Monday, February 25, 2019

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.



Sunday, February 24, 2019

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.


abortion interview

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.


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 FacebookGooglePinterest, 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.”
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.



California Judge Refuses Attorney General Request to Seal Planned Parenthood Baby Parts Video During Preliminary Hearing


By Dave Andrusko
National Right to Life

Citizen journalists David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, who have been under siege by the attorney general of California for their undercover work exposing Planned Parenthood , received good news Thursday.

In his decision, Judge Christopher Hite of the San Francisco Superior Court “denied the requests of California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and his abortion allies to seal and shield from public viewing the video evidence to be shown in the courtroom during Sandra Merritt’s upcoming preliminary hearing, scheduled for April 22 to May 3, 2019,” according to Liberty Counsel. Liberty Counsel is defending Ms. Merritt against 15 felony charges brought against her by Becerra “in connection with her undercover journalism work which exposed Planned Parenthood’s trade in baby body parts.”

However Judge Hite also said he “will seal the video evidence after the hearing,” 

Liberty Counsel said. “He will also allow Merritt’s accusers to continue to press their charges anonymously, under ‘Doe’ pseudonyms.”

As NRL News Today previously reported, Daleiden and others from the Center for Medical Progress posed as buyers of “fetal tissue” (an umbrella term that includes intact hearts and lungs and pancreas and brains), and asked the kinds of questions someone who is the middleman would ask of the abortion industry. The CMP’s series of 14 videos were incredibly shocking.

Horatio Mihet, Liberty Counsel’s Vice President of Legal Affairs and Chief Litigation Counsel, said of Judge Hite’s decision, 
“Attorney General Becerra’s attempt to shield from the public the very same videos upon which he bases his political prosecution of Sandra Merritt is truly astonishing.”
Mihet added, “The only reason the attorney general wants to have these videos sealed and kept from the public eye is because the videos themselves provide damning evidence that these allegedly confidential conversations were not in fact confidential. The videos themselves put the lie to the Attorney General’s case and reveal it for the fraud that it is.”
Judge Hite wrote in his 24-page decision, 
“The Attorney General has failed to rebut the strong presumption in favor of open public trials in this instance.”
National Right to Life continues here


Friday, February 22, 2019

Pro-life ‘Unplanned’ Movie Receives R-Rating…Likely for Violence of Abortion

unplanned abortion movie

By Nancy Flanders
Live Action News


Unplanned, the movie of the life story of Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood worker turned pro-life activist, has unexpectedly received an R-rating from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). The MPAA cites the reasoning for the rating as “some disturbing/bloody images” but Ben Kayser of Movie Guide has stated that other 2019 films that include killing, murder, and death have only received a rating of PG-13.

While Unplanned features simulated abortion scenes that include blood, it doesn’t contain any of the MPAA cautions for profanity, nudity, or sex. Therefore, the MPAA decision to give the film an R-rating is quite possibly because of the abortion scenes — and the MPAA’s opinion that these scenes depict violence. The rating essentially means that the MPAA is (perhaps unintentionally) supporting the pro-life community’s long-held argument that abortion is an act of violence against innocent human life — one pro-lifers believe should be illegal.

READ: ‘Unplanned’ star shocked by mother’s revelation: ‘I was going to abort you’

In addition to stating the obvious – that abortion is an act of violence – the R-rating sets up quite a hypocritical situation for our pro-abortion organizations and leaders. The bizarre situation is that teens in many states can legally undergo an abortion without a parent’s permission, but won’t be able to see a movie about abortion withouta parent’s permission: 

‘Dear teenage girls, you are mature enough to have this violent act done to you and your child and your parents don’t need to know, but you can’t see a movie about it without your parents saying it’s okay.’


Planned Parenthood works overtime to fight and overturn laws concerning parental notification for abortion, so it’s ironic that teenage girls can’t enter a movie about Planned Parenthood without parental notification.

The writers/directors of Unplanned — Cary Solomon and Chuck Konzelman — aren’t worried about the R-rating, although it may stop teenage girls who should see the movie from seeing the movie. In their opinion, it’s a film teens should see with their parents.

“But, maybe it’s all for the best: As the wife of our lead film attorney put it: ‘This is a movie that every mother of a teenage girl needs to take her daughter by the hand and go see with her.’ So as far as we’re concerned, ‘R’ means ‘Recommended,'” they said as reported by Movie Guide. They say they don’t plan on fighting the R-rating.


