Monthly Archives: May 2014

Why Abortion Clinic Regulation Drives Pro-Abortionists Crazy

NRL News Today

Why abortion clinic regulation drives pro-abortionists crazy

By Dave Andrusko

 Pro-abortion Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) is working full time to undercut protective abortion clinic regulation

It would be almost amusing if the subject—abortion—was not so horribly tragic and the attempt to conjure up conspiracies so transparent. In a few words, pro-abortionists are forever accusing pro-lifers of “secret” (or “back-door”) plans for this and that which (pro-abortionists hope) will fizzle if only the public finds out.

Of course the problem (for them) is that our objectives—our “plans”—are transparent. Borrowing from President George W. Bush we work unceasingly for “the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law.”

That glorious day has yet to be realized. As we work toward a restoration of protection (and a “culture of life”), we move one step at a time. We offer commonsensical protections which, unsurprisingly, the majority of Americans agree with.

But, unlike our opponents, we are win-win types—we care about both mother and unborn child. We will do everything possible to persuade a woman to choose life. Every single success matters.

We work as well to ensure there are no more Kermit-Gosnell-type abortion clinics. And for all those apologists who insist he was a “renegade” or “outlier,” there are plenty of clinics that perform “meat-market style assembly line” abortions (to quote one nurse who formerly worked at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Delaware).

That is why we promote laws to require that abortionists who (in many states) fly in, kill unborn babies, and fly out, have admitting privileges in a local hospital if/when complications arise. Similarly for requiring that the abortionist be in the pregnant woman’s presence when she receives abortifacients, rather than hundreds of miles away communicating by webcam/skype.

Click here to read the May issue of
National Right to Life News,
the “pro-life newspaper of record.”

What prompted this post was an article written by Robin Marty, a prolific pro-abortion writer who occasionally stumbles across an insight. This particular piece, which appeared at www. truth-out.org, is not an example of such.

However there is an interesting paranoid twist on something Marty [mis]represents: the aforementioned abortion clinic regulation. Like all defenders of the Abortion Industry, Marty can only see any protective regulation through the lens of “TRAP,” the pro-abortionist’s acronym for what she/he thinks is a clever turn of phrase–Targeted Regulation of Abortion Provider.

So, by definition if upgrading minimal requirements leads an abortion clinic to close (or merge), this must be an example of TRAP in action. And of course if you assume that abortion clinics are model “health care providers,” places where it is nearly impossible for an abuse to occur, then—by definition—no upgrades are needed.

But, of course, this is not true. The irony of this was on display Monday in the first day of a lawsuit against Alabama’s admitting privileges requirement, HB 57.

One abortion clinic owner was complaining that “If I close my doors, their [women’s] access is dramatically, dramatically reduced.” We pointed out that one set of doors had already closed, and not because of HB 57.

“The Birmingham clinic of Planned Parenthood Southeast ceased operations in January after firing two staff members for selling an abortion medication to a person in the clinic’s parking lot,” AP’s Phillip Rawls reported. “Staci Fox said the clinic hopes to get approval from the state health department to reopen by next month.”

Our only “target” is to protect women from unscrupulous abortionists.

But Marty’s piece is about how, if abortion clinics close, “private physicians may be fielding more requests to terminate a patient’s pregnancy.” She doesn’t say it, but I’m guessing that she believes that is the one and only redeeming factor. By that I mean pro-abortionists lament that almost all abortions are done in free-standing abortion clinics. The result is, as Marty puts it, that abortion has become “segregated from the rest of health care, resulting in its stigmatization.” But if women in larger numbers come to and are accepted by, say, doctor’s offices….

However the ‘evil genius’ of a Louisiana bill about to be signed into law by Gov. Bobby Jindal is that abortionists who perform only a “few” (aka 60 or fewer) abortions will no longer get a free pass.

As one physician who testified on behalf of the bill said, abortion facilities shouldn’t have “special interest loopholes” that sanction a lower standard of care than what ambulatory surgical centers must have.

