The worst thing for an abortion advocate to admit is that women may regret their abortions. Their argument is that abortion is a social good, after all, so if it’s such a great thing, then women shouldn’t ever regret it. If they do, then it casts doubt on the idea that abortion is such a positive thing.
Pro-abortion writer Maria Jose Duran opines that post-abortion syndrome is a myth, and that it’s also dangerous. She backs up her claim with her own lack of guilt after having an abortion, and a now-discredited pro-abortion study.
Just days after unsuccessfully arguing that banning abortion with rape and health exceptions is still too extreme, Vox has a new video that purports to debunk the “biggest myth about abortion you probably think is true.” Unfortunately, being Vox, all the video ends up doing is reinforcing myths.
In a bid to counteract Hillary Clinton’s narrative that she’s the one true pro-abortion candidate, Vermont Senator and Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has offered his most aggressive promise to abortion fans yet.
On Monday, he essentially told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes that he would use the power of the presidency to disenfranchise pro-life voters at the state level…
When Jennifer and Jason DeBuhr were told their preborn son would be born with difficulties that would affect his brain and shorten his life, they chose to schedule an abortion with Warren Hern, the notorious late-term abortionist in Boulder, Colorado.
Hern often injects poison into the hearts of late-term babies, and then proceeds to carry out a “D&E” abortion. This procedure is explained by former abortionist, Dr. Anthony Levatino, in the video below:
There’s been a lot of talk about abortion exceptions lately, mostly in the form of abortion defenders brainstorming to figure out the best ways to turn them against pro-lifers.
Usually it’s as simple as “they oppose any exceptions because they’re extremists who don’t care about women,” but they also have a backup narrative. At Vox, Emily Crockett attempts to argue that instead of concessions pro-life politicians have made to pro-abortion fears, for which pro-choicers should be grateful and reciprocate with concessions of their own, “these exceptions are actually a major human rights problem.”
Last week, a nationwide protest of Planned Parenthood was held. As usual, the Satanic Temple of Detroit showed up to counter-protest. Also as usual, they did it in the typical offensive, outrageous fashion that they’ve become known for.
Last week we covered Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards’s condescending non-answers to pro-life students attending her speech at Georgetown University, but it turns out that wasn’t even the most outrageous highlight of the event. No, that would be the part of her speech when she said:
Our history with race in America is something that we all have to address, including Planned Parenthood. It’s important that we understand our collective history and the legacy that it leaves on those that are still living in an unjust system. Lack of access to healthcare and reproductive rights is a result of many factors—race, gender, sexual orientation, geography and immigration status. In order to build true equity in America we have to address it all.
Yes, that’s the president of the country’s largest killer of minority children comparing her side to the fight against racism.
As Live Action News reported on April 14th, Chairman Trent Franks from Arizona chaired a Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on H.R. 4924, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2016, or PRENDA. PRENDA would prohibit discrimination through abortions that target preborn children because of their race and/or gender.
I think we can all agree that ending life of unborn child b/c they are the "wrong color" or "wrong sex" is not who we are as Americans.
Every time pro-abortion activists want to win people over to their side, they bring up ‘back-alley’ abortions. Women need abortion to be legal, and they need Planned Parenthood — otherwise, they’ll be reduced to coat hanger abortions, they say. Yet at the same time, they oppose any restrictions on abortion, and oppose abortionists being held to the same standards that other doctors are. So what difference does it make, really?
At The Federalist, Chris Freund writes about the tragic story of a girl who got an abortion, using the pseudonym Tina. Tina went to Planned Parenthood seeking an abortion after she got pregnant. It was July of 2014, and she was still in her first trimester. She didn’t know it at the time, but things had gone horribly wrong…
On Wednesday morning, the House Select Committee on Infant Lives held its second hearing looking into the fetal tissue transactions between tissue procurement companies like Stem Express and abortion providers like Planned Parenthood. The Committee, led by Chairwoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), focused on “the pricing of fetal tissue.”
In the packet of evidence released by the Committee, there were brochures from a tissue procurement company. Although the name of the tissue procurement company was redacted, Democrat members of the Committee referred to the company as StemExpress – the company that played a starring role in videos released by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP).
Planned Parenthood’s preferred strategy in its campaign to dehumanize its victims is to simply pretend they aren’t there by talking as if women are the sole interested party in abortion. When that fails, the abortion giant’s fallback is attempting to pretend there’s simply no consensus about when life begins. And when that fails, Planned Parenthood has to get… creative.
Enter an editorial in Kentucky’s Lexington Herald-Leader newspaper by Dr. David Nash, who has served on the boards of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky and the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, in response to an earlier pro-life editorial by Dr. A. Patrick Schneider.
It attempts to discredit pro-lifers by explaining what “science really says” about personhood, but the only question it raises is: do they really let just anyone put an MD after his name these days?
Last week, we highlighted Willis Krumholz’s Federalist article detailing how the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute appears to have dropped a 1994 data point from its materials on unintended pregnancy rates to obscure Planned Parenthood’s role in driving them up in the mid-1990s and falsely suggest its promotion of intrauterine devices was key to driving them back down.
Guttmacher spokesman Joerg Dreweke replied, claiming the data point was flawed, and removed to more accurately reflect the true rates. Now, Krumholz has answered the charge, defending his work and maintaining that Guttmacher still has some explaining to do.
At a recent Pro-life Women’s Day on the Hill in Nashville, Tennessee Right to Life gave the audience an update on the lawsuits being brought against the citizens of Tennessee by Tracey George, Board Chair of Planned Parenthood of Middle and East Tennessee.