How does a person who pledges to “first, do no harm” justify actively taking a person’s life on a regular basis? How can a doctor switch back and forth between healer and executioner?
The July issue of the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology explored how this affects residents, as they grappled with the moral implications of performing abortions. Four residents were profiled, and each of them struggled with a variety of questions. When does life begin? How can I justify harming a preborn child? What would God, my parents, or my friends think? Here, we see that even residents who choose to continue performing abortions are not truly comfortable and at peace with that decision.
Planned Parenthood has been claiming that the recently released undercover video exposing their sales of fetal body parts is “outrageous.” But the video, recorded by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), isn’t simply the result of a two hour conversation with one of PP’s top docs, it’s the first of a series of videos in the culmination of three years of deep research and undercover investigating.
The United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has announced that it will, essentially, defy the Supreme Court and continue to attempt to force religious organizations to provide abortifacient contraceptives to their employees.
Editor’s Note: Live Action News believes that parents need to receive full information about any disability or disease their preborn child is diagnosed with. Many diseases initially called “fatal,” “terminal,” or “incompatible with life” are actually quite different. Sadly, many doctors give worst case information to parents, and fail to inform parents of life-giving options such as in-utero surgeries, the benefit of waiting to see the real facts and the condition of the baby, support organizations, and hospice care. For true stories illustrating this, read about Grayson, Titus, Angela, Cayden, and Bella.
Recognizing that the majority of Americans are not comfortable with our abortion-on-demand jurisprudence, the mantra of abortion advocates is almost always tempered. The former catch-phrase “safe, legal, and rare” has recently morphed into “reducing the need for abortion.” (The Obama Administration made it clear that it was need not numbers of abortion that they are looking to reduce.) Yet, when we talk about making abortion “rare” and “reducing the need” for abortion, I always wonder where do the babies who are aborted because of a prenatal diagnosis fit in?
What I have come to realize is, for those that subscribe to this rhetoric, they don’t.
On Friday, June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling which legalized same-sex marriage across the nation. President Barack Obama, who has supported same-sex marriage since 2012, issued a statement commending the Court.
The regardless of one’s view of the decision, the overall theme of equality is quite notable. The following excerpts, with added emphasis, are as well:
Former abortionist Dr. Paul Jarrett gave his testimony at a conference held by the Pro-Life Action League called “Meet the Abortion Providers.” In a speech reproduced on the Priests for Life website, he talks about his experiences with late-term abortion.
An OB/GYN, Dr. Jarrett did his residency between 1970 and 1973 in Indiana. Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion throughout the United States, was decided in 1973, but in the first year of Dr. Jarrett’s residency, some abortions were being done legally. In Indiana at the time, a woman could get an abortion legally if she went to two psychiatrist and had them certify that her pregnancy was a threat to her mental health. According to Jarrett:
The British publication The Guardian just published an article entitled, “Being an abortion doctor has taught me a lot about life.” In the article, a British abortionist explained how happy she is to be doing abortions. Right after mentioning the blisters on her “operating” hand caused by the friction of the forceps as she tears apart late late-term preborn children, she says:
I can’t say this is exactly what I had in mind when I was 17 and writing my Ucas application, full of idealism and pride to be applying for such a noble profession. Probably not what my parents were thinking of either – it doesn’t make for great dinner party conversation having an abortion doctor for a daughter.
I recently returned home after taking a powerful trip to Selma, Alabama. I went to that historic city with Black pro-life leaders such as Alveda King, Catherine Davis, Star Parker, Dean Nelson, Will Ford and more for a special event called the Selma Project.
The Selma Project was a two day event focused on calling attention to the illegal activity of a medical clinic in Selma, AL. The Central Alabama Women’s Clinic run by Dr. Samuel G. Lett is a medical facility that is believed to be exceeding the number of abortions allowed for a facility that is not a licensed abortion clinic. A phone investigation by CEC for Life, Operation Rescue and Life Legal Defense Foundation lead to an investigation by the Alabama Department of Public Health.
Americans United for Life is committed to the principle of reproductive justice. If that seems strange from a pro-life perspective, it is because the abortion lobby has usurped the phrase “reproductive justice” to mean its antithesis.
The National Organization of Women (NOW) defines “reproductive justice” as the recognition “that reproductive oppression is a result of the intersection of multiple oppressions and is inherently connected to the struggle for social justice and human rights. Women of low economic means suffer consequences from the lack of access to complete health care (for example, the high rate of cervical cancers among women of color).”
One does not have to dig deep to find NOW’s definition of “complete health care” is not limited to cancer screenings but includes, and largely focuses on, abortion.
Pro-life author Randy Alcorn talks about how pictures show the humanity of preborn children, and how pro-choicers don’t like to face that reality:
[D]enial remains surprisingly strong. When I showed an intrauterine photograph of an eight-week unborn child to a pro-choice advocate—an intelligent college graduate—she asked me, “Do you really think you’re going to fool anyone with this trick photography?”
I told her she could go to Harvard University Medical School textbooks, Life magazine or Nilsson’s A Child Is Born and find exactly the same pictures. She didn’t want to hear it. Why? Because she was really saying, “That’s obviously a child in this photograph, and because I don’t want to believe abortion kills a child, I refuse to believe that’s a real photograph.
Rebekah Nancarrow had an ultrasound at Planned Parenthood (for which she paid $80), but wasn’t allowed to see the image. She was told by a Planned Parenthood worker that seeing the fetus on the screen “will only make it harder on you.”
Nancarrow later went to a crisis pregnancy center and was given a free ultrasound. This time she was allowed to view it. Nancarrow was so moved by what she saw on the ultrasound screen that she changed her mind about having an abortion and decided to have her baby. She says:
In 1988, the New England Journal of Medicine described a then-new abortion procedure called selective reduction. This type of abortion is performed when a woman has more than one preborn baby in her womb and wants to kill one or more children, but not the other(s). It can be used to “reduce” triplets to twins, or twins to a single baby.
Often this type of abortion is done on women who have undergone in vitro fertilization. In these cases, the woman has multiple babies in her womb, and doctors will usually suggest her to abort one or more of her children. The doctors urge selective reduction because they say carrying multiple babies to term is very risky, and may lead to the woman miscarrying the entire pregnancy. Doctors then suggest that the life of one(s) sacrificed to abortion is far better than the deaths of all the children.