. . . 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
You are currently browsing the archives for the Our Opposition category.
Nancy Keenan announced this week that she will step down as president of NARAL at the end of this year.
According to the Washington Post, “Keenan said she is leaving out of concern for the future of the pro-choice movement – and thinks she could be holding it back.”
In other words, Keenan has become a liability.
The WaPo article goes on say:
In recent years, Keenan has worried about an “intensity gap” on abortion rights among millennials, which the group considers to be the generation of Americans born between 1980 and 1991. While most young, antiabortion voters see abortion as a crucial political issue, NARAL’s own internal research does not find similar passion among abortion-rights supporters. If the pro-choice movement is to successfully defend abortion rights, Keenan contends, it needs more young people in leadership roles, including hers.
“There’s an opportunity for a new and younger leader,” Keenan said during a Wednesday interview in her downtown Washington office. “Roe v. Wade is 40 in January. It’s time for a new leader to come in and, basically, be the person for the next 40 years of protecting reproductive choice.”
A bit optimistic, don’t you think?
The Pro-Life Action League has directly engaged with Keenan and NARAL on multiple occasions over the past few years. [Continue reading ...]
One of last weekend’s “Unite Women” rallies juxtaposed with one of last month’s “Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rallies
On Saturday, rallies were held to “Unite Against the War on Women”, a pretty obvious response to the Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally campaign spearheaded by the Pro-Life Action League and Citizens for a Pro-Life Society.
As the picture indicates, the response was paltry. Even in New York City, where thousands gathered on March 23 in defense of religious freedom, only a few hundred showed up to protest.
They may have had a few B-list celebrity speakers, but they were pitching their muddled message to largely empty audiences. Outside of some talk about the so-called “war on women”, their message was as scattered as could be. [Continue reading ...]
Steph Herold has a fascinating post at The Abortion Gang this week showing that it’s not just pro-lifers who are not fans of the major “pro-choice” organizations—there are plenty of diehard pro-choicers who aren’t fans, either.
In her post, titled “Toxic Work Environments in the Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice World,” Herold wastes no time getting to her point. Her opening paragraph reads:
A co-worker once told me that in her 10+ years of working in the reproductive health field, her peers in other movements validated time and again that our movement is the most f***ed up. Not f***ed up because we don’t have our hearts in the right place (we do) or because we don’t have science on our side (we do), but because of the way we treat each other, and the way our intra-movement politics operate.
She then writes:
Every so often several friends and I debate the merits of “outing” certain organizations for their legendary bulls***. Everyone knows that organization A has an executive director who’s a megalomanic. Everyone knows that two particular organizations bully other smaller organizations. Everyone knows that organization B likes to fire (almost) everyone every couple of years. Everyone knows that certain national organizations have less than cordial relationships with their local affiliates.
This Saturday, April 28, a coalition of pro-choice groups are sponsoring “Unite Against the War on Women” rallies at several cities across the country.
Among the sponsors are the National Organization for Women, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and a group called “Rock the Slut Vote” — not to be confused with a group called “This Slut Votes,” which is also a sponsor.
The UniteWomen.org “About Us” page informs us that the idea for the rallies originated February 19 — a mere nine days after the Pro-Life Action League and Citizens for a Pro-Life Society announced that the Nationwide Rally for Religious Freedom in opposition to the HHS Mandate would be held on March 23.
Coincidence?
The UniteWomen.org website is nothing if not a panoply of the bizarre.
If you go to the homepage, the first thing you’ll notice is a series of rotating pictures, one of which is: [Continue reading ...]
Flyer promoting Six Rivers Planned Parenthood's "40 Days of Prayer: Supporting Women Everywhere"
Imitation may be the highest form of flattery, but sometimes it’s also rather bizarre and macabre.
Since 2007, the 40 Days for Life prayer campaign has resulted in over 5,800 babies saved from abortion, 69 abortion clinic workers quitting their jobs, and 22 abortion clinics shutting down altogether following local 40 Days for Life campaigns.
In response, Six Rivers Planned Parenthood (SRPP) in Eureka, California has decided to launch their own campaign [PDF] calling for “40 Days of Prayer: Supporting Women Everywhere.”
It’s being spearheaded by the Humboldt County Clergy for Choice, an official committee of SRPP. The Clergy for Choice page on the SRPP website begins with this explanation of who they are:
We are religious leaders who value all human life. We accept that religions differ about when life begins. We are here to help.
