. . . because action speaks louder than words.
League history, NOW v. Scheidler, Action News, Joe Scheidler, League staff
Q & A on abortion, the unborn child, where we stand on the issues and more
Helping abortion-bound women choose life for their babies
Unmasking the truth about abortion in the public square
Our youth outreach, raising up a new generation of pro-life leaders
Abortion industry converts tell the inside story
News and commentary from the Pro-Life Action League
News and commentary from the Pro-Life Action League
Even organizations that support abortion are criticizing Kermit Gosnell’s “CHOICE” abortion clinic. It seems they are even supporting laws that would force clinics to clean up a bit (good for them!).
Since it is often “pro-choice” politicians who prevent laws from being enacted to regulate abortion clinics (for fear of angering “pro-choice” interest groups who give big campaign donations), I take this as a good sign. Their fear even prevents the enacting of laws that ensure clinics abide by at least the same standards as veterinary clinics, or rules that order a clinic to be clean. They fear (rightly so) that abortion-rights advocates will jump on the laws and say the pro-lifers are simply trying to make it harder to get abortions—shame on us.
Well if they’re upset that I think women shouldn’t be getting abortions at places with blood all over the walls and pre-born babies stuffed in jars, that’s fine by me. Not that I think women should be getting abortions even where they do bother to clean occasionally, but perhaps we could all rally around getting the real bottom-dwellers out of the business?
Unfortunately, in Illinois, the bottom-dwellers can rejoice if HB6205 makes it out of committee and becomes a law.
Gone will be regulations requiring only doctors perform abortions—any “qualified medical professional” can perform an abortion. And if they screw it up, the magical Civil Immunity Fairy protects them from lawsuits.
Gone are restrictions on Medicaid funding—which taxpayers overwhelmingly want in place—POOF! Free abortions for all!
Don’t forget that this will overturn restrictions on late-term abortions done to protect a woman’s “health” (a word our Supreme Court tells us encompasses “any condition that might impact her physical, emotional, psychological or financial well being”).
Read the full text before you tell me I’m exaggerating.
This whole thing gives me a flash of déjà vu, since I’ve begun working on a project that involves reading Hotline transcripts recorded by Joe Scheidler in 1975. Here’s a glimpse back through time. How far we’ve come, and how far we have yet to go…
A story in Sunday’s Tribune by George Bliss says Dr. Arnold Bickham, a Friendship Clinic abortionist made nearly $800,000 in government funds for “welfare services” in 1974. Bickham is one of more than a hundred Illinois physicians who were paid more than $100,000 last year for treating welfare patients.
He is a chief abortionist at Friendship, a clinic that performed 1,500 abortions in the first three weeks after abortion became legal in Illinois.
The clinic was closed when a patient died and it was found to be operating without a license. And its director Dr. TRM Howard was responsible for getting the Supreme Court to prohibit the Chicago Board of Health from regulating abortion clinics in Chicago. …
Our meeting with Bickham [an abortionist at Friendship] revealed a businessman who cares nothing for the lives he extinguishes. When asked his opinion on the humanity he exterminates, he said he never thought of it: women want abortions; he gives them what they want. And you, the taxpayer, pay.
Friendship Clinic was described by one inspector as “a dog kennel.”
If HB6205 passes, we will be back in 1975—clinics as dirty as dog kennels, and our tax dollars paying for thousands of abortions. Visit StopIllinoisFOCA for ideas on how to fight the bill. And consider joining our lobby day on March 10, 2010 if you’re able.
We welcome a free and open exchange of ideas on the Pro-Life Hotline, from all points of view, but we request that you restrict your remarks to the topic(s) presented in the entry above.
To ensure constructive dialog, the following will not be tolerated:
You may use HTML code to style your comments.