World’s Tiniest Surviving Preemie Goes Home

The boy is seen five days after his birth in Tokyo, Japan,
 in undated photo obtained by Reuters, Feb. 27, 2019.
Keio Univ. School of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics

By Dave Andrusko
National Right to Life

After five months of treatment, an amazing baby boy, thought to be the smallest newborn ever to survive and be released healthy, is now home and “feeding normally.” Keio University Hospital in Japan said it discharged the unnamed baby last week, “two months after his initial due date,” CBS News reported

The preemie was born in August at 24 weeks weighing 268 grams (9.45 ounces) and was so tiny he fit in an adult’s cupped hands. He was delivered by emergency C-Section when it appeared he had stopped growing.

“I can only say I’m happy that he has grown this big [just over seven pounds] because honestly, I wasn’t sure he could survive,” the boy’s mother said, according to CBS News.

Dr. Takeshi Arimitsu, who treated the little baby, told the BBC he was the smallest infant born (on record) to be discharged from a hospital, according to a database of the world’s littlest babies held by the University of Iowa.

He said he wanted to show that “there is a possibility that babies will be able to leave the hospital in good health, even though they are born small”.

Citing the University of Iowa database that tracks the world’s smallest surviving babies, the hospital said the previous record was “held by a boy born in Germany in 2009 weighing just 274 grams (9.6 ounces),” CBS News reported.

According to that University of Iowa registry, the tiniest baby girl to survive was born in 2015 in Germany, weighing 252 grams (8.9 ounces).

“Among the very smallest babies, the survival rate is much lower for boys than girls. Medical experts are unsure why, though some believe it could be linked to the slower development of male babies’ lungs,” the BBC reported.

Website: National Right to Life

ABC, CBS, and NBC Blacked Out Coverage of Democrats Supporting Infanticide

By Brent Bozell and Tim Graham 
Life News

Late in the afternoon on February 25, extremist Senate Democrats voted in favor of legalized infanticide. In the wake of Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s bizarre remarks in a radio interview extending the “right to choose” to after-birth abortion (or medical neglect), Sen. Ben Sasse authored the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

The bill would require a health-care provider to “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child” who survives abortion as he or she would to “any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

The bill failed a cloture vote because 44 Democrats voted in favor of infanticide, including seven presidential aspirants — Cory Booker, Sherrod Brown, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren.

Forget massive tax increases and incoherent green deals. This, this should terrify us.

President Trump tweeted: 

“The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth….This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress. If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.”

Network coverage of this vote in the first 24 hours? Zero on ABC, CBS, and NBC. Hours after this vote, Sanders appeared in an hour-long “town hall” on CNN without a single question on this. Warren was interviewed by Chris Hayes for 11 minutes on MSNBC, and no question.

These networks offered more air time and sympathy for vicious “ISIS bride” Hoda Muthana trying to re-enter America than they did for defenseless newborn babies. Just as they felt Ralph Northam wearing blackface was far worse than Northam favoring a woman’s “right to choose” infanticide. Blackface drew hours of coverage, and infanticide drew less than five minutes on the Big Three network shows.

The Democrats claimed the bill was unnecessary, since babies rarely survive abortions, and when they do, they’re typically unable to surviving long outside the womb. You know what else was rare? Water-boarding a few suspected terrorists. But they railed against that for years.

Sen. Tom Cotton rebutted the Democrats, that in Florida alone in 2017 — “in one state in one year” — there were 11 babies born alive after abortion attempts. Someone could raise these babies, free of medical violence.

Even if it saved just one baby, one tender, little, innocent child, isn’t it worth it? Not if you don’t believe these children have a right to live.

Democrats sounded like Northam. Sen. Tina Smith complained it “puts Congress in the middle of important medical decisions that patients and doctors should make together without political interference.” It’s part of a “war on women’s health,” insisted Sen. Jeanne Shaheen. Sen. Mazie Hirono bizarrely claimed this bill would force doctors “to provide care that is unnecessary or even harmful to patients.”

