Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Abortion Tag

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on April 07, 2015 13 Comments
Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul officially announced his presidential candidacy this afternoon (if you missed his speech, you can watch it here). And that's when Planned Parenthood's Twitter account went berserk. It would appear whomever runs the official Planned Parenthood Twitter account seems to harbor some severe animosity for Sen. Paul:

Posted by Amy Miller on March 17, 2015 15 Comments
"Human trafficking" is a pretty whitewashed term for something so ugly. Peel away the layers and you'll find stories that don't sound like they should come from the United States. You'll find rape, and sexual assault. And abuse. And slavery. And Democrats are refusing to fight it. Back in January, members of Congress used the Super Bowl to help draw attention to one of the more commonly-known ventures associated with human trafficking---prostitution. Members of the House majority used examples of how organized crime rings import men, women, and children into event hubs (like Phoenix) and sell sex in exchange for tourist dollars. The House sent a dozen bills to the Senate, all with the goal of improving law enforcement's ability to fight human trafficking, and making sure victims get the help and care that they need to come back from the abuse they suffer. The Senate introduced its own bill, called the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. Sponsored by Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX), the JVTA has similar goals to the House bills described above, and passed out of the Judiciary Committee in February with unanimous bipartisan support. Now, however, Democrats are attempting to throw the bill away over what they argue are "anti-choice" provisions that use the Hyde Amendment to prevent money placed into a victims' restitution fund from being spent on abortions. That's right---Democrats are throwing modern day slaves under the bus, and playing politics with the lives of abused and abandoned men, women, and children. The kicker? We only need six Democrats to turn their backs on the the gamesmanship and vote in favor of the bill.

Posted by Amy Miller on March 11, 2015 13 Comments
The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act is a good thing. If passed, it would allow law enforcement agencies to expand and improve human trafficking deterrence programs. It would make it possible to protect victims while more efficiently prosecuting those who deal in the modern day slavery industry. It would increase monetary penalties for perpetrators. It would expand the definition of "child abuse" to include the production of child pornography, child trafficking, and the solicitation of children for commercial sex acts. It would direct fees and penalties collected into funds and grants to be used specifically for the benefit of victims of human trafficking and associated sexual violence. It's comprehensive. It's bipartisan. And Senate Democrats are blocking it because it doesn't fund abortion. Via Politico:
The legislation passed the Senate Judiciary Committee in late February without opposition, but Democrats are now balking over language in it that would prohibit money in a restitution fund from being spent on abortions. Aides said Democrats shepherded the bill through committee and to the floor, unaware that abortion language was in the bill written by Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas). “You can blame it on staff, blame it on whoever you want to blame,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday. “But we didn’t know it was in the bill, and … the bill will not come off this floor as long as that language is in the bill.”
The shame of a nation, ladies and gentlemen.

Posted by Mike LaChance on December 19, 2014 21 Comments
In the haze of the recent news about Cuba, you may not have heard that Dr. Vivek Murthy has been confirmed as the new Surgeon General of the United States. Tanya Somanader of the White House blog reported:
The Nation's Doctor: Dr. Vivek Murthy Is Confirmed as Surgeon General The Surgeon General is America's doctor, responsible for providing Americans with the best scientific information on how to improve our collective well-being. Now, Dr. Vivek Murthy will be the next physician to don the lab coat of the Surgeon General after the Senate confirmed his nomination today. "I applaud the Senate for confirming Vivek Murthy to be our country’s next Surgeon General," the President said following the confirmation. "As ‘America’s Doctor,’ Vivek will hit the ground running to make sure every American has the information they need to keep themselves and their families safe. He’ll bring his lifetime of experience promoting public health to bear on priorities ranging from stopping new diseases to helping our kids grow up healthy and strong."
Dr. Murthy supported Obama's candidacy for president and was also an integral member of "Doctors for America" which has ties to Obama's campaign machine "Organizing for America." In a 2009 column, Michelle Malkin connected the dots:

Posted by Amy Miller on October 15, 2014 18 Comments
The Supreme Court has issued an unsigned order blocking key provisions of sweeping new health care regulations from being enforced against Texas abortion providers. Via Fox News:
In an unsigned order, the justices sided with abortion rights advocates and health care providers in suspending an Oct. 2 ruling by a panel of the New Orleans-based U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that Texas could immediately apply a rule making abortion clinics statewide spend millions of dollars on hospital-level upgrades. The court also put on hold a separate provision of the law only as it applies to clinics in McAllen and El Paso that requires doctors at the facilities to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. The admitting privileges remains in effect elsewhere in Texas. Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas said they would have ruled against the clinics in all respects.
This decision temporarily set aside provisions that require abortion clinics to follow the same health and safety standards as ambulatory surgical centers; this means thirteen abortion clinics that closed after the law took effect will be allowed to reopen. It also exempted practitioners operating clinics in El Paso and McAllen (larger cities in the Rio Grande Valley) from having to gain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. Pro-choice organizations are, of course, gloating; but keep in mind that this was an emergency ruling. Advocates for abortion providers asked for the Supreme Court's ruling because the Fifth Circuit allowed the restrictive new laws to be enforced during the appeals process.

