood’s horrors and injustices go on. Their investigations wouldn’t have been possible without the citizen journalism of CMP. It’s time to stand up against these atrocities! On April 23, you can do exactly that by joining #ProtestPP – the first annual nationwide protest at Planned Parenthood facilities nationwide. For more details, check out the website: http://protestpp.com/.

Shedding Light to Open Minds

July 29, 2015, BreakPoint commentary by Eric Metaxas

[Previously, I have] talked about the now-infamous video of Planned Parenthood’s medical director discussing the sale of fetal body parts by that organization. Of course, Planned Parenthood denies that they traffic in body parts and insist that they are only being compensated for “processing” and “transportation.”

This claim that biotech firms are just paying for “shipping and handling” is belied by a subsequent video that shows yet another Planned Parenthood official haggling over the prices of these body parts.

No doubt Planned Parenthood and its apologists will insist that pro-lifers are making much ado about nothing. They’ll recycle comparisons to surgery, childbirth and other “gross” medical procedures and assure America that “there’s nothing to see here.”

If there’s “nothing to see here” and nothing out-of-the-ordinary, then I have a suggestion. Let us take a look. After all, as abortion rights advocates never tire of telling us, abortion, even late-term ones, are legal in the United States. So it is not as though they’re incriminating themselves.

Likewise, if it’s just a “medical procedure” no different than other medical procedures that are televised and which people can watch, why not give people an opportunity to watch or not watch an abortion?

So, Planned Parenthood, go ahead and film an abortion and let the American people see it. All we’re doing is asking for transparency, especially since our tax dollars go to support your organization. While you supposedly can’t spend federal dollars directly on abortions of any kind, let alone late-terms abortion, our tax dollars help keep Planned Parenthood afloat. So why not let Americans see what their tax dollars make possible?

Again, if there’s nothing to see, then let us see the “nothing.”

Or maybe that makes the people at Planned Parenthood uncomfortable. Maybe that’s because people would actually see what it looks like to kill a living baby in utero. And the more people know about what actually happens in an abortion clinic, the less supportive they become of America’s hideous abortion regime.

This truth was summed up recently by columnist Charles Krauthammer. Writing about the Planned Parenthood videos, he said, “The advent of ultrasound has coincided with a remarkable phenomenon: Of the major social issues, abortion is the only one that has not moved toward increasing liberalization. While the legalization of drugs, the redefinition of marriage and other assertions of individual autonomy have advanced, … abortion attitudes have remained largely static.”

That’s because ultrasound makes it impossible to deny the humanity of the unborn child and the savagery of abortion. It forces people to confront what is being “chosen” and at whose expense.

Speaking of ultrasound, I’m reasonably certain that Planned Parenthood remembers the story of Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the co-founder of NARAL, whose own experience with ultrasound led to his conversion to both the pro-life cause and Christianity.

His 1984 film “The Silent Scream” is credited with winning many converts to the pro-life cause. Having witnessed the impact of that little bit of transparency, I suspect that Planned Parenthood isn’t likely to volunteer for more.

That being the case, the least they can do is to stop insisting that “there’s nothing to see here.” There is. It’s just that their business model depends on us not looking.

[www.centerformedicalprogress.org]