All posts by Lucy LeFever

Lucy LeFever spent her high school years educating peers about abortion through her organization +9, counseling girls who were seeking abortion information online, and working with Capitol Resource Institute, a pro-family organization in Sacramento. She began blogging for Live Action in 2011. Lucy now studies Politics, Philosophy and Economics at The King's College in New York City.

How to save preborn lives while sitting at your computer

Want to save lives from where you are sitting right now? You can!

A few years ago, a post asking for help on a pro-life Facebook group caught my eye. A young girl considering abortion was seeking advice on Yahoo! Answers, and the person on Facebook wanted pro-lifers to respond. For those of you unfamiliar with Yahoo! Answers, the website allows users to ask questions and receive answers from other individuals online. Multiple people from the group responded and encouraged the woman to keep her baby. The effort paid off, and the girl chose life for her preborn child.

Continue reading How to save preborn lives while sitting at your computer

Bronx clinic pushes abortion on Facebook: Invite your friends!

Pink doesn’t make abortion cute. Social media doesn’t make abortion cool. And the abortion industry has yet to catch on.

As I casually scrolled through my Facebook newsfeed, envying a friend’s European vacation photos and “liking” a witty status, an advertisement caught my eye. I spend enough time reading about the pro-life movement that Facebook has noticed, often posting custom advertisements  for pregnancy resource centers or pro-choice organizations—but this was something new.

Continue reading Bronx clinic pushes abortion on Facebook: Invite your friends!

Planned Parenthood believes abortion is “patriotic”

In its latest display of tasteless advertising, Planned Parenthood uses America’s birthday to halt Americans’ birthdays.

On the 4th of July, Planned Parenthood Action Fund circulated an image of the American flag bearing Planned Parenthood’s logo and the words “Supporting women’s health is patriotic.” For those less familiar with Planned Parenthood’s work, “women’s health” is its euphemism for abortion.* Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion provider and receives at least one third of clinic income from abortion.

american-flag-sunset-1How are the measures that Planned Parenthood supports patriotic? A patriot, according to the New Oxford American Dictionary, is “a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors.” Are unwanted children now such a threat in Planned Parenthood’s mind that they are “enemies and detractors” to America? Are children so terrifying that a true patriot must end unborn lives for the sake of the nation?

Or perhaps Planned Parenthood doesn’t mean American patriotism. Perhaps we should ask, patriotic to whom? Are we a nation like China, where reducing the number of children is deemed a patriotic duty? Are we an ancient civilization that sacrifices children on an altar to spare its country from angry deities? Planned Parenthood’s argument may work in these areas, but to argue that supporting abortion is patriotic in America is simply absurd.

This isn’t the first case of abortion advocates confusing abortion and American ideals. Planned Parenthood’s statement echoes the words of Choices Women’s Medical Center President Merle Hoffman, who declared, “Abortion is as American as apple pie.”

As I noted at the time of Hoffman’s statement, abortion undermines everything that Americans traditionally endorse. American ideals include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, while abortion takes away life, and therefore liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Americans pledge to a nation with “liberty and justice for all,” while abortion denies liberty and justice for many. America is defined by freedom, but an abortion takes away all freedom from a very tiny American – an American who will never vote, never watch fireworks on the 4th of July, and never taste apple pie.

This illogical comparison isn’t isolated. Planned Parenthood is notorious for defending slaughter with semantics and death with distracting dialogue. It is a classic example from Planned Parenthood Advertising 101. Take words people like, apply them to something people don’t like, and voilà – the brand will sell: Rob a child of a lifetime of choices and call it “choice.” Leave women like Tonya Reaves to die at a Planned Parenthood clinic while clamoring for “women’s rights.” Most of all, assume women will blindly miss this deception, while claiming to “trust women” to make life-and-death decisions.

Despite Planned Parenthood’s attempts to say otherwise, abortion is neither patriotic nor American. If we truly wish to be patriotic – defending our fellow citizens from harm – let’s defend the lives of all Americans, born and unborn.

*Perhaps I am too harsh, as Planned Parenthood has occasionally advocated for women’s health measures broader than abortion. Among Planned Parenthood’s current favorites is the HHS Mandate, which requires religious organizations to fund abortion and contraceptives for employees, despite religious objections. Surely Planned Parenthood believes that the early Americans who came to this nation seeking religious freedom would also deem this measure patriotic and American.

