Priests for Life in the Media

Priests for Life in the Media

July 13 – July 19, 2015

The Gospel of Life on Radio Maria

Airing: 6 p.m. ET on Tuesday, July 14 and rebroadcast at 2 a.m. Thursday, July 16 and midnight ET Monday, July 20 (11 p.m. CT Sunday). Go to radiomaria.us/the-gospel-of-life to listen online. 

Does helping a family member or friend have an abortion – or failing in attempts to stop them – really have repercussions for those involved? Janet Morana and Father Frank Pavone will speak with Priests for Life pastoral associate Kevin Burke, LSW, about how this group is indeed impacted by the Shockwaves of abortion.

Also, Youth Outreach Director Bryan Kemper will talk about summer plans for his missionaries at Stand True.

Shows are archived at PriestsForLife.org/RadioMaria.

Defending Life on EWTN

Airing on EWTN TV: 2:30 a.m. ET Wednesday, July 15, and 11 p.m. ET Thursday, July 16 and on EWTN Radio Saturday, July 18 at 6:30 p.m. ET and Sunday, July 19 at 5 a.m. and 1 p.m. ET. You can also stream EWTN online by going to EWTN.com and clicking on the “television” tab.

The horrific fate of the babies killed by abortionist and convicted murderer Kermit Gosnell became known during his 2013 trial in Philadelphia. But babies all over the country have been killed in terrible ways thanks to legal abortion, and often their bodies have just been dumped with the trash.

Learn about the National Day of Remembrance for Aborted Children, which offers memorial services for these babies in cemeteries and memorial sites throughout the nation. This year, services will take place Sept. 12.

For more information and details, go to DefendingLife.tv.

The Catholic View for Women on EWTN

Airing on EWTN TV: Wednesday, July 15 at 11:00 p.m. and Friday, July 17 at 10:30 a.m. You can also stream EWTN online by going to EWTN.com and clicking on the “television” tab.

What should a Catholic family do when a loved one confesses a same-sex attraction? That topic and others will be tackled by hosts Janet Morana, Teresa Tomeo and Astrid Bennett Gutierrez on “Who Am I to Judge, Part 3.”

Dan Mattson from Courage will return to talk about new programs offered by the outreach ministry to those struggling with same-sex attraction.

Go to TheCatholicViewforWomen.com for more information.

Gospel of Life on NRB and SkyAngel

Airing on National Religious Broadcasters network (NRB), Wednesday, July 15 at 4:30 p.m. ET. The NRB Network is on DIRECTV, channel 378. Gospel of Life is archived on the NRB Network Roku channel for seven days from the original air date. 

Also airing on SkyAngel 2 on Friday, July 17 at 6 a.m. ET. 

This Week on NRB: Unmaksing Choice

This Week’s Topic on SkyAngel: Perinatal Hospice

Catholic Connection with Teresa Tomeo

Fr. Frank will be on with Teresa on Tuesday, July 14 at 8:35 a.m.  Call-in to the live show with questions at 877-573-7825. For more information and to listen to the live show on the internet, go to http://www.avemariaradio.net/hosts/teresa-tomeo/

Hear Fr. Frank Pavone on with Dina Marie Hale on Mater Dei Radio on July 20 & 27th at 7:30 a.m. Pacific/10:30 Eastern on KBVM.fm.  You can sream live at http://kbvm.fm.

A Radio Update from the Front Lines of the Prolife Movement

Smith, Molly
Host:Molly Smith
     From the Median©
Weeknights 9-10pm on 1220AM

 


 July 13th 2015

* A Radio Update from the Front Lines of the Prolife Movement *
 
Ways to Listen
 
RADIO:  Listen Live on Cleveland’s AM 1220 “The Word” 9-10pm EST
RADIO:  Listen Live (Detroit Market) on FaithTalk AM 1500 8-9pm EST
 
ONLINE:  Click here to listen live 9-10pm EST at 

  ONLINE:  Click here to listen live 8-9pm EST at www.faithtalk1500.com

APP:  Click here to get the iHeartRadio App on your mobile device
 
PODCAST:  Click here to listen to past broadcasts

Johnson Abby

Monday, July 13th
2011 BABL Highlight with Guest Host Maria Dean
 
Abby Johnson
Activist & Author, Unplanned
“Abby’s Journey from Being a Planned Parenthood Director to Leaving this Industry to Champion for the Lives of the Unborn”

George Robert

Tuesday, July 14th
2011 BABL Highlight
Professor Robert George
Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University
“Conscience and The Political Obligations of Citizens Toward Human Life”

Wright, Paul

Wednesday, July 15th
2010 BABL Highlight
Dr. Paul Wright

Author, Mother Teresa’s Prescription: Finding Happiness and Peace in Service

“Wright’s Account of His Work with Mother Teresa”

Thursday, July 16th    Rossetti, James

2011 BABL Highlight
Dr. James Rossetti 
“Stem Cells: The Hope, the Hype, the Truth”

Lila Rose

Friday, July 17th
2013 BABL Highlight
Lila Rose

Founder & President, Live Action

“Exposing the Tragedies Inside a Planned Parenthood Abortion Facility”

You Shop.  Amazon Gives!

Just Click on the Button to the Right Before You Place Your Order, and Amazon Will Donate 0.5% of Eligible Purchases to Cleveland Right to Life!
Help Spread the Gospel of Life!
Your donation of $10 a month will help keep
“From the Median” on the air.  It’s the only prolife radio program of its kind on the Salem Network.
“From the Median” is listener funded

You Won’t Believe How This Pro-Life Doctor Saved a Woman’s Baby Midway Through an Abortion

You Won’t Believe How This Pro-Life Doctor Saved a Woman’s Baby Midway Through an Abortion

Dr. Delgado’s story began when he received a call from a friend in El Paso, Texas, who informed him about a woman who had taken the abortion pill but immediately regretted the decision.