Posted by Amy Miller on October 11, 2014 30 Comments
On November 4, Colorado residents will have to decide whether or not to change their criminal code to include an "unborn human being" in the definition of a "person." Proponents of the measure, dubbed "Amendment 67," say that the goal of the initiative is to protect pregnant women, but opponents say it's nothing more than a veiled attempt to ban abortion in Colorado. This isn't Colorado conservatives' first attempt at adding personhood protections for the unborn to state law; similar initiatives have failed twice before. However, this amendment works differently in that it changes its approach in defining the amendment's scope of protection. colorado personhood Via the Washington Post:
Earlier versions defined a fetus as a person from the moment of fertilization, or from the moment of biological development. In both cases, abortion rights activists convinced voters to reject the measures, which they said would have limited a woman’s right to choose.

Posted by Amy Miller on October 03, 2014 16 Comments
A three-judge panel has overturned a previous ruling blocking implementation of Texas' new abortion restrictions. Last month, the State of Texas appealed a U.S. District Court decision blocking the new restrictions, saying that the court's application of the "undue burden" standard was improper. The Fifth Circuit panel agreed with the state's argument, keeping consistent with their own precedent regarding what constitutes an unconstitutional restriction on a woman's right to seek an abortion. Predictably, abortion advocates are crying foul. Via USA Today:
"Today's ruling has gutted Texas women's constitutional rights and access to critical reproductive health care and stands to make safe, legal abortion essentially disappear overnight,'' said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the group. ... Among the law's provisions is the requirement that clinics performing abortion procedures upgrade to certain hospital-type equipment, which Northup's group calls "a multimillion-dollar tax on abortion services.'' ... "Texas Republicans are forcing women's health clinics to close,'' said Lisa Paul, spokeswoman for the Texas state Democratic Party. "This will not only deny women their right to choose, but also reduces their access to prenatal care, cancer screenings, mammograms, and annual wellness visits.''

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on September 16, 2014 20 Comments
For all the times we've been told Obamacare does not fund abortion, a new GAO report proves exactly the opposite. Salon wrote this fantastic piece decrying anti-choice activists who bought into the Obamacare-abortion myth, and last night the Washington Examiner released their findings related to the GAO report and recapped the debate as follows:
Again and again, during the congressional debate, Obamacare defenders promised: Obamacare subsidies won't subsidize abortion; customers will be able to choose insurance plans that don't cover abortion; Obamacare subsidies, if they want to pay for abortion coverage, will be billed separately. A new GAO report shows that Obamacare is failing on these counts. Warning of "bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost," for instance, President Obama told Congress in 2009: "And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place."
The Examiner summarized the GAO report:
Customers in five states have no abortion-free plans available to them, and in many states, customers can't tell which plans cover abortion and which don't. In Washington State, for instance, the state's exchange bills customers on behalf of insurers--and the exchange covers abortion with federal tax dollars. The GAO found: "the exchange’s billing system was not assessing any premium to individuals whose premiums are fully subsidized under the law if these individuals are enrolled in QHPs that cover non-excepted abortion services."

Posted by Amy Miller on September 12, 2014 47 Comments
Today in New Orleans, attorneys for the State of Texas asked the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for an immediate stay to a previous ruling that disallows regulators from enforcing new laws against abortion providers. Earlier this summer, U.S. District Court Judge Lee Yeakel ruled that the new laws were an unconstitutional undue burden on a woman's right to seek an abortion. That District Court decision has blocked enforcement of the new law “against any abortion provider –- present or future.” Via Bloomberg:
Texas accused Yeakel of making an end run around the appellate court’s 2013 decision that upheld Texas’s admitting-privileges rule, which requires that doctors gain permission to admit patients at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic where they perform abortions. Women’s health advocates and clinics fighting the anti-abortion limitations said in court filings that letting Texas go ahead with the measures while it appeals would have a “catastrophic impact on the availability of abortion services” in the state. “If a stay is granted, most of the remaining abortion providers would be forced to close overnight,” opponents of the law said in a filing asking the appeals court to deny the state’s request. “Many women’s constitutional rights would be extinguished before the appellate process ran its course, and their lives would be permanently and profoundly altered by the denial of abortion services.”

Posted by William A. Jacobson on September 05, 2014 46 Comments
Well, this is interesting. I knew Wendy Davis was selling her new book while campaigning -- usually that's done before or after the campaign -- but we now know why. Davis' book reveals she had two abortions, something sure to shake up the race at a time when taking risks is worth it for her since otherwise she's going to lose. Via AP:
Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis reveals in a new campaign memoir that she terminated two pregnancies for medical reasons in the 1990s, including one where the fetus had developed a severe brain abnormality. Davis writes in "Forgetting to be Afraid" that she had an abortion in 1996 after an exam revealed that the brain of the fetus had developed in complete separation on the right and left sides. She also describes ending an earlier ectopic pregnancy, in which an embryo implants outside the uterus. Davis disclosed the terminated pregnancies for the first time since her nearly 13-hour filibuster last year over a tough new Texas abortion law. Both pregnancies happened before Davis, a state senator from Fort Worth, began her political career and after she was already a mother to two young girls.

