Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Planned Parenthood’ Category

abortion lawToday, the Iowa state Supreme Court by a 6-0 vote (with one abstention) ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood’s “webcam” abortion protocol. In so doing, the Court overturned a lower court ruling and their own state medical board.

In this “innovation” (meant to maneuver around a dwindling supply of physicians wanting to perform abortions) pregnant women can obtain chemical abortion drugs without an “in-person” contact with a licensed physician.

The Iowa Supreme Court can only be commended for not claiming to “discover” a right to abortion in the state Constitution–a right that Planned Parenthood argued existed and was even broader than the abortion right created by Roe.

But the pro-abortion bent of this court is clear, in reaching its conclusion that a physician onsite exam created an “undue burden” (which, as a federal “standard” has been variously interpreted since 1992 to practically the breaking point). The Court even cited some oft-repeated abortion industry talking points about the burden of returning for medical checkups, including that repeat trips can aggravate domestic abuse for some women!

The Iowa Solicitor General pressed the point that Planned Parenthood’s own survey could not prove that women’s “access” to abortion was improved after introduction of the webcam protocol.

The Court ruled that, “based on 2013 medical standards and practices in Iowa,” the overturned law supplies only “minimal medical justification.” However, what the Iowa state lawyers wrote on behalf of the  medical board was:

“Abortion-inducing drugs are not over the counter medications. Unless and until such a time when abortion-inducing drugs are no longer required to be dispensed by physicians, physicians must do so within the confines of the standard of care. The Board of Medicine determined the standard of care requires a physical examination prior to dispensing abortion-inducing drugs.”

19 states have passed anti-webcam laws; 15 are in effect, two go into effect in July and Iowa’s has now been overturned.

Kansas’ anti-webcam provision from 2011 is under injunction, but the 2015 legislature enacted a clarification on medical emergencies, now in effect, aimed at getting the injunction removed. (Read more here.)

Read Full Post »

Sen. Jake LaTurner

Sen. Jacob LaTurner

This afternoon, the Kansas Senate passed a “technical clarification”  [S Sub HB 2228] that aims to get a 2011 ban on “webcam abortions” into effect in Kansas.

So-called “webcam abortions” are premised on the abortionist never being in the same room as the woman obtaining abortion pills.

15 other states have such bans already in place, with 2 more going into effect in July.

The Overland Park, Kansas father-daughter abortion duo at the Center for Women’s Health had sued the entire Kansas 2011 Abortion Clinic Licensure law and obtained a block against it before it was scheduled to go into effect. The law included language governing abortions “by pill.”

CWH attorneys had complained that the original abortion pill provision potentially interfered with medication-induced abortions in hospitals. Today’s language should satisfy them of legislative intent. This would allow the Kansas Attorney General to petition the Shawnee County District Court to grant a motion allowing the abortion pill provision it to go into effect while litigation proceeds.

Sen. Jacob LaTurner (R-Pittsburg) carried the measure, which passed 39-0 without debate. The House is expected to take up the measure next week after the holiday break.

The new language clarifies that, except in the case of labor induction abortions at hospitals, the RU 486 (mifepristone) abortion drug

shall initially be administered by or in the same room and in the physical presence of the physician who prescribed, dispensed or otherwise provided the drug to the patient.”

The new language also grants an exception for a medical emergency posing a threat to the mother’s life or physical health. As updated last year, “medical emergency” applies uniformly to all Kansas abortion statutes and satisfies the past concerns of the abortion clinic attorneys suing this 2011 law.

S Sub HB 2228 clearly governs abortion pills– not “morning after,” “Plan B,” “Ella,” or other so–called emergency contraception governed under K.S.A. 67-6502.

BACKGROUND
The RU486 abortion pill protocol used in Kansas and nationally, typically involves a woman taking an initial dose of RU486 (mifepristone) followed within 2 days by a second drug,, misoprostol, generally taken at home.

These abortions “by pill” cause excessive bleeding– four times as much as surgical abortions– and pose serious risks to women. As of 2011, the FDA reported abortion pills resulted in at least 14 reported deaths and over 2,200 “adverse” events including 612 hospitalizations, 340 transfusions and 58 undetected (and life-threatening) ectopic pregnancies.

Despite the risky nature of this protocol, abortionists in Iowa implemented “webcam” abortions that excluded an in-person exam or consultation with a physician. In a “webcam” abortion, the pills are dispensed via a drawer beneath a computer screen, activated after on-screen contact with a long-distance physician.