Caring for a baby – even a doomed baby – is “harmful”?

Continue reading Life News article here

House Democrats Block Bill to Stop Infanticide For 10th Time, Cut Off Pro-Life Congressman’s Mic

By Steven Ertelt
Life News

On Thursday, three days after Senate Democrats voted to block a bill to stop infanticide, House Democrats blocked a request by Republicans to vote on a similar bill to require medical care and treatment for babies who survive abortions.

This is the 12th time Congressional Democrats thwarted an attempt by Republicans to vote on a bill that would provide medical care and treatment for babies who provide survived failed abortions — 10 times in the House and twice in the Senate.

Rep. Paul Mitchell (R-MI) offered the unanimous consent request to allow a vote on the anti-infanticide bill but Democrats, as shown below, ruled him out of order.

Unlike other requests to vote on the bill, Democrats cut off Rep. Mitchell’s microphone right away so he could not be heard responding to their refusal to all a vote on the bill.

After Democrats blocked the vote, Congressman Mitchell tweeted about the denial.

“Today on the House floor, I asked for unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 962, the #BornAlive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which requires medical care be given to babies born alive during failed abortion procedures. For the 11th time now, @HouseDemocrats blocked the vote,” he said.

In a statement, the congressman added: “As many of you know, I believe in the fundamental right to life from conception to a natural death. That’s why yesterday I joined a group of my colleagues in a trip across the Capitol to attend the Senate’s vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would have required medical care be given to babies born alive during failed abortion procedures. While this bill failed to pass on the Senate floor, it is important that we continue trying to pass this important bill and protect life.”

If the Democrats continue to block consideration of H.R. 962, after 30 legislative days, Republican Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) and Rep. Wagner plan to file a motion to discharge the resolution from the Rules Committee.

The blocking of a vote on a bill to stop infanticide come even as national polling shows Americans — including people who are “pro-choice” on abortion — oppose abortion up to birth and infanticide. And doctors indicate abortions are never needed to protect a woman’s health and women admit having abortions on healthy babies.

And a new poll finds a massive 17 percent shift in the pro-life direction after Democrats have pushed abortions up to birth and infanticide nationally.

H.R. 962, introduced by Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO), ensures that a baby born alive after a failed or attempted abortion receives the same medical care as any other newborn. It would also penalize doctors who allow such infants to die or who intentionally kill a newborn following a failed abortion.

Every single Democrat in the Senate who is running for president voted against a bill that would stop infanticide and provide medical care and treatment for babies who are born alive after botched abortions. That includes Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar.

While they all voted to support infanticide, President Trump spoke out against infanticide in two tweets saying that it’s nothing short of “executing” babies to let them die after failed abortions.

Website: Life News

Medical Student Confronts Abortion, Becomes Pro-Life

“Never again will I be pro-choice, and never again will I support the murder of any human being, no matter their stage in life.”

By Sarah Terzo
National Right to Life

Abortion becomes very real when it is seen instead of viewed as an abstract moral and political debate.

Some time ago, I was sent this testimony from a medical student who preferred not to leave a name. He had just witnessed an abortion as part of his training. Deeply troubled, he wanted to tell someone. He was haunted by what he had seen.

The student starts out by saying that he was firmly in the pro-choice camp before witnessing the abortion:

“To begin, I must say that until yesterday, Friday, July 2, 2004, I was strongly pro-choice. I am a pre-medical student, and being very scientific, I understood that the mass of cells that forms the fetal body is not often capable of survival before 24 weeks in the womb. I am also somewhat liberal, and I believed that every woman should have the right to choose what she did with her body and one that could potentially be growing inside of her.”

The student had heard the pro-choice movement’s slogans. He took them at face value, believing that the unborn baby was “a mass of cells” and not an individual human being. He felt that a woman “had the right to control her body” and did not sympathize with the tiny baby inside her. He did not believe in the child’s humanity or right to life.

