We’re at the Speak Up for Life Conference being hosted by Greenville First Presbyterian Church.
We’re at the Speak Up for Life Conference being hosted by Greenville First Presbyterian Church.
via LifeNews.com January 24, 2019 at 03:01PM
Tennessee lawmakers joined a growing number of state legislatures Wednesday that are considering bills to protect unborn babies from abortion once they have a detectable heartbeat.
Sponsored by state Rep. Micah Van Huss, state House Bill 77 would prohibit abortions once an unborn baby’s heartbeat is detectable in Tennessee, according to the Nashville Scene. Exceptions would be allowed for medical emergencies.
If enacted, it would ban almost all abortions in the state. An unborn baby’s heartbeat is detectable at about six weeks of pregnancy, though research suggests a baby’s heartbeat may begin as early as 18 days after conception.
“One of our primary responsibilities as government is to keep our citizens safe. And the killing of our citizens need to stop,” Van Huss told WPLN. “So I’m about small government, but I believe the government needs to protect life.”
This is the third year Van Huss has introduced the bill. Some pro-lifers hope that the new conservative U.S. Supreme Court would uphold an abortion ban, while others remain skeptical, arguing that the legislation would be rejected by the courts and taxpayers would be forced to pay pro-abortion groups’ legal fees.
Nashville Scene reports more:
In 2017, Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery said an earlier Van Huss effort to ban abortions after fetal heartbeats are detected was constitutionally suspect. Van Huss admits that his bill, if passed, “probably will” be challenged in court, but he is hopeful that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which he calls the country’s most conservative and which hears federal appeals from Tennessee, would uphold the law.
Plus, he says, tying activists up in a prolonged, expensive legal battle could have secondary benefits.
LifeNews depends on the support of readers like you to combat the pro-abortion media. Please donate now.
“Every day that an abortion provider spends in court, that’s a baby she’s not killing, he’s not killing, in a hospital, so I’ve got no problem getting in the fight,” he says.
Pro-abortion House Democrats already are preparing for a fight. Nashville Public Radio reports state Rep. Gloria Johnson slammed the bill this week, saying it would damage women’s equality.
“If you don’t believe that a woman has complete control over her own health, you don’t believe that women are equal,” Johnson said. “And it is denying equality to deny the woman control over her own body.”
Planned Parenthood has called heartbeat legislation “gross” and “dangerous.”
However, earlier this week, a judge declared Iowa’s heartbeat law unconstitutional.
The goal of the legislation is to prevent the deaths of thousands of unborn babies every year. However, even some pro-life advocates admit that the success of the legislation is uncertain. While the rationale behind the law is noble, a number of pro-life leaders recognize that, for the present, such laws may create unintended consequences that could hamper the pro-life cause.
North Dakota and Arkansas passed heartbeat bills several years ago, but federal courts struck down both laws.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals said the following about its ruling on the six-week ban: “Because there is no genuine dispute that (North Dakota’s law) generally prohibits abortions before viability — as the Supreme Court has defined that concept — and because we are bound by Supreme Court precedent holding that states may not prohibit pre-viability abortions, we must affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs.”
When courts rule against such laws, state taxpayers often are forced to reimburse pro-abortion groups for their legal fees.
There is more hope that the new conservative-majority Supreme Court may consider an abortion ban, but it is difficult to say if it would for certain. Some legal scholars have speculated that the conservative court would be more likely to consider cases that gradually chip away at Roe v. Wade rather than reverse it completely.
via LifeNews.com January 23, 2019 at 03:28PM
Two Idaho representatives presented a draft bill Tuesday that would call out abortion for what it is: murder.
According to the CDA Press, state Reps. John Green and Heather Scott released their draft of the Idaho Abortion Human Rights Act. The proposed bill would end the exemption for abortion in Idaho’s murder laws. Green and Scott said the abortion exemption is inconsistent with the state constitution’s protection of life and definition of murder.
The bill would repeal part of Idaho’s homicide law that specifically excludes abortion from prosecution. Furthermore, it would forbid the state from joining federal litigation against the law, according to the report.