At the 2015 American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) conference, Dr. Delgado told attendees, “I started thinking about my years of experience with progesterone, and how I’d used progesterone to try to prevent miscarriage.” The protocol calls for taking the injectable progesterone as soon as possible after taking the mifepristone.

Dr. Mary Davenport, another pro-life physician at the forefront of this new innovation, explained how chemical abortions involve two drugs:

“Medical [chemical] abortion is actually performed in early pregnancy with TWO pills, the first – RU-486 – mifepristone or Mifeprex, antagonizes the hormone progesterone, which is necessary for pregnancy. This cuts off the nutritional supply to the pregnancy, ending in the unborn baby’s death. One or two days later the woman takes a second pill, misoprostol or Cytotec, which causes uterine contractions and expels the pregnancy. Medical abortion is frequently a horrible experience for the women, lasting up to 2-4 weeks with nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hemorrhage, and intense pain.”

The reversal attempts to counteract the first drug, mifepristone, before the second one, misoprostol, is ever given.

Progesterone is a critical hormone during pregnancy, said Delgado. It helps nourish the placenta, keeps the cervix closed, and inhibits contractions. Mifepristone, a progesterone receptor antagonist, acts like a “false key” binding with the progesterone receptor and blocking its activity. This action softens the cervix, makes the uterine wall more vulnerable to contractions, and attacks the placenta, Delgado said.

 

“I thought, well, maybe we can out-compete [mifepristone] at the receptor [using progesterone],” he said.

At a press conference held at the National Press Club, AAPLOG physicians reported that as of the end of 2014, 78 babies have been born after abortion reversal treatment, with 45 women still pregnant, a 57% success rate out of 223 attempted reversals.

One success story is Andrea Minichini, her boyfriend Chris Caicedo, and their son Gabriel David. Minichini, though still wrestling with the decision, took the first abortion pill, mifepristone, while the abortionist at Planned Parenthood cheered her on.

Instead of taking the second pill the next day, which would induce contractions, she began to look into ways to stop the death of her unborn child. Not surprisingly, the abortion center staff was no help. A local hospital informed her that if she carried the baby to term, he would face severe health issues.

A Google search led her to Dr. George Delgado in San Diego. On December 31, 2014, she delivered a healthy baby boy they named Gabriel David.

“Obviously women are changing their minds and interested in options,” said Delgado.

As noted, Dr. Delgado’s innovations have already saved 78 young lives. And that is just the beginning! AAPLOG recently unveiled a new “Emergency Abortion Pill Reversal Kit,” which they would like to see placed in emergency rooms and urgent care clinics nationwide.

Dr. Davenport observed that there are approximately 200,000 chemically-induced abortions annually in the USA.

Dr. George Delgado will address the National Right to Life Convention this summer in New Orleans, Louisiana. The event will run July 9-11 and also feature keynote speakers Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, John McCormack of the Weekly Standard, NRLC President Carol Tobias, and many more.

For more information, please visit www.nrlconvention.com.

Credit: http://www.lifenews.com/2015/02/25/you-wont-believe-how-this-pro-life-doctor-saved-a-womans-baby-midway-through-an-abortion/

Audio Girl Ministries

AudioGirl Ministries was founded in 2009 by two Catholic women who wanted to “do something” about the holocaust of 1.2 MILLION babies (4 in 10) who are brutally aborted in the US every year.

Blessed to have grown to include a dedicated, joyfully spirited group of Catholic, Protestant and Jewish faithful, Team AGM promotes the TRUTH that every baby is a person whose beautiful beating heart deserves to be passionately protected and cherished.

Fighting for the most fundamental of human rights, the right to be born, and armed with the persuasive powers of PRAYER, ACTION, and KNOWLEDGE, Team AGM has helped to save the lives of over 900 babies.

Join us in being a “BOLD AND ACTIVE VOICE FOR THE UNBORN.”  Now is the time.

To get the “The Power of 7”  App go to: http://audiogirlministries.com/

Incredible Display of Miscarried Babies Shows the Humanity of Preborn Children

Screen shot 2015-05-22 at 3.36.27 PM

Incredible display of miscarried babies shows the humanity of preborn children by Josh Brahm

On trip in Portland somebody told me that I couldn’t leave without seeing the Prenatal Exhibit at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry, or OMSI.

The exhibit was created by Dr. Gunther von Hagens, the person behind the controversial “Body Worlds” exhibit. He uses a plastination technique to preserve animal and human bodies and sets up exhibits in an effort to educate people about anatomy in a way that books can’t. The exhibit is controversial because in the case of the human bodies, these were real people who arguably should have been buried. My staff and I have unresolved concerns about that aspect of it.

In the case of the prenatal development exhibit at OMSI, they only have babies who were miscarried and then preserved, presumably with the parents permission. (This exhibit isn’t to be confused with “Bodies: The Exhibition,” which is similar but whose bodies all came from China, adding to the controversy.)

According to the Body Worlds website:

The BODY WORLDS exhibitions rely on the generosity of body donors; individuals who requested that, upon their death, their bodies could be used for educational purposes in the exhibition. All the whole-body plastinates and the majority of the specimens are from these body donors; only some organs, fetuses and specific specimens that show unusual conditions come from old anatomical collections and morphological institutes.