So the bill mandates that surgical abortion facilities are held to the same safety standards of other outpatient surgical facilities. What drives Marty crazy is a change in the status quo.

Currently in Louisiana an abortionist can perform 60 abortions a year before being subject to the health and safety inspections that are required of “licensed outpatient abortion facilities.” But because every woman is entitled to the protection of regulated safety standards, the new bill requires licensure and inspections for physicians who perform five or more abortions per year.

Marty laments that this is all unnecessary and a huge inconvenience to the (so to speak) mom and pop abortionist. But of course if patient safety is a concern, you look at the requirement differently.

Marty seeks to assist abortionists polish their image by being reintegrated into real medical care. We are not. Abortion is not health care. It’s death care, whether in free-standing abortion clinics or doctors’ offices.

Bravo to Louisiana and all the other states that have, are, or will insist that abortionists and abortion clinics be regulated.

Kermit Gosnell not Unique, Reporter says in Sequel to “3801 Lancaster”

 

NRL News Today

 May 22, 2014   Gosnell

Kermit Gosnell not unique, reporter says in sequel to “3801 Lancaster”

<!– pat dup image remove attempt 3801Lancasterpart2 End of remove dup image attempt –>

By Dave Andrusko

3801Lancasterpart2“I have no doubt that there are people out there doing late term abortions and probably doing what he [Kermit Gosnell] was doing. The issue is whether someone will say something and they’ll be caught at some point.”

This deeply unsettling quote comes from Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Joseph A. Slobodzian. You’ll find his remarks in the trailer for the forthcoming “3801 LANCASTER: America Tragedy,” a 45-minute-long documentary sequel to “3801 Lancaster.” Slobodzian did the best reporting on the Gosnell trial which culminated in Gosnell sentenced to three consecutive life sentences.

NRL News Today wrote extensively about Part One, which was an eye-opener even for people like me who’d read the 260+page Philadelphia Grand Jury report on Gosnell more than once. (More about that below.)

According to press reports, 3801 LANCASTER: America Tragedy was screened this week at The PFS [Philadelphia Film Society] Theater at the Roxy. The subtitle for the new documentary gives you a heads-up what director David Altrogge and producer Jen Thompson are offering the public—“Kermit Gosnell: His Victims and the State that failed to act.”

On their blog, we read

“When we set out to make the film, we originally thought it was just going to be a sequel. However, the film has grown into so much more than a mere ‘Part II.’ In so many ways, it’s the culmination of what we began over three years ago. While the first installment was an overview of the case, ‘3801 Lancaster: American Tragedy’ goes so much deeper, answering many of the questions that were left unanswered when we released the first installment last January.”

Part One took a first look at of how in the world something like Gosnell’s “House of Horrors” could possibly have continued in operation, after one woman died and then another. And that, of course, doesn’t even address the hundreds of violations of various codes and laws and the most ghastly reality of all: Gosnell intentionally aborted children in a manner that they would be born alive and then he would murder them.

3801 LANCASTER: America Tragedy goes into more depth about the incredible failure to reign him in, talks to women whom Gosnell and his unlicensed staff aborted, and jurors who served on the six-week-long trial.

Click here to read the May issue of
National Right to Life News,
the “pro-life newspaper of record.”

We wrote about Part One at nrlc.cc/1ktb0AUnrlc.cc/126z8lU,  and nrlc.cc/XaAAhs, to cite just three posts. I initially wrote

“The first shot is of Katie Couric, not exactly one of us, shown seated at the anchor’s desk. She cautions her audience, ‘Now this next story comes with a strong word of caution. The details are gruesome. You won’t want young children to watch.’

“And that illustrates the genius of the documentary. There are sections where pro-lifers are shown denouncing Gosnell. However, except for this and the stories told by two women who Gosnell aborted, the bulk of the video is comprised of clips like this, the on-camera testimony of Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams and Assistant District Attorney Ann Ponterio before a state Senate committee, an interview with a Philadelphia Inquirer reporter, and quotes from the Grand Jury report which led directly to the indictment of Gosnell, his wife, and many ill-trained members of his staff.”