NYC’s teen parent ads offensive, miss point


They say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Sometimes the road to the abortion clinic is, too.

On my morning commute, I often notice a subversive, perhaps unintentional anti-family theme among the New York City subway ads. “Family Optional,” reads a New York Lottery Family Feud ad, while a Manhattan Mini Storage sign laments, “Raising a baby in a NYC apartment is like growing an oak tree in a thimble.” I have often seen both of these ads, side-by-side with Choices Women’s Medical Center abortion clinic ads, in a single subway car. A new, more blatant set of advertisements, however, is particularly disturbing – and these are funded by the City.

In an effort to reduce teen pregnancy, Mayor Bloomberg has launched a new series of ads that emphasizes the negative sides of teen pregnancy. The campaign shows the high costs of teen pregnancy to both teen parents and their children. The campaign boasts “ads with hard-hitting facts about the money and time costs of parenting, and the negative consequences of having a child before you are ready.”

“Got a good job? I cost thousands of dollars each year,” says one advertisement over a picture of a baby girl.

“Dad, you’ll be paying to support me for the next 20 years,” says another with a picture of a frowning curly-haired toddler.

The advertisements give subway passengers a number to text “for the real price of teen pregnancy.” The phone number provides teenagers with information, quizzes, and even a choose-your-own-adventure-style game that follows the story of Louis and Anaya, two 16-year-olds facing an unplanned pregnancy. Here are some scenarios from the game:

My mom and dad are so mad that I am pregnant. Should I yell at them or just go to my room and cry? Text “Yell” or “Cry”

Waitressing is hard! My mom came in today and cried when she saw me. Should I study extra hard or drop out of school? Text “Study” or “Drop”

tp_poster_2Anaya faces other decisions about ending friendships, not being able to afford college, and leaving her boyfriend Louis. Similar to the subway advertisements, all of the scenarios are negative.

While his intentions may be good, Bloomberg is likely influencing unintended audiences. What about the teens who are already pregnant? What about those struggling with the choice of continuing a pregnancy? An entirely negative picture of pregnancy is not only inaccurate, but harmful. Girls facing unintended pregnancies – and even those who are not pregnant – know that children are both financially and emotionally costly. What those young women need is care, not additional scares from their community. Mothers in New York City – the abortion capital of America – don’t need any more incentive to end their pregnancies.

What is more, many of these advertisements focus only on the difficult aspects of parenthood in general, not the difficult aspects of teen parenthood. The advertisements miss the point, as children require time and money regardless of the age of their parents.

But this isn’t merely an abortion issue – abortion advocates are enraged as well. Planned Parenthood denounced the campaign for creating “stigma, hostility, and negative public opinions about teen pregnancy and parenthood rather than offering alternative aspirations for young people.” Feministing shared similar sentiments, pointing out that the ads merely shame teen pregnancy without offering alternatives. Both groups are correct. The ads focus only on the negative aspects of teen pregnancy, with no positive alternatives.

Mayor Bloomberg is right: teenagers certainly must consider the “real price of teenage pregnancy.” But Mayor Bloomberg must consider the real price of tasteless advertising.

Planned Parenthood requests donations as President Obama’s birthday present

Along with their mutual pro-abortion agendas, Planned Parenthood and President Obama have something else in common: desperate fundraising schemes.

President Obama was recently criticized for a fundraising ploy that asks brides to request campaign donations in lieu of gifts. The president’s website reads:

Got a birthday, anniversary, or wedding coming up?

Let your friends know how important this election is to you—register with Obama 2012, and ask for a donation in lieu of a gift. It’s a great way to support the President on your big day. Plus, it’s a gift that we can all appreciate—and goes a lot further than a gravy bowl.

Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood has tried countless tasteless fundraisers. At Christmas, Planned Parenthood did a fundraiser in the name of “Choice on Earth” and even sold holiday gift certificates. Multiple times, the abortion giant has ironically asked that supporters celebrate Mother’s Day with a donation to its abortion clinic. Now Planned Parenthood is trying out the president’s own tacky scheme – in his honor.