I found a few images online of the exhibit that I’m going to include with this blog post to try to give you a visual of what we saw, but I firmly believe that these pictures don’t do the exhibit justice. I’ll explain why later in the post.

Before you get to the main exhibit, there are lots of walls set up with some of Lennart Nilsson’s famous fetal development pictures and explanations of human development.

OMSI Prenatal Exhibit

OMSI Prenatal Exhibit

My favorite area was an interactive display where you could push different buttons and LED lights would illuminate how the babies blood and the mother’s blood is kept separate, yet the mother’s body gives nutrition to the baby and carries away waste.

OMSI Prenatal Exhibit

Then we got to the main part of the exhibit, which is kept in a large, dark room, and a warning sign that reads:

“Attention. Viewer Discretion Advised. The human embryos and fetuses in this exhibit are real. The survival of these embryos and fetuses was prevented by natural causes or accidents. These specimens were collected from medical universities and hospitals and prepared by Dr. Hunther von Hagens, inventor of the plastination process and creator of the Body Worlds exhibitions. The exhibit was installed at OMSI in 1993.”

OMSI Prenatal Exhibit

When you walk in, this is what you see:

OMSI Prenatal Exhibit

When Jacob walked in his first thought was, “There are so many of them.”

There are 42 embryos and fetuses preserved in glass cases along the curved wall. They start at the youngest and as you walk through the exhibit the babies get progressively older, until you reach the last child who was 33 weeks old and had a full head of hair.

Each baby has a sign under it giving the age from fertilization of the child and what is going on for a baby developmentally, at that age. The exhibit makes it clear that the ages attributed to the children is the actual time after fertilization, not LMP. There’s a sign on the wall that says:

“The embryos and fetuses in this exhibit are real. They are presented here to offer a unique look at the journey each of us made from a fertilized egg. Acquired from medical universities and hospitals, the survival of these embryos and fetuses was prevented by natural causes or accidents. The age given for each specimen is the actual time after fertilization, this is the aging method used by scientists studying human development. It is different from the method used by health care providers, who time a pregnancy from a woman’s last menstruation.”

OMSI Prenatal Exhibit

My immediate emotional reaction upon entering the room was sadness. There was a seriousness to this room, and the design of the room was clearly intended to underline the seriousness of the exhibit. This isn’t a place to let your kids run free like they can at some of the other sections of the museum.

The youngest baby was only a few weeks old, and was very small. I took my time, spending several moments in front of each child. As I looked at the youngest embryos, I thought to myself that I could understand why a pro-choice person could see this part of the exhibit and still feel convinced that these early embryos aren’t morally significant. I certainly think they are, but it’s not because of the way they look. It’s because of what I believe about the nature of all humans, including the youngest of us.

It became harder for me to step into the shoes of a pro-choice person and defend abortion rights later in the exhibit though. Around the point where the baby in front of us was nine weeks old, it became clearer than anything that this is a little human, not an unorganized mass of developing tissue.

As I was staring at a child who was about 20 weeks old my brother Tim came up to me to ask me what I was feeling. I paused, and then responded that I felt “intensely sad about abortion.” I asked him what he was feeling, and he replied, “As I looked at the younger embryos, I felt really sad, but the older they get, the more I feel angry.”

I reminded Tim that abortions at 20-weeks or later don’t happen nearly as often as first-trimester abortions before asking, “What specifically are you angry about?” Tim thought about it, and responded, “I’m angry that 20-week abortions are defended so often. I’m angry that our society is even having to debate whether or not to pass a bill that would ban abortions at this stage.”

We didn’t just feel angry about the late-term babies either. As I glanced to my left at the first-trimester babies, I thought, “These babies can be legally ripped to pieces, and they are, to the tune of about 3,300 every day.” At Equal Rights Institute it’s a priority to us to be very careful with philosophy, and understand why the most philosophical pro-choice advocates believe what they believe. And yet, staring at these children, I felt like I live in a society that has gone mad.

After I reached the end of the exhibit, I walked back to one of the babies. It was the one who died at 10 weeks. Many people don’t know that my wife and I lost a child 10 weeks into our first pregnancy. It is the most traumatic thing we have ever experienced. I felt like I needed to take this opportunity to remember my first son or daughter. So I stared at the 10-week child for several minutes, in silent memoriam. His body was longer than I expected a 10-week child to be. And as I stared at him, I felt like I connected with him a little. I once had a child, and he or she was alive while we were ecstatic about our first pregnancy. For the first few years of our marriage we weren’t sure we could get pregnant, and then we finally did, and I was so excited I would literally jump up and down when I told people! And then our child passed away, and a small part of me died with our child. I’ve never been the same.

We quietly left the exhibit, walked to our car, and processed together.

We talked about the difference between the babies who were eight weeks and younger, and those that were older. We agreed that it is equally sad that they all died, but we had more sympathy for pro-choice people who only defend early abortions than those who defend all abortions.

Tim said, “Nine weeks in, their humanity is not ambiguous anymore. They had distinguishable fingers and toes. They had different facial expressions.”

We spent a lot of time discussing whether an exhibit like this should exist. On one hand, it doesn’t feel respectful. As Tim said, “A human body made in God’s image shouldn’t be in a glass case.”

Tim had a good idea for how the exhibit could be more respectful in their treatment of the babies. “I wish each baby was named. Not that the guy who made the exhibit made up a name for them, that would be meaningless. I wish the parents had named their babies, because that would be their real name, and that you could read each name under their body. Each of these babies were somebody.”

Having said all of that, we agreed that while abortion remains legal, though we have reservations, we would prefer if an exhibit like this was in every major city in America.

