Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Media’ Category

Kris Neuhaus

Kris Neuhaus

Ex-Kansas abortionist Kris Neuhaus wants your pity (she sees herself as a martyr) and your money.

In a radio interview Thursday, she elaborated that she has lost her research job “without explanation” and has initiated a second online “fund-me“ campaign to raise $100,000.

Fed by adulation in multiple pro-abortion outlets where she has been termed a “hero-provider,” Neuhaus now insists (as in a press conference in April) that she be referred to as Dr. Neuhaus and bills herself as,

the first woman physician in Kansas to publicly provide abortion care, performing or consulting on over 10,000 procedures.”

Pro-life readers know that she was a failed abortionist who rubberstamped mental health “approvals” for late-term abortions for George Tiller from 1999-2007.

Her medical license was revoked in July 2012, but on appeal, was remanded to the State Board of Healing Arts in March 2014. The Board revoked the license again this January on the narrower complaint of record-keeping failure.

She is now appealing that second revocation.

Neuhaus touts herself as a martyr who lost her medical license unjustly in the pro-life administration of Gov. Sam Brownback due to her “affiliation with Dr. Tiller.”

In actuality, Neuhaus was charged in 2009— during the administration of pro-abortion Gov. Kathleen Sebelius– with violating record-keeping regulations and violating the standard of care for 11 teens obtaining late-term abortions in 2003 at Tiller’s Wichita clinic.

The state Healing Arts Board of Kansas in the past has twice deemed her “a danger to the public” and views her as defiant, self-righteous and “unable to be rehabilitated.”

Neuhaus has promised in the past she will never again do abortions, and claims to have attained a Master’s degree in Public Health at the University of Kansas, so why is she not employable? No answer to that.

In yesterday’s radio interview she said she is seeking public funding to help her afford the filing fees required to apply for medical licenses in other states. (Watchout, America!)

Eighteen months ago, her online campaign raised $63,000 –ostensibly to be used to save her home and pay her legal fees to the Board, at that time billed as $93,000. She has paid nothing to the Board and is protesting the reassessed costs of $31,000 she now owes.

Her husband is running another donation site to repay attorneys for their pro bono work on her behalf.

Neuhaus believes she deserves public support “to enable me to continue to oppose the dire state of women’s health care in Kansas, and to help expose the right-wing’s attempt to export this insanity to other states.”

Defiant and self-righteous seems an understatement.

Read Full Post »

stop dismembering posterWhen reporting about The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, the mainstream media typically refuses to include the law’s definition of what is banned--“the use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors or similar instruments [that], slice, crush or grasp a portion of the unborn child’s body in order to cut or rip it off.”

Without those details, the reader is more susceptible to the abortion industry claim that the law bans a ‘routine’ procedure that only pro-lifers believe is inhumane.

However, 37 years ago, one of the abortion industry’s own celebrated practitioners– Warren Hern of Boulder, Colorado– told colleagues about people who were disturbed by this particular method of abortion which (in his words) they “view as destructive and violent.”  Who were they? His own staff!

To unpack what Hern was acknowledging, it is first essential to establish that in a dismemberment abortion, the abortionist uses sharp metal tools to tear apart a living unborn child, piece by piece, while she is still inside her mother’s womb.

If just reading that sentence makes you squirm, imagine actually being in the room next to the surgical table and watching the abortionist repeatedly reach in and yank off baby parts and disrespectfully drop them onto a tray.

Or imagine being the employee whose job it is to visually examine each bloody piece and keep track until the entire baby has been reassembled on that tray.

And multiply that, several times a day, every day. Week after week. Year after year.

ABORTION STAFF SURVEYED
In the early years following Roe, Hern did a limited survey and interview of his own staff about their feelings and reactions to participating in dismemberment abortions. He published his findings after presenting them to a 1978 gathering of Planned Parenthood practitioners.

Hern was, in effect, giving insider tips to the abortion industry of how to understand and overcome the trauma and “personal misgivings” exhibited by abortion personnel who witness and participate in dismemberment abortions

Warren Hern

Warren Hern

The revelations about stress and revulsion were based on surveys Hern had given to 23 past and current staffers. Ordinarily, the validity of answers from paid employees to a survey written by their boss would be in question. And in fact, some resistance was shown: only 15 returned the surveys, and only six participated in a follow up one year later. Why the others didn’t respond is something we can only speculate about.

But deeply disturbing reactions were nonetheless uncovered.

