Author: Sarah Riordan

Abortion is a tragedy.  It doesn’t matter if a person is pro-life or pro-choice, any intellectually honest human being should be able to state-without a doubt-that abortion is tragic. 

Because abortion is clearly devastating, many women who have an abortion suffer from post-abortive conditions.  These conditions include, depression, anxiety, relationship problems, sexual problems, and in severe cases, thoughts of suicide.

In Congressman Pitts’ new bill, H.R. 1457, he addresses the issue of post-abortive conditions and asks Congress to recognize the problem, and give money to research and solutions for women suffering.  The problem is however, like all other life-motivated bills, this one will also most likely be shot down by our heavily democratic Congress.

That’s what’s so puzzling about the abortion issue.  Pro-choice people claim that keeping abortion legal is all about the women.  It’s about women having a say in what happens to their bodies.  It’s about women who are not yet ready for a child having an abortion to keep control of their lives. They say it’s about the well being of females across America. 

If that’s the case, then why is nearly every single Congressman and woman supporting H.R.1457, a pro-life politician? If it’s the pro-choicers who care so deeply for the female population, then why wouldn’t they jump at the chance to support a bill designed to help women deal with choosing abortion?  Are they really out to help women?

The truth is that many pro-choice advocates deny there is such a thing as a post-abortive condition.  In fact, I once interviewed a woman, from a Chicago suburb, who was in charge of hiring escorts  to walk girls into a local abortion clinic. In the interview, I asked her if she ever worried that the girls she helped escort into the clinic would someday feel pain and regret .  She replied by saying that the only reason women feel guilt or regret is because the pro-life community convinces them that that’s the way they should feel.  It’s not the abortion, but the community that makes girls feel guilty.

The research conducted for H.R. 1457 however, tells a different story.  The National Institute of Health has done no research on the issue.  So, sadly, Congressman Pitts was forced to look to a major study conducted in New Zealand for facts.  Pitts found that a woman who finds herself pregnant and carried the pregnancy to term has a 35.7 percent chance of suffering from severe depression.  A woman who finds herself pregnant and chooses to abort that baby however, has a staggering 78.6 percent chance of suffering from severe depression.  The numbers remain consistent across the board from depression, to anxiety, to thoughts of suicide; women who have abortions suffer from these conditions at a much higher rate. 

Pitts simply requests in his bill that 3 million dollars, a pittance by today’s standards, be given to medical research on post-abortive conditions over the course of three years.  This way, the National Institute of Health could try and find ways to help women who are suffering.

So why would anyone not support this bill?  Well, it once again calls the practice of abortion into question.  It suggests that, unlike pro-choice advocates would have us believe, that abortion is not a quick and painless procedure.  Recognizing that there are long term side affects to an abortion could actually help a woman to…God forbid…make a different, more informed, life affirming choice.   For some reason, the pro-choice community can just not have that. 

Good luck Pitts, and thanks for truly caring about women.  

Author: Sarah Riordan

 To quote the oh so diplomatic Judge Judy…don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

 The above quote pretty much sums up Congresswoman Louise Slaughter’s new bill, H.R. 463.  In fact, the first paragraph is where the deceit begins. Here Slaughter states that the bill wants to provide contraceptives to girls with the intention of reducing the number of abortions. 

Okay, first things first, when reviewing the long list of Congressmen and woman who signed their names supporting the bill, something seemed odd.  The typical pro-life advocates were absent from the list.  For example, Fortenberry, Akin, and Lipinski were neither listed as sponsors or cosponsors.  So naturally, something about this bill just felt off.

When reading through the first pages of the bill, nothing obvious stands out.  It follows the format of a typical bill beginning by citing research about unplanned pregnancies, and the number of women in lower socio-economic circumstances that don’t have access to birth control.  Wait a minute…that does spark a thought, who was the famous woman that longed to provide minorities and poorer woman with birth control? Oh wait, that’s right, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, which is also the largest abortion provider in America.

Sanger’s goal was to eliminate people she saw as inferior through birth control.  Now for those of you, who view Sanger as a saint; let’s review some of her most infamous writings.

“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” 
Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race 

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America.

“More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

Whenever a bill aims to provide birth control, it nearly always focuses on minorities within the US.  That is exactly what Sanger’s goal was.  Apparently Sanger and Slaughter both think they know what sort of women should be discouraged from having children.  According to Sanger, it’s not about providing a service to women, but about eliminating the poor and minority groups.