In Section 18-4001 of the Idaho Code, murder is defined as “the unlawful killing of a human being including, but not limited to, a human embryo or fetus, with malice aforethought or the intentional application of torture to a human being, which results in the death of a human being.”
However, another section of the Idaho Code, Section 18-4016, exempts doctors performing abortions and the women who request them from being prosecuted for murder. The code is inconsistent and the bill would repeal the latter section of the state law, the pro-life lawmakers said.
SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you like this pro-life article, please help LifeNews.com with a donation!
“Abortion is, without question, the chief means of depriving unborn Idahoans of the most fundamental of all human rights, which is the right to life,” Green and Scott said. “To accomplish this historic restoration of human rights for the unborn in Idaho, the act simply repeals the prohibition of prosecution for abortion, found in Idaho Code 18-4016 and puts the matter within existing statute for the prosecution of murder, where it clearly belongs.”
The draft bill comes days after Boise’s March for Life, where hundreds of Idahoans gathered at the state capital to protest Roe v. Wade and stand up for unborn babies’ lives.
Idaho has had a recent record of advocating for life. Last March, Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter signed into law state House Bill 638, which established a system to better track abortion complications and other related data in Idaho. In the same month, Otter also signed Senate Bill 1243, which updated the state informed consent packet to include information about the new Abortion Pill Reversal technology for women seeking abortions.
Green said he and Scott are working with various committee chairmen to best determine which committee to introduce the bill.
via LifeNews.com January 23, 2019 at 01:28PM
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo can claim to be a Catholic but there’s little doubt left that he’ totally out of step with the pro-life teachings of the Catholic Church after he signed a bill legalizing abortions up to birth. Now, the Catholic bishops in New York state are letting the governor have it.
Just hours after the state Senate and Assembly passed it, Cuomo signed the bill, legalizing abortion for basically any reason up to birth in New York state.
The so-called Reproductive Health Act goes beyond Roe v. Wade, allowing unborn babies to be aborted even when the U.S. Supreme Court has said states may restrict abortions. Late-term abortions, which currently are illegal in New York, would be allowed, and non-doctors would be allowed to perform them.
That’s plenty reason for one Catholic bishop to rip the governor:
The bishop of the Diocese of Alabany attempted to convince New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo not to sign a bill that removes all restrictions on abortion in the state, but Cuomo signed it anyway.
In an open letter in The Evangelist, the Most Rev. Edward B. Scharfenberger condemned Cuomo’s support of abortion before the governor signed the Reproductive Health Act (RHA), which repealed the state’s 24-week abortion ban, among other things. Scharfenberger penned the open letter ahead of Cuomo’s signing ceremony.
Click Like if you are pro-life to like the LifeNews Facebook page and receive the latest pro-life news.
“Although in your recent State of the State address you cited your Catholic faith and said we should ‘stand with Pope Francis,’ your advocacy of extreme abortion legislation is completely contrary to the teachings of our pope and our Church,” Scharfenberger said. “Once truth is separated from fiction and people come to realize the impact of the bill, they will be shocked to their core. By that time, however, it may be too late to save the countless lives that will be lost or spare countless women lifelong regret.”
The bishop said the recently signed legislation “threatens to rupture the communion between the Catholic faith and those who support the RHA” because of the bill’s “aggressive extremism.”
“It is very difficult to understand how you can align yourself with Pope Francis and so vehemently advocate such profoundly destructive legislation,” Scharfenberger said. “I find myself wondering how it can be viewed as ‘progress’ to have gone from a society working to make abortion ‘rare’ to one that urges women to ‘shout your abortion’ as some advocates of this bill boldly announce.”
via LifeNews.com January 22, 2019 at 05:32PM
The New York Senate passed a radical pro-abortion bill Tuesday that would allow unborn babies to be aborted for basically any reason up to birth.
Metro reports the bill passed after abortion activists pushed it for more than a decade in New York. Until now, it failed to pass the state Senate because of Republican lawmakers, but the November election put pro-abortion Democrats in control of both houses.
The vote was 38-24.
A New York Public Radio reporter said she heard a voice shout, “May almighty God have mercy on this state!” in the Senate soon after the vote.