Then he took the opportunity to see an abortion performed. Because of his pro-choice beliefs, he did not expect to be disturbed by anything he would see:

“This summer, I was accepted into a pre-medical program in NYC in which we are allowed to shadow doctors and see all sorts of medical procedures. When given the opportunity to see an abortion, I did not hesitate to accept the offer. It was something new, edgy, and exciting that I had never seen.”

He then describes exactly what he witnessed in the operating room:

“When I entered the operating room, it felt like any other I had ever been in. On the table in front of me, I saw a woman, legs up as if delivering a child although she was asleep. Next to her was a tray of instruments for the abortion and a vacuum machine for suctioning the fetal tissues from the uterus. The doctors put on their gowns and masks and the procedure began. The cervix was held open with a crude metal instrument and a large transparent tube was stuck inside of the woman. Within a matter of seconds, the machine’s motor was engaged and blood, tissue, and tiny organs were pulled out of their environment into a filter. A minute later, the vacuum choked to a halt. The tube was removed, and stuck to the end was a small body and a head attached haphazardly to it, what was formed of the neck snapped. The ribs had formed with a thin skin covering them, the eyes had formed, and the inner organs had begun to function. The tiny heart of the fetus, obviously a little boy, had just stopped — forever. The vacuum filter was opened, and the tiny arms and legs that had been torn off of the fetus were accounted for. The fingers and toes had the beginnings of their nails on them. The doctors, proud of their work, reassembled the body to show me. Tears welled up in my eyes as they removed the baby boy from the table and shoved his body into a container for disposal.”

Since this abortion was done by suction, the baby must have been less than 13 to 14 weeks, but still far enough along that his humanity was evident.

Abortions in the second trimester are usually done through dilation and evacuation, a procedure in which forceps are used to tear apart the baby, rather than through suction.

The student was haunted by what he saw:

“I have not been able to think of anything since yesterday at 10:30 besides what that baby boy might have been. I don’t think that people realize what an abortion actually is until they see it happen. I have been tortured by these images – so real and so vivid – for two days now…and I was just a spectator.

National Right to Life article continues here

Voices for Life is an e-publication dedicated to informing and educating the public on pro-life and pro-family issues. To read our Mission Statement, use this link.  Follow us on Facebook, Google, Pinterest, and on MeWe.  Help us spread the pro-life message by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

Pregnant, need help or know someone who does?

National Hotline: Call 1-800-712-HELP or Text 'HELPLINE' to 313131.

In Southeast Penna:  Call the Community Women's Center at  215-826-8090

If you or someone you know is suffering after abortion, confidential non-judgmental help is available.  Call Project Rachel's national toll-free number 888-456-HOPE (4673) or visit hopeafterabortion.org. 

Signs Promoting Upcoming Lila Rose Event Stolen, Vandalized at UCLA

By Cassy Fiano-Chesser
Live Action News

Lila Rose, the founder and president of Live Action, is scheduled to give a talk at her alma mater, the University of California, Los Angeles next Monday, March 4th. The speech is being presented by Live Action UCLA, an on-campus pro-life group, and Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) UCLA. 

Like other events on campus, Rose’s speech was being advertised on campus at the Bruin Walk with signs and a table manned by members of YAF. But within just days of the signs being posted, they were vandalized and stolen.

Nina Rose, president of Live Action UCLA, spoke to Live Action News about the theft and what this will mean for Rose’s speech and other pro-life events in the future. 

“To advertise the event, we put out a sign board on Bruin Walk, which is basically the walkway where all the students take to get to class, and it’s very standard for a student organization to put a sign board out, like an A-frame, so we put ours up in a line-up with a dozen other signs,” she explained. “It’s fairly safe; most people just put their signs out there for the year and there’s no problem.”

But there were issues with their sign almost immediately. 

“We put our sign up on Tuesday, in a metal frame with the sign inside. By the weekend, it had already been stolen,” Rose said. “Somebody basically just stole the sign for Lila’s talk — they didn’t steal the frame, so they just took the sign out of it.”