Now at about page four, the bill becomes incredibly transparent.  Suddenly, the bill goes from speaking about birth control, to speaking about emergency contraception. (The morning after pill.)  Even the most ignorant of college students can tell you that the morning after pill is used in case conception has occurred.  A true pro lifer would be against the use of this emergency contraceptive because its goal is to cause a very early abortion.   If the public does not view the morning after pill as an abortifacient, it should.  So either Slaughter is ignorant, or she thinks the public is stupid enough to be convinced that this pro-choice bill has a prolife message.  Come on Slaughter, stop being an elitist and give the public a little more credit.

Honestly, the problems mentioned above don’t even touch the surface of all the wrong stated in H.R.463.  The bill also mentions birth control providers helping with the elimination of STD’s.  Are they planning to do this by providing birth control?  If anything, providing girls with the pill is going to give them license to be more sexually active.  The pill does not protect against STD’s.  Neither does the morning after pill.  No birth control (other than abstinence) can truly keep a person safe from disease.

This bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.  It’s trying to seem prolife friendly while forcing taxpayers to go against their convictions by providing emergency contraception funding for girls.  If Slaughter’s bill is passed that‘s what will happen.

Slaughter, who do you think you’re kidding? 

Oh, and does anyone else find it ironic that her last name is Slaughter? Anyone…anyone?  

Author: Sarah Riordan

At a recent pro-life gathering in the Chicago area, I overheard an employee at a pregnancy help center describe a situation she faced with two women who came into her office that week.  Both women were pregnant, and both were unsure about whether or not to choose abortion. When asked what would make them keep the baby, both women replied, “Well, I’ll keep it if it’s a boy.”

Though the story above seems like an urban legend to the average American, it is, horrifically enough, true.  

Sex-selection abortion is a highly looked down on practice.  Yet, according to Frank Trent’s new bill, H.R. 7016, the United States has no law prohibiting neither sex nor race selection abortion.    

The reason laws regulating sex or race selective abortions do not exist is obvious.  How can an authority determine if a person is choosing to end the life of their child based on race or sex?  The answer is clear; no one will ever know a person’s reason for choosing abortion, and unless each woman going into a clinic submits to a lie detector test, the law will be virtually impossible to enact. 

It should be apparent that this is an impossible law to enforce.  However, the question becomes why does Congressman Trent think it’s important to put a law in the books that will essentially do nothing?

Though no one can read his mind, we can look into, and discuss a few reasons as to why a bill like H.R. 7016, is important to members of The House.

When reviewing the legislation, the wording seems to indicate that Trent and his cosponsors are simply trying to tell the world that the United States is highly against sex-selective abortion.   The bill goes on to say that many American organizations, including the American medical Association, openly condemn a practice that the U.S., from a legal viewpoint, has no problem with.  Making a law against the practice, seems to be the logical end to a country’s outspoken opposition to it. 

The other goal Congressman Trent could have is not as obvious.  Perhaps he is using this bill as a test case.  He may be hoping that the bill is passed by both The House and the Senate, then signed by the president, and made law.  If this were to happen, pro-choice organizations like NARAL would most likely file a law suit against the bill, and the case would then be taken to the Supreme Court.  If the Supreme Court supports the bill, then the issue of abortion is called into the consciousness of Americans.   Making sex and race selection abortions illegal forces the question, “If sex or race selection is too trivial a reason for having an abortion, isn’t having one for the sake of convenience equally as trivial?”  That is the logical extension of the argument.

Whatever the reasoning behind the bill, one thing is for sure; sex and race selective abortions should have been outlawed shortly after Roe v. Wade was passed.  If this bill causes Americans to question when an abortion is okay…good!  Everyone should carefully question the issue and if we err we should err on the side of life.  

Author: Sarah Riordan

“The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.  That’s the first thing that I’d do.“  – Senator Barack Obama, speaking to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007. 

Despite what the Obama campaign would have had the American people believe prior to Nov. 4, the president-elect is not out to help the pro-life community. Though he claimed in his third debate with Senator John McCain that he would like to limit the number of abortions by supporting organizations that help women through crisis pregnancies, his voting record, and his willingness to support tax-payer funded abortions, tells a much different story.  Obama’s pro-choice stance is so extreme, that he voted against a bill that required doctors to provide life-saving treatment to infants who are born alive after a failed abortion.  At the federal level, when, H.R. 4292, Born-Alive Infant Protection Act  came before Congress in 2000, it was passed unanimously by Democrats and Republicans alike.

With an unabashedly pro-choice president coming into office and a liberal pro-choice Congress, bills like Congressman Jeff Fortenberry’s, H.R.7091, are all the more important for pro-lifers. Fortenberry leads the fight to protect the unborn by asking Congress to give more financial support to organizations that help women who are going through a crisis pregnancy. In the bill, Fortenberry suggests that grant money be given to pregnancy help centers. These grants would become available once an organization provides proof that their services are indeed helping those in the midst of a crisis pregnancy.

