Archive for the Uncategorized Category

How one photo of a preborn baby helped to make future generations pro-life

Posted in Uncategorized on October 12, 2017 by saynsumthn

|  (From Live Action News)

Many of us have worn it, and others have surely seen it — the iconic pro-life “Precious Feet” pin. But what’s the story behind this symbol?

In the early 1970’s, Dr. Russell Sacco, a urologist from Oregon at the time, was aware of abortion prior to Roe v. Wade because of those who were speaking out on the topic. “I knew as a doctor that abortion kills children; they kill human beings,” he stated in an interview published on Vimeo.

Dr. Sacco said he began reading “anatomical books,” and when the Supreme Court ruled that murdering the preborn was “legal,” the doctor became, in his words, “furious.”

It was shortly after this that Sacco met a pathologist who was also anti-abortion. This pathologist “… was supposed to take the children that had been killed and destroy the bodies. But he told me that he didn’t do that; he just didn’t like to do that.”

Dr. Sacco’s image of aborted baby

Dr. Sacco said that this pathologist had preserved the babies’ bodies in a bucket of formaldehyde, which he showed Sacco. “… [I]n the bucket were about seven or eight infant bodies. It was a little bit shocking for me to see that but, there they were.”

Dr. Sacco asked the pathologist if he could photograph the babies “so that I could put it on slides and I could go around and give talks on how we should save and protect the prenatal children.”

Dr. Sacco’s image of aborted baby

Dr. Sacco said he took out “one body at a time” to photograph them. Then, he catalogued each child and their estimated ages.

“Then, one of the ones I decided to take was one that I would hold just the child’s feet between my fingers,” which Sacco says he did for scale. “So, I put my fingers on that so that you could identify the size of my hand – then you could identify the feet of the children.”

After developing the film, he discovered that the images of the feet were “better than I had thought. I really thought that… maybe God did that one for me.”

The image, which Dr. Sacco refused to copyright so it could be used worldwide, has been referred to as “Tiny Feet,” “Little Feet,” and “Precious Feet.”

Dr. Sacco’s picture of aborted baby feet

But it was in Dr. Sacco’s meeting with Dr. John Willke that this photograph became famous.

Willke has been described by some as the father of the pro-life movement; he founded Cincinnati Right to Life in 1970, and later joined National Right to Life’s board. In 1991, he founded the Life Issues Institute and served there until his death in 2014. A tribute published by National Right to Life says Willke, a devout Catholic, “helped form the foundation of right-to-life educational efforts through the development of the ‘Willke slides’ on fetal development and abortion…”

Dr and Mrs John Willke

In 1971, Dr. Sacco attended a speech given by Dr. Willke to the California Pro-life Council. After the event, several attendees and organizers were sitting and chatting in the hotel. Dr. Willke sat on the floor next to the couch due to a lack of seating in the room, and directly behind him was Dr. Sacco. Dr. and Mrs. Willke recounted what happened next in their book, Abortion and the Pro-life Movement, an Inside View:

Almost casually he [Dr. Sacco] said to Jack [Dr. Willke], “You might be interested in a few slides I’ve taken. ” He fished into his briefcase and came out with a few Kodachrome slides.

One by one, Jack held them up to the light of the lamp. One of them was “Tiny Feet.” Jack was fascinated. Could he have a copy? Could he use it? Dr. Sacco generously agreed.

Dr. Willke used that image in his book Handbook on Abortion. Following that, the picture was printed in early pro-life brochures such as “Life and Death” and “Did you Know?” The photo soon “went viral,” as they say, and was published in countless flyers, books and pamphlets.

That photo then inspired an Arizona couple, Ellis and Virginia Evers, the founders of Heritage House, which now offers the pins for purchase:

On January 22, 1974 Virginia and Ellis Evers ran across a full page ad in their local newspaper in San Diego, California. Prominent in the ad was a picture of the tiny feet of a ten week old unborn baby held between a man’s fingers and thumb. Inspired by the remarkable photo, Virginia Evers felt these little feet would be the ideal Pro-Life symbol. With love and dedication for the unborn, Virginia designed the “Precious Feet” lapel pin.

Dr. Willke was at first unsure of becoming a pro-life activist. But that soon changed. In an interview with LifeSite News, he recalls his reply to Fr. Paul Marx, who asked him in 1970 what he was doing about abortion.

“If we get caught up in this, it will swallow us up. No thank you,” Dr. Willke told Fr. Marx, the founder of Human Life International. “I was perfectly content to be a family physician and deliver a lot of babies,” he told LifeSite News in that 2010 interview.

Then, after receiving an invitation to speak on abortion, he said that when he agreed, he swore it would be “just once.” He was then asked to take an interview about abortion. “Just once,” he told the invitee.

But the invitations continued to pour in, and by 1971, the Willke’s had published their first book, Handbook on Abortion, which quickly sold out at a leadership conference they attended, going on to sell millions of copies. “And we’ve been on the treadmill ever since,” Willke said.

That book was instrumental in educating many on the issue of abortion in those early days. In fact, it was an image of an aborted child published in that book which inspired Live Action’s founder, Lila Rose, to become a pro-life activist.

“When I was a young girl, I had an encounter with abortion where I actually came across the image of a child who’d been the victim of a first trimester suction abortion,” Rose recalled. “You can very clearly see a child, with tiny formed arms, little tiny legs and this tiny little face, but who had been torn apart. As a nine-year-old, my heart was just cut; I thought, ‘Is this real? Is this really happening?’ I wanted to understand why it was happening….”