Website: Live Action News

Abortion Survivor: Democrats Supporting Infanticide Means “They’re Willing to Sacrifice Lives Like Mine”

By Micaih Bilger
Life News

Abortion survivor Melissa Ohden watched Monday as U.S. Senators voted to deny infants like herself protection under the law.

Demonstrating their loyalty to the billion-dollar abortion industry, Senate Democrats blocked the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act on Monday. The bill requires abortionists to provide the same basic medical care to an infant born alive after a failed abortion that a doctor would to any other infant born at that stage of pregnancy.

“I think the Democrats who voted last night against this bill really showed us they’re willing to sacrifice lives like mine to keep abortion on demand,” Ohden told Fox & Friends on Tuesday morning.

Now 41, Ohden survived a late-term saline abortion and was adopted into a loving home. As a teenager, she said she felt absolutely devastated when she learned that her birth family tried to abort her.

She had similar feelings on Monday when she watched Senate Democrats vote against the bill on Monday evening.

“I was disappointed, I still am today, but I’m certainly not surprised,” she said. “The Democrats continue to say things like this is unnecessary, I’m living proof that this is necessary.”

Planned Parenthood, which lobbied against the bill, claimed situations like Ohden’s do not exist. It slammed the bill as based on “lies and misinformation.” In reality, the bill has nothing to do with women’s bodies or abortion. Once a baby is born, he or she is their own separate entity. The bill simply requires the same level of medical care for that infant as any other infant born at the same gestational age would receive.

SIGN THE PETITION: Stop Infanticide! Stop Abortions Up to Birth!

Ohden said she is glad the bill brought the issue of infanticide back to the forefront for Americans. She thanked the Senators who voted to protect babies like herself.

“We need this bill, not only to ensure we are provided medical care, but that there is penalty when there is failure to do so,” Ohden said.

Her story is not unique. Claire Culwell also survived an abortion, though her twin did not. After the vote Monday, she reacted with disbelief.

“I have no words at this moment,” Culwell wrote on Facebook. “These Senators have voted to leave babies like ME to die after a failed abortion. No protection for a BORN baby who survived.”

Life News article continues here

Voices for Life is an e-publication dedicated to informing and educating the public on pro-life and pro-family issues. To read our Mission Statement, use this link.  Follow us on Facebook, Google, Pinterest, and on MeWe.  Help us spread the pro-life message by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

Pregnant, need help or know someone who does?

National Hotline: Call 1-800-712-HELP or Text 'HELPLINE' to 313131.

In Southeast Penna:  Call the Community Women's Center at  215-826-8090

If you or someone you know is suffering after abortion, confidential non-judgmental help is available.  Call Project Rachel's national toll-free number 888-456-HOPE (4673) or visit hopeafterabortion.org. 

Babies Have Accidentally Survived Abortions for Decades. Here’s proof.

By Carole Novielli
Live Action News

The abortion industry would like the public to believe that babies born alive after abortion attempts rarely occur. But babies accidentally born alive after abortions — the so-called “dreaded complication” — have plagued abortion profiteers for decades.

The Philadelphia Inquirer highlighted cases from the 1970s in a 1981 series entitled The Dreaded Complication. In one case, an infant accidentally survived a saline abortion. The abortionist told his nurses by phone to deny the baby oxygen, but thankfully, another doctor stepped in and the baby survived, only to be adopted later. In another case, a Nebraska abortionist reportedly told a nurse to leave a baby boy who survived a saline abortion because “it would probably die in a few minutes.”

In yet another case from the 1970’s, a baby boy survived a prostaglandin abortion and later died. But this time, the doctor who arrived on scene attempted to save the infant, clamping the cord and sending the baby to intensive care. 

“It was a shock, a totally unique emergency situation, very upsetting to all of us,” the doctor said. “Some people have disagreed with me [about ordering intensive care for an abortion live birth] but that seems to me the only way you can go. It’s like watching a drowning. You act. You don’t have the luxury of calling around and consulting. You institute life-preserving measures first and decide about viability later on.”