We believe that human life is holy. That’s why we believe in your right to choose to be a parent or not.
How to even begin unpacking that? [Continue reading ...]
Sidewalk counselor Dick Retta, 80, stands outside a Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Washington, DC. Retta has been sued by the Justice Department under the FACE Act.
Since taking office in 2009, President Barack Obama has lost the support of a lot of people, but one constituency he has never upset is the radical pro-choice movement.
That’s why no one should be surprised when, for example, Obama makes a promotional video for Planned Parenthood Action Fund from inside the White House.
And neither should we be surprised that Obama, through his Department of Justice, continues to wage a low-grade war on the First Amendment rights of pro-life activists across the U.S.
Consider, for example, the case of Mary Susan Pine.
Pine, who herself had an abortion years ago, has been a sidewalk counselor in West Palm Beach, Florida for over a decade.
In 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder filed a lawsuit against Pine, claiming she had violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.
What did Pine do to warrant the lawsuit? Physically restrain women on their way into an abortion clinic? Chain herself to the door? [Continue reading ...]
If the Women's Aid Clinic abortion facility no longer exists, why is it still advertising with this sign? [Photo by John Jansen]
The Pro-Life Action League reported recently that the Women’s Aid Clinic abortion facility was inspected in 2011 by the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) for the first time in 15 years.
Following the inspection, Women’s Aid — located in the northern Chicago suburb of Lincolnwood — was assessed a fine of $36,000 for “violations including the clinic’s failure to perform CPR on a patient who died after a procedure” in 2009, according to an AP article published January 21.
That article reported that Women’s Aid co-owner Larisa Rozansky “told the AP her clinic was safe and she felt victimized by the surprise inspection,” which Rozansky called “unfair.”
Following last year’s inspection — in which IDPH inspectors also discovered such violations as dusty equipment, lack of a supervising registered nurse, and “frozen TV dinners stored in a biohazard lab refrigerator that also held placental or fetal tissue,” the state issued an order on October 21, 2011 prohibiting Women’s Aid from performing surgical abortions.
But on January 25, I noted that the Women’s Aid website was still advertising that it did surgical abortions. Shortly thereafter, pro-life activists working with the Pro-Life Action League brought this false advertising to the attention of the IDPH. [Continue reading ...]
The Pro-Life Action League reported late last year that the Dimensions Medical Center abortion facility in Des Plaines, Illinois had closed.
But at the time, we didn’t know why it closed. Now we do:
Dimensions would have never passed an inspection.
The League has recently reviewed documentation [PDF] showing that on August 30, 2011, Dimensions notified the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) that the facility intended to close.
But why?
Reports of Kermit Gosnell’s “House of Horrors” abortion mill in Philadelphia in early 2011 prompted pro-life activists working with the Pro-Life Action League to submit Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the IDPH to obtain inspection records from Illinois abortion facilities. [Continue reading ...]
Last year, the Illinois Department of Public Health inspected the Women’s Aid Clinic abortion facility for the first time in 15 years.
Following the inspection, Women’s Aid — located in the northern Chicago suburb of Lincolnwood — was assessed a fine of $36,000 for “violations including the clinic’s failure to perform CPR on a patient who died after a procedure,” according to an AP article published January 21.
IDPH inspectors also discovered such violations as dusty equipment, lack of a supervising registered nurse, and “frozen TV dinners stored in a biohazard lab refrigerator that also held placental or fetal tissue.”
Following the inspection, the state issued an order on October 21, 2011 prohibiting Women’s Aid from performing surgical abortions.
But on January 25, I noted that the Women’s Aid website still indicates that it offers surgical abortions. Shortly thereafter, pro-life activists working with the Pro-Life Action League brought this false advertising to the attention of the IDPH.
And the IDPH took action, sending Women’s Aid a cease and desist letter regarding false advertising, and reminded the abortion facility that paying the $36,000 fine wasn’t optional: [Continue reading ...]
In the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics, two ethicists working in Australian universities make the argument that if abortion is legal in the first, second, or third trimester, why not in the fourth trimester as well?
Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva make the case that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”
Giubilini and Minerva would be uncomfortable with saying they’re advocating “infanticide”; instead, they prefer the term “after-birth abortion.”
While freely acknowledging “the oxymoron in the expression,” they believe the latter “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” [Continue reading ...]