This exhibit humanized the unborn more than Lennart Nilsson’s fetal development images or the graphic abortion images do, both of which we use in our outreach brochure. There are some pro-choice college students whose world would be rocked if they saw this exhibit, in a way that images don’t rock their world. Why? Because in this exhibit you’re in the personal, physical presence of unborn children.

A phone conversation can’t substitute for an in-person conversation. Tim asked me what I thought when I saw the Grand Canyon for the first time. My first thought was, “Pictures of this don’t do it justice. You can’t understand the enormity of this canyon without being physically there.” Tim said he thinks the same is true for unborn children. “Pictures of this exhibit wouldn’t be that compelling to show people. Being in the physical presence of a child is.”

This is similar to what I wrote after seeing a similar, albeit smaller, fetal development section of “Bodies: The Exhibition” seven years ago. I wrote:

“We talk about ultrasounds being the window to the womb. No, this is the window to the womb.”

I told Tim and Jacob, “I think we should treat bodies respectfully, but I’m full-time in the pro-life movement, and I’m a pretty even-keel guy, but I am SO much more devastated about abortion right now than I usually am.”

I recalled how at the end of “Bodies: The Exhibition” there were notebooks at the end where people could write their reflections. Here are some of the comments that I read:

“A strong case for the anti-abortion position.”

“I know life begins at conception.”

“…I don’t understand how someone could have an abortion after seeing all the embryos.”

“…I’m convinced that life begins far earlier than our society believes.”

“I really liked the part about the babies.” ~ A young girl

“We truly are fearfully and wonderfully made.”

“I don’t know how you could not believe in God after seeing this exhibit.”

“I was fascinated with the fetuses – I did not know they were so well formed even at seven weeks – who could ever abort a child?”

“There is no way I’m going to have an abortion…” ~ A 12-year-old girl

Jacob agreed that an exhibit like this is necessary for our society to see, but he wished it wasn’t.

As a full-time pro-life advocate who thinks about abortion a lot and tries to persuade others to become pro-life, I have sometimes struggled with how to balance grief in my pro-life work. There are some days that I don’t feel as sad about abortion as I ought to. There are two extremes I need to try to avoid: If I’m grieving all the time, it’s unhealthy, but if I never grieve, I’m disconnected from just how awful abortion is. I think seeing this exhibit helped me get a little more balanced on how grief should interact with my work.

Editor’s Note: The post “Our Experience at the OMSI Prenatal Exhibit Displaying Real Preserved Children” originally appeared at the Equal Rights Institute blogClick here to subscribe via email and get exclusive access to a FREE MP3 of Josh Brahm’s speech, “Nine Faulty Pro-Life Arguments and Tactics.”

Want More: http://liveactionnews.org/incredible-display-of-miscarried-babies-shows-the-humanity-of-preborn-children/

Medical expert: Science is ‘conclusive’ that unborn babies feel horrific pain of abortion

 

(Charlotte Lozier Institute) – On May 12, 2015, David A. Prentice, Ph.D., Vice President and Research Director of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, was invited to speak on the science of fetal pain on Point of View radio talk show. On May 13, 2015 the United States House of Representatives passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

The full transcript is below:

Ms. Penna Dexter: We want to talk about fetal pain […] because this bill is so much stronger. It actually bans abortions after twenty weeks, and that’s because – I don’t think there’s a doubt now that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks?

Dr. David Prentice: The science is pretty conclusive at this point. And there are always going to be people, especially those in favor of abortion, who will say, “Oh that really doesn’t happen, and they’ll throw up a smokescreen. And what they usually do is they refer to an old study back in 2005 that was published actually by people who had associations with Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

But the real science – and there’s some new things in fact, that have come out in the last few months – but the science pretty conclusively demonstrates: Young babies still in the womb at 20 weeks after conception, and probably even earlier, do indeed feel pain, and in fact, may feel more intense pain than a newborn or an adult.

Ms. DexterAnd that is because [of] their development?

Dr. Prentice: Exactly, they have a higher density of nerve receptors. Like you said, your skin is not very thick at that point, but there is another aspect.

There are certain pathways that sort of tone down pain. If I hit my thumb with a hammer, I’m going to feel it because the pain sensation goes up to my brain, but there is also a return path to try and tone that down. That doesn’t even start to develop until about the time that you’re born, so you don’t get this dampening of the pain.

In fact, there was a study done, reported just a couple weeks ago, where they were looking at pain experience of newborns – just between one and six or seven days old and adults, and the headlines were, “Babies feel pain like adults and they feel it more intensely.”

The study actually looked at regions of the brain associated with pain using very sophisticated technology and comparing not really pain, just sort of like you’d take the end of a pencil and press it against the bottom of this baby’s foot, a little bit of pressure, a little sensation there.

A lot of the babies even slept through this whole procedure, but they were in this functional MRI machine, very sophisticated technology, and then they would do the same thing to adults to see how they responded.

Eighteen of the twenty pain regions lit up in babies, eighteen of the twenty that are the same as adults, and at four times as sensitive. So again, you don’t develop this feedback loop to shut down pain until right about that time, and it takes even several months after birth for it to start to mature.

Now, wind back the clock to five months after conception, you’re a little past halfway through development in moms womb. You don’t even have that feedback loop at all; it’s not starting until months later in your life – and now the pain is very intense. We don’t know exactly how much, but much more intense for the small amount that you might feel as an adult.

Ms. DexterSo one of the arguments that’s made is that at twenty weeks the baby doesn’t have a mature cerebral cortex. What do you say to that argument?