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 FacebookGooglePinterest, 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


12,000 Viable Unborn Babies are Killed in Late-Term Abortions Every Year


By Steven Ertelt
Life News


Nothing speaks louder in the ongoing debate over late-term abortion than a crying newborn baby, particularly a baby who was accidentally born alive after an attempted abortion. The voices of these abortion survivors are very powerful. Now adults, they have been speaking out to tell their stories.

The Senate is about to vote on a bill to protect such infants. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, sponsored by Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., requires appropriate medical care be given to a baby who survives an abortion. President Trump is going further, pressing Congress to ban late-term abortions altogether. The rhetoric surrounding both bills has become heated and has left many people wondering how to separate fact from fiction.

To determine the truth about late-term abortion, look at the abortion industry itself. Examining its research tells us whether late-term abortions are rare, the reasons why women seek them, and whether the president’s graphic descriptions are over the top.

Media outlets routinely describe the numbers of late-term abortions as ” very rare,” citing the fact that they account for only 1.3 percent of all abortions. But the percentage value minimizes the actual numbers. There are more than 12,000 abortions annually after 20 weeks of pregnancy, according to the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of the abortion lobby. 

It does not refer to the number of children who die annually in car crashes (about 4,000), gun violence (about 3,000), or childhood cancers (about 2,000) as “very rare.” Yet each of these tragic numbers is only a fraction of the 12,000 viable children aborted late in pregnancy.

Abortion lobbyists admit that most late-term abortions are done on healthy mothers carrying healthy babies. Guttmacher Institute statistics confirm that “most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.” 

Instead, data suggest that “most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous.”

As to whether the president’s description in his State of the Union address of a baby being “ripped from the mother’s womb” is accurate, consider the imagery used by Justice Anthony Kennedy in a 2000 Supreme Court decision. Kennedy uses a description from LeRoy Carhart, a late-term abortion specialist who currently operates a clinic in suburban Washington, D.C.:

Continue reading Life News article here


Thursday, February 21, 2019

Arkansas Governor Signs Law to Automatically Ban Abortion After Roe v. Wade Falls

Featured Image
Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson

By Calvin Freiburger  
Life Site News

Abortion will automatically become illegal in Arkansas after Roe v. Wade is invalidated, thanks to a law just signed by the state’s Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson.

Earlier this month the state legislature voted to pass the Arkansas Human Life Protection Act, which declares it is “time for the United States Supreme Court to redress and correct the grave injustice and the crime against humanity” that is abortion. 


It provides that after Roe’scentral holding is either overruled “in whole or in part” by the Supreme Court, or nullified by an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, legal abortion will be “abolished” in the state except to save a pregnant woman’s life from a “physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury.”

Abortionists who violate the law would face a fine of up to $100,000 and/or up to ten years in prison. Women seeking abortions could not be prosecuted, and the bill says it would not apply to the use of contraceptives administered “before the time when a pregnancy could be determined through conventional medical testing.”

Hutchinson, who has previously signed a ban on dismemberment abortions and canceled the state’s Medicaid contract with Planned Parenthood, signed the new law late Tuesday afternoon, the Associated Press reports. This makes Arkansas the fifth state to enact such a “trigger law”; another nine still have their unenforced, pre-Roe abortion bans on the books.

Because it wouldn’t take effect until after Roe falls, the Arkansas Human Life Protection Act won’t impact future abortion deliberations at the Supreme Court. Supporters say it’s important to prepare state laws for a favorable ruling they hope President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees will deliver in the near future.

In the meantime, the legislatures of Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas are currently working to pass bills banning abortion as soon as a fetal heartbeat is detectable, in hopes of provoking legal challenges and instigating such a review.



