Archive for the ‘abortion alternatives’ Category

baby finger hand (2)Andrea Grimes, writing at RH reality check, a pro-abortion blog, has issued a clarion call to forestall a Texas proposal that would require three hours of adoption counseling prior to any abortion. Her plan? Undermine pro-lifers’ “hold” on the issue by “exposing” adoption as a corrupt, woman-coercing, money-making cartel!

But to come up with such a counter-factual, counter-intuitive slur, Grimes must set up several egregiously false claims:

  • that adoption “is not an alternative to abortion, but rather an alternative to parenting”; and
  • that adoption victimizes both the mother and child.

The first premise is artificial—that “pregnant people” [her absurd term] are either pro-death or pro-life, and, if the latter, are deciding between parenting and adoption. But those struggling with a ‘problematic’ pregnancy are not so easily pegged, and can change course after reflection. Grimes gives no source for the “research” she claims that women open to adoption “never considered abortion as a viable option.”

Then Grimes asserts that the proposal for pre-abortion adoption counseling ”would serve predominantly to detain, and perhaps shame, pregnant people who are already in a time crunch.” But far from ‘shaming’ women, the great majority of women facing unanticipated or ‘problematic’ pregnancies would be empowered by facts, such as accurate information about support systems, maternity homes, and adoption options.

Grimes announces that adoption leaves parents and adoptees with “complicated and mixed emotions about their experience…[and] not unilaterally the joyful exploration of loving kindness.. heroism and bravery.” Well, no duh.

She maliciously paints adoption facilitators and supporters as suppressing or denying such totally expected after-effects. Why? You guessed it–for the greater goal of profit and/or religious ideology.

This is untrue and unfair, but not unsurprising given that Grimes’ target audience of “reproductive justice” advocates frame all issues as battles against patriarchy, capitalism, and Christian fanaticism.

The heart of Grimes’ call-to-action is this very self-satisfying pronouncement:

“[A]ccusations leveled at the so-called abortion industry by anti-choice reproductive rights opponents—specifically, that coercive ‘abortionists’ are solely interested in creating and maintaining demand for their services for the singular purpose of making money off hoodwinked and/or ignorant clientele—could be aptly applied to the largely unregulated domestic and international adoption industry.“

Whereas the self-serving, coercive claims against abortion are true, Grimes’ allegations of a coercive adoption cartel remain just that—allegations without actual cases cited. And the tactic is stated—to attack pro-lifers by associating us with adoption agencies which she has demonized.

Let’s not forget that adoption is not a “political weapon” for pro-lifers. It is a practical remedy for the situation of a child not born into a welcoming family who will otherwise be killed by abortion.

Read Full Post »

Gallup poll findings this week showed a range of Americans opinions on abortions: all should be legal (25%), ‘most’ should be legal (13%) only ‘few’ should be legal (39%) and all should be illegal (20%).

In the previous post, it was asserted that the 13% wishing to preserve ‘most’ abortions can be a convenient middle ground position to answer a pollster, but that such a conviction is not evidenced as a guiding premise in letters to the editor or in testimony for abortion legislation.

Perhaps there do exist people who consistently believe legal abortion to be a good thing, but are so disturbed at the existence of one facet (like partial-birth abortion) that they identify themselves to pollsters as the 13% wishing to preserve ‘most’ abortion. But that is open for speculation since Gallup never asks what abortions the 13% don’t want to be legal.

Similarly, what are the ‘few’ abortions acceptable for those 39% in the poll who want abortion illegal with reservations?   While not specified by Gallup, legislative battles nationwide over the past decades have shown the major “exceptions” that pro-life advocates have tolerated:

  • the mother’s life is threatened,
  • rape/incest caused the pregnancy,
  • the unborn child is diagnosed with medical problems.

Twenty years ago these three situations held greater weight during debate toward achieving legislative consensus, today they no longer (more…)

Read Full Post »

Kansas pro-lifers could never have imagined that our state interactive website showing pre-natal development videos would achieve 10,000 hits—let alone in one month!

But that happened in September, and, coupled with a state-wide increase in the number of free, life-affirming crisis pregnancy and adoption centers, makes for a great Respect Life Month in Kansas.

While opponents have taken to the courts to try to stop new constitutional laws regulating abortion clinics and health insurance, they cannot prevent

24/7 access via smart phone or computer to the best scientific information on life in the womb.

When you open http://www.womansrighttoknow.org/ you see a tiny 6-week unborn baby with an actively-beating heart.   This is the informed consent site managed by the state, with a 24-hour hotline.  Prior to any Kansas abortion, the mother must sign that, 24 hours earlier, she accessed the state-prepared information in written form or on this website.