As Dr. Willke spoke to crowds and medical professionals, he would vividly describe the horrifying detail about the violent act of abortion. Willke used slides of fetal photos he had obtained from physicians sympathetic to the cause. About the same time, abortion victim imagery was being introduced to the pro-life movement as a vital educational tool.

“Pro-lifers understand that if the descriptions were effective, photographs would be even more so,” author Daniel K. Williams recounted in his history of those early years, summarized in his book, Defenders of the Unborn.

“It was Jack [John] Willke’s use of images that proved especially effective,” he wrote.

Williams pointed out that Dr. Willke made some of the first pro-life documentary films, including one that contained footage of early vacuum aspiration abortion. “The image of the fetus being sucked into the tube and whisked away was particularly powerful,” Williams wrote.

“To those who objected to graphic representations of abortions,” Williams wrote, “Willke had a ready answer: the pro-life movement would win its argument only if it confronted the public with the full horror of what abortion really entailed.”

And so the “Precious Feet” impacted future generations, bringing to light the truth: that abortion kills very real human beings.

“This remarkable little pin has been responsible for countless people changing their minds on abortion,” the Willkes wrote of the pin, created by the Evers family — an iconic symbol of the pro-life movement and what we are fighting for.

  • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

Watch Dr. Sacco’s testimony here:


<p><a href=”https://vimeo.com/15279777″>Precious Feet</a> from <a href=”https://vimeo.com/user4792579″>West Linn</a> on <a href=”https://vimeo.com”>Vimeo</a&gt;.</p>

Planned Parenthood abortionist’s license suspended for failing to comply with state law on 13-year-old’s abortion

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , on October 5, 2017 by saynsumthn

|  From Live Action News

Allen Palmer (image credit: abortiondocs.org)

A Kansas abortion doctor is blaming Planned Parenthood after his medical license was suspended for failing to comply with a state law to preserve fetal tissue taken from a 13-year-old sexual abuse victim after her abortion.

Under state law, physicians are required to preserve fetal tissue extracted from abortions committed on patients under 14 years old and submit the tissue to the Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI) or laboratory designated by the director of the KBI.

But osteopathic physician/abortionist Allen S. Palmer testified that Planned Parenthood never trained him how to handle these cases in order to comply with state law.

Kansas State Law on fetal tissue from abortion

Palmer was a part-time “contractor” for Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood of Kansas City and Mid-Missouri, committing abortions one weekend per month for five years. He also worked holidays, including Christmas. On December 22, 2014, Palmer performed a first-trimester abortion at Planned Parenthood on a 13-year-old child who had been sexually assaulted by a 19 year-old male.

In his testimony before the Kansas Board of Healing Arts, Palmer made excuses for why he was unaware that the patient was a minor, laying blame squarely on the policies of Planned Parenthood. “I was not informed that she was a minor under age 14. As a result, there was no need to retain tissue,” he told the Board.

Yes, I failed to preserve the tissue, but only because I was not informed the patient was 13 less than 14 years old. I was never educated on Planned Parenthood policies and procedures on termination of pregnancy on a patient less than 14 years old, including I was never shown a KBI kit or received any information about its requirements.

Live Action News has reported numerous incidents where Planned Parenthood failed to report child sexual abuse, resulting in some victims being returned to their abusers.

Former Planned Parenthood staffer Ramona Treviño told Live Action president Lila Rose that instead of helping employees to identify and report potential abuse at her facility, Planned Parenthood instructed staff on how to identify undercover journalists and whether they were being recorded.

In addition to Kansas, records indicate Palmer once owned a NAF affiliated abortion facility in Missouri. Pro-life group Operation Rescue says Palmer also committed abortions at South Wind Women’s Center in Wichita and Whole Women’s Health in Peoria, Illinois. An online search result indicates he may also work at Hope Clinic for Women.

Palmer told the Board that in Illinois, he performed abortions on a dozen minor girls in “twenty years,” and that those cases were reported to police. But he testified that he had not committed an abortion on a minor in Kansas prior to that 2014 incident, because those abortions were usually performed by Planned Parenthood’s medical director, “Dr. [Orrin] Moore.”

[…] I was informed by Doctor Moore… the clinical medical director, that terminations of pregnancy performed on minors were done only by him. Therefore, I never received training or information regarding Planned Parenthood’s policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the law when terminating pregnancy in minors and preservation of tissue. I was never shown or trained on a KBI kit and its requirements.

Palmer claimed it was the duty of Planned Parenthood’s counselors to determine the patient’s age. His job was to check the ultrasound, not to review the patient’s paperwork. According to Palmer, it was common practice for the counselor, not the doctor, to be informed if a woman had a serious medical condition as well.  In other words, abortionists at Planned Parenthood didn’t make it their business to be aware of critical medical information — they were only there to commit abortions. So much for patient care.

Palmer then detailed the abortion process at Planned Parenthood (emphasis added):

They get a blood test with a lab tech. The ultrasound is performed by a clinical staff member, and then receive counseling from the clinic counselor before seeing me. When I see the patient, I’m assuming that they’ve been screened and counseled by Planned Parenthood staff according to their policies and procedures and according to the state law and have been determined to be candidates for an abortion.

After screening and counseling has been completed, I see the patient. At that time I ask if she has any questions about the procedure. The patient and I sign the consent. After we both sign the consent, the patient waits 30 minutes before the procedure can begin. In reviewing the patient’s records, I cannot find a consent form that she and I signed.

Termination of pregnancy occurs in a surgical room. Once a patient enters the room, I first check the computer to make sure I have the correct patient by asking her name. I review the ultrasound and verify the gestational age. Once again, confirming that the patient understands the procedure and I ask her if there is any questions. Then I proceed with the termination.