As President Obama’s birthday is upon us, I’m sure that you are all struggling to find the perfect gift. What does one get for the man who lives in the White House and travels in Air Force One? For those of you still searching for that special something that “goes a lot further than a gravy bowl,” put your mind at ease. Planned Parenthood has a solution for you! A recent Planned Parenthood Advocates of Indiana announcement reads:

On August 4, President Barack Obama will celebrate his 51st birthday. President Obama has been a champion for women’s issues and has spent a lifetime supporting women and reproductive health. Why not honor his 51st birthday by making a donation to Planned Parenthood Advocates?

Now, that is a gift that a president can appreciate – and it goes a lot farther than a campaign donation.

A lot of missing candles…

Could they be more tasteless? Celebrating a birthday by donating to an abortion clinic? Planned Parenthood takes the birthdays from thousands of children every single year. In 2010, the abortion giant performed 329,445 abortions – halting over 900 birthdays per day. That’s a lot of missing candles.

Planned Parenthood has distorted the true meaning of birthdays. The abortion chain denies a child’s humanity until he or she exits the womb. While birthdays should be a milestone in a child’s existence, to Planned Parenthood they have become a requirement for a child’s existence. In today’s culture, a child’s birth date is when it is freed from the danger of being aborted. Why mark the anniversary of that freedom by taking that freedom from others?

Planned Parenthood’s schemes would be laughable if they weren’t so lethal. If you’re looking to celebrate the president’s birthday, don’t stop other birthdays in the process.

Obama campaign: overturning Roe too extreme

President Obama has never been shy in criticizing his political opponents. In his latest ad campaign, however, his criticisms seem to be more descriptive of himself than his opponent Mitt Romney.

President Barack Obama has launched a new campaign in Virginia suggesting that Mitt Romney’s views on abortion are too fanatical. An advertisement depicts Mitt Romney saying that the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade. Above the address for Barack Obama’s website, a caption reads, “Mitt Romney: Too Extreme for Virginia.”

Too extreme? In May, Gallup found that half of Americans identify as pro-life, and polling earlier this year found that 79% of Americans support major restrictions on abortion. Extreme means abnormal. New Oxford American Dictionary defines extreme as “advocating severe or drastic measures; far from moderate.” One can hardly call Mitt Romney’s stance on abortion extreme while much of America agrees with it.

If President Obama wants to address actual extreme views, he should begin with his own. In the pro-choice community, one can often find Americans who claim they would never have an abortion, but believe abortion should be legal. Obama’s views are far from moderate, even among those who support abortion. Let’s take a quick refresher course on some of the president’s own fanatic actions.

Even before his rise as the most pro-abortion president in history, Barack Obama was criticized for his radical views regarding the unborn. In 1997, Obama voted “present” (equivalent to voting against) regarding a senate bill that would prevent gruesome partial-birth abortions. A few years later, Obama infamously was the only Illinois senator to speak against a bill that protected children that survived failed abortion procedures. Apparently, Obama wasn’t concerned about extremism.

Barack Obama’s crusade against the unborn didn’t tone down upon entering the Oval Office. The president immediately surrounded himself with zealous abortion advocates and has consistently refused to cooperate with opposing views. In early 2009, Obama signed an executive order forcing taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research. Multiple times, the president has interfered when states have tried to defund abortion providers. President Obama has most recently demonstrated his inability to respect the values of others through the HHS mandate, forcing Americans to fund birth control and abortion-inducing drugs.

The United States’ borders haven’t restrained this abortion agenda. Mere weeks after his inauguration, President Obama forced taxpayers to fund overseas abortion by overturning the Mexico City Policy. The Obama administration spent millions pressuring Kenya to legalize abortion in 2010 and has been praised by the World Health Organization for promoting abortion worldwide. The administration has also sent millions of dollars to UNFPA, despite the organization’s known ties with China’s coercive one-child policy.

Opposing pro-choice peers to deny life to born children? Forcing Americans to pay for abortion at home and abroad? Overturning states’ decisions to defund Planned Parenthood? These are not the acts of a moderate.