The legislation goes beyond Roe v. Wade, allowing abortions even when the Supreme Court has said states may regulate them, according to the pro-life leaders. Late-term abortions, which currently are illegal in New York, would be allowed, and non-doctors would be allowed to perform them.
The bill appears to restrict late-term abortions, but it adds a broad “health” exception for abortions after 24 weeks. The exception would allow women to abort unborn babies up to nine months of pregnancy for “age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of ‘health’ that normally comes to mind,” according to New York Right to Life.
State Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins celebrated the legislation at a press conference Tuesday, according to the Metro. She claimed the so-called right to abortion is threatened by the new conservative U.S. Supreme Court.
“We thought at that time, that because it was so fundamentally right for women to have autonomy over their body, we thought that it was a barrier we would never have to face again,” Stewart-Cousins said. “Whenever you have something that momentous, there’s always someone who wants to go back to the way things were. So brick by brick, they began to rebuild that barrier. … They were looking for a moment to overturn this decision that changed our lives.
“We’re saying that here in New York, women’s health matters,” she continued. “We’re saying that here in New York, women’s decisions matter.”
Pro-abortion Gov. Andrew Cuomo also supports the bill. He even went so far as to threaten to hold up the budget until the legislature passes it.
The bill, dubbed the Reproductive Health Act, redefines a “person” as “a human being who has been born and is alive,” and describes abortion as a “fundamental right.” This language will allow unborn babies to be aborted for basically any reason up to birth in New York.
Click Like if you are pro-life to like the LifeNews Facebook page and receive the latest pro-life news.
The legislation poses serious dangers to women’s lives and rights as well. By removing protections from illegal abortions, the bill will open the door for abuses. According to New York RTL, back alley abortionists, abusive partners or parents and others no longer would face charges for illegally killing an unborn baby – even if the mother wanted her child.
“In early December, a resident of Saratoga County was arrested for punching the stomach of a woman who was 26 weeks pregnant in an attempt to cause a miscarriage. The man was charged with abortion in the second degree, but under the RHA, the attacker would not have been charged with a felony,” according to the Catholic News Service.
Protections for babies born alive after botched abortions also would end under the new bill. Additionally, the bill says the state cannot “deny, regulate or restrict” abortion, not even for common-sense reasons such as parental consent for minors, informed consent or limits on taxpayer-funded abortions.
New York State Right to Life predicted that the bill will lead to the suppression of pro-lifers’ freedom of speech and conscience, as well. Doctors and nurses who refuse to help abort unborn babies could lose their jobs, and pro-life advocates could be persecuted for just speaking out for life.
Already one of the most pro-abortion states in America, New York would become even more pro-abortion if the law passes. In 2016, 82,189 unborn babies were aborted in New York, with about half being taxpayer-funded, according to the local news. Of those babies, 1,763 were at least 20 weeks, meaning they may have been viable outside the womb.
Meanwhile, a new poll indicates this radical pro-abortion legislation is not what Americans want. According to a national poll conducted by Marist University, three in four Americans (75 percent) say abortion should be limited to – at most – the first three months of pregnancy. This includes most of those who identify as Republicans (92 percent), Independents (78 percent) and a majority of Democrats (60 percent). It also includes more than six in 10 (61 percent) who identify as “pro-choice” on abortion.
The Marist Poll follows on the heels of a May 2018 Gallup poll which found that 53 percent of Americans oppose all or most abortions.
via LifeNews.com January 17, 2019 at 03:21PM
Sen. Lindsey Graham has intruded legislation to ban late-term abortions on babies after 20 weeks who feel intense pain during abortion procedures. The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act would ban abortions after 20 weeks and it highlights how unborn babies feel intense pain when they are killed in abortions.
The bill has been introduced before and, last time it got a Senate vote, Democrats killed it in a filibuster. The vote came after the White House indicated President Donald Trump would sign the bill into law.
Since 2010, National Right to Life and its state affiliates have led the effort to protect pain-capable unborn children, starting with enactment of model legislation in Nebraska. Sixteen states have enacted the National Right to Life model legislation, and the law is currently in effect in 15. The legislation has previously passed the U.S. House of Representatives and has garnered a majority of votes in the U.S. Senate.
National Right to Life President Carol Tobias applauded introduction of the bill.
