. . . 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
Every year the Pro-Life Action League brings the joy and hope of Christmas to the darkness of the abortuary with our “Empty Manger” Christmas Caroling day.
Now more than ever, we need to be actively engaged in fighting abortion on the ground outside our nation’s abortion facilities. Sometimes that means sidewalk counseling, sometimes that means protesting, and sometimes that means bringing the good news of the birth of Jesus Christ to the doors of the abortion clinic with peaceful Christmas caroling.
In recent years, more and more pro-life activists around the country have started holding their own Christmas caroling events at abortion clinics, and now it’s your turn to get involved in this Advent pro-life ministry.
To help you do just that, the Pro-Life Action League has put together some resources that will make your caroling day a success: [Continue reading ...]
Dr. Mary Davenport
Today, Dr. Mary Davenport, MD, FACOG reports at American Thinker about a shocking study out of China confirming the link between abortion and breast cancer.
Though the abortion industry and their advocates have done everything in their power to deny and cover up this link (also covered in Dr. Davenport’s must-read article), the new study, pooling 36 studies from 14 provinces in China, showed that abortion increased the risk of breast cancer by 44% with one abortion, and 76% and 89% with two and three abortions, respectively.
That’s right. Two abortions increases your risk of breast cancer by 76%! When you factor in that half of abortions in the US are repeat abortions, that means that well over half a million women each year are exposing themselves to an incredible risk for breast cancer, all while Planned Parenthood, NARAL and their ilk insist that there’s no connection at all. [Continue reading ...]
The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that they will hear two critical cases in the fight against the HHS Mandate.
The two cases represent two sides of the issue. Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, filed by Mennonite cabinet makers, is a case brought by a private business against the government, while Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., regarding the well known craft store chain, is a case brought by the government against a private business.
It is our hope that by taking both of these cases, it is a sign of the Supreme Court’s intention to take a thorough review of the Mandate and its implications.
Whenever we go out on the streets for a “Face the Truth” Tour, we can always count on someone happening by our display to tell us that by showing the pictures of abortion victims in the public square, we’re doing more harm than good. This is a charge we’ve heard often enough that we address it as one of the most Common Objections we hear.
In our response to this oft-raised argument, we plainly make the observation that throughout modern history, any number of successful social reform movements — from the movement to enact child labor laws to the civil rights movement — have used disturbing images that depict victims of maltreatment and violence, and that public support for the reforms these movements sought could not have been garnered without publicly showing these images.
The intent behind displaying graphic abortion pictures is the same, of course, for it puts a human face on the victims of what is, for far too many people, merely a theoretical concept or political issue. [Continue reading ...]
In response to a series of new abortion restrictions enacted in Texas, abortionist Sarah McNeil wrote recently in USA Today:
I and my physician colleagues across the country continually seek out and welcome measures that improve patient safety, but absurd laws such as this one only hurt women and families by decreasing access to essential reproductive health care services.
It’s no surprise, of course, that the abortion industry and its allies are wailing and gnashing their teeth and bandying about phrases like “absurd laws” in reference to Texas’ new abortion restrictions.
But what’s really absurd is the implication behind their bellyaching: namely, the idea that abortion clinics can be trusted to police themselves. [Continue reading ...]
Over at the Boston Globe, columnist Jeff Jacoby has written an excellent piece on why abortion bubble zones are a gross violation of our 1st Amendment rights.
With the Supreme Court about to hear McCullen v. Coakley, a case dealing with Boston’s bubble zone law, Jacoby aptly notes, “McCullen v. Coakley isn’t about abortion. It is about the denial of free speech rights for one side—and only one side—of one the most unsettled controversies in American life. Even in Massachusetts, that’s unconstitutional.”
Be sure to read the full article and share with your social networks. The truth about these unconstitutional laws needs to get out!
The following is a guest blog post by Monica Migliorino Miller, Ph.D., director of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society and author of Abandoned: The Untold Story of the Abortion Wars (St. Benedict Press, 2012).