Of note, the Iowa medical board opposes the substitution of a webcam contact for an in-person abortion exam and consult. The Iowa webcam ban, after being upheld in district court, is being appealed by Planned Parenthood to their state Supreme Court.

Webcam abortions eliminate the expense of hiring onsite abortionists, and might especially appeal to abortion clinics that currently rely on non-resident “fly-in” practitioners, as does the South Wind Women’s Center in Wichita, Kansas.

Frankly, pro-lifers do not support abortion by any method but the legislature has the minimum duty to insure that the mother’s life isn’t going to be put at even greater risk for some economic benefit of abortion businesses.

Read Full Post »

comp health PP (2)Planned Parenthood of Kansas & Mid-Missouri hates the new ban on dismemberment abortions passed in Kansas. But it is already eagerly using opposition to SB 95– “this atrocious law” in their words–to fundraise.

However, there are two things they have had to tiptoe around in bashing this example of so-called “extreme political measures.” First, is Senate Bill 95’s title in statute–“which shall be known and may be cited as the Kansas unborn child protection from dismemberment abortion act.”

The second is the descriptive definition of what is outlawed:

“’Dismemberment abortion’ means, with the purpose of causing the death of an unborn child, 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 that, through the convergence of two rigid levers, slice, crush or grasp a portion of the unborn child’s body in order to cut or rip it off.”

An email solicitation sent to supporters yesterday, signed by PPKMM President/CEO Laura McQuade, read (with their emphasis in bold):

“If Senate Bill 95 goes into effect in Kansas on July 1, 2015, PPKM will need to drastically alter our surgical services. Using inflammatory and non-medical language, this bill bans one of the safest methods of second trimester abortion according to every major medical authority including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the World Health Organization.”

Before dissecting that information, insert the reminder that abortion is never safe for unborn babies.

SB 95 bans one method of abortion: the shredding of a still-living unborn child in which the abortionist reaches into the mother’s womb with an instrument similar to a pair of pliers and grabs onto a body part, ripping a tiny baby apart, piece by piece until she bleeds to death.

It should be noted that McQuade does not write “THE safest,” but ONE of the safest methods. She’s backing off what all abortion chatter, and testimony to committees, has been against this bill–that dismemberment was THE safest method.

(In its partial-birth ruling of 2007, the Supreme Court upheld a ban on that gruesome abortion method. At the time partial-birth abortion proponents said this was THE safest for women.)

PPKMM issued a public statement in opposition to SB 95 on April 7, the day the bill was signed into law by Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback. Again, their statement omitted the title of the law and gave not a hint about the abortion method banned.

The statement pledged to protect women’s “decision-making ability” and “ensure that every individual has the knowledge, opportunity and freedom to make informed private decisions.”

In reality, PPKMM wants women to stay unenlightened about the Dismemberment abortion procedure which they describe innocuously on their website as “removal of the pregnancy with forceps.”

This complete lack of candor is in line with court testimony from other abortionists that they are comfortable withholding a straight explanation of dismemberment to pregnant women considering abortion.

Truly informed decisions are those made with all the facts.

I guess the hypocrisy escapes McQuade.

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 »

Rep. Couture-Lovelady

Rep. Couture-Lovelady

Rep. Steve Brunk

Rep. Steve Brunk

As grassroots support swells, Kansas is moving quickly to enact the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act (SB 95). The bill has already passed in the Senate, 31-9, and a House committee, 14-6.

In a D&E/dismemberment abortion, a living unborn child bleeds to death as she is ripped apart by metal tools inserted inside her mother’s womb.

SB 95 takes into consideration some of the reasoning the U.S. Supreme Court used in 2007 in upholding a ban on partial-birth abortions, including this statement:

“Congress stated as follows: ‘Implicitly approving such a brutal and inhumane procedure by choosing not to prohibit it will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life.’ The Act expresses respect for the dignity of human life.” [Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 156-157]

What appears to be the all-but-inevitable passage of SB 95 has produced such a terror among abortion supporters that they are alleging the bill impinges on OB-GYN healthcare– which is demonstrably untrue.

Unable to defend the indefensible, a new low in cynical politics was observed Wednesday. An unwavering pro-abortion Representative tried to use pro-life language as a “poison pill.”