I’d like to add something I’ve alluded to many times but have not nailed down in a long while. Gosnell was convicted in the murders of “only” three viable babies. But his killing spree was immense.

The Grand Jury, reviewing just the fraction of Gosnell’s abortion files seized by authorities, “was still able to document numerous instances in which ultrasound readings were manipulated to disguise illegal late-term abortions. Our review, although limited by the disappearance of many patient files, revealed that Gosnell reported performing abortions on 24.5-week fetuses more than 80 times between 2007 and February 2010.”

Get that? The Grand Jury only saw a sample of Gosnell’s files, many of which had evidence that ultrasound readings had been manipulated to “disguise illegal late-term abortions.” In other words, by the Grand Jury’s own accounting, were there accurate records, it is highly likely Gosnell would be charged with many more counts of murder!

We will keep you updated on 3801 LANCASTER: America Tragedy.

Please join those who are following me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha. Send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.

The Fast-paced and Completely Convincing “Case against Abortion: Prenatal Development”

 

NRL News Today

 

The Fast-paced and Completely Convincing “Case against abortion: prenatal development”

 By Dave Andrusko

9weekbaby5Of the three categories of posts on National Right to Life News Today that receive the most response, two are especially adroit at combining appeals to the head and to the heart: prenatal development videos and music videos, such as John Elefante’s wonderful pro-life, pro-adoption “This Time” (“Pro-Life Music Video ‘This Time’ goes viral’”

I am making my periodic request to National Right to Life News Today readers for your help. Please send along links to videos that illustrate that most miraculous process–how you and I each started out the same but ended up each unique—and pro-life music videos.

To illustrate what I’m looking for, may I offer, “The case against abortion: prenatal development

Only 3 minutes and eleven seconds long, the video covers the waterfront –the docks, stevedores, and merchant vessels—at a breakneck speed. In so doing it borrows from many of the finest resources—in print and online—to create a riveting and absolutely convincing case against abortion.

Backed by a pulsating music score, flashing across the screen is the question, “At what point does it become wrong to intentionally abort a developing human being?” Options range from conception through birth.

We see a snapshot of a Gallup poll where 2/3rds support a first-trimester abortion but only 10% support a third trimester abortion. Why the discrepancy?”

Because the former “kills a baby” while a first trimester abortion “kills a bunch of cells…. Or does it?” The remainder of the video races through a highly entertaining, richly informative/persuasive tour conclusively demonstrating the developmental continuity of human beings whose maturation unfolds just the way it is supposed to.

“The case against abortion: prenatal development” begins with a quick perusal of the prenatal photography taken by Lennart Nilsson in his classic, “A Child is Born.” We see in these photos the developmental milestones and how remarkably intricate the child even in the first weeks.

Next to flash on a screen is that statement, “Nucleus [Medical] Media creates award winning medical illustrations.” Now we are shown the unborn as if her mother’s body is translucent. Again, remarkable how developmental sophisticated is the child even in the first trimester.

“On the outside chance you’re still envisioning the first trimester embryos and fetuses as shapeless clumps of tissue…” we are introduced to “The biology of prenatal development.” As it happens I wrote about this incredible 42-minute-long DVD in 2010.

Click here to read the May issue of
National Right to Life News,
the “pro-life newspaper of record.”

This documentary utilizes six different imaging technologies to give you unforgettable images inside the womb of the growing baby at the embryonic and fetal stages. The breath-taking real-time pictures that are utilized are of the human embryo in the first three weeks. Without thinking, you have absorbed another lesson in early prenatal development, including the fact that six week embryos have measurable brain impulses.

Then the first of two key truths wrap up, “The case against abortion: prenatal development.”

“They may not look like a baby yet, but they look exactly as a human being should look, 21 days after conception.”

To finish the point, we see highlighted text from Geraldine Lux Flanagan’s book, “Beginning Life” that reads,

“In the hours of conception, every aspect of the genetic inheritance for the new individual will be determined once and for all.”