According to Hern, unlike the staff response to first-trimester suction abortions, dismemberment abortions causesignificant emotional reactions of medical and counseling staff” including “physiological symptoms, sleep disturbances, effects on interpersonal relationships, and moral anguish.” Two employees reported being preoccupied with the gruesome procedure outside of work and having disturbing dreams.

Of note, Hern volunteered that a lab assistant– not part of the survey– had asked to be relieved from the task of reassembling and weighing bloody dismembered baby parts, “because of the size and intactness of the fetus.” She “found herself becoming nauseated during the tissue examination and having disturbing dreams at night.” Surely, she has not been the only individual who found the reassembly task so intolerable.

When it came to the issue of actually looking at a dismembered child, staffers admitted they averted their gaze or otherwise exhibited, “shock, dismay, amazement, disgust, fear, and sadness.”

Hern also reported a rather strange and self-serving response: some staff expressed “a “sympathy [and] wonder at how he could perform a [dismemberment abortion] at all, and a desire to protect him from the trauma.”

Protect the abortionist—really?

However, Hern also admitted that two staffers believed performing the dismemberment method, “must damage the physician psychologically.” Maybe they were the same two who couldn’t get those horrific images out of their own heads outside of work.

STAFF TRAUMATIZED
Almost as counterpoint, Hern asserted that his stress, as the abortionist, is reduced by doing more and more dismemberment abortions and growing in confidence. But that really doesn’t answer the stress of the staff. They were not reportedly anxious about whether the abortion would be ‘successfully’ performed. Rather it was the issue of demolishing a human baby limb by limb before their eyes that disturbed them.

Hern did not disagree that direct involvement in the dismemberment method adds stress for the medical staff most closely involved. But he quickly pushed past that difficulty and refocused on a key marketing angle still touted today– that in this abortion method, “the emotional trauma of the experience is reduced for the patient.”

Excerpt from medical illustration of dismemberment abortion

Excerpt from medical illustration of dismemberment abortion at 16 weeks  gestation

A little reminder is needed here. Abortionists do not clearly describe to the mother what a dismemberment abortion will do to her unborn child. Instead (as admitted in court) they define the method with vague language like, “removal of the pregnancy.”

Thus, a mother who has not been accurately informed, and undergoes the procedure while anesthetized, is going to be ignorant of the abuse to her child and, logically, less traumatized than the staff who stand by while the baby’s body is shredded.

Hern suggested to his Planned Parenthood attendees in 1978 that since dismemberment abortion “is rapidly becoming recognized as the procedure of choice in late abortion,” they will want to offer generous vacations, flex time, and staff ‘team-building’ to prevent staff stress from erupting in the form of shouting at, or withholding care from, their clients.

After all, Hern declared, some employees have “strong personal reservations about participating in an operation they view as destructive and violent.” His concluding remarks are disturbing:

“The most important challenge [of dismemberment abortion] is how we feel about it. …Some part of our cultural and perhaps even biological heritage recoils at a destructive operation on a form that is similar to our own…[yet] there is no possibility of denial of an act of destruction by the operator. It is before one’s eyes. The sensations of dismemberment flow through the forceps like electric current.”

This final admission is actually quite candid: abortions are destructive, not only to unborn children, but to the medical profession itself.

Today, abortionist Hern is still in business and probably concocting better employee perks to quell the morale problem.

Kansas and Oklahoma, on the other hand, have acted more wisely for all involved. In banning dismemberment abortions, living unborn children, and the integrity of the medical profession are better protected.

Read Full Post »

SB 95 bill signing in Wichita

Gov. Brownback and legislators with pro-lifers in Wichita (photo by Joseph K. Myers)

It’s no real surprise that abortionists and their supporters are furious about the ban on dismemberment abortions which has been newly enacted in Kansas and Oklahoma. Aside from the fact that legal minds realize this is a true threat to the abortion status quo. what sticks in the craw of abortion supporters is how the entire law targets dismemberment abortions that torture a living, unborn child.

Like the ban on partial-birth abortion method abortions (upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007),  the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act outlaws a particularly brutal process. Dismemberment abortions tear apart living unborn babies “one piece at a time from the uterus through the use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors or similar instruments,” as SB 95 spells out.

“I am pleased that Kansas is the first state in America to ban dismemberment abortions,” said Gov. Sam Brownback. “This is extraordinarily important.”  So important, in fact, that he decided to memorialize its enactment by staging four ceremonial signings across the state on Tuesday.