READ: Poll: 77 percent of Americans want Congress to protect abortion survivors

In 1989, Pennsylvania abortion doctor Joseph Melnick was convicted of infanticide after a baby he aborted survived. Hospital staffers there claimed a heartbeat had been detected, and the baby had moved and gasped. For this crime, he was given only probation and community service.

The Dreaded Complication

By the 1990’s, additional incidents of abortion survivors were being reported.

In Florida, a witness who worked at a hospital called the police after seeing a doctor smother a 23-week-old male with Down syndrome who survived an abortion. Miami Right to Life documented the case after being contacted by the witness, and pro-lifers endearingly named him “Baby Special.” The report said that the autopsy showed pockets of air in the baby’s stomach, indicating that he had taken a breath. The medical examiner testified that the baby lived for 34 minutes.

However, the doctor was cleared of all charges, saying there was no clear evidence that he smothered the baby. “When a fetus is aborted, sometimes there is some activity in the fetus and you normally don’t do anything. You let the fetus expire,” the abortionist told authorities. “The usual thing is just to take your time, don’t immediately do anything,” the abortionist told authorities.

READ: Abortionists reveal why we need a law to protect abortion survivors

Continue reading Live Action News article here

Senate Fails to Pass Bill Protecting Infants Surviving Abortion

By Newsroom
Live Action News

Today, the United States Senate voted on an anti-infanticide bill introduced by Senator Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. The legislation needed 60 votes to pass, and it failed by a vote of 53 in favor and 44 against. The bill stated that “if an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.”

Every Democratic Senator, including Democratic presidential hopefuls Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Sherrod Brown, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, and Elizabeth Warren, along with Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, voted against this common-sense bill. Democrats Doug Jones, Joe Manchin, and Bob Casey Jr. voted in favor of the bill. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) did not vote on the bill.

The 2002 Born Alive Infants Protection Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush, established that any child born alive — even as the result of an abortion — is to be legally considered a “person”, “human being,” “child”, and “individual” in federal law. However, that law contained no penalties for those who choose not to follow it. Senator Sasse’s bill included penalties for abortionists who break the law, including a fine and/or imprisonment for up to five years.

READ: Poll: 77 percent of Americans want Congress to protect abortion survivors

The bill would also have allowed a woman to take legal action against an abortionist who breaks this law. The bill states that any child who accidentally survives an abortion must be treated with “the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age” and would make certain that “the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital.” In addition, the bill requires the mandatory reporting of violations.

Currently, there are 19 states which afford no protections to abortion survivors. According to the Centers for Disease Control, infants are still born alive every year. Between 2003 and 2014 alone, at least 143 babies died after being born alive during abortions. And according to a press release from Live Action News, 

“In 2018, 16 infants in Florida alone were born alive after surviving abortion attempts.”

Adult survivors of abortion have formed The Abortion Survivors Network. On the group’s website, it states, “a government report in Canada from 2012 reported that 491 children survived abortions there over the nine-year period of 2000-2009. There’s also this report that identifies 766 children survived abortions in the five-year period from 2013-2018. Additionally, there are similar government reports from the U.K. and states inAustralia.”

Life Action News article continues here

Voices for Life is an e-publication dedicated to informing and educating the public on pro-life and pro-family issues. To read our Mission Statement, use this link.  Follow us on Facebook, Google, Pinterest, and on MeWe.  Help us spread the pro-life message by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

Pregnant, need help or know someone who does?

National Hotline: Call 1-800-712-HELP or Text 'HELPLINE' to 313131.

In Southeast Penna:  Call the Community Women's Center at  215-826-8090

If you or someone you know is suffering after abortion, confidential non-judgmental help is available.  Call Project Rachel's national toll-free number 888-456-HOPE (4673) or visit hopeafterabortion.org. 

Ocasio-Cortez: People Maybe Shouldn’t Reproduce Due To Climate Change

Ocasio-Cortez has often used alarmist language when discussing climate change, repeatedly comparing fighting climate change to fighting Nazi Germany

By Ryan Saavedra

Daily Wire

Democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) suggested on Sunday night that people should consider not having children due to climate change because there is a "scientific consensus" that life will be hard for kids.