Report: Planned Parenthood Purging Staffers Linked to Body Parts Scandal

Planned Parenthood

By Carole Novielli
Live Action News


Is Planned Parenthood purging staffers connected to aborted baby parts scandal? An analysis of recently retired Planned Parenthood staffers, conducted by the pro-life group Operation Rescue, may indicate that the largest provider of abortions is cleaning house of anyone exposed by the investigative journalism of the Center for Medical Progress as being connected to the trafficking and harvesting of aborted baby parts. 
“[O]ut of 21 executive and senior leaders mentioned in Planned Parenthood’s latest annual report… 13 are new hires or promotions from within that were previously not included in Cecile Richard’s upper organizational echelons,” Operation Rescue found.
Image: Planned Parenthood's retiring staffers (Image credit: Operation Rescue)
Planned Parenthood’s retiring staffers (Image credit: Operation Rescue)
In 2015, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released video footage which captured a number of high ranking Planned Parenthood officials involved in the grisly body parts scandal. Operation Rescue president, Troy Newman, who served as a founding board member for CMP while the undercover investigation took place, speculates that Planned Parenthood’s staffers may be “are running from prosecution” and feels the changes may be related to an ongoing FBI investigation of the abortion corporation.
“In December 2015, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives both referred the Planned Parenthood Federation of American and six regional affiliates to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation and prosecution for the illegal sale of aborted baby parts and other federal crimes,” the report states.
“Pretty much every one who had anything to do with the trafficking of aborted babies is gone from Planned Parenthood, including their CEO Cecile Richards,” Newman said.
A review of OR’s partial list of retired PP staffers (seen below) makes a compelling case for OR’s suspicions.



Wednesday, February 20, 2019

Supreme Court Lets Ruling Protecting Texas Bishops From Subpoena on Abortion Talk Stand

Planned Parenthood went back to the district court and asked for a
temporary restraining order to block the law late Tuesday
night, May 29, 2018. | Pixabay/Free-Photos

By Michael Gryboski
Christian Post

The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear an appeal from a case on whether a Texas-based Roman Catholic Church body must disclose its private discussions on abortion and fetal burial.

In an order released Tuesday, the high court denied certiorari in the case of Whole Woman’s Health et al v. Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, allowing an earlier decision in favor of the Catholic body to stand.

Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, a law firm involved in the case on behalf of the Catholic Bishops, celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision.

“Thank goodness the Supreme Court saw this appeal for what it was: a nasty attempt to intimidate the bishops and force them to withdraw their offer to bury every child aborted in Texas,” said Rassbach in a statement released Tuesday.
“Abortion groups may think the bishops ‘troublesome,’ but it is wrong to weaponize the law to stop the bishops from standing up for their beliefs.”
In 2016, multiple abortion providers filed a lawsuit against Texas over regulations requiring that aborted fetuses be given a proper burial rather than disposing of them in landfill or sewers, as previously allowed.

The abortion providers argued that the regulations violated Due Process rights by placing a burden on the woman seeking an abortion to find and arrange for a dignified burial.

At the preliminary injunction hearing, Catholic Conference Executive Director Jennifer Allmon testified in favor of the regulations, noting that the Conference was willing to work with Catholic churches to provide free common burials.

In March 2018, the abortion providers served the Catholic Conference a “third-party subpoena” demanding all documents regarding abortion, embryonic and fetal tissue remains, as well as all communication, including confidential, the bishops may have had with state government officials or the state legislature.

In response, the bishops filed a motion against the subpoena in April of last year, arguing that the order violated the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Last July, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled 2-1 in favor of the bishops, with Circuit Judge Edith Jones writing the majority opinion.





Twitter Bans Pro-Life Accounts for Exposing Planned Parenthood Selling Aborted Baby Parts


By Steven Ertelt
Life News

Two pro-life advocates were banned from Twitter last week for sharing what they said is already public information about Planned Parenthood’s baby body parts trade.

The information has to do with the prosecution of David Daleiden, leader of the Center for Medical Progress, which exposed the abortion chain’s practices several years ago. Last week, a California judge refused to allow the names of 14 abortion workers to be released in the case.

National Review reports Twitter locked the accounts Pro-Life San Francisco (@prolifesf) and Eric Cochran (@Eric_Cochran) a few days later because they refused to delete posts that identified the 14 employees.

Terrisa Bukovinac, who runs the Pro-life San Francisco account, said the names already are public, and she is appealing her suspension.

“The names of the [John Does] have already been circulated and seen by millions of viewers,” Bukovinac said. “This is public information because they have made themselves known!”She urged the social media site to stop censoring pro-lifers. Twitter has a history of blocking pro-life accounts.

Here’s more from the report:

Twitter asked to delete her tweets naming the 14 individuals Daleiden and his partner Sandra Merritt filmed. Their names have been publicly available on the Internet since 2017, but they are named as “Does” one through 14 in the felony case against Daleiden, People of the State of California vs. David Robert Daleiden, Sandra Merritt. …

“The ‘Does’ have made their own identities known by speaking publicly about the case and their own involvement,” Bukovinac told National Review. “Twitter’s selective targeting of our organization is either pure viewpoint discrimination or a pathetic submission to pressure from Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation.”
Life News article continues here