Since this was virtually a never-before-event, one would expect an outpouring of media interest.

Not so.

Instead there was a virtual media blackout on the event. It would appear obvious that any reporter who did turn up had been sent solely to get quotes from the Governor on the state’s budget woes (before the legislature reconvened Wednesday), or to recycle the opinions of angry Kansas abortion clinic directors.

Of the few small stories that were actually published, none quoted the speakers at the four events or interviewed the attendees for their opinions.

Hundreds of people came to the signings—people of all ages —yet more than a few pro-abortion bloggers intentionally misconstrued the events, including Tara Culp Ressler’s coverage which ran under this headline, “In Bizarre Stunt, Governor Pretends To Sign Extreme Abortion Ban For Group Of Teenagers .”

She reminded her readers this was the same governor who was photographed a few weeks ago at the initial bill signing, “flanked by large photos of fetuses.”  [insert “gasp!”] That reminder was supposed to make readers collectively shudder at the thought that photos got out that actually linked innocent unborn babies with this law. This was impolite, because pro-abortionists have worked very hard not to allow any stories to mention “the baby.”

At the events Tuesday, Brownback spoke without notes, from his own conviction about the beauty of life and Kansas’ commitment to defending the sanctity of life. He said,

“Kansans do not support the dismembering of babies. This a major piece of legislation, for the major issue of our day… and hopefully, starting a movement that will spread nationwide.”

That this grassroots movement will spread from state to state is why pro-abortionists are furious SB 95 ever passed. They are determined to put out the flames with lies, distortions, and by omitting the little ones whose lives the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act is intended to save.

Read Full Post »

SB 95 ceremonial signing in Lenexa

SB 95 ceremonial signing in Lenexa includes pro-life legislators

A special event is happening in Kansas for the first time today, as Gov. Sam Brownback travels to four cities for ceremonial signings of SB 95, the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act

The model language for the Act was provided by Kansans for Life, from the National Right to Life Committee. It prohibits the barbaric abortion method of dismembering living unborn children and has been enacted in both Kansas and Oklahoma.

SB 95 was technically signed into law April 7, but this dismemberment ban has such significance to advancing the pro-life cause that Gov. Brownback deemed it important enough to mark its signing with a wide public audience.

The governor is traveling with the bill’s lead sponsor, Sen. Garrett Love (R-Montezuma) and the bill’s carrier in the House, Rep. Steve Brunk (R-Wichita) to school locations in the four quadrants of the state: Lenexa, Pittsburg, Wichita and Hays. Rep. Brunk was lead sponsor of Kansas’ Unborn Victims of Violence Act in 2007 and Sen. Love was a lead carrier of Kansas’ Pain-capable Unborn Child Protection Act in 2011.

The signing events kicked off at 9 a.m. in northeast Kansas at the Holy Trinity Catholic Church and elementary school. Archbishop Joseph Naumann, Catholic Conference Director Michael Schuttloffel, and representatives of Benedictine College, were among the special guests. Also in attendance were numerous legislators, including Rep. John Rubin (R-Shawnee) who assisted in the defense of the bill during floor debate.

Gov. Brownback commended the “outstanding long-term work of Kansans for Life” and for “bringing this measure to ban a horrific abortion procedure.” He told the audience that when the American public learned about partial-birth abortion, they strongly wanted it banned and the Supreme Court said it could be done. “The people of Kansas don’t support dismembering unborn children.”

Archbishop Naumann, who has been involved in pro-life advocacy for many decades, said, “We look forward to many lives being saved by this law; it is an answer to many peoples’ prayers. It will educate and awaken people to the horror that is abortion, which is the civil rights issue of our times.”

Mary Kay Culp, executive director of Kansans for Life, offered some remarks to the the crowd, which included 7th & 8th grade students.

“The signing of this pro-life law shows Kansas’ deep commitment to protecting innocent life and setting an example for the nation.

Often a formal signing ceremony is done in the Capitol and is witnessed by those most affected by the change in law. In the case of SB 95, those who are most affected, the unborn, cannot be here today. So we stand in solidarity with those unborn children by standing here for them today.

Kansas is a great place in which to be born and to live. We are a state where our top universities are working on unlocking the keys to treating disease by using our own cells, called stem cells. We are a state with specialty care for unborn children with serious health problems. We are a state where every community has a place to help struggling mothers-to-be get the immediate and long-term help they need to become a great parent.

