. . . 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
Last week another court sided with plaintiffs seeking to stop enforcement of the HHS Mandate against them for refusing to provide free contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs to employees.
This time it was the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Chicago, which instructed a lower court to enter a preliminary injunction to prevent the federal government from enforcing the HHS Mandate against Cyril and Jane Korte, and their southern Illinois construction company, Korte & Luitjohan Contractors, Inc.
The Kortes are devout Catholics who say the HHS Mandate requires them to violate their religious faith. But a district court judge refused to grant a preliminary injunction to prevent the federal government from imposing huge fines on them while they fight the HHS Mandate in court.
A court can grant such a preliminary injunction when a judge determines that plaintiffs are likely to prevail—as the Seventh Circuit clearly thinks the Kortes are.
Attorney Edward White of the American Center for Law and Justice, who argued on behalf of the Kortes at the Seventh Circuit, offers more details about the case here.
Here’s hoping that the Kortes will prevail in their lawsuit against the HHS Mandate, which can not proceed without destroying their business, and that all employers will soon see their religious freedoms protected from this kind of government intrusion.
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 ...]
Recently on the First Things blog, Betsy Childs had a beautiful post titled “Davion Only and the Power of Specific Need.”
A month ago, no one had ever heard of Davion: a 15-year old boy, an orphan, who was born in prison, raised in foster care, and lived in a group home.
But after finding out his birth mother had recently died, he did something incredibly courageous: he stood in front of the congregation at St. Mark Missionary Baptist Church in St. Petersburg, Florida, and asked for a family to adopt him.
Now it seems, everyone has heard about Davion. And over 10,000 families want to adopt him. Childs considers why his story resonated with so many people:
The Tampa Bay Times could have run an article highlighting the fact that there are 14,000 children in foster care in the state of Florida. While true, this fact would not have had the effect that the picture of Davion had. Some would credit the remarkable response to the “power of story,” and they might be right. But the story of Davion Only also highlights the remarkable response of human beings to specific, meetable needs. [Continue reading ...]
Wesley Smith, writing at First Things:
Using the word “vegetable” to describe people with a cognitive disability or impairment is profoundly dehumanizing. The victims of this characterization are as diverse as America: Members of the castigated class come from all races, ages, nationalities, genders, sexual orientations, and any other human identifier one can conjure. Indeed, any one of us could find ourselves entered among this disparaged group, and all of us have—or had—loved ones who could be so identified.
The V-word serves the same purpose as the loathsome N-word: to cast aspersion, debase, and degrade—toward the end that the victims of the epithet be seen as a lower order of being—and hence, as less worthy of respect and equality.
Here’s a vivid example. A few years ago the popular animated television program Family Guy featured its cartoon characters putting on a high school musical that openly mocked the late Terri Schiavo. The episode opens with a fictional school play, Terri Schiavo: The Musical. [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 ...]
Several of the Pro-Life Action League staff went to Chicago’s Music Box Theatre last night to catch a showing of the film After Tiller, a documentary that follows the four abortionists—LeRoy Carhart, Warren Hern, Shelley Sella, and Susan Robinson—who continue to perform very late-term abortions in the US after the murder of George Tiller in 2009.
It was especially surreal sitting one row in front of a group of hard-core abortion-supporting feminists. Early in the film there is discussion of recent restrictions on abortion, including bans on abortion after 20 weeks. At the mention of the fact that a 20 week old fetus can feel pain, one lady behind us muttered, “Bulls**t!”
But as the camera later panned across a shot of abortionist Leroy Carhart’s horses as he talked of other horses he lost in a fire supposedly started by anti-abortion activists (though this has never been proven), the ladies behind us gasped in horror.
Horror for dying horses, and “bullsh**t” for babies being torn limb from limb. These conflicting sentiments were just one example of the contradictions and moral blindness that were at the root of After Tiller. [Continue reading ...]
George Weigel, writing at First Things:
The Council of the District of Columbia is considering a bill, sponsored by its most aggressively activist gay member, to legalize surrogate child-bearing in your nation’s capital. Infertility is a heart-rending problem. But solving that problem is not what’s at issue here, for the D.C. surrogacy bill is being pushed by the same people who brought “gay marriage” to the shores of the Potomac River: people who affirm what are, by definition, infertile “marriages.”
Moreover, in their determination to deny reality—or perhaps reinvent it—the proponents of the D.C. surrogacy bill have adopted a species of Newspeak that would make George Orwell cringe. You can get a flavor of it in a letter written by a friend of mine to his D.C. councilman: [Continue reading ...]