"Our planet is going to hit disaster if we don't turn this ship around and so it's basically like, there's a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult," Ocasio-Cortez said while chopping up food in her kitchen during an Instagram live video. "And it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question, you know, 'Is it okay to still have children?'"

Ocasio-Cortez then took a shot at Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) over an incident that happened in Feinstein's office on Friday when a far-left fringe group tried to pressure Feinstein into supporting the Green New Deal.

"You know what’s interesting about this group?" Feinstein told the group on Friday, in response to the group storming into her office. "I’ve been doing this for 30 years. I know what I’m doing."

"You come in here, and you say it has to be my way or the highway. I don’t respond to that," Feinstein continued. "I’ve gotten elected, I just ran. I was elected by almost a million-vote plurality. And I know what I’m doing. So you know, maybe people should listen a little bit."

Ocasio-Cortez said Feinstein's response was "like not good enough" because the legislation that the Democrats support is "frankly going to kill us."

"This idea that 'I've been working on this for x-amount of years,' um, it's like not good enough," Ocasio-Cortez said. "Like, we need a universal sense of urgency, and people are like trying to introduce watered-down proposals that are frankly going to kill us. A lack of urgency is going to kill us."

WATCH:

Gob Abierto

✔@GobAbiertoBOL

Replying to @GobAbiertoBOL

Socialist @AOC discusses how people should reconsider having children due to global warming, and reminds us that we are all going to *literally* die if the Green New Deal doesn’t pass. She also takes some shots at Dianne Feinstein. *Sidenote: She failed to compost her potatoes*

1,113

7:51 PM - Feb 24, 2019

1,065 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

"The issue has gotten worse," Ocasio-Cortez continued. "So I don't think that working on an issue for 30 years alone is what qualifies as, as what someone qualified to solve an issue."

 Daily Wire article continues here

New Marist Poll: Americans Make Dramatic and Sudden Move Toward Pro-Life Label

Democrats and young people lead the way as strong majorities also reject late-term abortion

By PRNewswire

In just one month, Americans have made a sudden and dramatic shift away from the pro-choice position and toward a pro-life stance, according to a new Marist poll.

The shift was led by Democrats and those under 45 years old, according to a survey taken Feb.12-17 in the wake of efforts in several states to legalize abortion up until birth.

"Current proposals that promote late-term abortion have reset the landscape and language on abortion in a pronounced – and very measurable – way," said Barbara Carvalho, director of The Marist Poll.

In a substantial, double-digit shift, according to the poll, Americans are now as likely to identify as pro-life (47 percent) as pro-choice (47 percent). Just last month, a similar survey conducted by The Marist Poll found Americans more likely to identify as pro-choice than as pro-life by 17 percentage points (55 to 38 percent). Democrats moved in their pro-life identity from 20 percent to 34 percent.

Among Democrats, the gap between pro-life and pro-choice identifiers was cut in half from 55 percent to 27 percent. The number of Democrats now identifying as pro-life is 34 percent, up from 20 percent last month, while the number identifying as pro-choice fell from 75 percent to 61 percent. 

Younger Americans also moved dramatically, now dividing 47 percent pro-life to 48 percent pro-choice. One month ago, the gap was almost 40 percentage points with only 28 percent identifying as pro-life and 65 percent identifying as pro-choice.

"The recent legal changes to late-term abortion and the debate which followed have not gone unnoticed by the general public," said Carvalho. "In just one month, there has been a significant increase in the proportion of Americans who see themselves as pro-life and an equally notable decline in those who describe themselves as pro-choice."

This is the first time since 2009 that as many or more Americans have identified as pro-life as have identified as pro-choice. More than a third of Democrats (34 percent) as well as two-thirds of Republicans (67 percent) identify as pro-life. Independents divide (46 percent pro-life, 48 percent pro-choice).