Let us applaud all our pro-life lawmakers and our pro-life governor for achieving this law and pray that Kansas will continue to work to show respect for life.

Pro-lifers in southeast Kansas will be gathering at 11:00 at the St. Mary Colgan high school, and pro-lifers from south central and western Kansas can attend the 1:30 signing at Bishop Carroll High School. Update: Bishop Carl Kemme also spoke at the Wichita gathering,

Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer, who is a physician and testified in support of SB 95, will join the final signing event at 3:30 at his alma mater, St. Thomas More Prep- Marian school in Hays.

Read Full Post »

media abortion biasI came across an article online this weekend in which a media critic from the Los Angeles Times insightfully demonstrated the abortion bias of the media. The article was in-depth, explaining reasons why 82% of reporters supported abortion, and then listing the ways the media shapes biased messages, including how:

  • abortion advocates are quoted more frequently and characterized more favorably;
  • the news media consistently use language and images favoring abortion;
  • newspaper op-eds favoring abortion are 2 to 1 to those opposing it.

The trigger for the analysis had been a complaint from a female reporter that abortion interests were unhappy about her reports that examined advances in the treatment of premature babies. She was told to back off because those reports were undermining support for the abortion-rights movement.

It’s logical that abortion proponents would indeed want fewer glowing reports in which medical practitioners admirably perform surgery to save preemie babies (as in the recent PBS series, Twice Born), because it can only unfavorably contrast with abortion practitioners who brutally dismember living babies in the womb–a practice recently banned in Kansas and Oklahoma. (More on this momentarily.)

But something caused me to stop reading and turn back to the byline. That’s when I got a surprise, because the article I was reading was actually published in July of 1990! The author was the late Pulitzer Prize-winning media-critic, David Shaw.

Shaw’s observations from 25 years ago were as current as when he first wrote them— as borne out in this Friday’s NPR/All Things Considered radio report on the Unborn Child Protection From Dismemberment Abortion Act and an editorial published Sunday in the Los Angeles Times blasting the same law.

First, the NPR radio report. It was filed by an intern, Eleanor Klibanoff, who taped me talking for nearly one hour (yes, I can speak nonstop on this bill). During that interview, I spoke of the law’s purpose, the Supreme Court’s role and –repeatedly– the gruesome shredding of unborn children while the mothers are anesthetized.

At the reporter’s request I even specifically read aloud the law’s definition of dismemberment, giving me some hope that at least a few words of it would get into the final 4-minute report. No such luck.

In the aired report, NPR gave Planned Parenthood three direct quotes, while I only got one –and not anything dealing with the victim unborn babies.

My quote, unmoored from the source (Justice Anthony Kennedy), said that good public policy required that what really takes place in these abortions not be obscured.  NPR then ignored that admonishment and refused to clarify what exactly does happen during dismemberment abortion!

Also withheld by Klibanoff, or her editor, was the information that at least two pro-choice Supreme Court justices (former justice John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg) had admitted that partial-birth and D&E /dismemberment abortion methods were equally brutal–not to oppose either but to make the case that if the state had an interest in preventing one, it also did in preventing the other. The partial-birth abortion method is banned nationwide and banning dismemberment abortions is long since past due.

Other errors in the NPR report were incorrect assertions:

  1. that there is no alternative abortion method to dismembering a live unborn child, and
  2. that the ban violates a Supreme Court viability standard. (That so-called standard didn’t apply to the partial-birth abortion ban in 2007 when the Court upheld the ban on that method of abortion regardless of viability and it shouldn’t apply to this method either.)

NPR’s storyline was shaped to advance abortion interests just as Shaw described 25 years ago, with comments from a pro-abortion law “expert” and Planned Parenthood stitched together to portray a meme of unfairness to women. The NPR listener heard repeatedly that dismemberment abortion is “common,” “safest,” and “medically-sound,” and how “astonishing” it is that the legislature would “override medical science.”

The Los Angeles Times editorial riffed off of that NPR viewpoint, following up last week’s New York Times slam of the dismemberment ban. Both newspapers want the ban struck down; no surprise there.

Not needing to fake the “neutrality” of NPR news, the Los Angeles Times editorialist grabbed the soapbox, but didn’t have the guts to quote the entire legal definition of dismemberment. Excluded was the essential language about “the use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors or similar instruments [that], slice, crush or grasp a portion of the unborn child’s body in order to cut or rip it off.”