“We are proud to stand with our pro-life ally, Sen. Graham, in encouraging the Senate to protect pain-capable unborn children. One-fourth of premature infants now survive when born at this stage – and there is strong evidence that were a child to be aborted at that stage, they would experience great pain, as they are torn limb from limb in late abortions,” Tobias told LifeNews.com.
Tobias told LifeNews, “We applaud Senate Majority Leader McConnell and chief sponsor Sen. Lindsey Graham for their steadfast commitment to passing these protections for pain-capable unborn children. We will keep coming back to the Senate, again and again, until it passes this bill.”
“Americans should be outraged that pro-abortion Senate Democrats refuse to protect unborn babies who can feel pain. An overwhelming majority of Americans support this bill, including 56% of Democrats and 56% of those who identify as ‘pro-choice’,”she said.
Tobias said the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act continues to be one of the right-to-life movement’s top congressional priorities for the 116th Congress. Like the state bills, the proposed federal law would generally extend legal protect to unborn humans beginning at 20 weeks fetal age (22 weeks of pregnancy), based on congressional findings that by that point (and even earlier) the unborn child has the capacity to experience great pain during an abortion.
Jennifer Popik, J.D., legislative director for National Right to Life, said there is little doubt babies feel excruciating pain in these abortions.
“These are very developed babies – these babies are capable of feeling pain and are considered by the medical profession to be a second patient. This legislation has saved lives, driving out abortionists from states performing abortions on these babies. And this legislation has the power to speak to the people of this country, highlighting that, where this bill is not law, it is legal to kill these very developed unborn children,” she told LifeNews.
Jeanne Mancini, President of March for Life, added, “This bill would have limited most late term abortions to protect approximately 12,000 unborn children every year. For over a decade, polling has shown that the large majority of Americans – including those who identify as pro-choice – would limit abortion to, at most, the first three months of pregnancy. It is a disgrace that our Senate has once again failed to pass a bill that reflects the hearts and minds of the national pro-life consensus.”
After the vote last year, Kristan Hawkins, President, Students for Life of America, called for a change to the filibuster rules.
“Pro-life Americans would finally have a groundbreaking victory for life in the U.S. Senate if the vote passed with majority rules as it should. It’s time for a rule change. Instead, extremists in the Senate can block the desires of more than three out of four Americans who support real limits on the deadly abortion procedure,” she told LifeNews.
She said, “For those Senators who voted against the bill, Millennials will be asking how they can embrace such an inhumane procedure for infants who soon can survive outside the womb, and the Pro-life generation will hold them accountable.”
President Trump condemned late-term abortions and supported the bill during his March for Life address.
Noting the 45th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Trump lamented that the United States is one of only seven countries in the world that allows elective abortions after 20 weeks.
“As you all know, Roe vs. Wade has resulted in some of the most permissive abortion laws anywhere in the world,” Trump told the crowd.
“For example, in the United States, it’s one of only seven countries to allow elective late-term abortions, along with China, North Korea, and others,” the president said. “Right now in a number of states, the laws allow a baby to be born from his or her mother’s womb in the ninth month. It is wrong. It has to change.”
“I strongly supported the House of Representatives Pain-Capable bill, which would end painful, late-term abortions nationwide,” Trump said. “I call upon the Senate to pass this important law and send it to my desk for signing.”
During the House debate, Congressman Chris Smith talked about the gruesome nature of late-term abortions.
A former abortionist, Dr. Anthony Levatino, testified before Congress that he had performed 1,200 abortions—over 100 late-term abortions up to 24 weeks.
Dr. Levatino described what the abortionist actually does to the helpless child. “Imagine if you can that you are a pro-choice obstetrician/gynecologist like I was.” Using a Sopher 13” clamp with rows of ridges or teeth, “grasp anything you can” inside the womb. “Once you’ve grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard—really hard. You feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg about six inches long. Reach in again and grasp anything you can…and out pops an arm.” He noted that “a second trimester D&E abortion is a blind procedure.” He said, “Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs.”
The House passed the measure in 2015 as well and that marked the second time the House has voted for the legislation — having approved it in May 2013. The bill was then blocked by pro-abortion Democrats who controlled the U.S. Senate.