He found the remains of 17 aborted babies—killed at the clinic and tossed in the trash. The date of the abortion, and all of the names of the mothers were written on the medical baggies that contained the tiny dismembered human bodies of these children. They had all been aborted in January of that year and all in the first 10 weeks of gestation.
Chris Veneklase called me, the director of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society, as I have had extensive experience with the retrievals of aborted babies from clinic trash containers and the burials for these victims of abortion.
One of the things that I did was photograph the aborted babies Chris had found in the Woman’s Choice dumpster. Their photos are can seen here.
One of the photos was of a tiny arm and hand of a 7 week aborted baby, torn at the shoulder. This photo was printed in my book Abandoned: The Untold Story of the Abortion Wars, published in 2012 by Saint Benedict Press.
In the meantime, Mary Gilpin, the manager of a crisis pregnancy center in Milwaukee, had purchased a copy of Abandoned and kept the book at the CPC.
In October a woman came to the CPC intent on having an abortion. [Continue reading ...]
Twenty week fetus in the womb [Photo courtesy of Life Issues Institute]
Today, Senator Lindsey Graham introduced the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would ban abortion after 20 weeks gestation nationwide.
Sen. Graham acknowledges from the outset that the bill stands little chance of passing in the Senate at the moment, but stated that he believes it is important to promote debate on the topic among our nation’s leaders because, “the state, the government has a legitimate interest to protect the child at the 20-week period of development, because they can feel pain. That’s what a rational humane society should do.”
It’s great that Sen. Graham is kickstarting this debate, even if the bill’s passage is unlikely. One of the immediate fruits of the bill even being proposed is a face on the floor, kicking and screaming tantrum from pro-abortion forces. Always a good sign.
But some argue that using fetal pain as a benchmark for protecting babies is a bad idea, claiming if we protect babies on that basis, people will think that babies who can’t feel pain aren’t worth protecting. Is there anything to this? Does fetal pain matter? [Continue reading ...]
A new article on so-called “emergency contraception” (hereafter: EC) was published last week in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.
Its central finding:
We find that expanded access to EC has had no statistically significant effect on birth or abortion rates.
If you’ve been following the research on EC in recent years, you’ll recognize that this is not so much news as it is further confirmation that the ever-increasing propagation of EC has been an utterly failed strategy.
How utterly? Consider that when the FDA first approved EC pills in 1998, supporters predicted that “50 percent of all abortions and unintended pregnancies in this country could be avoided if women had access to emergency contraception.”
Since then, these predictions have proven to be hopelessly wrong. [Continue reading ...]
If you’ve been around the abortion debate for any length of time, you’ve probably come across the term “TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws.” TRAP is a term used by supporters of legal abortion to describe any number of health, safety, or licensing regulations placed on abortion clinics at the state level.
And if you google the term “TRAP laws,” you’ll discover a cruel irony: The so-called pro-choice movement wants to “keep” abortion “safe, legal”
and rare“, but they’ll wail and gnash their teeth when lawmakers call for increased scrutiny of abortion clinics, so we have to wonder how concerned they really are about women’s safety.
Take, for instance, the National Abortion Federation (NAF). The very first sentence on the NAF’s page on TRAP bills defines them as those which “single out abortion clinics for unnecessary, politically motivated, restrictive regulations.” Such “onerous requirements,” NAF complains, “are also unnecessary because abortion clinics are already highly regulated.”
Later, they return to the use of the adjective “unnecessary” and, for good measure, slap on “burdensome” to describe “regulations on clinics that are irrelevant to the functionality and safety of abortion practice.”
You may recall that when abortionist Kermit Gosnell’s infamous “House of Horrors” in West Philadelphia was raided by the DEA in 2010, it hadn’t been inspected in 17 years. Clearly, if there was a state that needed to get its act together and step up its oversight of abortion clinics, it was Pennsylvania. [Continue reading ...]