The inescapable conclusion?

“At any stage of pregnancy abortion kills a rapidly developing, genetically distinct human being.”

Wow! Do yourself a big favor and watch, “The case against abortion: prenatal development

Please join those who are following me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha. Send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.

War(s) on Women

 

National Right to Life Victory Fund


War(s) on Women

One of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the American electorate is the accusation, fabricated in the 2012 elections, that pro-lifers have somehow conducted a “war on women.”

There are exaggerations and there are lies.  This one’s a lie.   

Pro-lifers, research shows, have saved more than nine million lives through pro-life legislation, education, and pregnancy help centers since Roe v. Wade.

That’s 4.5 million women and girls whose lives were saved. Four and a half million alive today who would have been killed if it were up to the policies of the people who attack us for conducting a so-called “war on women.” 

But that isn’t to say there aren’t wars on women.  It’s just that they’re coming from the other side. 

So let me ask our opponents some pointed questions 

  • It seems almost every day we hear of another abortionist responsible for the injury, maiming, or death of one of his female patients.  These tragedies never seem to stop.  Wouldn’t that by their own definition be a “war on women?”
  • What of clinics that perform abortions on minor girls who are victims of statutory rape or incest, but then refuse to alert the parents or authorities who might help the girls extract themselves from such degrading and dangerous situations?  Isn’t that a war on women?
  • And what of the judges in states that have parental consent or notification laws for abortion – judges who rubber-stamp approval for abused minor children to get secret abortions, but then do nothing further to investigate and put an end to the abuse?  Another war against minor girls. 
  • What of women emotionally devastated by post-abortion trauma, suffered because abortion zealots fight tooth and nail to deny women considering abortion even the most basic information about their baby’s development or alternatives before making that life or death decision?  By the time many women find out, it’s too late.  Where is their compassion about that war on women?
  • And what about Barack Obama and his allies giving our tax dollars to the UNFPA which supports China’s forced-abortion practices, which lead to abortions of mostly girl babies?  That’s a war in which baby girls literally die, but we rarely hear a word about it from the pro-abortion side. 

I don’t know about you, but I’m disgusted by the attitude of people who demean and degrade and refuse to defend women, but instead turn their aggression on pro-lifers who are simply defending the right of all girls, boys, women and men to enjoy the lives they are blessed with. 

It’s time we start hitting back when attacked with these phony claims of a “war on women!”

Ask those who accuse pro-lifers: “What about the abortionists who kill and maim women and unborn baby girls?”  Ask them to defend abortion “clinics” that take their $500 of blood money for an abortion from a scared, abused girl and then throw her right back into her nightmare of a life without so much as a phone call or follow-up. 

They can’t. 

The election rhetoric will be rough this year, and rougher still in 2016.  They’ll continue to claim we’re “warring” against women as long as a willing media accommodate their lies – and they’ll come up with some new outrageous charges, too.  It’s all part of the game for them. 

But it doesn’t have to succeed.  The National Right to Life Victory Fund is already out in the field this election season, telling Americans the truth about what the abortionists and their apologists in office are doing to destroy human life, to destroy our culture, to destroy women and girls. 

Your financial support for the NRL Victory Fund can help us get that truth to more Americans, to tell them which candidates are supporting life and protections for the women abused by abortionists; and which candidates favor a culture of death. 

You can help us defeat the nonsense that is called the “War on Women.”  And defeat the real war(s) that kill and destroy so many lives. 

Carol Tobias
President

 

Due to popular demand, Live Action will be printing not one, but two simultaneous editions of our campus and community publication, The Advocate.

Dear Friend,
Due to popular demand, Live Action will be printing not one, but two simultaneous editions of our campus and community publication, The Advocate.
Our May edition of The Advocate covers the central question:When does personhood begin?