President Obama is an advocate for one of the most extreme human rights abuses of our age: abortion. Labeling the overturning of Roe v. Wade as “extreme” is a distraction from the real issue. There is nothing moderate about ending the life of a child. Stopping abortion isn’t extreme; abortion is extreme. President Obama not only accepts this extreme action, but promotes it in more extensive ways than his peers have.

When it comes to abortion, Barack Obama is the true radical. Americans will not be deceived by this campaign. Catchy slogans won’t silence the screams of the countless children losing their lives from President Obama’s pro-abortion agenda. Its impact has been too extreme.

Planned Parenthood and China’s One-Child Policy: part 2

“[T]he Chinese government has the best interests of its people at heart.”

This is just one of many statements that have been made over the years by Planned Parenthood leaders, despite China’s horrible human rights abuses in regards to population policies. Planned Parenthood is well-equipped to speak about the intentions of China’s notorious population policies. After all, it helps enforce them.

In an earlier article, I showed how Planned Parenthood not only has stated support at the international level for China’s one-child policy, but openly works with the organization responsible for the recently publicized forced abortion of Feng Jianmei’s 7-month-old daughter. Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood’s cooperation with China’s one-child policy goes much deeper than the abuse of Feng Jianmei. In case there is any doubt as to Planned Parenthood’s culpability in this regard, take a closer look.

International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) has been operating in China for decades. In 1983, IPPF’s Chinese branch, the CFPA, officially became a full member of IPPF.

What exactly does CFPA do? The constitution of the organization explicitly states that CFPA “shall assist the government in maintaining a low birthrate.” As if that isn’t condemning enough, the document also makes clear that the organization will not only support China’s population policies, but will help enforce them. Here is an excerpt from CFPA’s list of objectives and missions:

Based on the need of the masses, CFPA shall endeavor to improve its service and capacity, and organize and advocate the masses to have less children, be well-off, healthy, and civilized.
[Objective] a. To implement the policies, laws, and regulations on national population and family planning, and promote the masses’ awareness on family planning;

Even the United States Department of State has recognized that CFPA enforces the one-child policy. In a 2005 human rights report discussing coercive family planning measures, the Department stated:

The Population and Family Planning Law, the country’s first formal law on the subject, entered into force in 2002. The National Population and Family Planning Commission (NPFPC) enforces the law and formulates and implements policies with assistance from the China Family Planning Association, which had 1 million branches nationwide.

It is now clear that Planned Parenthood’s Chinese branch openly implements the one-child policy. What does that policy entail? As explained in the previous article, forced abortions are permitted in the regulations of many Chinese provincial agencies – including regional offices that CFPA claims as its own. This 2001 testimony before the British Parliament explains other means by which CFPA assists the policy:

Only a political philosopher could make a distinction between China FPA and the Chinese Government as regards policy…. In a 1993 report, China FPA admitted that it had, ‘participated and supervised that the awarding and punishing policies relating to family planning were properly executed.’ IPPF itself has admitted that China FPA, ‘volunteers sometimes collect the occasional fine when a couple break the birth plan rules’.

Collecting fines? Implementing punishing policies? Working with agencies responsible for forced abortion? It seems as though Planned Parenthood has conveniently forgotten its “pro-choice” and “pro-women” mantra. Why does Planned Parenthood help enforce a policy that so obviously violates basic human rights?

The evidence is mounting against Planned Parenthood.  Planned Parenthood must explain why it is working with government entities responsible for forced abortions and heinous human rights abuses. The organization must give account for its enforcement of such an atrocious policy.

As self-declared advocates of “choice,” International Planned Parenthood Federation and its American counterpart, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, ought to fight this abuse. Because the United States wishes to maintain a relationship with China, it can be difficult to persuade politicians to take action against China’s one-child policy. Even so, we should pressure leaders and Planned Parenthood to address the abuse. By stopping CFPA, we can address the issue at its core and halt the enforcement.

Planned Parenthood has partnered with the culprits in a horrible abuse. At the least, they should be fighting against rather than enabling these future crimes.

Planned Parenthood has two options: abandon the “choice” rhetoric, or abandon CFPA. We will not tolerate China’s one-child policy. We certainly will not tolerate an organization’s receiving praise as an advocate for “choice” while enacting crimes against humanity like forced abortion.