Once the procedure is completed and tissue removed and taken to another area of the clinic, evaluated, the patient is taken to a post-op area. I examine the tissue with the surgical tech. After I examine the tissue, I leave it to the surgical tech to handle it from there. In the room — in the room the tissue was taken, there was no KBI evidence kit or anything to establish chain of custody for evidence or to instruct any preservation of tissue.

Palmer further defended his actions by claiming that there was no signed operative consent before he did the abortion. The 78-year-old abortionist was represented by his attorney, Thomas L. Theis, who made the point that Planned Parenthood was in the business of performing abortions on all ages. Theis discovered that although the abortion was committed in December, the “consent form” was not signed until January.

A copy of the Board’s final order mentions this fact:

Planned Parenthood procedures not followed for child sexual abuse

Although Palmer met with the child before the procedure, he did not guess her age because “you cannot do that with women anymore.” Instead, Palmer depended on Planned Parenthood staffers to “receive the proper training and knowledge of their own policies and procedures in termination of pregnancies in minors and alert me to the fact that there was a minor left alone — let alone a minor under 14.”

Palmer stated that he discovered the victim was a minor after he committed the abortion when Planned Parenthood’s chief operating officer, Aaron Samulcek, “informed me that the clinic had a system failure.” He added that nurse manager Christi Campbell, who performed the ultrasound, “came up to me crying and hugging and apologized for not telling me the patient was less than 14 years old.”

Palmer also claimed that staffer Marlo Lubron told him that “the entire nursing staff were unaware the patient was 14 — or less than 14 years old,” adding that Stephanie Williams, the facility’s health center manager, “as well as Evelyn, the surgical tech” were later fired.

While the Board found it “apparent” that there were “inadequacies” in Planned Parenthood’s policies, they determined that it did not absolve Palmer from “his independent duty to his patient and to comply with the law of the State of Kansas.”

Planned Parenthood procedures inadequate on child sexual abuse Allen Palmer suspension

Palmer begged the Board to allow him to keep his license, telling members, “I am no longer performing abortions in any state. I closed my office eight years ago. I recently gave up my Illinois license. My Kansas license is due to expire in October. I do not plan on renewing it. After closing my office, I became certified as a wound specialist and work in a wound center part-time in Missouri.”

In the final order, the Board determined that Palmer had a responsibility to know the age of his abortion patients and comply with the law regardless of Planned Parenthood’s failures. As a result, the Kansas Board suspended Palmer’s medical license for ninety days in the state, effective September 18,2017.

  • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

Planned Parentrhood’s “Blueprint” to force taxpayers to pay for birth control began under Guttmacher

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 3, 2017 by saynsumthn

Planned Parenthood has always been about making sure fewer poor people actually become parents — and here’s proof

In 1966, Planned Parenthood‘s medical director, Alan Guttmacher (a former VP for the American Eugenics Society and founder of the Guttmacher Institute), proposed a blueprint to force taxpayers to pay for birth control access for the poor. Elected to Planned Parenthood’s national board in 1962, Guttmacher believed (as did many eugenicists) that the poor needed access to birth control.

But while publicly, the messaging was one of empowering others to make “choices,” the real motivation was population control. Guttmacher once told the New York Times, “The main goal of our program is not just to limit population, but to give everyone the same opportunity for quality medical care.” Note that Guttmacher acknowledged population control as one of the goals, but clothed it in the same type of messaging used by modern-day Planned Parenthood: the language of access to “health care” or “medical care.”

Planned Parenthood’s ultimate goal was to convince the public that taxpayer-funded “family planning” — directed at preventing births among the poor — would save the taxpayer money. And, just like today, the nation’s largest abortion provider accomplished this goal with the help of politicians on both sides of the aisle.

In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson lent his support to taxpayer funded “family planning” efforts, stating in a speech that for every five dollars spent on population control, more than a hundred would be invested in economic growth. The scheme to promote the use of taxpayer dollars as a way to “reduce costs” was detailed in the film Maafa21:

The “plan” — described by a 1966 NYT article as a “partnership of public and private agencies” — was to make birth control services “freely available to every American by 1970” in an effort to prevent about 250,000 pregnancies every year. It was presented at Planned Parenthood’s New York headquarters by the organization’s then-president, George N. Lindsay, who called it the “best bargain in health services that money could buy.”

Planned Parenthood president George N Lindsay (image credit: NYT)

“We have the technological know-how — pills and intrauterine devices,” Lindsay is quoted as saying. “We have the support of Government. President Johnson has called for increased birth control services in the past two State of the Union messages. And now we have devised a methodology for solving a huge problem in five years.”

That same year, President Johnson accepted Planned Parenthood’s highest award (the Margaret Sanger Award) for his policies pushing family planning for foreign countries. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Sanger’s work in the eugenics movement has been highly criticized by many modern African-American leaders. Sanger, who gave at least one speech to the Ku Klux Klan and stacked Planned Parenthood’s boards with eugenicists, advocated the sterilization of the so-called “unfit.”

Today, despite her involvement in the eugenics movement, Planned Parenthood labels Sanger a heroine and has positioned her name in a place of honor on at least one of its centers.

Margaret Sanger’s name on Planned Parenthood building

By 1969, the so-called “Planned Parenthood blueprint” to force taxpayers to fund birth control was underway, as recounted by the New York Times:

Whatever the merits of the argument, the ghetto approach is now the federation’s chief thrust, and it is also the policy of the Federal Government, which since 1966 has undergone a dramatic reversal,  moving from almost no action on birth control to a proposed expenditure in 1969 of $31 million. Last month the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) recommended the adoption of Planned Parenthood’s “blueprint” for supplying free birth control device to some five million American women below the poverty line.