One of the most powerful ways to engage others in the discussion about abortion is through questions.  So our upcoming issue of the Advocate poses the core question: is what grows in the womb a human life?  Is it a person – not, in fact, an it, but a him or a her?
In the summer edition of The Advocate, not only do we answer these questions, but we also teach you how to defend the personhood of the pre-born with apologetics tools and articles designed to help you start conversations.
Also available is our Winter edition, which was so popular that we are continuing to offer it.  With an overview of the last six years of Live Action’s investigations, this hard-hitting issue relates how the abortion industry functions as a business exploiting women for profit, all the while promoting sex-selective abortions, covering up child sex abuse and sex-trafficking, and pressuring vulnerable mothers into destroying their babies.
Both of these powerful issues are available at NO COST to you.  Through the generosity of our donors, we are able to provide this publication FREE to communities and campuses across the nation.  All you need to do to take advantage of this fantastic program is order your free copies today.  We’ll send them to your door with suggestions for distributing them in your community.
And remember: the Live Action team is always here for you if you have questions or need support in your local pro-life work.
Yours in the fight for life,
Maggen Elizabeth Stone Youth Outreach Coordinator Live Action

You won’t believe what Planned Parenthood’s been up to

Susan B Anthony List

You won’t believe what Planned Parenthood’s been up to…

Hi Pro-life friend —

When you stand with your SBA List, pro-life leaders get elected. And let’s not forget why that’s so important:
 
Women and their babies are under ferocious attack from Planned Parenthood every single day… and right at this very moment. They deserve strong pro-life lawmakers who will stand up for their human rights, health and dignity — NOT politicians who bank-roll Planned Parenthood with our tax dollars, and turn a blind eye to the abortion industry’s abhorrent abuse of women and children.  
 
 
Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry are focused on performing as many abortions as possible to boost their bottom line, NOT protecting women. In fact, Planned Parenthood’s political arm is spending over $18 million this election cycle to keep Harry Reid and the pro-abortion majority in the Senate.
 
Why? To protect the over $1.5 million per day they receive in taxpayer funding!  
 
Think about it – why not spend $18 million to protect the $540 million in taxpayer dollars they are getting every single year?
 
Your SBA List is the only pro-life organization who has the experience and political plan in place to take Planned Parenthood head-on and defeat Harry Reid and his pro-abortion allies in Congressbut we can only do it with your immediate help. We have just three days left to raise the $32,500 needed to roll out TV and radio ads and implement our grassroots action plan in key states.
 
 
Thank you so much for standing with your SBA List to support pro-life, pro-woman candidates who will take back the Senate and stand for the human rights, health and dignity of women and their babies.
 
I look forward to having you at my side in this important election year for Life!
 
Onwards,

Marjorie Dannenfelser
President, Susan B. Anthony List

Donations can be mailed to SBA List, Suite 550, 1707 L St., NW, Washington, DC 20036

Contributions or gifts to Susan B. Anthony List, Inc., a 501(c)(4) organization, are not tax-deductible for Federal income tax purposes. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. All donations are made to the general treasury of the Susan B. Anthony List, Inc., and are not designated for any particular purpose. Donation will be used in the sole discretion of the Officers and/or Board of Directors in accordance with the mission and purposes of the SBA List.

“Unbreak My Heart”: Singer Toni Braxton’s Abortion

NRL News Today

“Unbreak my heart”: singer Toni Braxton’s abortion

By Dave Andrusko

ToniBraxtonreSinger Toni Braxton is arguably one of the greatest talents of the last twenty years, an incredibly gifted performer whose personal life until very recently has been in downward spiral.

Now she is “opening up,” acknowledging that in 2001 she became pregnant by her then boyfriend (and soon to be husband), Keri Lewis and chose to have an abortion. The couple subsequently went on to have two boys before divorcing in 2012.

Braxton told Entertainment Tonight that at the time she was taking Accutane, a prescription acne medication which can cause serious complications for the baby. However, according to the New York Daily News, Braxton admits in her new memoir “Unbreak My Heart” that “she would’ve have come to the same conclusion even if she weren’t on the medication. The singer admits her decision was caused more by the refusal to inconvenience her lifestyle than any fear that her fetus had been harmed.”