In the Kansas House Federal State Affairs committee debate on SB 95, Rep. John Wilson (D-Lawrence), tried –and failed–to sabotage the bill with language drafted to “ban abortions after a heartbeat is detected.”

The Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Elise Higgins, was asked to weigh in by the committee vice-chair, Travis Couture-Lovelady (R-Palco). But she refused to endorse the “Wilson Heartbeat amendment” language.

Couture-Lovelady later told the press , ”[Wilson is] a pro-choice representative and he said so, his motive was to kill the bill.”

The media labeled Wilson’s action as “provocative.” It was evident that he wanted pro-life representatives to feel conflicted.

Chairman Steve Brunk (R-Wichita) clarified the “politics” at play, particularly for the freshmen members of the committee. He reminded that legalized abortion is a creation of the Court and even though he was personally supportive of reaching a new benchmark under a Heartbeat ban, such legislation deserved its own hearing as a stand-alone bill after future input from national pro-life legal advisors.

Rep. Joe Scapa (R-Wichita) asked whether Wilson would support a stand alone Heartbeat bill, but Wilson dodged a direct response.  After his insincerity was clarified, the committee voted down the amendment, with some members re-iterating their support for the goal of maximum protection for the unborn.

Rep. Bud Estes (R-Dodge City) pointed out how the debate had strayed from the content of the bill–the inhumane treatment of the unborn child. Of course, this is exactly the aim of abortion advocates who revel in press coverage that replays side issues and ignores talking about what abortionists are doing to unborn children.

SB 95 passed out of the Fed-State committee 14-6 with 2 pro-life committee members absent, and awaits scheduling for debate on the House floor.

Legislators are well supported in focusing on the actual cruelty of dismemberment abortion. Speaking on behalf of the majority of the U.S Supreme Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote:

“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 may use its regulatory power to bar certain procedures and substitute others, all in furtherance of its legitimate interests in regulating the medical profession in order to promote respect for life, including life of the unborn.” [Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 158,159]

Read Full Post »

Michael Schuttloffel

Michael Schuttloffel challenged SB 95 opponents

Senate Bill 95, the “Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act,” was the topic of the Kansas House Federal State Affairs committee this morning. But only pro-life proponents actually discussed the dismemberment abortion procedure in clear language while testimony from opponents neither mentioned the procedure by name or explained what takes place.

The measure has already passed the state Senate on a vote of 31-9.  Pro-life Gov. Sam Brownback (R) has promised to sign this bill. Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer, M.D. testified in person in support of SB 95.

Speaking in opposition to SB 95 were essentially the same few abortion defenders who came to the first hearing on the bill in the Senate. They were utterly bereft of meaningful testimony, including Elise Higgins, the lobbyist for Planned Parenthood and Julie Burkhart, Wichita abortion business owner.

Rather than talking  about what happens in a dismemberment abortion–  arms, legs, and other body parts are torn off a baby until she dies–the message of opponents was to allege that the bill tied abortionists’ hands from using the safest method and could lead to costly legal fees when the law is challenged in court.

They noted that Kansas has already paid over a million dollars defending pro-life laws but opponents of SB 95 failed to mention that Kansas has won all completed lawsuits and is narrowing the final two still in progress.

But there were two individuals today whose attitudes did not likely win the hearts and minds of committee members.

One wrote that she had needed to undergo repeated “D&C” procedures years ago.  (A D&C  is when a gynecologist scrapes the uterine walls.)

In oral testimony, she incorrectly charged that SB 95 would have prevented her from getting the treatment she needed. But a D&C is not an “D& E” which is an intentional grasping and ripping of body parts of the unborn child.

She wagged her finger at the committee, accused them of oppressing one gender (women), and lectured  them that the issue is too “private” for their consideration.

Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court, in consideration of the methods of partial-birth and dismemberment abortions,  has said that legislatures are the appropriate factfinders– and that if clear language is not used, the public is disserved!

Another witness told the committee that the state had no business creating laws that restricted abortion because “For some women, happiness and even basic survival is dependent on not having a child.”

The eugenic flavor of her comments prompted Rep. Jan Pauls (R-Hutchinson) to gently probe whether the witness was really advocating that babies were better off being aborted than being born into poverty?  The witness basically answered yes.