The “plan” was highly criticized by the Black community, which saw the move as a means of racist Black genocide.  “Among other things, this policy has brought the Planned Parenthood Federation under attack from black militants who see ‘family planning’ as a euphemism for race genocide,” the NYT reported.

To prove the genocidal fear had merit among minority groups, the paper published statistics that supported “the suspicion that Black people are taking the brunt of the ‘planning.’” Black birth rates fell in several cities:

  • Lincoln Parish, LA: 32% (1966-67)
  • Washington, DC : 24% (three years)
  • Baltimore, MD: 36% (since 1965)

A 1966 internal memo from Alan Guttmacher and Fred Jaffe outlined a new “community relations program” for winning over the Black community by “form[ing] a liaison between Planned Parenthood and minority organizations.” The plan, according to Planned Parenthood, was to emphasize that “all people have the opportunity to make their own choices,” rather than, as the memo states, exhortation telling them how many children they should have.”

Guttmacher said at the time that the plan was “long overdue” but stressed, “we do not need to panic. In fact, if we panic and continue to publicize the ‘problem’, we may well exacerbate it.”

Also in 1966, Planned Parenthood gave its Margaret Sanger Award to Martin Luther King, Jr. Whatever Planned Parenthood was trying to accomplish, it worked. By 1969, then Congressman George H.W. Bush (R-Texas) chaired the Republican Task Force on Population and Earth Resources, created in part to ascertain the resistance to family planning among “certain groups.” He determined that “[s]o far, it looks like opposition from religious groups and the Black militants isn’t too serious.”

Planned Parenthood’s “blueprint” called for an expenditure of about one percent of the nation’s health budget, with an anticipated $78 million from taxpayers in 1970. It also called for an expansion of hospitals’ family planning services as well as programs financed by the federal anti-poverty program. By 1970, the United States House of Representatives voted 298 to 32 to approve the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act, Title X of the Public Health Service Act, authorizing federal dollars to pay for family planning services for low-income women. This legislation would become known as the Title X statute, which today allocates millions of federal tax dollars to Planned Parenthood and other family planning organizations.

In 1971, Congress allocated $6,000,000 for the Title X program. The following year, funding was increased to ten times as much: $61,815,000. Title X funding peaked in 2010 with a high of $317,491,000 and dropped to $286,479,000 for fiscal year 2017. President Trump’s FY2018 budget request includes $286.5 million for Title X, the same as the FY2017 enacted level.

TitleX Funding History CBO

Although Federal law prohibits the use of Title X funds in programs where abortion is a method of family planning, recipients of the dollars can be abortion providers. The reason for this is that Title X requirements allow recipients of these federal dollars to discuss abortion with patients under the term “options counseling,” telling providers that they must offer pregnant women the opportunity to receive information and counseling on each of the following options:

  • prenatal care and delivery
  • infant care, foster care, or adoption
  • pregnancy termination

In other words, Planned Parenthood can use the same rooms within the same facilities to commit abortions as they do to perform “options counseling,” during which they can refer for abortions as well as provide tax-funded family planning services under Title X.

Live Action investigations have already documented the abysmal way that Planned Parenthood handles inquiries from pregnant women seeking prenatal care at their facilities. With few exceptions, abortion is the only option Planned Parenthood offers pregnant women:

Research conducted by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reveals that Planned Parenthood affiliates participating in Title X spent $64.35 million in taxpayer dollars in 2012.

Despite deceptive marketing from politicians who claim that defunding the abortion corporation would hurt women, studies show that women do not need Planned Parenthood to get contraception care. Despite Planned Parenthood’s desperate attempt to reinvent itself as a health care provider, it is the number one provider of abortions in the United States, claiming 35 percent of the abortion market share nationwide. The organization has millions of dollars in excess revenue each year (despite its being classified as a nonprofit organization), and has recently boasted of the private donations flooding into its coffers.

In addition, actual health care services at Planned Parenthood are dwindling while abortions are increasing. In addition, Planned Parenthood is not a trusted recipient of tax dollars, with its history of fraud and abuse and its failure to report suspected child abuse (which Live Action News reported about here and here) — a reason that alone should result in the organization losing taxpayer dollars under Title X.

Planned Parenthood’s free birth control scheme has resulted in millions upon millions in taxpayer funding each year. Instead of those dollars doing good for women, they are aiding an abortion corporation which ends the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent preborn babies every year. That is not a blueprint that anyone should follow.

  • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

Taxpayers in Maryland spend millions on abortions for “mental health”

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , on July 25, 2017 by saynsumthn

Via Live Action News — Article text starts here

Data from the State of Maryland reveals that since 2006, taxpayer-funded Medicaid abortions in the state, committed mostly for the vague reason of the woman’s “mental health,” have increased year after year, costing taxpayers almost $48 million.

While the federal Hyde Amendment prohibits federal dollars from paying for most abortions, Medicaid dollars passed to states by the federal government can be used to pay for abortions at the state level.

Live Action News has previously shown how 17 states allow taxpayer dollars to fund abortions in excess of the Hyde Amendment’s restrictions. In addition, since money is fungible, even with Hyde in place, dollars sent to groups like Planned Parenthood can fund abortion centers and abortion staff.