And while whining about the “drama” of the bill, they ginned up their own drama. They portrayed women as relying on such abortions due to possible fetal disability, miscalculated gestation, or maternal health problems –while deliberately not mentioning that other abortion methods remain available, and that the law has exceptions for protecting maternal health and life.

Then there’s the gratuitous swipe at unborn children, in case readers have somehow learned what this inhumane abortion does to a well-developing baby. The editorial insists that dismemberment abortions are done to “fetuses that are not viable outside the womb and that scientists agree cannot feel pain,” regardless of “the unscientific claims of some anti-abortion groups.” (P.S. With fetal anesthesiology a bona fide medical specialty, how long can fetal pain deniers hold sway?)

Finally, copying a page from abortion guru David Grimes’ recent columns on dismemberment (which I’ve critiqued several times), the reader is advised to, in essence, ‘chill out’ because a D&E/ dismemberment is just an unsavory ‘tissue removal like a mastectomy.’

The media top dogs are certainly collaborating with the abortion agenda, but, despite this–as NPR grudgingly admitted–pro-lifers, “are winning in the court of public opinion.”

Read Full Post »

stop dismembering posterThe ground-breaking Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act is now on the books in two states, signed into law within this past week by Gov. Sam Brownback (Kansas) and Gov. Mary Fallin (Oklahoma). This law forbids a particularly gruesome method of abortion which (for that reason) abortionists do not honestly describe in detail to women.

It is difficult for most of us to imagine how someone, particularly a trained physician, could reach into the womb with an instrument like a pair of pliers and grab onto a body part, ripping a tiny baby apart, piece by piece until she bleeds to death.

Yet that is exactly what occurs in a dismemberment abortion.

To ordinary men and women who have learned about this grisly act –and, no doubt, even to some within the abortion industry who are a party to it–the effect has been profound shock and sadness.

But some, particularly those who have defended abortion for decades, have gone in the opposite direction. They have become so hardened that they will say almost anything to protect dismemberment abortions.

Take for example, David Grimes– a long-time abortionist, abortion promoter, and prolific abortion apologist. While the dismemberment ban was working its way through the legislative process, Grimes championed the dismemberment method as popular and safe for women, without the slightest acknowledgement of the victim of this act, the unborn child.

In a February 19 article written with another long-time abortion proponent, Grimes extolled dismemberment abortion as cheaper and more convenient—for the mother, that is, since the baby is not a consideration.

He characterizes dismemberment abortionists as noble “removers of tissue” [again, denying the baby] who do an unpleasant task but, in so doing, save women from any ‘emotional’ burdens.

Thus, as could be expected, the first passage of a ban on dismemberment abortions sent Grimes over the edge.

In his regular Huffington Post blog spot Tuesday, Grimes blasted the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act with this headline, “Kansas as Medical Misogyny: Kansas Mandates Substandard Abortion Care.”

His rebuke began by defining misogyny as “hatred, dislike, mistrust of women, or prejudice against women.”  Of course abortion is itself an anti-woman act, half the time destroying females, and all the time harming mothers who submit to the abortions. But not to Grimes.

Grimes claims that this new ban on a barbaric abortion method punishes women by denying abortionists the use of that method, leaving only “inferior methods.” And to him, that is ‘anti-women’.

But Grimes is showing the height of hypocrisy about treating women respectfully!

Grimes knows, as well as those of us who followed the partial-birth abortion litigation, that abortionists under oath admitted that they don’t tell the mother the actual procedure of the dismemberment abortion,  merely referring to it as a ‘D&E.’ Planned Parenthood of Kansas & Mid-Missouri is equally unforthcoming. On its website it describes the method as “removal of the pregnancy with forceps.”

In what other medical treatment or surgery would that kind of paternalistic/ misogynistic omission of facts even be attempted?

It is the ultimate in disrespect and deception– misogyny–to hide the truth from a mother contemplating abortion that the dismemberment method demolishes her unborn child until the baby bleeds to death! And pity the women who are just now discovering that is the kind of abortion they have already obtained.

Grimes’ wrath is really directed at the U.S. Supreme Court which upheld, in 2007, a ban on another brutal, inhumane procedure —partial-birth abortion. How ironic (but unsurprising) that partial-birth abortion defenders also insisted that delivering all but the baby’s head and then plunging surgical scissors into her skull and suctioning out the child’s brain was ‘safer for women.’