Dr. Prentice: Well, if your listeners aren’t up to speed on brain anatomy, the cortex is sort of the outermost part that is, in terms of your conscious thoughts and so on, it’s the last part of the brain to develop.

There is indication that some of that neuronal material in your brain is already present, starting to be formed certainly by twenty weeks after conception, but it also turns out that that’s not the most important part of your brain for pain perception.

There’s another deeper layer that forms early in your brain called the thalamus, deep inside your brain. It forms even earlier in development – probably about 8 to 12 weeks is when you start to see it forming – and those nerve tracks already connect to the thalamus by the time you are 20 weeks after conception, or after fertilization.

In fact, there are individuals who are born without the cerebral cortex, and they feel pain. We know that for a fact.

So, you don’t need that cortical layer to actually feel pain. What you need are these deeper parts of the brain and simply the neural tracks for sensation. And those are definitely formed, intact, and responding by twenty weeks after conception.

Ms. DexterThat argument that no mature cerebral cortex, and that’s necessary for perception of pain, that’s one of your smokescreen arguments that you’ve been talking about?

Dr. Prentice: It is definitely a smokescreen.

Ms. DexterIf a scientist starts using terminology that you don’t really understand, then you get intimidated.

Yes, people start throwing out these technical terms…In fact, it wasn’t until probably the last ten or fifteen years that doctors really thought newborns even experienced pain, so they would be doing lots of procedures on them after birth and they didn’t think that they could even receive pain at that point in time.

Fast forward to where we are now, and starting about that time, fetal surgery started to come into vogue, where they are actually doing operations on these little ones while they’re still in the womb.

I know your listeners have probably seen that famous photo of the little hand reaching out of the womb grabbing the doctor’s finger. Little Samuel Armas, he was operated at an age about that same time, about five months after conception … He was operated on while he was still in the womb. And [these fetal surgeons] know that these little ones feel pain. They see the responses, there is plenty of evidence for that.

They give anesthetic and pain medicine directly to the unborn baby, it’s not relying just on an anesthetic for mom. In fact, it’s interesting, I came across one of the studies where they were talking about the success of doing these operations while the little babies are still in the womb, and they talked about how they address, beforehand, the mom…

Ms. DexterIt’s sort of amazing to me that the intent that the adults in the world have for this baby have everything to do with whether or not their pain is controlled because at that point, when they are operated on, they are getting anesthesia. But if they are being aborted, they are going to feel the entire pain of that awful abortion, correct?

Dr. Prentice: Yes, that’s true, and it is just an attitude. It’s how we view this little one; it’s the same person in there, but it’s just how we view their worth to us.

We were talking about fetal surgery, where the surgeons recognize that this is an issue. I mean these are their patient’s number one –

Ms. DexterThe unborn baby is their patient?

Dr. Prentice: That’s right. They’re going on to do this surgery on an unborn baby while still in the womb at five months or even earlier in their development. There have been a few surgeries even earlier, but they recognize that this little patient, at that point in their life– still in the womb – can experience pain.

In fact, it’s interesting: the leading clinical anesthesia textbook says it’s clear that these little unborn babies can experience pain as early as 16 weeks after conceptiondefinitely by twenty. [It says] that these little unborn babies – they use the medical term “fetus” – that they are a patient, and that it is critical to administer anesthesia directly to them.

I was going to read you, this is what fetal surgeons tell the mother before they are going to go ahead and do the surgery. Listen to the almost tenderness here. It says:

“You’ll be given general anesthesia, and that anesthesia will put your baby to sleep as well. In addition, during the prenatal surgery your unborn baby will be given an injection of pain medication as well medication to ensure the baby doesn’t move during the surgery.”

Again, these are little patients, very tender ones, and as we said they can experience pain even more intensely than you or I do. [It’s] this attitude – that these are little persons of worth that we need to handle compassionately. They’re doing surgery for all sorts of types of conditions now.

There’s a special fetal surgery wing, for example, at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia that has done over 1,200 of these operations. There are now almost a dozen or more special fetal surgery wings at major hospitals around the country. Again, it’s recognizing that these are patients and not some item to be discarded.

Ms. DexterIt’s so interesting that this huge hospital that does these surgeries is in the same town where Kermit Gosnell existed for years. It’s sort of the contrast between good and evil and life and death isn’t it?

Dr. Prentice: Right there within the same city. How shocking, in fact.

Ms. DexterTell us about the Charlotte Lozier institute, I know that the last time I talked to you, you were at FRC, and I know that you all work so closely together really all on the same page on these issues, but tell us just about your position there and what that organization is about.

Dr. Prentice: Sure, what the Charlotte Lozier institute is is the education and research arm of the Susan B. Anthony List, and your listeners have probably heard of that organization.

What we do at Charlotte Lozier is we are focused on science, we’re focused on statistics for life. We are trying to put this information together so that Marjorie can use a bullhorn to get the truth out there. So that Members of Congress, state legislators, or other scientists or experts – when they speak to the media, the public, or to their colleagues – can get the real facts out there.

For so many years the pro-life groups relied on the Guttmacher Institute for the “facts” about abortion. That’s a real contradiction, isn’t it, because Guttmacher of course is a spin-off from Planned Parenthood, the biggest abortion provider in the nation. Should we have relied on those people? Probably not, but they were the only game in town.

Well, there is a new game in town and the Charlotte Lozier Institute intends to give the pro-life, objective viewpoint of the real facts about life from conception until natural death so that people have the facts and can use them.