Deadly cooperation: Planned Parenthood and China’s One-Child Policy

As the saying goes, “where there is smoke, there is fire.” Similarly, where there is abortion, there is Planned Parenthood – even when it’s forced abortion.

Last week, a graphic image of a young woman lying next to her dead daughter sparked widespread outrage against China’s infamous one-child policy. Feng Jianmei of China’s rural Shaanxi province was brutally forced to abort her 7-month-old baby after failing to pay a hefty fine to family planning officials. NBC News reports:

She was blindfolded, thrown on a bed, and forced to sign a document that she couldn’t read with the blindfold still on her eyes. Then two shots were injected into her belly. Thirty hours later, on the morning June 4, she gave birth to a dead baby girl.

This is not an isolated instance. Numerous cases of forced abortion in China have recently been brought to public attention, and Chinese law allows for the abuse. The advocacy group All Girls Allowed explains:

Mandatory abortion, which is often referred to as “remedial measures” (bujiu cuoshi) in government reports, is endorsed explicitly as an official policy instrument in the regulations of 18 of China’s 31 provincial-level jurisdictions.

One might expect action to be taken against this barbaric policy from a self-declared champion of choice and women’s rights like Planned Parenthood. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Though the organization has condemned the abuse of women like Feng Jianmei when popular in the United States, it has partnered with the culprits at the international level.

Yes, you read that right. Planned Parenthood is partially to blame for Feng Jianmei’s abuse. Get out your notebook, pull out your magnifying glass, and let’s do some detective work.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Planned Parenthood branch that we are most familiar with, is one of many members of International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). Since 1983, IPPF has operated in China through its official member organization, The China Family Planning Association (CFPA). CFPA works with the Chinese government and made clear its purpose in a statement released at the founding of the organization, saying that “[t]he association will implement government population control policies.”

How does this relate to Feng Jianmei? On the website of The China Family Planning Association is a drop-down menu linking visitors to CFPA regional offices. Pressing the button for the province of Shaanxi will take visitors directly to the government website for the Family Planning Commission of Shaanxi – the government entity responsible for Feng’s forced abortion. 

Without being able to read Chinese or hop on a plane to investigate, it is unclear what CFPA’s cooperation with this organization entails. At the very least, however, CFPA maintains a relationship with this government entity and refers to it as one of its own offices. (The button linking to the website is labeled “Our Offices.”) Planned Parenthood must give account for these alarming connections.

As if this partnership isn’t infuriating enough, this is not Planned Parenthood’s first strike. In a 2009 interview with China’s Xinhua News Agency, former IPPF director-general Gill Greer praised China’s population policies, saying the policy helped China’s economy and alleviated problems of overpopulation. Planned Parenthood has also openly stated support for China’s one-child policy, despite its egregious human rights violations. While describing its operations in China, International Planned Parenthood Federation stated:

The China Family Planning Association (CFPA) plays a very important role in China’s family planning programme.  It supports the present family planning policy of the government, which is appropriate for the present national situation.

How dare Planned Parenthood call itself a defender choice, yet support this atrocious policy? China’s one-child policy is the antithesis of choice. The policy strips families of their ability to plan parenthood, and forced abortion robs children of a lifetime of choices. When Feng Jianmei was blindfolded and abused, why didn’t her choice matter?

In the midst of Live Action’s recent investigations of gendercide in America, Bill O’Reilly was criticized for equating Planned Parenthood in America to China. Media Matters, Daily Kos, and others attacked O’Reilly for concluding:

Are we now China in this country? If Planned Parenthood is advising women to abort because of gender choice, then we are China. And you should remember that the next time a politician or famous person endorses Planned Parenthood.

O’Reilly’s conclusion was not only accurate, but too kind. Planned Parenthood does not limit itself to mimicking China in the United States; it supports the human rights abuses abroad that it so wishes to publicly distance itself from at home.

Planned Parenthood is not like China; Planned Parenthood is China.

Planned Parenthood’s calls for choice are a sham. Empty rhetoric is no consolation to Feng Jianmei and the countless other victims of China’s one-child policy. If Planned Parenthood truly believes in women’s rights, let it take action against China’s one-child policy rather than partner with the abuse.

For additional information regarding China’s one-child policy, check out Women’s Rights Without Frontiers and All Girls Allowed.