However, the High Court, in that 2007 ruling, wrote (emphasis added):

Any number of patients facing imminent surgical procedures would prefer not to hear all details, lest the usual anxiety preceding invasive medical procedures become the more intense. …It is, however, precisely this lack of information concerning the way in which the fetus will be killed that is of legitimate concern to the State. The State has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed. It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know…” Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 159-160

The dismemberment law now in place in Kansas and Oklahoma exposes what happens in a abortion. Any departure from the truth is misogynistic, and furthers the myth that women need abortion.

What they need is the truth.

Read Full Post »

Excerpt from medical illustration of dismemberment abortion

Excerpt from medical illustration of dismemberment abortion, at 16 wks gestation

After Kansas passed SB 95, “The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act,” I’ve taken numerous calls from the media about the new law. Those phone interviews inevitably end with a final question to me, “What’s next?”

Mentally, I respond AARGH! This is the kind of question reporters ask a sports team manager after a winning season so he can offer hints about trading players, new game tactics, and other items meant to keep fans interested.

But pro-life advocacy is not a game where we try to keep pro-lifers engaged by teasers about next year’s legislative agenda. Pro-lifers are  keenly interested in what is taking place right now even as they are thoroughly engaged for the long haul–until Roe is undone.

Rather, what I have been telling reporters is that Kansans for Life is focused on pursuing the public education campaign about SB 95 which has been muzzled by the mainstream media.

Our immediate concern is clarifying what exactly this law does by revealing what factually occurs in a dismemberment abortion. Most news reporting has failed to explain to readers that SB 95 outlaws abortions in which living unborn children get torn apart in their mother’s wombs with sharp metal tools until they bleed to death.

There is some surprise when I point out to them that even though the bill was signed into law on Tuesday—no small feat by a long stretch, believe me — the impact of this law cannot fully be appreciated until the facts about it, which have been largely suppressed, become widely known.

With rare exceptions, the mainstream media has partnered with abortion advocates to hide the facts about this barbaric, inhumane “procedure,” and have framed their reporting to talk about anything but what happens and to whom. This is the same obfuscation that occurred in the decade prior to 2007 when the Supreme Court upheld the ban on the gruesome partial-birth abortion method.

Do I have examples? Many. Here’s one.

The day after Gov. Sam Brownback signed the bill banning dismemberment abortions into law, what was on the front page of the Topeka Capital Journal (the sole newspaper for the capital of Kansas)? News (and photos) about an upcoming local high school play.

On page 2, the headline in the Capital Journal read “Brownback signs abortion bill.” [WHAT abortion bill?] The subhead in small, fainter type did say “Legislation bans ‘dismemberment’ procedure in state.” The continuation of the story on page 3 had a large two- line header, “Abortion: legal action may follow.” This advances the abortion industry’s prized meme—abortion is nothing but politics and lawsuits.

Just imagine if the second headline had read instead, ‘Illegal to tear apart unborn babies.’ Better yet, imagine if thousands of people sipping their morning coffee saw that truth on the front page.

Since its introduction in January, SB 95 has routinely been headlined as a ‘ban on a common form of abortion’ or a ‘ban on second-trimester abortions.’ That inability to convey the crucial point of the law was demonstrated in the Tuesday Associated Press article used by most mainstream TV reports and other international outlets. In that story, the opening sentence read that Kansas had banned, “a common second-trimester abortion procedure that critics describe as dismembering a fetus.”

“That critics describe?” Well, what is the average reader to think about that? That the “critics” (assumed to be pro-life advocates) are creating meanings that don’t exist? Accurate news reporting would have quoted the law’s definitional section:“knowingly dismembering a living unborn child and extracting such unborn child one piece at a time from the uterus through the use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors or similar instruments.”

Note, also, the 2000 Stenberg ruling, where Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy quoted abortionist LeRoy Carhart. In describing this abortion “technique,” Carhart used the terms ‘dismember’ and ‘dismemberment.’ Yet, the public is told that only abortion “critics”— not the law itself, or abortionists, or judges –have chosen the terms. The implication, of course, is that we made it up!

The ENTIRE point of the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act is to wake up America to the true victim of abortion- the inhumanely shredded unborn child! It is not, as the media prefers to discuss, how abortionists and their spokeswomen feel.

Note to media: once you fully and accurately explain this law and its impact, we might start thinking about next year’s agenda.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 46 other followers