Ms. DexterWhen Roe v. Wade was decided, they acted like there was some sort of a question about life and that this was a real baby. Pro-lifers knew, anybody who was a believer, a Christian, or had faith knew this was life because God created this life in the womb and we knew all that. But they were able to get away with [that question of life’s beginning when] they made [the Roe v. Wade] decision, and now because of the science – again the science – has shown us what’s there from such an early stage.

I’ve got two grandchildren on the way and I’ve been able to see the sonograms, and they are much clearer than the ones when I had my children. It’s so clear and obvious, the humanity is just obvious and clear now, and I think we are a little behind the curve almost in getting this fetal pain ban passed.

Dr. Prentice: We probably are, and it’s a matter that we need to keep educating people about the truth and the humanity of these little ones. You are right. It’s gone from back in those dark early days where we were told this was a blob of tissue to now these 4D ultrasounds where you can see the little one in there smiling and waving at you as they do somersaults. I mean, it is amazing.

That brings up another point too, another study from just last week. What do the courts look at in terms of this issue of abortion? That term “viability” often shows up. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Acts are not meant, at the federal or state level, to weigh in on that issue of viability and survival outside the womb. They are meant to show the humanity of that unborn child.

But even in terms of viability, the New York Times of all places reported last week on a new scientific study out in the New England Journal of Medicine and their focus was on survival of these little ones. Very, very premature babies, some as early as, yes five months after conception, lining up just exactly with what these bills are going for, twenty weeks after conception. They are talking about how a number of these little ones even that early survive, and – lo and behold – if you actually intervene, care for them, and try to keep them alive many, many more of them survive.

It would seem to be common sense that, yes, if we actually do something to help you breathe or live, you’ll survive. I just want to point out that these are little lives. That there is humanity of this little person, and we need to focus on that and preserve those lives.

Want More: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/medical-expert-science-is-conclusive-that-unborn-babies-feel-horrific-pain?

 

Pro-lifers have Won the Intellectual Battle Over Abortion

NRL News Today

Pro-lifers have won the intellectual battle over abortion

By Dave Andrusko

Michael Novak

Earlier today I had meant to take some time to whack away at the latest nonsense from David Grimes, an old pro-abortion warhorse who insists with tedious regularity that anyone who dissents from his orthodoxy is [fill in the blank]. Most recently pro-lifers are (repeat after me) anti-science. Sigh.

But sometimes the race goes not to the quick but to those whose daily demands put them behind schedule—in this case, me. I mean by that I just ran across a terrific piece that appeared on the patheos.com website written by Michael Novak.

I first met Mr. Novak when he gave a lecture when I was a graduate student at the University of Minnesota in the 1970s. He was pro-life and brilliant then; he is just as pro-life and even sharper now.

His piece is titled “Abortion: The Intellectual Battle Has Been Won.” He begins with a very clever parallel.

Just as “Communism died as an idea fifteen years before the Berlin Wall was pushed over,” Novak argues something similar is happening in the abortion debate. While “This great fact may take a decade or more to become evident to all,” he writes, “the intellectual underpinnings of the abortion regime have washed away. Four forces washed them away: science, technology, dishonesty, hypocrisy.”

Naomi Wolf

I don’t want to spoil how he unspools his insights, so please read his post in its entirety. Instead I will just talk about Novak’s use of the argument of pro-abortion feminist Naomi Wolf.

I’ve written several times about Wolf’s 1995 essay most recently in 2013. Wolf went to great lengths to show that because most people are acutely uncomfortable with abortion, “amoral rhetoric” is hugely counterproductive.

Such insensitivity conveys the impression that women are destroying their babies for “self-absorbed reasons.” To Wolf, this cedes discussion about right and wrong to pro-lifers. “Pro-choicers,” she maintained, need to frankly talk about “good and evil.” This signals that they are not making up their morality on the run, but are, in some sense, accountable.

Novak put it more succinctly and more eloquently than I did. He observed

Naomi Wolfe’s point was that in the long run, it would be better at least to speak honestly, even if that seemed more shocking. Otherwise, those in favor of abortion would sound less trustworthy, speaking in roundabout euphemisms. They would sound like they were covering up what they are really advocating. They would be caught up in a tangle of evasions – and even self-deceptions.

Novak concludes with these wonderfully encouraging words:

The intellectual battle has been won. Patient political efforts in persuasion are now the best way … to make the abortion regime fade into oblivion, to be remembered in the future as a dark period in American history.

Want More:

http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2015/01/pro-lifers-have-won-the-intellectual-battle-over-abortion/#.VMkz2Tjwvjo

You’ll be Outraged When You See What Planned Parenthood is Teaching These Kids About Sex

 

You’ll be Outraged When You See What Planned Parenthood is Teaching These Kids About Sex

by Sarah Zagorski | San Francisco, CA | LifeNews.com | 12/12/14 1:20 PM<!––><!––>

State
The parents of children at a San Francisco high school are outraged because Planned Parenthood employees are teaching their kids in public school about sex. The students, 13- and 14- year olds, are being taught by the abortion business without their parents’ consent or even prior knowledge.

According to Fox News, the students were handed worksheets that include a checklist titled, “Sex Check! Are You Ready For Sex?” Unbelievably, the worksheet asks the students if they have water-based lubricants and condoms; and of course on their materials the abortion giant inquires if the children know how to handle a possible venereal infection or pregnancy.

Additionally, the document explains how a boy should ask his partner for consent for sex. It states, “Do you want to go back to my place?” and “Is it OK if I take my pants off?”

kids4However, that’s not all— the school is also teaching these children about gender identity in a very creative way. The kids were shown a “Genderbread Person”, which shows them how to identify themselves as either “bigender,” ” agender” or “two spirited.”