According to a document published by Maryland’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, the State will pay for abortions as long as the provider fills out a form that certifies:

  • continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman.
  • there is substantial risk that the continuation of the pregnancy could have a serious or adverse effect on the woman’s present or physical health.
  • there exists medical evidence that continuation of the pregnancy is creating a serious effect on the woman’s present mental health, and if carried to term there is a substantial risk of a serious or long lasting effect on the woman’s future mental health.
  • this abortion is necessary because the fetus is affected by a genetic defect or serious deformity or abnormality.
  • this abortion is necessary for a victim of rape, sexual offense or incest and the incident has been reported to a law enforcement agency or to a public health or social agency.

If you review all these reasons — physical health, mental health, life of the woman, and health of the baby — you essentially have abortion on demand, as defined in Roe v. Wade and the companion case, Doe v. Bolton. However, according to the state of Maryland, women eligible for Medicaid solely due to a pregnancy do not currently qualify for a state-funded abortion.

I contacted the state of Maryland to see if they had published statistics on Medicaid funding. What I found, according to several Department of Health and Mental Hygiene documents the state provided, is the following (all the documents are available online here):

LAST THREE YEARS

Between 2014 and 2016,* the average cost of a Medicaid abortion was between $600 and $700.

In the past three years, taxpayers have been forced to spend $16.6 million for 23,395 Medicaid abortions in Maryland.

The largest portion of those procedures — 68 percent (15,979) — were performed at abortion facilities, costing taxpayers approximately $400.00 per procedure.

Maryland abortions from Medicaid

* Although the data for 2016 may not be complete, it showed that claims sent to the state as of November 2016, $5.3 million in tax dollars were spent to fund 7,812 abortions.

TAXPAYER-FUNDED ABORTIONS INCREASED EACH YEAR 

There are no requirements to report abortions in the state, however, Guttmacher (Planned Parenthood’s former “special affiliate“) estimates that in 2014, approximately 28,140 abortions were committed.  This means that 27 percent of abortions were paid for by taxpayers that year.

Maryland abortion trends according to Guttmacher

In fact, statistics for previous years indicate that as abortions have decreased in the state, taxpayer-funded abortions are increasing. See data on Medicaid abortions for 2015 and 2014, compared with data from previous years :

  • 2015: $5.7 million in tax dollars paid for 7,932 abortions.
  • 2014: $5.6 million in tax dollars paid for 7,651 abortions.
  • 2013: $5.4 million in tax dollars paid for 7,528 abortions.
  • 2012: $5.2 million in tax dollars paid for 7,442 abortions.
  • 2011: $5.4 million in tax dollars paid for  7,177 abortions.
  • 2010: $4.7 million in tax dollars paid for 6,652  abortions.
  • 2009: $3.4 million in tax dollars paid for 4,857 abortions.
  • 2008: $2.2 million in tax dollars paid for 3,281 abortions.
  • 2007: $2.2 million in tax dollars paid for 3,580 abortions.
  • 2006: $2.7 million in tax dollars paid for 3,831 abortions.

Note: Data for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 includes all Medicaid-funded abortions performed during the fiscal year, while data for fiscal year 2016 includes all abortions performed during fiscal 2016, for which a Medicaid claim was filed through November 2016. Since providers have 12 months to bill Medicaid for a service, Medicaid may receive additional claims for abortions performed during fiscal 2016. For example, during fiscal 2016, an additional 1,066 claims from fiscal 2015
were paid.

REASONS FOR ABORTIONS

Maryland abortions from Medicaid reasons Mental Health

Maryland abortions from Medicaid reasons

Out of 7,812 abortions paid for with Medicaid dollars in 2016, none were performed to save the life of the woman, according to statistical data provided by the state.

In fact, almost 100 percent of taxpayer-funded abortions (7,805) were performed because the doctor believed it would affect the woman’s “mental health,” described this way:

“Medical evidence that continuation of the pregnancy is creating a serious effect on the woman’s mental health, and if carried to term, there is a substantial risk of a serious or long-lasting effect on the woman’s future mental health.”

Of the remaining seven, three abortions were recorded because the doctor certified that there was “a substantial risk that continuation of the pregnancy could have a serious and adverse effect on the woman’s present or future physical health.”

Four abortions were due to the fact that “the fetus [was] affected by genetic defect or serious deformity or abnormality.”

Data for previous years showed similar facts.

Out of Medicaid claims received by the state for years 2008 through 2015, “mental health” of the woman appeared to be the default reason abortion doctors gave to justify the taxpayer-funded abortion.

The numbers break down as follows:

  • 2015 : 6,844 out of 6,866; none in which the life of the woman was endangered.
  • 2014 : 6,589 out of 6,609; none in which the life of the woman was endangered.
  • 2013: 6,561 out of 6,567 ; none in which the life of the woman was endangered.
  • 2012: 5,856 out of 5,861; none in which the life of the woman was endangered.
  • 2011: 6,375 out of 6,381; none in which the life of the woman was endangered.
  • 2010: 4,349 out of 4,352; none in which the life of the woman was endangered.
  • 2009: 3,404 out of 3,407 ; none in which the life of the woman was endangered.
  • 2008: 2,307 out of 2,314; none in which the life of the woman was endangered.

As previously reported, “mental health” of the mother is something that can be determined by the abortion doctor who profits from the procedure — and abortionists who work for Planned Parenthood have stated that they believe every abortion is “medically necessary.”

When the abortion industry says tax dollars will not pay for abortion, this simply is not true. The State of Maryland is just one of many examples of taxpayer funding of abortion. Another example is that of New Mexico, where undercover calls revealed several instances (listed below) in which a late-term abortion facility recommended taxpayer-funded abortions:

  • A caller who said she was 16 and claimed she was impregnated by an older family member
  • A caller who said she was pregnant with a child that had Down syndrome
  • A caller who said she was 26 weeks pregnant and there was nothing medically wrong with “the pregnancy”

 

Live Action News also published an overview on how your tax dollars fund abortions, nationally. That article noted that according to the most recently available report from the state of California’s Medi-Cal program, public funds paid for more than 83,000 abortions there.