The legacy—and the guilt—lives on. Braxton’s youngest son, Diezel, was diagnosed with autism years later. “Is God punishing me for that abortion?” she writes in her memoir. According to the Daily News, “Braxton realizes that might sound odd, but says she ‘believed that God’s payback was to give my son autism.’”

More legacy and more guilt. Braxton was “so consumed with guilt over the abortion,” Marianne Garvey, Brian Niemietz, and Molly Friedman write, “that she questioned if God was punishing her for it with lupus and her parents’ messy divorce.”

Click here to read the May issue of
National Right to Life News,
the “pro-life newspaper of record.”

Madamenoire.com carried a short story on the tragedy and the appearance on Entertainment Tonight and the new book. Like Braxton’s mistaken notion that God would punish her child for her abortion, Madamenoire.com draws a wrong conclusion. “We are happy to see more and more women breaking their silence about such a very personal experience so that other women don’t feel so guilty and ashamed,” the entertainment site writes. “Toni has had a lot of setbacks in her life so it’s nice to see her busy working again.”

It is nice to see Braxton working again, but whoever edited this piece would benefit enormously from reading the book, or at least the Post story.

Madamenoire.com would have you believe it was her “strictly religious home” that explains her “huge amount of guilt.”

To be clear I haven’t read the book, either. In the Post we read that Braxton is “consumed with guilt,” which is like saying the sun is hot. True but doesn’t come close to conveying the full truth.

Braxton feels the way she does because she is honest enough to admit the rationalization that she used to justify the abortion (to herself) is simply not true. She has two children and the only way she can “explain” her son’s autism and the legacy of further family hurts is to falsely attribute it to a wrathful god.

Madamenoire.com has it backwards. Other women won’t be liberated from guilt and shame by Braxton’s story.

“Unbreak my heart” is not only the name of Braxton’s memoir, it’s the title of her most famous song.

But I think it’s also fair to conclude those three words likely also capture a fervent wish on her part–to wash away the pain, the guilt, the shame, and to unbreak the heart that was broken when she took her unborn baby’s life.

‘Women Deserve Better’: Why the U.S. Needs to Rethink its Abortion Laws

 

‘Women deserve better’: Why the U.S. needs to rethink its abortion laws

by Caitlin Burke

  • Mon May 19, 2014 11:03 EST

May 19, 2014 (Heritage) – It’s been a year since abortionist Kermit Gosnell was convicted of first-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter for killing three newborns and causing the death of a mother in his West Philadelphia clinic.

And, according to a panel of experts in policy, law and medicine who gathered at The Heritage Foundation, the decaying operating rooms, filthy instruments and unsafe practices that went undetected for two decades at Gosnell’s clinic remain all too common in America.

“We’re not here to commemorate an event. We’re hear to reflect on it and draw lessons,” Americans United for Life general counsel Ovide Lamontagne said. This was a “catastrophic systemic failure of government at all levels.”

“Nothing was done for years with Gosnell,” panelist Byron Calhoun concurred, calling the oversight an “inexplicable medical anomaly.” Calhoun, professor and vice chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at West Virginia University-Charleston, said studies show an 81 percent increase in risks of mental health problems for women post-abortion. He said the figure could be even worse for those who undergo late-term abortions.

Calhoun said “women deserve better” when it comes to oversight of abortion clinics.

“We would contend that holding the abortion industry and abortion providers to at least the minimum accepted standard of surgical and post-operative care required for all other surgical procedures seems reasonable,” Calhoun said.

Panelist Angelina Baglini, an associate scholar with the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the research arm of the Susan B. Anthony List, also stressed the need for greater protections for mothers, especially after 20 weeks of pregnancy: “A law ending abortions after 20 weeks is legislating what is safe and healthy for mothers,” she said.