At the same time, the survey found that opposition to late-term abortions is overwhelming. By about three to one (71 percent to 25 percent), Americans say abortion should be generally illegal during the third trimester. This majority includes 60 percent of Democrats, 72 percent of independents and 85 percent of Republicans.

By an even wider margin (71 percent to 18 percent), Americans strongly oppose late-term abortion after 20 weeks. This 71 percent includes two-thirds (66 percent) who say abortion should be banned after 20 weeks of pregnancy except to save the life of the mother, and an additional five percent think abortion should be outlawed completely. 

Only 18 percent think abortion should be allowed at any time up until birth. Those opposing abortion after 20 weeks, or overall, include: 59 percent of Democrats, 78 percent of independents and 82 percent of Republicans.

Continue reading article here

Watch Their Minds Change on Abortion: ‘That’s a Human Being!’

The truth has a strong effect on people, and hiding it is what allows evils like abortion to continue to flourish.

By Cassy Fiano-Chesser  
Live Action News

Many people don’t understand the reality of what abortion truly entails. The abortion industry has been caught lying to women about fetal development, and the picture people have in their heads of what an abortion is like tends to be the sanitized, painless version that one might see on television. But what happens when people see what a procedure is actually like? Does the reality change minds?

Second and third trimester abortions have been in the news frequently in recent weeks, and in one of two new videos released by Live Action, one woman argued that abortion should be legal, even possibly up to birth. “I think it should be legal, and I don’t see anything wrong with it,” she said frankly. “I find it kind of offensive when people think it shouldn’t be legal.”

When asked if she thought it should be allowed even up until birth, she answered, “Yeah, probably the earlier the better, obviously, but if your situation — if you really can’t afford to have a baby, or it’s really going to harm you, in — like, it’s quite a touchy issue for you, then it shouldn’t — you shouldn’t have to have it if there’s been a situation where you don’t want it.”

She was then showed a video with 2D animation, narrated by former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino, which explained a second trimester abortion procedure:

Afterwards, her mind was changed about late-term abortion. “It’s quite a brutal procedure,” she admitted. “It does make me think back on what I’d said about aborting in the later stages.” While she still felt that abortion should be legal in the first trimester, she felt differently about second and third trimester abortions after seeing what the procedure was like. 

“I don’t think it should be legal that late in the pregnancy, and it’s just a very harmful method, and yeah, it’s very devastating the way they do the procedure.”

In a second video, a man and woman were asked about abortion, and both said they supported the idea of abortion being legal in the first trimester. 

“The first trimester is fine,” the man said, adding, “I feel like you can totally do whatever you want, but like, after the second trimester, I think that there should be some type of limitations.” The woman he was with agreed. 

“The first trimester is okay to get an abortion, but after that — third trimester, definitely not — but after that, like, maybe there’s gonna be restrictions,” she said. 

They also discussed how it wasn’t until three to six months of pregnancy, or the second trimester, that a preborn baby became a human being, and abortion procedures after that point equaled killing somebody.

The pair were then shown another video featuring Dr. Levatino, explaining a first trimester D&C, or dilation and curettage, abortion procedure.

 

“That was really scary. I didn’t realize that there was like, possibly parts left behind,” she said, adding, “That made my uterus hurt.” The man she was with, meanwhile, said, “That’s a whole baby!” He also said the video did change his mind about restricting abortion.

“[S]eeing how big that baby was it was just another, like, reality check, you know, like, that’s a human being,” he said. While both said they understood the circumstances that can lead a woman to think abortion is her only choice, they also both felt that there could be better choices.

The truth has a strong effect on people, and hiding it is what allows evils like abortion to continue to flourish.

Website: Live Action News

Voices for Life is an e-publication dedicated to informing and educating the public on pro-life and pro-family issues. To read our Mission Statement, use this link.  Follow us on Facebook, Google, Pinterest, and on MeWe.  Help us spread the pro-life message by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

Pregnant, need help or know someone who does?

National Hotline: Call 1-800-712-HELP or Text 'HELPLINE' to 313131.