In addition, despite abortions falling to their lowest number in 35 years of reporting in Minnesota, taxpayer funded abortions in the state increased almost 11 percent in 2015, with Planned Parenthood performing the largest portion of those procedures. In Alaska, abortions declined 5.5 percent, while taxpayer-funded abortions rose over 34 percent from 32.8 percent in 2015 to 44.1 percent in 2016. Statistics from New York show that taxpayers may be spending their hard earned dollars funding abortions on women who previously obtained one or more abortions.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD

From 2008 to 2016, the State of Maryland gave Planned Parenthood over $24 million dollars in taxpayer funds for various reasons, according to data published on Maryland’s Open Data Portal website. Earlier this year, the Maryland Senate approved a bill that would direct funds to Planned Parenthood in the event that Congress defunds the abortion corporation.

“The bill shields Planned Parenthood with $2 million from the State’s Medicaid budget,” reports CBS Baltimore, “and another $700,000 from the general fund should Republicans in Congress succeed in cutting off federal funds,” the news outlet writes.

The alarming numbers show clearly that taxpayers are, in fact, funding abortions. As Congress debates defunding Planned Parenthood, pro-lifers must push for an end to funding the abortion industry with American tax dollars at the state and federal levels.

  • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

I support the ban on all abortion because I AM pro-life !

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on March 9, 2016 by saynsumthn

For several days there have been people in Oklahoma asking for abortion to be banned.

As I wrote yesterday, a law was proposed by the group Abolish Human Abortion. I know them well. I have debated them on this blog, on social media and in person. I have attended their meetings and listened to their views and every time I walked away unable to sign onto what they were doing.

My issues included their unrelenting criticism of the Pro-life Movement, for which many of them were not only uninvolved in, but sat out in apathy.

But, today, despite some who continue to throw attacks at pro-life leaders and this movement, today they have convinced 10 Oklahoma legislators to sign onto an all out ban on abortion (SB1118).

10 senators join OK 62_1830384920839499801_n

The bill goes beyond what we have previously seen proposed such as the Heartbeat Bill.

When I supported the Heartbeat Bill, I did so knowing that it was opposed by some as bad strategy. My friend Janet Folger Porter stood almost alone in pushing for this legislation and I respect her for doing it. She has lost many pro-life friends for exposing those who refuse to protect a child from the moment their heartbeat begins.

When I took part in the Rescues in the 1980’s, I supported that movement despite the fact that many criticized it as bad strategy. Now, I cannot sit here and remain silent on what I see occurring in Oklahoma this week.

12795531_1043798375686176_8095738547701160596_n

Perhaps, like me, you have been turned off by AHA. Perhaps, like me, you have listened to what I know to be an inaccurate account of our history. Perhaps…

But – the ones I see speaking out are not just what I would call the AHA Leaders. They are moms and dads – young people. The message is simple NO ABORTION!

I have called myself pro-life for over 30 years. That means, I oppose abortion. Strategy or not – I am going to oppose abortion – All Abortion! I am not going to stay silent and watch simple people with a simple message that I believe to be true be ignored. I understand strategy -but- I also understand that it is not right to ignore what is happening. Maybe- just maybe this will backfire – or – maybe God will use it. That will be in God’s hands.

12814346_1043943562338324_6270436343470607966_n

This is not any kind of an announcement that I am an “abolitionist” no – I still have issues with what I see spoken in that movement.

Instead this is one simple pro-life women saying – good job – I support you to those who are courageously standing up for an abortion ban. I stand with you! I am Pro-Life and I will stand FOR Life! It is and has been my position.

In addition, I am going to encourage any lawmaker that is willing to say NO ABORTIONS.

And….I am not going to bash those who disagree with me on this.

To my pro-life friends, If all we trust in is what we have done before – we will never move forward. The sad reality is that a new SCOTUS majority may also strike our gains…anything can happen.

I respect the position of many of those who lead my beloved movement – I understand the sweat and hard work of everything we have accomplished.

But, all I know is that today- there is a call to ban abortion.

Tomorrow belongs to God and these children are in His hands….

“Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.” ~ James 4:17.

Put differences aside to end abortion and be our brother’s keeper

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on March 8, 2016 by saynsumthn

What does it mean to be “my brother’s keeper?” This question has been asked time and again by Christians over the years. It played out in the first pages of the Holy Bible when we read how Cain killed Abel (Genesis 4:9) :

    Afterward the LORD asked Cain, “Where is your brother? Where is Abel?”
    “I don’t know,” Cain responded. “Am I my brother’s guardian?”

In this story Cain was jealous that God chose the sacrifice of his brother Abel over his – so he murdered his own brother. But, can we in effect do the same thing with our neglect to do what is right to help our brother? What happens if our inaction brings about more years of suffering for our brother?

Charles Spurgeon, the feisty preacher credited by some for bringing great revivals in the 1800’s once asked, “What say we of those who never sow? Well, they will never reap; they will never have the joy of harvest.”

In his history of the Pro-life movement from the viewpoint of the early church, Dr. George Grant described the effectiveness of the church with regard to protecting life and the secret for success:

    “The church was only effective in its task of protecting innocent life when it remained steadfast in doctrinal purity and Scriptural fidelity. Whenever it began to slide into comfortable heresies of the day, it became compromised and impotent. But whenever it would “earnestly contend for the faith once and for all delivered to the Saints” (Jude 3). God blessed its efforts gloriously. Whenever and wherever it took its every cue from the dictates of the sovereign God, it was remarkably successful.