Comparing abortion in the United States to international norms, Baglini revealed the extreme nature of America’s abortion laws. According to Baglini’s research, the United States is one of only seven countries in the world that allow late-term abortion.

Click “like” if you are PRO-LIFE!

“The clear norm is to limit abortion to 20 weeks, and in most cases to 12 weeks,” Baglini said. Introducing such limitations on abortion in the United States, she added, “is neither extreme, nor unreasonable. Rather, [limits would] move the United States toward international norms.”

Law professor Teresa Collet noted some states better protect women than others. For instance, “In Texas, women are protected by reasonable health and safety standards.” For states seeking to protect women’s health and safety, Lamontagne drew attention to AUL’s work on state-level policies that protect both mother and child from the harms of abortion.

AUL President and CEO Charmaigne Yoest concluded the May 13 event, highlighting the need to break the “conspiracy of silence” that surrounds the reality of abortion’s harm to women.

Kermit Gosnell (Photo: Yong Kim/MCT/Newscom)

Kermit Gosnell (Photo: Yong Kim/MCT/Newscom)

“Part of what gets me up in the morning,” Yoest said, “is that women are not hearing this truth. The babies and women [Gosnell] killed are more than mere data points, they are human beings with human dignity. … We must ensure we are on the side of both mother and babies because they are both in this together.”

Although a gruesome and tragic incident prompted this discussion, participants were optimistic about the odds that the law will better protect women and babies in the future. “Momentum is in our favor,” Lamontagne said.

Reprinted with permission from Heritage

 

SOURCE:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/women-deserve-better-why-the-u.s.-needs-to-rethink-its-abortion-laws?

The “Quality of Life” Slouch Toward Infanticide

NRL News Today

The “Quality of Life” Slouch Toward Infanticide

By Wesley J. Smith

Bioethicist Udo Schuklenk

I have long argued that our neurotic obsession with eliminating suffering-–we should, of course alleviate and mitigate it–-leads very quickly to eliminating the sufferer.

Many mainstream bioethicists push this meme as part of their attempt to convince society to permit infanticide for the same reasons that we allow late stage abortion. Always, these efforts are couched in eliminating suffering and killing based on quality of life–the approach of pro-euthanasia Canadian bioethicist Udu Schuklenk. From, “What We Should Do About Severely Impaired Newborns?”

My [debate] opponent also argued that we should ask ourselves whether we would want to live in a society that terminated the lives of such vulnerable newborns. That’s a good question to ask as it forces us to think more carefully about the values that are at stake in such situations.

If we merely go by the newborn’s quality of life and life prospects it seems indeed best to end the unfolding tragedy sooner rather than later, but probably a decision should be arrived at with parental consent as opposed to against the unfortunate parents. It turns out that one can reasonably answer the rhetorical question of whether one would want to live in a society that terminated the lives of certain severely impaired newborns if one held the view – as I do – that the newborn’s current and future quality of life is all that matters here. I could live in such a society where empathy for human suffering trumps religious conviction.

Don’t be fooled by the “parental consent” nonsense. First, parents shouldn’t have the power to have their babies killed. Beyond that, if we owe a duty to the baby to kill him, then parental rights become irrelevant and it’s veto time. Relevantly, back in the late 1990s, The Lancet reported that 27% of infanticides in the Netherlands–all based on a supposedly “unlivable life” occurs without parental consent.

If the parents’ reason for wanting to love their baby as long as he lives can be viewed as religious–strongly hinted by Schuklenk as the only reason anyone could oppose–it’s really veto time!

Add in the issue of medical costs, and if we live in a society based on “quality of life” instead of equality/sanctity of life, and–yes, you guessed it–veto time!

Schuklenk pushes the QoL poison:

This view, in turn, requires us to rethink how we go about doing medicine, at least to some extent. It would require us to give up on what is called the sanctity-of-life doctrine in medicine and replace it with a quality-of-life ethic.