During the hearing on the last bill, former abortion practitioner Anthony Levatino told members of the committee the gruesome details of his former abortion practice and how he became pro-life following the tragic automobile accident of his child.
Another bombshell dropped during the hearing came from Dr. Maureen Condic, who is Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine. She testified that the unborn child is capable of reacting to pain as early as 8-10 weeks. This is when most abortions in America take place.
Americans strongly support legislation that would ban late-term abortions and protect babies who are capable of feeling intense pain during an abortion.
Currently, 16 states have pain-capable unborn child protection laws in effect, Kentucky being the most recent. Other states are considering similar bills.
Together, these laws potentially are saving thousands of babies from painful, late-term abortions. There were at least 5,770 late-term abortions at or after 21 weeks of pregnancy in 2013 in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control. Another approximate 8,150 abortions took place between 18 weeks and 20 weeks, the CDC reports.
Though abortion advocates deny the science of fetal pain at 20 weeks, researchers have fully established fetal pain at 20 weeks or earlier. Dr. Steven Zielinski, an internal medicine physician from Oregon, is one of the leading researchers into it. He first published reports in the 1980s to validate research showing evidence for unborn pain.
At 20 weeks, the unborn child has all the parts in place – the pain receptors, spinal cord, nerve tracts, and thalamus – needed for transmitting and feeling pain. The unborn child responds to touch as early as week 6; and by week 18, pain receptors have appeared throughout the child’s body.
Dr. Colleen A. Malloy, a professor of neonatology at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, told a U.S. Senate committee last year that “anesthesiologists, and surgeons use pain medication” for unborn babies at the 20 week stage when performing surgery, “because it’s supported by the literature completely.”
“I could never imagine subjecting my tiny patients to a horrific procedure such as those that involve limb detachment or cardiac injection,” Malloy added.
This bill is based on model legislation developed by National Right to Life in 2010, and is in effect in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is sponsored by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), along with 46 cosponsors, and has been one of the right-to-life movement’s top legislative priorities. The operative language is identical to H.R. 36, approved by the House of Representatives on October 3, 2017. This legislation extends general protection to unborn children who are at least 20 weeks beyond fertilization (which is equivalent to 22 weeks of pregnancy—about the start of the sixth month).
via LifeNews.com January 15, 2019 at 11:47AM
A new national poll conducted by Marist University finds an overwhelming majority of Americans support restrictions on abortion and would like Roe v. Wade reinterpreted to allow restrictions on abortions.
Three in four Americans (75 percent) say abortion should be limited to – at most – the first three months of pregnancy. This includes most of those who identify as Republicans (92 percent), Independents (78 percent) and a majority of Democrats (60 percent). It also includes more than six in 10 (61 percent) who identify as “pro-choice” on abortion.
The strong support for restricting abortion came despite the fact that a majority of Americans identify as pro-choice (55 percent) — making it clear that the terms pro-choice and pro-life are not accurate in determining or representing the actual views of Americans on abortion.
The Marist Poll follows on the heels of the May 2019 Gallup poll which confirmed 53% of Americans oppose all or most abortions.
The poll also found that a strong majority of Americans disagree with the Roe v. Wade decision that gives states the ability to allow abortions up to birth without any limits.
Almost two-thirds of Americans (65 percent) also say that if the Supreme Court revisits Roe v. Wade then the Court should rule either to allow restrictions as decided by each state (49 percent), or to outlaw abortion (16 percent). Fewer than a third of Americans (30 percent) would want the Court to rule to allow unrestricted abortion.
In addition, the survey found that three-quarters (75 percent) of Americans oppose taxpayer funding of abortion abroad, fewer than two in 10 (19 percent) support such funding. Opposition to this funding includes most Republicans (94 percent) and independents (80 percent) and a majority of Democrats (56 percent).
By a double-digit margin, a majority of all Americans oppose any taxpayer funding of abortion (54 percent to 39 percent). By 20 points (55 percent to 35 percent) Americans also believe medical professionals with moral objections should be allowed to opt out of performing abortions.
More than six in 10 Americans (62 percent) oppose abortions in cases of Down Syndrome, and nearly six in 10 (59 percent) would ban abortion after 20 weeks, except to save the life of the mother.
