Archive for the Uncategorized Category

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.

Abortion scheme on college campus: purchase public sidewalk to censor pro-life speech

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on November 23, 2015 by saynsumthn

An exhibit at an Ohio campus, which shows images of abortion victims, has sparked such a controversy that so-called “liberal” students unsuccessfully collaborated to censor the pro-life message by suggesting they purchase the sidewalk to shut down the protest completely. The pro-life group Created Equal which brings the truth of abortion to college campuses across the nation, said their exhibit of abortion victim images at the Campus Center location at Otterbein college was on public property owned by the city of Westerville.

Created Equal abortion protests Otterbein

Seth Drayer, spokesperson for Created Equal said that the student government of the liberal college is set to purchase the public sidewalk to curb their First Amendment rights. This would have been unheard of years ago when the so-called Free Speech Movement on college campuses was born. In 1964, 60’s activists gathered on Sproul Plaza at the University of California Berkley to protest the school’s shutting down their political views.

Jo Freeman at the University of Illinois at Chicago describes that time in history this way: “By the time Berkeley Chancellor Clark Kerr became University President in 1958, student groups could not operate on campus if they engaged in any kind of off-campus politics, whether electoral, protest or even oratorical. At the Berkeley campus students spoke, leafleted and tabled on the city sidewalk at the campus edge. When the campus border was moved a block away, this activity moved with it…”

Enter 2015, when politics are clearly permitted on campus, the only question is, whose politics and views will be allowed? In Ohio, the message is clear – no pro-life viewpoint will be tolerated on the campus of Otterbein University in Westerville. This was reinforced by the student newspaper, Otterbein360 which reported that the campus climate subcommittee discussed the purchase of the sidewalk at its Oct. 26 meeting after the Campus Center sidewalk was used twice this year by Created Equal to, “stage protests including images of aborted tissue on public property, where speech is currently regulated by a public instead of a private entity.”

Why the censorship of the pro-life group?

According to a member of the student government, Elise Woods, it makes students unhappy, telling the paper that “for the abortion protests, I just noticed that when those specific people, that group, is on campus, it makes the campus climate…people get very unhappy,”she said according to the newspaper,” she said.

But, Conner Dunn, vice president of student government, was slightly more reasonable – slightly being the operative word, telling the student body that, “Buying up the sidewalks is an alright idea. Unless we buy all of Otterbein’s sidewalks, it wouldn’t stop much, they would just go to a different part of campus.”

Mark Harrington, founder of Created Equal responded to the censorship plan by stating, “The insane “Safe Space” coddling cultures of Mizzou and Yale are not anomalies. Created Equal has observed an entire generation of young people who are willing to take increasingly drastic measures to punish anyone with ideas they dislike! Recently, Otterbein University’s student government (through their “Student Experience and Campus Climate Committee,” whose purpose is to “address campus climate”) applied for a grant to buy the very ground we stand on to conduct peaceful outreach! This purchase would transfer sidewalk ownership from public to private, giving Otterbein the rights to kick us off of the sidewalk, because “[our display] makes the campus climate… very unhappy.”

Created Equal Otterbein abortion prolife 2

Seth Drayer said this is not the first time students tried to censor their pro-life message on this campus. In 2013, a student attempted to knock over signs showing pictures of the victims of abortion, the preborn child in the womb.

Created Equal COllege abortion

In 2015, another Otterbein student recruited a “bed sheet brigade” to try to censor the images. Another stood in the street in front of Created Equal’s Truth Truck and JumboTV trailer to temporarily stop it from circling the campus.

“Students themselves, who throughout time have railed against “The Man” to fight for free speech, are trading in this American treasure for thirty pieces of silver—or, in the case of Otterbein, thirty feet of concrete.” Drayer said. “They do this under the guise of creating “safe spaces” free from reminders of emotional pain (i.e., “triggers”).”

Harrington told 10TV that even if Created Equal didn’t have the option of sidewalks, the group would still get its message out, “The more they try to censor us–bed sheets, knocking over signs, trying to purchase a public sidewalk–it’s not going to deter us,” he said.

Created Equal Otterbein abortion prolife

But, despite the desire to purchase the sidewalk and shut down Created Equal’s display, the city of Westerville told abortion supporters that the sidewalks were not for sale.

“Public sidewalks are public infrastructure and generally they don’t go up for sale the same way private property would or a house might go up for sale,” said Christa Dickey, community affairs administrator for the city of Westerville.

Created Equal said they will continue speaking the truth of abortion on college campuses. Meanwhile, Otterbein students in favor of censoring the pro-life message should reflect on the 1960’s Free Speech protests at Berkley and understand that speech should be protected not silenced.