So simple are these words that I often think some of us have become so embattled we can forget that the goal is to simply stand for truth, protecting life. Grant, considered at one time a giant in the pro-life movement and whose historical documentation dated 1991 when the call was to rescue those being led to the slaughter also writes:

    “As a single interest group the pro-life movement has failed. As a political force it has proven to be a disappointment. As an institutional philanthropic enterprise, it has been more than a little impotent. But, as an outreach of the historic church, it has had stunning success. The modern pro-life movement has proven that commitment to the sanctity of life is the consequence of the Spirit’s work in the authentic sacramental church.”

Keeping this in mind it becomes important to remember that the work of the Spirit belongs to the Spirit. He is the one who puts it forward and the one that should get the glory. And, if this is my belief as it is yours, why couldn’t we support an all out ban on abortion even if it comes from those once known for their criticism of our very movement? Well…such a bill exists and as Christian News has recently reported and as Saynsumthn has also documented, it was proposed by the group Abolish Human Abortion, which has been very contentious with the “pro-life movement” regarding immediate versus incremental methods to end abortion.

Oklahoma State Senator Joseph Silk, sponsor of S.B. 1118, which includes "abortion" under the murder statutes.

Oklahoma State Senator Joseph Silk, sponsor of S.B. 1118, which includes “abortion” under the murder statutes.

    Sen. Joe Silk, R-Broken Bow, recently introduced S.B. 1118 which adds killing an unborn child to existing murder statutes.

    “No person shall perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion after conception,” it reads. “A person commits murder in the first degree when that person performs an abortion as defined by Section 1-745.5 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes.”

    The bill defines abortion as “the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug or any other substance or device to intentionally kill an unborn human being” and provides the unborn with protection from the moment of conception.

My personal goal is to see abortion end in our nation- through whatever means God chooses to use. He chooses to use His people – all of us – if we so choose. That is why I would like to get behind any effort that seeks to protect our preborn neighbors.

As was the day when slavery existed in the world – we saw incredible bravery as individuals rose up to cry for an end to the slave trade. America was rich with defenders of the slave from the outspoken William Garrison to former slaves themselves like Frederick Douglas we heard time and again how the cry rang on “No compromise with slavery.”

The abolitionists often pierced the hearts of those in their day with the simple message asked by Jesus “Who is my brother?” Imergery from that era showed the enslaved Black man asking: “Am I not a man and a brother?”

Official_medallion_of_the_British_Anti-Slavery_Society_(1795)

Dietrich Bonhoeffer defines “who is our brother” in the Cost of Discipleship where he writes:

    “The first law which Jesus commends to His disciples is the one which forbids murder and entrusts their brother’s welfare to their keeping. The brother’s life is a divine ordnance and God alone has the power over life and death. There is no place for the murderer among the people of God…”

Spurgeon also expounds on “who is thy brothers keeper” when he writes in the aforementioned text:

    Shake yourselves up, brothers and sisters, from sinful sloth. “Oh!” says one, “I am not my brother’s keeper.” No, I will tell you your name; it is Cain. You are your brother’s murderer; for every professing Christian, who is not his brother’s keeper, is his brother’s killer;and be you sure that it is so; for you may kill by neglect quite as surely as you may kill by the bow or by the dagger.

As you ponder this history, we look to today as we face the possibility of a Supreme Court that could turn majority hostile to life and we ask, as they did so many times before over the course of history, with whom do we place our trust: in God or in man? If we abandon an opportunity to propose measures that end all abortions because it has not worked before, or it “will never pass” are we being truly honest to our core and our deeply held values? How will history itself play out at this crossroads?

An incident documented in the book Amazing Grace by historian Eric Mextaxas on the life of the great British abolitionist, William Wilberforce, gives us some direction and perhaps insights. It reads as follows:

    When he [Wilberforce] spoke that day urging Parliament to strike from the peace agreement the clause that gave the French five more years of their commerce in human beings, he sounded especially toward the end of his wholly unprepared speech, like what one could well imagine the conscience of the nation might sound:

    When the heads of all those now living are laid low, and the facts which now excite such powerful feeling are related by the pen of the cold, impartial historian, when it is seen that an opportunity like the present has been lost, that the first act of the restored King of France was the restoration of a trade in slavery and blood, what will be the estimate formed of the exertions which this country has employed, of the effect which they have produced upon a people under such weighty obligations? Surely no very high opinion will be indulged either of British influence or of French gratitude.”

Please consider coming together to seek an end to abortion. Let’s put differences aside to be our brother’s keeper!

“We make alliances of peace where we ought to proclaim war to the knife; we plead our constitutional temperament, our previous habits, the necessity of our circumstances, or some other evil excuse as an apology for being content with a very partial sanctification, if indeed it be sanctification at all. We are slow also to rebuke sin in others, and are ready to spare respectable sins, which like Agag walk with mincing steps. The measure of our destruction of sin is not to be our inclination, or the habit of others, but the Lord’s command. We have no warrant for dealing leniently with any sin, be it what it may.” ~ The Treasury of David.

Nancy Reagan’s confusing abortion positions

Posted in Abortion History, Embryonic Stem Cell, Ronald Reagan, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , on March 6, 2016 by saynsumthn

Former first lady Nancy Reagan passed away March 6, 2016 at the age of 94. Reagan died at her home in Los Angeles of congestive heart failure, according to her spokeswoman, Joanne Drake of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

Nancy Reagan

As a person who documents abortion I believe it is important to document the abortion positions of our Nation’s leaders, including Nancy Reagan.