There is no point in maintaining human life for the sake of it if that human life cannot enjoy a moment of its existence and is trapped in a never-ending cycle of immense pain and suffering. A quality-of-life ethics would not merely ask ‘do you exist’, but ‘do you have a life worth living?’, or ‘will you have a life worth living?’ We are not there yet, but significant changes in this direction are occurring in many countries.

But that’s in the eye of the person or bioethics committee granted the power to decide, isn’t it? And it ignores many, ”severely disabled” from birth, who are so happy to be alive. I’ve met them.

What makes this debate so frustrating is that we’ve been there before with catastrophic results: German doctors killing disabled babies as a “healing treatment.”

This wasn’t Nazis, it was doctors imposing the quality of life ethic.

After the Nuremberg medical trials, Dr. Leo Alexander wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine, explaining how German medicine so easily embraced evil:

Whatever proportions these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who investigated them that they had started from small beginnings. The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived.

This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted and finally all non-Germans. But it is important to realize that the infinitely small wedged-in lever from which this entire trend of mind received its impetus was the attitude toward the nonrehabilitable sick…

What is that wise saying about those who refuse to learn the lessons of history? Unfortunately, showing the flow of the currents, I don’t think the NEJM would publish Alexander today.

But to answer Schuklenk’s title question: We should love them. We should care for them. We should alleviate their suffering. We should value them.

We definitely should not kill them.

Editor’s note. This appeared at nationalreview.com

Stand for Gosnell’s victims

Hi Pro-life Friend —

Babies born alive and stabbed in the neck.

Severed baby feet in jars.

Overdosed women.

Filthy medical equipment.

Racism.

Governmental failure.

Media blackout.

 

One year ago today, so-called “doctor” Kermit Gosnell was found guilty of murdering three babies born alive and convicted of involuntary manslaughter of a mother at his grisly abortion business in Philadelphia.

 

While we of course were relieved with the “guilty” verdict, we knew that it could only be the beginning – not the end – of serving justice to his victims.

…Especially with Gosnell-like acts happening across America in abortion businesses every single day.

 

That’s why one year ago today, I called on Congress to take action and pass federal legislation to end gruesome late abortions.

 

One year later, we’ve made progress… but still have so much work to do.

 

Today, I will join Senate Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senator Graham (R-SC) at a press conference at the Capitol to demand true justice for Gosnell’s victims and call on Harry Reid to allow a vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

 

Take Action: Urge your U.S. Senators to demand a vote on this historic legislation that will protect pain-capable unborn children from gruesome late abortions.

 

As you’ll recall, the House of Representatives took swift action in wake of the Gosnell trial and passed this legislation with bipartisan support.

 

And already, 40 U.S. Senators have co-sponsored the Senate version of this bill.

 

Yet, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has so far refused to bring it up for a vote.

 

Take Action: Tell your U.S. Senators to demand an immediate vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

 

I look forward to sharing with you how the press conference goes today, and I deeply appreciate and ask for your prayers.

But above all, I appreciate your willingness to be a voice for Gosnell’s victims, even one year later.

 

This is going to be a long battle to save every single child and mother from the horrors of abortion, and I’m proud to have you standing next to me on the front lines.
For Life,

Marjorie Dannenfelser President, Susan B. Anthony List

PS: Today is an emotional day for the pro-life movement as we remember Kermit Gosnell’s victims and grapple with the fact that Gosnell-like conditions and practices are occurring in abortion businesses across our country. We must stand up and fight and do our part to serve true justice to Gosnell’s victims, and advance legislation that would end gruesome late abortions across America while working to save every unborn child and mother. Take Action today by telling your Senators to demand an immediate vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. 

 

Donations can also be mailed to SBA List, Suite 550, 1707 L St., NW, Washington, DC 20036

Contributions or gifts to Susan B. Anthony List, Inc., a 501(c)(4) organization, are not tax-deductible for Federal income tax purposes. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. All donations are made to the general treasury of the Susan B. Anthony List, Inc., and are not designated for any particular purpose. Donation will be used in the sole discretion of the Officers and/or Board of Directors in accordance with the mission and purposes of the SBA List.