Response to late-term abortion doctor Willie J. Parker

The New Jersey Star-Ledger recently interviewed abortion doctor Willie J. Parker on the correlation between his Christian faith and his controversial occupation. As an OB/GYN, Parker originally was opposed to abortion, but now he performs late-term abortions in Washington, D.C.

Parker begins the explanation of his conversion:

I wrestled with the morality of it. I grew up in the South and in fundamentalist Protestantism, I was taught that abortion is wrong.

Yet as I pursued my career as an OB/GYN, I saw the dilemmas that women found themselves in. And I could no longer weigh the life of a pre-viable or lethally flawed fetus equally with the life of the woman sitting before me.

Let’s clear a few things up.

First of all, a child’s ability to live outside of its nine-month natural habitat has no bearing on its right to live. (Pardon the simplistic comparison, but a goldfish isn’t viable when you empty the fish tank. That proves nothing of its inherent fishiness.) Similarly, as I have said before, children with disabilities will know life differently from how you and I know it, but their lives are not worth less than our own. The solution to a child’s life-threatening condition is not to ensure the child’s early death.

Those points aside, the main problem in the above statement is a blatant false dilemma. Rare is the case when carrying a child will end a woman’s life. Even then, the solution is to attempt to save both, not to ensure the death of one. To pin abortion as a dilemma between the survival of the mother or the survival of her child is an inaccurate appeal to our emotions. Parker is using a rare circumstance to justify abortion in all circumstances.

Parker goes on to address his faith:

In listening to a sermon by Dr. Martin Luther King, I came to a deeper understanding of my spirituality, which places a higher value on compassion. King said what made the good Samaritan “good” is that instead of focusing on would happen to him by stopping to help the traveler, he was more concerned about what would happen to the traveler if he didn’t stop to help.

I became more concerned about what would happen to these women if I, as an obstetrician, did not help them.

In the famous parable of The Good Samaritan, a man is robbed and left to die on the side of the road. Two men walk by and ignore the victim. The Good Samaritan goes out of his way to save the life of the man, who would typically be viewed as an enemy. The Good Samaritan focuses solely on the needs of the victim, knowing he may never be repaid, and gives him another chance at life. Parker has good intentions in wanting to follow the example of this parable, but he has reached the wrong conclusion.

Just like the man on the side of the road, women facing unplanned pregnancies often are alone and desperately need our help. As Christians, we must follow the example of The Good Samaritan and be willing to aid these women, regardless of the cost. Crisis pregnancy centers display this Good Samaritan attitude on a daily basis.

When helping women facing unplanned pregnancies, however, we must teach them to be Good Samaritans as well. We must help mothers recognize the value of their children, even when continuing a pregnancy may be costly or difficult. This is where Parker is mistaken: ignoring the unborn child. In today’s version of “The Good Samaritan,” there are two victims needing help on the side of the road, and Parker’s solution is to kill one. Like the first two men in the parable, Parker asks that we leave the victim to die.

There is much more to be said on the incompatibility of Christian teachings and advocating for the death of unborn children. In his argumentation alone, however, Parker has presented little reason why his faith would encourage an occupation in the abortion industry. We should all look to the story of the Good Samaritan and help those in need – mother and child.

Obama video: 6-year-old’s career dreams require HHS birth control mandate

President Obama’s YouTube channel recently released a video titled “Letters to the President: The Dreams of Our Daughters.” Check it out below:

Behind the cute story, scenes of children laughing at a playground, and emotional piano music is a completely incorrect message.

Erin Bilbray-Kohn, the narrator of the video, follows her description of her young daughters’ dreams saying:

It is upsetting to me that in 2012 the use of birth control has become controversial.

Remember who started this?

Birth control wasn’t a focal issue until President Obama made it one.  Though the media would love to paint the HHS mandate debate as a war on birth control, birth control is not the issue today. Forcing religious schools and organizations to pay for birth control – as well as sterilizations and abortion-inducing drugs – is the issue. Depicting this as an attack on birth control is a deceptive straw-man argument and blatantly false.