She also asserted that “this bill caters to a specific religious perspective on when life begins.” This dodge was predicted (and answered) in earlier comments that morning from Michael Schuttloffel, director of the Kansas Catholic Conference:

“[Abortion supporters regularly assert in these hearings that the humanity of the unborn] is a philosophical or religious question, not a scientific question. So I want someone to explain to us today the science of how this is NOT a human being. This unborn child is alive. She has arms, legs, her own heartbeat, her own brainwaves, her own blood, often a different blood type from the mother, and her own human DNA What is this– if it is not a human being?

I really think [opposing] legislators–before they vote against this bill –should go visit an abortion clinic and see the results of a dismemberment abortion. [After] the [abortionist] removes all of the pieces of the baby to make sure they haven’t left anything behind…”

At the close of her testimony, Burkhart did invite legislators to visit “her” clinic, saying she is “very proud of it.” Do you want to bet she shows visitors the facility and not the tray with dismembered baby parts?

Read Full Post »

stop dismembering posterMonday was the first committee hearing for Kansas’ Senate Bill 95 — the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act–a top legislative priority of Kansans for Life and the National Right to Life Committee.

This first-in-the-nation measure, SB 95 is co-sponsored by 25 state Senators. The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act was the subject of the Monday afternoon meeting of the Senate Public Health & Welfare committee, chaired by Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook.

Testimony from four opponents to SB 95 was expectedly weak, but not to worry, the mainstream media came to their rescue (more on that later).

The position of both Elise Higgins (Planned Parenthood) and Julie Burkhart (Trust Women) was essentially this:

  • legislators have no authority in this matter;
  • SB 95 threatens women’s health and “invades” the doctor -patient relationship;
  • the bill is unconstitutional;
  • the state is facing a budget crisis and we should deal with that.

As usual, nothing original or substantive was offered. And in fact, their claims ignore the reality of U.S. Supreme Court abortion rulings that repeatedly uphold the

State’s “compelling interests” in respecting the dignity of the unborn and in protecting the integrity of the medical profession.

The other two testimonies from opponents were also predictable. One young mother said she was grateful to have had her abortion at age 19. A Harvard neurology professor (Note: not an ObGyn) insisted that the D & E dismemberment method is standard of care for second trimester abortion and the “safest” method.

What none of them said, but what many published articles reveal, is that the “advantage” (if that word should even be used) of dismemberment abortions is that they are–wait for it–cheaper and faster!

The 2009 National Abortion Federation Training manual affirms not only is the

D & E method the “most cost-effective,” it prevents women from having to endure the “prolonged labor experience”

of other 2nd trimester abortion methods (in other words, from having to deliver their dead babies).

When opponents concluded their comments, an observer to the hearing might have reasoned that SB 95 is an affront to women

and a threat to the abortion industry [correct].

FOCUS ON VICTIMIZED UNBORN CHILD
That’s when I testified to the committee, as KFL’s legislative director. I reminded the senators that, “The focus of this bill is the small, living, human unborn child facing a brutal and inhumane dismemberment abortion.”

You could have heard a pin drop.

As I spoke, I held fetal models of the unborn child, first at 14 weeks and then, at 20 weeks gestation; the ages during which dismemberment is the ‘standard’ method for abortion.

I briefly described the attributes and movements of babies at that age in the womb.

Then I noted what the U.S. Supreme Court itself admitted. To quote Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy, “The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn apart limb by limb. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off.

I mentioned that even one such barbarous act should not be tolerated. Then I pointed out the fact that, elsewhere in the legislature, there is a bill advocating the adoption of the most humane, painless way to euthanize pets.

Unfortunately, that irony was lost on the media. Speaking of the media….

Although we did get decent but very short coverage in a television news spot at both 5 & 6 pm, the 10 pm news completely omitted SB 95, choosing instead to spend an unusually long segment of five minutes on the shooting of a neighborhood dog. Seriously.

Not one print media used any phrase about the tearing apart of limbs of the living child in dismemberment abortions.

Most of them are referring very antiseptically to the bill as a “method of abortion affecting 8% of abortions.” One story said SB 95 refers to “so-called dismemberment.”

That’s why I so appreciated Andrew Bair’s very excellent analysis yesterday  of the misreporting about this bill. He wrote that the media“… purposefully omits the key details about what happens to the unborn child, skipping over the dismemberment process entirely….”

Thus, my duty yesterday was to focus the committee and the audience on every painfully victimized member of our human family that was tortured to death in each of the 578 dismemberment abortions that occurred in 2013 in Kansas.

And to urge that that those atrocities end.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 48 other followers