In Southeast Penna:  Call the Community Women's Center at  215-826-8090

If you or someone you know is suffering after abortion, confidential non-judgmental help is available.  Call Project Rachel's national toll-free number 888-456-HOPE (4673) or visit hopeafterabortion.org. 

Google Officials Meet With Planned Parenthood President as It Comes Under Fire for Censoring Pro-Lifers

 In December, YouTube downgraded pro-life videos in its search results after a pro-abortion writer complained about a lack of pro-abortion content. 

By Micaiah Bilger
Life News

Google’s political biases are showing again.

And this time the person exposing them is the leader of the largest abortion business in America – Leana Wen, president of Planned Parenthood.

On Twitter Friday, Wen shared a picture of herself at the Google headquarters with some of its employees. In the post, she called the online media giant one of their “fiercest supporters and champions.”

View image on Twitter

Leana Wen, M.D.

✔@DrLeanaWen

I had the opportunity to meet with some of our fiercest supporters & champions at @Google HQ where we discussed how access to reproductive health care is fundamental to economic opportunity & inclusion. Thanks to the wonderful team of Googlers who welcomed us! #TechStandsWithPP

76

12:55 PM - Feb 22, 2019

75 people are talking about this

Within the first few months on the job, Wen made it clear that abortion is Planned Parenthood’s “core mission.” Its most recent annual report shows abortions rose to more than 330,000 in 2018, while its real health services – including birth control, sterilizations, cancer screenings, adoption referrals and other women’s health services – all declined. It also boasted a record $1.66 billion in revenue.

So when Google is “championing” Planned Parenthood, it isn’t primarily supporting cancer screenings or pap smears or even birth control. It is championing abortion.

And pro-lifers have suspected it of doing so for years. Late last year, top Republican lawmakers called on the Department of Justice to investigate Google because of suspected political biases by the largest online platform in the world. President Donald Trump even accused Google of “rigging” its search results.

The calls came after investigative reports by The Daily Caller, the Media Research Center and others exposed the troubling trend.

Among the key findings of the Media Research Center were:

Google Search Aids Democrats: 

Google and YouTube’s corporate chairman Eric Schmidt had assisted Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. The company’s search engine had deployed a similar bias in favor of Democrats. One study had found 2016 campaign searches were biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. Even the liberal website Slate had revealed the search engine’s results had favored both Clinton and Democratic candidates. Google also had fired engineer James Damore for criticizing the company’s “Ideological Echo Chamber.” The company had claimed he had been fired for “advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.” Damore is suing Google, saying it mistreats whites, males and conservatives.

YouTube Is Shutting Down Conservative Videos: 

Google’s YouTube site had created its own problems with conservative content. YouTube moderators must take their cues from the rest of Google – from shutting down entire conservative channels “by mistake” to removing videos that promote right-wing political views. YouTube’s special Creators for Change section is devoted to people using their “voices for social change” and even highlights the work of a 9/11 truther. The site’s very own YouTube page and Twitter account celebrate progressive attitudes, including uploading videos about “inspiring” gay and trans people and sharing the platform’s support for DACA.

Tech Companies Rely on Anti-Conservative Fact-Checkers: 

Facebook and Google both had partnered with fact-checking organizations in order to combat “fake news.” Facebook’s short-lived disputed flagger program had allowed Snopes, PolitiFact and ABC News to discern what is and is not real news. Google’s fact-checkers had accused conservative sources of making claims that did not appear in their articles and disproportionately “fact-checked” conservative sources. On Facebook, a satire site, the Babylon Bee, had been flagged by Snopes for its article clearly mocking CNN for its bias. YouTube also had announced a partnership with Wikipedia in order to debunk videos deemed to be conspiracy theories, even though Wikipedia has been criticized for its liberal bias.

LifeNews has reported on a number of examples as well. In December, YouTube downgraded pro-life videos in its search results after a pro-abortion writer complained about a lack of pro-abortion content. The conservative group PragerU also is suing  censoring its conservative and pro-life videos on YouTube.

Website: Life News