This video, as well as the entire push for taxpayer-funded birth control and abortion-inducing drugs, is incredibly offensive to women. Six-year-old Daisy can become a doctor for dolphins only if we pay for her birth control? Ten-year-old Caroline should give up her military dreams now? This is just not the case. Daisy, Caroline, and women across America are better and more capable than that – and the narrator of the video inadvertently agrees.

Bilbray-Kohn says in the video:

[Birth control] is as common in a woman’s medicine cabinet as cough medicine.

If this is the case, why do we need additional funding for birth control? If, as the argument goes, 99 percent of women use contraceptives, the counter-argument is that 99 percent of women currently have access to contraceptives. Why must we change an apparently successful system and force some Americans to violate their conscience?

Bilbray-Kohn continues:

This is just one reason I’m so passionate about getting you re-elected this year. We need a President who will stand up for women’s health and stay focused on jobs and economic recovery. The dreams of all our daughters are at stake. And they’re counting on us to fight for them.

Having started with a faulty premise, it should come as no surprise that the narrator reaches the wrong conclusion: re-election of President Obama. Our current president cannot fight for the “dreams of all our daughters” as he actively fights against the dreams of many of them. What about the Daisys and Carolines of this world who dream of working at the hospitals, schools, and charities that are under attack through Obama’s new mandate? Are their dreams and beliefs less important?

But the issue goes farther than the birth control mandate. President Obama actively supports Planned Parenthood, an organization that has been caught concealing and even aiding the sex trafficking and abuse of minors. Where was he when those daughters needed help? President Obama is also an avid abortion advocate, supporting the deaths of thousands of our daughters. Why aren’t their dreams worth fighting for?

Bilbray-Kohn’s support of Obama is based on an offensive, faulty foundation. Women can do (and have done) better than hanging their dreams on the subsidies of others. Women can do better than forcing women of faith and those opposed to abortion to violate their conscience. It is time that we dream bigger.

Abortion giant Planned Parenthood hosts Mother’s Day fundraiser

As families across the nation gather to celebrate Mother’s Day, others will gather to support the abortion industry. Never one to miss a fundraising opportunity, a New York affiliate of Planned Parenthood is hosting a Mother’s Day brunch to support the clinic.

Here is the advertisement that was published in The Ithaca Journal (ironically, over an advertisement for a children’s garden):

Planned Parenthood of the Southern Finger Lakes will hold its second annual Mother’s Day celebration at Moosewood and will feature two seatings, 10:30 a.m. to noon and noon to 1:30 p.m. May 13 at the restaurant, 215 N. Cayuga St. in the DeWitt Mall.

The brunch will include coffee, juice, breads, soup and a choice of vegetarian or vegan entrees. Admission is $18 per seat. All proceeds will go to support Planned Parenthood of the Southern Finger Lakes.

This is not Planned Parenthood’s first attempt to raise money through Mother’s Day. Year after year, the abortion giant encourages supporters to donate on behalf of their mothers. One 2010 Planned Parenthood e-mail read:

Honor a mother in your life with a gift to Planned Parenthood… Say thanks this Mother’s Day with a gift that honors her independence, her courage, and her commitment by making a donation to Planned Parenthood Federation of America in her name.

The irony of this tasteless fundraising ploy is obvious. The organization responsible for the death of over 300,000 children annually has no right to be raising money in honor of mothers. Abortion steals motherhood from women.

Abortion takes a beautiful, natural relationship and destroys it. Abortion pits mother against child, and groups like Planned Parenthood fuel the belief that pregnancy (when unplanned) is a curse, a problem to be eliminated.

On Mother’s Day, we honor the sacrifices that our mothers have made. Motherhood and sacrifice go hand-in-hand. Mothers know that children are not mere commodities to be discarded when they are inconvenient, costly, or unwanted. Mothers know that life isn’t perfect, that even if a child fits Planned Parenthood’s “every child a wanted child” mantra, there is no such thing as “planned” parenthood. Parenthood is filled with unexpected twists and turns, and mothers bravely face them all for the sake of their children.