Posted by Amy Miller on September 01, 2014 8 Comments
On Sunday, a federal judge temporarily blocked a new Louisiana law that would require doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their practice. U.S. District Judge John deGravelles' ruling potentially saved all 5 of Louisiana's abortion clinics from being forced to close their doors today. Via Reuters:
"Plaintiffs will be allowed to operate lawfully while continuing their efforts to obtain privileges," Federal Judge John deGravelles wrote in the decision. A hearing will be scheduled within a month for the judge to make a more permanent ruling on the law. Abortion rights activists applauded the decision, the latest in a string of rulings against similar measures, saying it would give doctors more time to seek hospital privileges.
Last week, abortion providers from three Louisiana clinics sued the state over the new admitting privileges requirement, stating that it would cause all of Louisiana's clinics to close, forcing women to leave the state to seek an abortion. Similar laws have come under fire in Texas and Mississippi, and all are almost certain to head to the Fifth Circuit once the inevitable appeals are filed. DeGravelles' ruling is different than others we've seen in that it specifically addresses the problem of the time gap that exists between the time abortion providers apply for privileges at nearby hospitals, and the the that those hospitals either approve or reject the application. CBS News explains:

Posted by Amy Miller on August 29, 2014 52 Comments
U.S. District Court Judge Lee Yeakel ruled today that portions of Texas' 2013 abortion law are unconstitutional. "HB 2," which passed during the last legislative session in spite of the efforts of now-gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis (D-10), drew the ire of women's rights activists and abortion providers for its imposition of higher standards on clinics who provide abortion services. The Opinion is embedded at the bottom of this post. Via the Houston Chronicle:
"The ambulatory-surgical-center requirement is unconstitutional because it imposes an undue burden on the right of women throughout Texas to seek a previability abortion," Yeakel ruled, blocking enforcement of the requirement scheduled to take effect Monday. Yeakel also ordered the McAllen and El Paso areas to be exempted from a separate provision of the law requiring abortion doctors to obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. He described the law, called House Bill 2, as "a brutally effective system of abortion regulation that reduces access to abortion clinics, thereby creating a statewide burden for substantial numbers of Texas women." Already, a couple dozen clinics have closed since its enactment.
From the opinion:

Posted by Amy Miller on August 24, 2014 8 Comments
On Friday, several abortion providers sued the state of Louisiana over new laws governing doctors who choose to perform the procedure. Louisiana's new law, signed by Governor Bobby Jindal in June, requires that doctors who perform abortions have active admitting privileges at a hospital that is located not further than thirty miles from the location at which the abortion is performed or induced and that provides obstetrical or gynecological health care services. Abortion providers are suing because they argue that the provisions in the statute may cause every clinic in the state to close. Bloomberg reports:
The Louisiana legislation, signed by Republican Governor Bobby Jindal in June, doesn’t allow enough time for compliance, the clinics argued in court papers. Hospitals typically need three to seven months to decide on a doctor’s application, they said. They were allowed only 81 days to comply with the law. “It is not at all clear that any doctor currently providing abortions at a clinic in Louisiana will be able to continue providing those services, thereby eliminating access to legal abortion in Louisiana” if the law takes effect as scheduled, attorneys for the clinics in Shreveport, Bossier City and Metairie wrote.
If this case ends up progressing through the court system, it will end up before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Although (as the article from Bloomberg points out) the government cannot "unduly" weigh down with regulations the right of a woman to seek an abortion (not "have an abortion," as is commonly misstated by abortion advocates,) the Fifth Circuit has previously ruled that “that driving distance alone to get to a clinic never constitutes a substantial obstacle. No matter how far." The story doesn't end there, however. A similar law in Texas has also come under fire in recent weeks over provisions governing abortion providers' facilities and admitting privileges, as are new laws in Mississippi. In Mississippi, however, the Fifth Circuit has ruled that Mississippi can't be allowed to "shift its burden" to neighboring states:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on May 09, 2014 39 Comments
In (speaks for itself) I presented the video of Emily Lett promoting her abortion. The video is embedded again at the bottom of this post. I used this screen cap to reflect what I saw as the flippant attitude. http://youtu.be/OxPUKV-WlKw But there was another aspect I thought about but didn't write about. It's reflected in the featured image. And it is captured by Elizabeth Scalia at The Anchoress, sent to me by reader Mike:
If you let yourself become distracted by what is coming from her mouth, you miss all that is revealed in her face, which tells the whole, and very different story. A month after the abortion — with the dramatic change in hairstyle that so many women effect when emotions are high and they need to feel in control of something — watch Emily, then. The light is gone from her eyes. The seeming disconnect between pc-fed head and instinctive heart is laid out in breathtaking and stark incongruity, even down to the shadows, the blue note, the lack of energy. Devastating. Cognizant of it or not, she is a mother in grief.
Accessibility by WAH