What criteria does Fortenberry suggest to gauge the effectiveness of these crisis pregnancy centers?  To receive a grant, a center would need to provide services including health care, clothing, food, a place to stay, and emotional support.

Fortenberry bolsters his position by citing an array of staggering statistics. According to research mentioned in the bill, 48 million babies have been aborted in the U.S. since 1973. The bill also says that in 1992 nearly 98 thousand domestic adoptions occurred in the United States.  This number is in stark contrast to 2001 when only approximately 59 thousand babies were adopted. 

Though not directly stated in the bill, the reader can easily infer the correlation between the decrease in domestic adoptions to the increase in abortions. Other numbers given imply that most of the women who choose abortion, choose it because they aren’t financially capable of supporting a child. Rather than providing taxpayer funded abortions, Fortenberry’s solution to the economic issue is to provide financial assistance to those who can either help a woman get on her feet, or help her find an adoptive home for her baby.

Unfortunately, under a Barack Obama presidency, in all likelihood, a bill like this will never see the light of day. The sad truth is, President-elect Obama is one of the most pro-choice presidents our nation has ever seen.  Despite what he and his spokespeople say, his voting record speaks for itself.   

Fortenberry’s attempt to aid pregnancy help centers that do not promote abortion will most likely fall on deaf ears. Though Fortenberry’s goal is to provide women with a real choice and should be supported by both Democrats and Republicans, for some reason, the majority of Congress members along with our incoming president, feel (or so their voting records indicate) that limiting abortions would somehow be detrimental to our society. Perhaps Obama will live up to what he said in the third debate and sign this bill; but don’t hold your breath.   

Author: Jared Fallon

The war on abortion seems to be never ending, having 2 stark opposition groups that work tirelessly to either fight as the Pro-Choice or the Pro-Life reformists. After so many years of rhetoric and seemingly unchanging lines of argumentation, a group of 120 Congress members are taking a more unique approach to battling, or as the bill states, “informing” mothers of the implications of abortion.  Christopher Smith’s (R-NJ) House Resolution 3442 takes a slightly different spin than the average anti-abortion bill (and the long track record of Smith’s abortion efforts), calling his proposal the “Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2007”.

In the 22 page long bill Congress outlines a series of findings to help make the case for mothers being properly informed of the scientific (albeit somewhat one-sided) facts of unborn children. Select findings from the bill are as follows:

It has been found that after 20 weeks after fertilization,

• An unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain
• Unborn children draw away from certain stimuli in a manner which an infant or an adult would be interpreted as a response to pain
• An unborn child may experience substantial pain even if the woman herself has received local analgesic or general anesthesia
• Medical Science is capable of reducing such pain through the administration of anesthesia or other pain –reducing drugs directly to the unborn child

The bill’s foundation is that in review of current legislation, animals are treated better than unborn children, despite the fact that they are both capable of responding to harsh stimuli sensation. H.R.3442 makes the case rather compellingly by offering a look into the Human Slaughter Act of 1958 that requires “humane” treatment in reference to handling or slaughtering animals. This means that the animal must either be killed by a direct shot or blow or be given a method to lose consciousness before the animal is slaughtered. Furthermore, the bill provides a look into the Animal Wellness Act, outlining provisions for minimalistic pain and overall treatment conducted after the animal has been tranquilized.

The overall tone of the bill creates the notion that the most common methods of abortion after during or after the 20 week mark are inhumane and can torture the organism with substantial pain. Such methods include “…dismemberment, poisoning, penetrating or crushing the skull…(and/or sucking) the child’s brains  out before completing the delivery of the dead infant”. The bill is unique in that it does not necessarily make the claim that abortion is a method to kill children or that the organism is not a human until is completely born, but rather that we should have the same standards of treatment for unborn children as we do animals.

The proposed call to action for the bill begins on page 8, and would require the doctor administering the abortion to provide many pieces of information, with the most important factors including:

• The age of the unborn child
• A Department of Health and Services-approved “Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure”, outlining the use of pain-relieving drugs, description of risks, and the administration of anesthesia, and a
• “Unborn Child Pain Awareness Decision Form”

The approach of the bill merely attempts to have the parents making the decision be informed of the “substantial pain” involved for the most prominent procedures, as well as the risk of administering techniques to ensure that the unborn child receive less pain. To see the exact provisions of the bill which include details as to what content is required in the brochures, timelines, and distribution of information, follow this link.

Whether or not you personally believe in such a proposal, Senator Smith does outline a strong case for reform requiring that unborn children be given, at least, the same treatment that animals are given in the event that parents do indeed choose to have an abortion. The bill certainly is worth review and, at the very least, offers a more middle-of-the-road call to action than the average pro/con abortion groups commonly support.