Planned Parenthood rejects this motherly sacrifice and urges the opposite: personal convenience. On its webpage for those considering parenting, Planned Parenthood lists the advantages and disadvantages of parenting. The small paragraph of advantages is entirely self-focused (“Many people say that parenting brings great happiness and a deeper understanding of themselves”), never addressing what is good for the child. Planned Parenthood then follows with a longer list of self-focused disadvantages of parenting:

But parents often give up a lot for their children. Meeting a child’s needs can be very challenging. Parents deal with less sleep and less time to do the things they need and want to do. Having a baby is expensive, and many people find it hard to support their children. Having children can also put a parent’s school plans or career on hold.

Many people find that having a child can test even the strongest relationship. And if you are single parenting, you may find it more difficult to find and keep a relationship.

Again, Planned Parenthood encourages people to focus on themselves.

Mothers exemplify selflessness, while Planned Parenthood urges selfishness. As an organization that stands contrary to the very nature of motherhood, Planned Parenthood has no right to exploit this special day.

Tuning out truth with iPods: pro-choice double standards

Drowning out the truth with music. Photo credit: @cdharrison on Flickr

A Texas woman’s novel way of dodging abortion regulations may be music to the ears of pro-choice advocates, but it highlights the abortion movement’s selective desire to conceal truth.

In many states, pro-life groups have successfully enacted laws requiring women to receive an ultrasound before an abortion procedure. Texas law goes one step farther, requiring women seeking abortion to hear their children’s heartbeats and a medical explanation of the sonogram. Denise Paolucci, 35, has decided to combat the new law by providing iPods to women seeking abortion – enabling them to tune out the required information. Irin Carmon reported for Salon:

[Paolucci] contacted several Planned Parenthood branches to check that they would be up for her plan, and heard back from a few of them. Last night, she posted about the idea on her blog at Dreamwidth, the site she co-owns and helps run. “It took about nine hours, overnight, to reach the goal,” initially set at $1,060, she says. If there’s more interest, she’s looking for help in finding independent abortion providers in Texas who’d be up for it, and has encouraged her readers to donate directly to Planned Parenthood or to the National Network of Abortion Funds.

This recent action, as well as the entire debate over ultrasound laws, has blatantly highlighted the pro-choice movement’s obsession with drowning out truth. Rather than providing women with honest medical information, pro-choice advocates opt to conceal the facts. They wish to silence massacre with melody, blood with ballads, slaughter with song. The beat of a child’s heart is muffled by the beat of its mother’s favorite music.

But why the opposition in the first place?

Is it because the sound of the heartbeat makes a woman sad? If so, the follow-up question is, why do these sounds cause emotion? Is it because the knowledge of a beating heart makes a woman uncomfortable? Then why does this make her uneasy?

Every argument that the pro-choice movement makes against these laws reveals reasons why a genuine advocate of choice should support them. True choice requires knowledge of what the choice entails. An uninformed choice is no choice at all. But don’t just take my word for this – pro-choice advocates inadvertently agree.

How? Let’s step back a moment. If we examine the rhetoric surrounding the ultrasound law debate, it is very similar to the rhetoric surrounding another abortion-related issue: crisis pregnancy center regulations. Abortion supporters have led the charge to restrict crisis pregnancy centers in many states, demanding transparency and truth.

NARAL’s Nancy Keenan, a staunch opponent of the Texas ultrasound law, said in a press release on CPC regulation:

Even though we may have differences of opinion on abortion, Americans value honesty in advertising. We should all agree that a woman should not be misled or manipulated when she’s facing an unintended pregnancy.

And later Keenan blogged:

However we feel about the issue of abortion, we can all agree that women never should be lied to when they need information to a [sic] make a decision about an unintended pregnancy. … Being honest to a woman facing an unintended pregnancy should not be too much to ask for.

Can anyone say “double standard”?

Women should know what they’re getting when they walk into a crisis pregnancy center, abortion advocates cry. But when it comes to a life-altering medical procedure, the calls for clear information disappear and are even condemned when they come from the other side. It seems as though the values of truth and honest information matter only when they are encouraging abortion.

But Nancy Keenan is only one example. This quotation comes from a 2011 Jezebel article by Irin Carmon (author of the iPod article quoted above) on CPC regulation in New York City:

At a press conference held just now, [city council Speaker Christine] Quinn said, “If you hide what you do, you must believe you can only do what you do through deception.”


Ultrasound laws make women uncomfortable because abortion is uncomfortable. No amount of turning up the volume will reverse that truth.