The words of Lynn Hollander Savio, a senior at Berkeley in October of 1964, contradicts censorship attempts from Otterbein abortion supporters. Years after the Free-Speech Movement on campus was birthed, Hollander Savio reinforced the need to protect political speech on campus when she told told NPR, “ We gave youth in America a sense that political and social action is something that you can and should be involved in…” she said.

(Image credits: Screen grabs from 10TV news story, Otterbein360 Twitter page, and Created Equal video and Twitter page.)

Planned Parenthood asked if babies born alive after abortion should receive medical care

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , on October 24, 2015 by saynsumthn

Planned Parenthood has recently refused to say medical care should be given to a a baby born alive after an abortion.

The shocking refusal came during her September Congressional testimony under oath, Planned Parenthood’s president claimed that she never heard of a case where a baby was born alive after an abortion. In addition, she claimed that this could never occur at a Planned Parenthood because they do not do abortions past viability.

Her statements came during questions Richards was asked in the hearings on whether she would approve of giving medical care to a child which survives an abortion attempt.

It was really a simple question and it deserved a simple yes or no response. But true to Planned Parenthood’s nature, the president who makes $500,000 plus annually to defend all things abortion, skirted the real issue by stating:

I’ve never heard of such a circumstance happening,” the Planned Parenthood stated.

Really?

I have.

In fact, I have personally documented several cases where babies survived abortions and were born alive. It is not an uncommon phenomenon inside the abortion industry which refers to these cases as “the dreaded complication.”

The issue was made more public when the Philadelphia Inquirer did an entire expose‘ on the topic some years back.

A quick google news search turns up the story of a Stanford University doctor who told Knight-Rider that his hospital saw cases where babies survived abortions while the same article quotes a 1974 study which estimated that 200 live births from abortions occurred annually in the United States.

In 1989, a 26 week old as well as a 24 week old baby aborted at the University of Wisconsin Hospital were reported to survive their abortions but died hours later.

Live-Fetus-abortion-226x300

And more recently, survivors of abortion testified to Congress recounting how they were born alive after their mother submitted to an abortion.

It was not that long ago when Alisa LaPolt Snow a lobbyist for Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates testified before the Florida House of Representatives that the abortion business objected to a law that required the abortionist to transfer a baby that was born alive after an abortion.

The video went viral because of the cold-hearted nature of Snow’s comments where she stated that the decision to help a baby which survives an abortion rests solely with the woman, “we believe any decision that’s made should be up to the-the woman, her family and the physician…That decision should be between the patient and the healthcare provider.”

Cecile-Richards-Planned-Parenthood-2015-testifies-COngress1-300x192

Later in Planned Parenthood’s exchange before the US Congress, Richards clarified her statement saying that she had never heard of an instance at Planned Parenthood where a baby was born alive after an abortion.

We don’t provide abortions after viability. But, I certainly in my experience at Planned Parenthood we never had that kind of circumstance,” she said.

Viability?

Despite the Planned Parenthood CEO’s insistence that they do not perform abortions past viability, a recent Saynsumthn Post details how they were expecting late term abortions at Planned Parenthood to increase.

Planned Parenthood abortion doctor Deborah Nucatola was recorded on video from the Center for Medical Progress telling undercover “buyers” that although there are independent clinics performing abortions to 26 weeks, Planned Parenthood (which she stated did not perform abortions that far “yet”) also wanted make sure the industry generally aborts babies “to the legal limit”:

    There’s a lot of conversation about who goes to the legal limit in their state; if they don’t go to the legal limit in their state why don’t they? Is there another provider that does? So we’re about to start doing some mapping work to say, you know, are there states where nobody’s going to the legal limit? And if not, why not, and what can we do about that?

Richards once said that she believes life begins at delivery, a statement which might explain why she hedges so when asked if she believes a child who survives an abortion should receive medical care.

So it was no surprise when Richards was asked a second time by a member if Congress she believed medical care should be administered when a live abortion occurs and once again, the stone-cold Planned Parenthood president refused to say “yes.” However, after being pressed, Richards finally relented. Although she again denyied that babies sometimes survive abortions she choked out the words, “A baby born, uh, that baby should as the mother should get appropriate medical care from the physician. And would.”

Watch the exchange here:

http://www.mrctv.org/embed/139688

Bill Maher and Wendy Davis: Planned Parenthood selling baby parts is legal thus it is okay

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , on September 5, 2015 by saynsumthn

Failed politician Wendy Davis was on with Bill Maher defending Planned Parenthood after the Center for Medical Progress exposed their bloody baby parts scheme.

Davis is radically pro-abortion and owes much of her political clout to Planned Parenthood who funded her failed run for Texas Governor.

Wendy Davis Bill Mahrer

Planned Parenthood has been accused of selling baby parts and their procurement company Stem Express has been accused of removing the tiny organs from babies possibly born alive.

Despite this, Bill Maher thinks it is fine because abortion “is legal.”

Bill Maher Planned Parenthood