Many people do not know that as Governor Ronald Reagan signed the first abortion law in California.

Ronald and Nancy Reagan celebrate Reagan's gubernatorial victory

Ronald and Nancy Reagan celebrate Reagan’s gubernatorial victory

Authors Paul Kengor & Patricia Clark Doerner recount this history in a 2008 National Review article:

On June 14, 1967, Ronald Reagan signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act, after only six months as California governor. From a total of 518 legal abortions in California in 1967, the number of abortions would soar to an annual average of 100,000 in the remaining years of Reagan’s two terms — more abortions than in any U.S. state prior to the advent of Roe v. Wade. Reagan’s signing of the abortion bill was an ironic beginning for a man often seen as the modern father of the pro-life movement. How did this happen? When the issue surfaced in the first months of his governorship, Reagan was unsure how to react. Surprising as it may seem today, in 1967 abortion was not the great public issue that it is today. Reagan later admitted that abortion had been “a subject I’d never given much thought to.” Moreover, his aides were divided on the question.

In 1967, as one of the nation’s first abortion laws it legalized abortion when the pregnancy threatened the physical or mental health of the mother and also allowed abortion in cases of rape. The law restricted abortion after 20 weeks.

1967 Californoa abortion law ronald reagan

Prior to its legalization, Section 274 of the Penal Code, read: “Every person who provides, supplies, or administers to any woman, or procures any woman to take any medicine, drug, or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless the same is necessary to preserve her life, is punishable by imprisonment in the State prison not less than two nor more than five years.”

In 1967, the statute was amended and sections 25950 through 25954 (“Therapeutic Abortion Act”) added to the Health and Safety Code. The act extended the lawful grounds for obtaining an abortion. fn. 2 Section 274 is directed towards the abortionist. Under section 275 of the [71 Cal. 2d 960] Penal Code (also amended by the Therapeutic Abortion Act), a woman who solicits or submits to an abortion is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment; similarly, under section 276, any person who solicits a woman to submit to an abortion is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. The law’s evolution is described further here.

California abortion law 1967

By 1971, a state appeals court ruled that all abortions could be legal in the state of California.

According to a study published in 1971, therapeutic abortions in California increased from 5,030 in 1968 to 15,339 in 1969, and over 60,000 were estimated for 1970. As a result regionally, in 1969 the San Francisco Bay Area had six times as many abortions (115 per 1000 births) as did the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area.

Then by 1971, projections became truth and according to reports, over 62,000 abortions were performed in the state that year prompting Nancy Reagan in 1972, to observe that the California abortion law was being abused.

Nancy Reagan’s stand on abortion showed confusion as early as the 1970’s

In 1972, Governor Ronald Reagan’s wife, Nancy Reagan added this about the law her husband passed, “If we accept the right to take life before birth are we so far from making the decision after birth?”

Nancy Reagan on the first california abortion law

Despite the strong statement, Nancy added that she supported a woman’s right to choose abortion in certain cases:

“I agree with the California abortion law passed by under husband, however, I believe it has been terribly abused.”

GOvernor ROnald Reagan'

The large numbers of abortion brought about by a law that Ronald Reagan signed weighed heavily on him.

Author Edmund Morris said that Ronald Reagan was left with an “undefinable sense of guilt” after watching abortions skyrocket.
If there is a question as to whether there is life or death, the doubt should be resolved in favor of life,” he wrote.

Dutch Ronald Reagan

Reagan biographer Lou Cannon claims this was “the only time as governor or president that Reagan acknowledged a mistake on major legislation.” Reagan’s longtime adviser and Cabinet secretary Bill Clark called the incident “perhaps Reagan’s greatest disappointment in public life.”

Ronald Reagan went on to become the most pro-life president the US has had since the legalization of abortion through the Roe v. Wade decision.

Ronald Reagan sanctity of human life abortion prolife

Nancy Reagan 19745

In 1975, Nancy criticized welfare (Government funded abortion):

“Our welfare program making abortions available to under aged girls regardless of their families financial situation and without informing family” amounted to “government at the highest level interfering in family relationships.”

Tragically by 1994, the former first lady Nancy Reagan went on record as supporting abortion along with former first lady Barbara Bush:

Nancy Reagan pro abortion

Nancu Reagan Barbara Vush 1994 abortion

“I don’t believe in abortion,” Nancy Reagan said.

On the other hand I believe in a woman’s choice. That puts me somewhere in the middle, but I don’t know what to call that,” she added.

Nancy Reagan abortion 1994

By 2002, Nancy Reagan was pushing embryonic stem cell research something pro-lifers opposed:

Nancy Reagan embryonic stem cell research

Nancy Reagan embryonic stem cell research

Nancy saw the move as a way to find a cure for Alzheimer’s something President Ronald Reagan suffered from prior to his death.

Nancy Reagan gave an award to her son Ron Reagan-for his fight for embryonic stem cell research:

Nancy Reagan joined President Ronald Reagan when she passed away on March 6, 2016.

OTHER FIRST LADY’S WHO DISAGREED WITH THEIR HUSBAND’S PRO-LIFE STAND:

In an interview with Larry King, Barbara Bush described how her “fetus” was placed in a jar after a miscarriage:

“That’s one issue, I’m not a one issue person,” Barbara Said of her pro-choice views.

Former first lady Laura Bush also came out as in favor of abortion to Larry King,

“I think it’s important that it [abortion] remains legal,” she said.