News Max shares more:

“[Parents] are very concerned,” said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, a nonprofit legal group aiding the worried families. “Planned Parenthood is not exactly the best when it comes to putting young people first.

“They get more grants from the promiscuity of children. The material they have provided was material that mirrored their agenda.

The outcry began when ninth-graders told their parents that they felt they were being pressured to have sex and that one instructor threw a model of female reproductive organs at a student.

“Some of the kids were distracted because it was divergent from what they were taught at home,” Dacus said.

Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

John Lyons, whose two children attend the school, told FoxNews.com, “Our daughter took this course two years ago, after being provided the opportunity to opt out of the class.

“The opt-out form provided a handful of bullet points about what the course would cover. After completing the course, it was apparent that some of what was ‘taught’ went beyond what was represented on the opt-out form.

“This is disappointing to us, because we are actually strong supporters of teen sex education in a peer environment to complement our home-based discussions.”

Lyons said the classes appeared to promote Planned Parenthood’s agenda regarding “social justice” through the sex education of teens.

Parents have now launched a petition calling on the high school to give them a preview of the sex-ed class before their kids take the course so they can then decide whether they want their children to attend, FoxNews.com reported.

Thankfully, the Pacific Justice Institute, a legal group that defends faith, family, parental rights and other civil liberties, has warned Northern California’s Acalanes Union High School District in a letter that they may be breaking the law. In California, there are federal statutes that require schools to receive parental consent prior to taking part in surveys or evaluations.

They said in a statement, “We have not seen any documentation to indicate that distribution of the surveys complied with federal law of the California Education Code as to parental notification.”

WANT MORE:

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/12/12/youll-be-outraged-when-you-see-what-planned-parenthood-is-teaching-these-kids-about-sex/

Pro-Abortion Study Admits Thousands of Women Hospitalized Every Year From Botched Abortions

Pro-Abortion Study Admits Thousands of Women Hospitalized Every Year From Botched Abortions

by Randy O’Bannon, Ph.D. | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 12/12/14 7:44 PM<!––><!––>

National
What if you walked into the waiting room of any of the country’s abortion clinics and told the young mothers waiting there in the lobby that there’s a new study indicating that the “procedure” they’re about to undergo will, in the coming year, send thousands of women to the emergency room or back to the clinic to deal with a complication or a “failed abortion”?

How many of them would say that makes them feel more comfortable with their decision? None, you would suspect.

Yet if one actually reads a new study (as opposed to the press release) out of the University of California – San Francisco (UCSF), that’s what is being acknowledged but cloaked. Instead of a true picture, you get a UCSF release trumpeting the results as showing that the “Major Complication Rate After Abortion Is Extremely Low” (UCSF Release, 12/8/14).

sadwoman19But a closer look at the data shows there is some real stretching and spinning going on here, belying the “extremely low” complication rate assertion. As you read our analysis, be sure to focus in on what the authors consider to be “minor” complications.

The UCSF study, “Incidence of Emergency Department Visits and Complications After Abortion,” is based on a recent study of California Medicaid recipients. It appeared in the December 8, 2014, edition of the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.

California is one of the states that pays for the abortions of women enrolled in Medicaid. The study looked at the billing data from 50,273 Medi-Cal patients who had 54,911 abortions in 2009-2010.

The authors do not give comparable state data from those years, but note that of the 181,730 abortions performed in California in 2011, about 51% were covered by the state’s Medi-Cal program. This study looked at just those records of patients were treated under the fee-for-service (vs. managed care) part of the program. [1]

Nearly 8% (or between one in 12 and one in 13) of women showed up at the clinic or a local Emergency Room (ER) seeking some service within six weeks of their abortions. Some of those were eliminated from further study because billing records appeared to show that they came in for some service unrelated to the abortion. (These were not specified, but this could be something like smashing a finger in the car door, coming down with the flu, etc.)

Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

But even pulling these out and other “complications not validated,” one is left with a substantial number of women dealing with medical problems resulting from their “safe” abortions.

On the billing records of those women returning to the clinic or going to the ER, they found women hemorrhaging, dealing with infections, uterine perforations – the sort of problems we’re supposed to think were relics of the early days following the Roe v. Wade decision when abortionists were just learning their craft.

A surprising number of these were related to the new chemical or “medication” abortion method that was supposed to offer women a safer alternative to surgical abortion.

There were nearly four times as many surgical abortions (34,755 first trimester, 8,837 2nd trimester or later) tracked by the study as there were chemical abortions. (11,319). Yet there were more identified complications associated with the chemical method (588) than they were for the surgical ones (438 for first trimester, 130 for 2nd or later) combined.

The complication rate for chemical abortions was 5.2%, versus complication rates of 1.3% for first trimester suction aspiration abortions and 1.5% for second trimester or later methods. This would make chemical abortions four times riskier than early surgical ones and more than three times less safe than a second or third trimester procedure.

This is hardly the “advance” or “improvement” that women were promised when the government was asked to approve RU-486 more than a decade ago.

A number of these complications involved “incomplete” or “failed” abortions [2]. Most of these were identified as “minor” complications by researchers (there were also “minor” hemorrhages, uterine perforations, and infections).

UCSF originally found 535 repeat abortions within six weeks –165 “subsequent medication [chemical] abortions,” and 370 “subsequent aspirations.

Theoretically, some of these could be new abortions, but much more likely is that these are chemical or surgical procedures that were performed to complete the earlier incomplete or failed abortions.

These may not all have been counted as complications, or they may have fallen into the category of 658 “Other” or “Undetermined” complications. The latter seems likely, given that the “treatment” for 400 of these (about 61%) was “uterine aspiration.”