But then check out the fascinating Prenatal Image Gallery.  This is the portal to day-by-day, high-resolution 4-D ultrasound (more…)

Read Full Post »

Door posting tells of Aug. 31 Lawrence PP closing

Now that the Planned Parenthood of Lawrence, near the University of Kansas (KU), quietly closed 9 weeks ago, Kansas is down to 3 abortion clinics–all in the northeast corner of the state.

The Lawrence PP street-mall facility was not licensed or inspected by the state.  It provided contraceptives and chemical abortions with no doctor onsite. The notice on the door attributes its closure to a “lack of need” and recommends the county and KU clinics as well as the PP clinic one-half-hour away.

Too many resident KU students went to this facility, instead of getting help from their family and connecting with sound pro-life physicians.   We recommend pregnant women of any age consult the Pregnancy Care Center of Lawrence, where they can obtain physician-reviewed ultrasounds and assistance for a variety of needs. (see this list for other centers across Kansas)

Kansas’ remaining abortion facilities are: (more…)

Read Full Post »

The pro-death agenda (rationing and abortion) in Obamacare cannot be justified, but the administration is hoping a grant program authorized in Sections 10211- 10214 might somehow magically erase that fact.

Unfortunately, Democrats for Life argue that providing a limited amount of support for pregnant women redeems Obamacare and those politicians who voted for it.

A surprise announcement Friday from the federal Health & Human services division(HHS) introduced a $25 million taxpayer-funded Pregnancy Assistance Fund to be funneled through universities, high schools, State Attorneys General offices and  “community organizations.”  The latter term –undefined–might easily include renovated ACORN groups or Planned Parenthood!  UPDATE July 12: Non-profit pregnancy centers cry Foul.

It is anticipated that up to 25 grants in the amounts of $500,000 – $2,000,000 per year will be awarded.  Obama-insiders like Planned Parenthood are undoubtedly well-prepared to apply for these grants, but it seems unlikely that our 72 Kansas non-profit pregnancy centers will be able to qualify on such short notice.  By Aug. 2, applicants have to submit a completed 25-page form (more…)

Read Full Post »

Will FTC & YellowPages outlaw pregnancy center ads?

The nationwide “war” on pro-life pregnancy assistance centers continues, spearheaded by the national abortion rights group, NARAL pro-choice America.  UPDATE July 27: women helped at these centers to visit Congress

NARAL president Nancy Keenan has announced she has sent 59,000 signatures to the main two Internet directories (YellowPages.com and SuperPages.com)  demanding they remove pregnancy center listings.

In an earlier email to supporters, Keenan had solicited the signatories, complaining about alleged internet fraud in that

pregnancy centers are “flooding the internet… to trick unsuspecting women…Their number one goal is to make women too guilty or scared to choose abortion by providing medical information that is inaccurate and manipulative.  We need a federal bill to put an end to [these]deceptive ads everywhere.”

Lifenews.com reports that Keenan is pushing the so-called Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act, filed by abortion supporters, New York Democrat Rep. Carolyn Maloney in the House, and New Jersey Democrat Sen. Robert  Menendez in the Senate.   Both versions would have the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) fine pregnancy centers for supposedly engaging in false advertising.  UPDATES: Pregnancy centers rebut deception charges here. And here. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Pandora's Box well-symbolizes The Pill's unmitigated problems

Recent blog posts here have discussed why tax monies should never go to Planned Parenthood, and specifically in Kansas, Title X “family planning” money.  We would prefer that all such money be used for disease screening and prenatal care, instead of contraceptive shots, devices and pills.

(Update June 14: Planned Parenthood’s stealth grab for more federal tax money.)

In every nation where contraception is increased, abortion has never decreased.  Sexually permissive, contraceptive-friendly “blue” states have significantly higher abortion rates than “red” states, according to data from both the Centers for Disease Control and the Guttmacher Institute (Planned Parenthood’s research arm).  That is because increased contraception does not reduce pregnancy:

  • 54% of abortion-seeking U.S. women were using  contraception when they became pregnant;
  • in the first year of contraceptive use, over 16% of teens will become pregnant;
  • 47% of cohabiting, contracepting teens will get pregnant;
  • increased access to contraception gives teens a false sense of security, leading to earlier onset of sexual activities, more sex partners and thus counteracting any intended reduction in pregnancy.

Princeton analyzed 23 studies conducted through 2006 to show if abortion rates and access to emergency contraception (“EC” or “morning-After” pills) are related.  Not even one study showed that EC reduced abortion.  Studies in UK and Sweden verify that increased promotion and distribution of EC and contraception has failed to lower (more…)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »