. . . 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
When abortion became the law of the land in 1973 with a fiat from the U.S. Supreme Court, the first thing I did was go to the library and look through the Readers’ Guide to Periodical Literature.
I checked out most of the magazines and secular journals to find what they had been saying about abortion during the past decade or so, and I found that the stories were almost always slanted toward the legalization of abortion.
Coverage of events such as Sherry Finkbine’s highly publicized abortion in 1962 was mostly pro-abortion. Finkbine, hostess of the then popular Romper Room, had taken thalidomide—which could cause fetal defects—and Finkbine feared that she would have a deformed baby.
When her story went public and she was denied an abortion in Phoenix, she went to Sweden for an abortion. The media took her side, and abortion for fetal defect became “reasonable.”
More stories followed and the secular media had set its course.
We could cite hundreds of such stories, always with a pro-abortion slant or outright support. The secular media cheered Roe v. Wade in 1973 and has never steered away from this course.
There were occasional articles pointing out this bias, even by writers in the secular press, but while they were noted, they were mostly ignored. The abortion bias continues to this day.
A recent example appears in a Newsweek article by Nancy Hass. [Continue reading ...]
Josh Brahm blogged recently at Live Action about a new video produced by the Human Development Resource Council (HDRC) about RU-486 — also known simply as “the abortion pill” — that’s definitely a cut above the average YouTube video:
It shows a scene of an abortionist in a counseling session with a young woman who wants RU-486. But this counseling session is very unlike the dishonest marketing and misinformation that was shown during Live Action’s Rosa Acuna sting. This is what would happen if an honest abortionist told a woman the truth about her embryo and what RU-486 would do to both her and her child. I’m sure pro-choice people will cry “propaganda” when they see this video, but there’s a documented medical citation for every single sentence the abortionist utters!
Here it is:
Josh has a great idea: Whenever someone does a YouTube search for “abortion pill,” what if this was the first video that showed up? [Continue reading ...]
Although the FDA last week approved the drug “ella” (ulipristal acetate) for prescription use, the controversy over how it works — Is it a contraceptive, or an abortifacient, or both? — shows no signs of going away any time soon.
According to the New York Times, the members of the FDA’s advisory committee that voted to approve it were largely indifferent to this question; all they concluded, in their wisdom, is that it’s supposedly “safe and effective”.
Meanwhile, ella’s manufacturers are going to great lengths to claim that it functions only as a contraceptive and not as an abortifacient. Witness David Archer, whom Slate calls an “expert” for ella’s manufacturer, HRA Pharma of Paris: [Continue reading ...]