The point which their own data makes abundantly clear is that these abortions far from being as safe or successful as advertised.

Remarkably, the researchers attribute the high rate of complications (the majority of which they term “minor” and “expected”) among women having chemical abortions to “aspirations performed presumptively or to alleviate bleeding or cramping symptoms.”

In other words, bleeding or cramping was so bad that women came back to the clinic or went to the ER, where doctors (noticeably including those from the clinic who would have seen ordinary abortion bleeding before) decided emergency surgery was needed. Yet in most cases, UCSF wants us to believe, this was just a “minor” or “expected” complication.

All told, the study found that 2.1%, or about one out of every 48 abortions, were connected to a complication that was diagnosed or treated at some medical facility. Though perhaps lower than the complication rates one might expect for essential life-saving major surgery, this is hardly the risk- free “procedure” the abortion industry and lobby wants people to think it is. It is also higher than people might expect for a “procedure” that abortionists have been working to perfect for over 40 years.

Remember this study was of a selected population in California. What if one applied these results nationwide, based on the estimate there are now roughly 1.05 million abortions annual?

It would translate into more than 22,000 women visiting their local ER or returning to the clinic for medical care each year. How many women in clinic waiting rooms today would be surprised to hear that number? How many would be reassured of abortion’s safety?

An important consideration to keep in mind: This focuses on just the first six weeks, makes no effort to track complications or injuries that might occur later on, such as infertility, subsequent premature birth, or breast cancer, which can be heartbreaking, expensive, or even deadly. And we have not even begun to consider the long-term psycho-social effects of abortion and the health consequences that flow from subsequent depression, drug abuse, eating disorders, and documented higher rates of suicide.

The UCSF researchers admit that there may be critical data missing from their study. Some complications might never have been recorded and there was no data at all on abortion’s maternal mortality, possibly the most critical piece of information.

Also, by relying on Medi-Cal codes, we could not assess whether any of the complications lead to deaths or detect complications not documented by the billing codes. For instance it is possible that complications seen or treated at the original abortion facility did not result in any Medi-Cal reimbursements, thereby undermining the complication rate.

This last sentence tell us that if a woman returned, distraught and bleeding, to the abortion clinic where she first went for her abortion, and the clinic decided not to make waves and charge the state to complete the abortion or repair the damage done by the first procedure, there would be no record of the complication.

In the light of recent operations like those of abortionist Kermit Gosnell’s, such a scenario does not seem far-fetched. If true, it would point to an even higher complication rate.

On the whole, by tracking and matching the billing records of clinics and hospitals, the study does represent an improvement over surveys which simply relied on abortionists self-reporting. This is probably one reason why the numbers were as high as they were, even with some still potentially serious holes in the data.

One thing is clear. No matter the spin, no matter the “medical progress,” no matter the experience, the special training, the new methods, abortion has not become “safe” or even appreciably safer. Women are still being injured by abortion, and women are still dying.

Of course, the biggest “complication” is that someone – the innocent unborn child – dies in every “successful” abortion. This alone is evidence that abortion is an inherently unsafe and unsound “medical procedure.” Abortion violates the most basic principle of medical ethics: “first do no harm.”

Abortion harms women and children. What further research do we need?

[1] The data from this study was supposed to be better because patients who did not return to the clinic but went instead to the ER were included by cross referencing the abortion billing and treatment coding. Researchers looked at any billing for any medical service occurring anywhere within six weeks of their original abortion billing and sought from codes to determine whether or not that treatment was abortion related.

[2] “Incomplete” abortions, of which there were 231, would be those abortions in which some part of the baby, placenta, gestational sac remained in the woman’s body. “Failed” abortions, of which there were 30, would be when the baby remained and the abortion failed to occur.

LifeNews.com Note: Randall O’Bannon, Ph.D., is the director of education and research for the National Right to Life Committee. This column originally appeared at NRL News Today.

WANT MORE:

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/12/12/pro-abortion-study-admits-thousands-of-women-hospitalized-every-year-from-botched-abortions/

Created Equal Jumbo Tron TV

 

jumbo3

Abortion kills a preborn child.  This fact is undeniable when rendered visually, such as in Created Equal’s abortion video.  But videos are only effective if people watch them—and when they do, the bigger the screen, the better.

Created Equal has pioneered the use of cutting edge video technology to represent the victims of abortion to audiences across America.  Recently, our Jumbo TV screen reached massive numbers of Americans at the DC March for Life and West Coast Walk for Life.  Traditionally at these events, the politicians, activists, and post-abortive parents are given a voice.  Not until recently have the babies been represented in such a profound way.  Using this powerful technology allows us to continue to stand for the victims at these events.

See photos of the Created Equal DC outreach at the March for Life.

But we do not limit ourselves to these gatherings alone.  Cities, campuses and other large public gatherings are venues to which we display the video evidence of abortion on the big screen.

We need your help to reach more people with our JumboTron.  Support this project by clicking here.

Joe Scheidler, to whom we owe a debt of gratitude for showing the victims long before others began to do so regularly, said in response to our Jumto-tron TV at the March for Life:

Mark, boy do you have the guts to win this battle!  What surprised me were people marching in an effort to stop abortion and being shocked out of their wits when they see the victims they are marching for.  Admittedly the images are shocking as they can be, but absolutely necessary for all pro-lifers (and the pro-aborts standing around) to see.  I think it is the one vital ingredient that has been missing all these years in the March for Life.

Americans need to be educated about the violence of abortion.  Can you think of better way to reach them?

WANT MORE:

http://www.createdequal.net/projects/jumbotron-tv