The poll queries Americans about their views on unborn babies.
The survey found that by more than 20 points, a majority of Americans believe that “scientifically” an unborn baby (a fetus as mentioned in the poll) is “a unique life” (56 percent), while only about a third (35 percent) believe it is “part of a woman’s body.” A plurality of Americans say that life begins at conception (42 percent), while only about one in 10 say life begins at birth (13 percent). And by a margin of more than eight to one, most Americans also believe that laws can protect both the mother and her unborn child (83 percent to 10 percent).
“As in past years, this poll shows that the pro-choice label on the abortion issue is simply insufficient,” said Knights of Columbus CEO Carl Anderson. “The majority of Americans – in both parties – support legal restrictions on abortion. Two-thirds of Americans want Roe revisited to allow for state regulation of abortion or to ban it altogether. The majority of the American people deserve to have their opinions heard.”
The survey of 1,066 adults was conducted January 8 through January 10, 2019 by The Marist Poll. Adults 18 years of age and older residing in the contiguous United States were contacted on landline or mobile numbers and interviewed in English by telephone using live interviewers. Mobile and landline telephone numbers were randomly selected based upon a list of telephone exchanges from throughout the nation from Survey Sampling International. Results are statistically significant within ±3.7 percentage points.
via LifeNews.com January 14, 2019 at 10:25AM
A new national poll of millenials finds a very large majority of young Americans oppose unlimited abortions and disagree with the Democrat Party’s platform, which supports abortion up to birth and paid for at taxpayer expense.
Students for Life of America’s Institute for Pro-Life Advancement on Monday released a poll of Millennials’ attitudes on Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton and their views of America’s current abortion policies. Pollster the polling company, inc./WomanTrend conducted the poll of 18-34 year olds the first week of January.
Now the largest voting bloc in America, the views of Millennials surveyed were nuanced and anti-abortion in much of their thinking, while avoiding the labels of pro-life and pro-choice (equally divided at 39 percent to 39 percent.) According to the results:
Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and videos.
“Millennials have lived with the harsh realities of abortion all their lives and understand more than their parents’ generation that we must address the human rights issue of our day and make changes in defense of mothers and their preborn infants,” said SFLA President Kristan Hawkins. “Our poll found that Millennials do not blindly support unlimited abortion paid for with their tax dollars, no matter what the popular culture says. Millennials may reject labels in general, but when it comes to the specifics of abortion policy, they are anti-abortion.”
The poll found that though a majority of Millennials (56 percent) were political independents with about 20 percent calling themselves Republicans and the same number calling themselves Democrats, they agreed on some significant abortion policy. Millennials want to vote on abortion issues even if that means Roe v. Wade is reversed, and they support policies that limit abortions.
MILLENNIALS SUPPORT LIMITS ON ABORTION:
70 percent of Millennials support limits on abortion with 42 percent opposing abortion broadly and 28 percent supporting limits through specific policies like parental notification, limiting abortion later in pregnancy like at 5 months of pregnancy and beyond, and opposition to government funding of abortion.
But just as powerful as the support for commonsense limits on abortion was the lack of support for the radical abortion policy that is pushed as the views of Millennials – ONLY 7 PERCENT supported abortion without any exceptions and funded by tax dollars, the position articulated in the Democratic Party platform.
MILLENNIALS SUPPORT VOTING ON ABORTION POLICY:
65 percent of Millennials polled want a voice on abortion policy – a right to vote on abortion-related policy — compared to only 16 percent who want abortion to remain as it is, in the hands of judges, while 19 percent were unsure or had no opinion.
In fact, more Millennials than not support Roe’s reversal. Asked directly about support for overturning Roe and returning abortion to the states, 41percent supported Roe’s reversal, with 33 percent opposed, and 27 percent undecided, leaving room for conversation.
MILLENNIALS SUPPORT FOR ROEIS SOFT AND OPEN FOR DISCUSSION:
Only 40 percent said they support Roe when first asked, but after discussing Roe’s actual impact that changed. This is a shift from the conventional wisdom that has insisted there is broad support for Roe.
51 percent said that they opposed Roe,afterbeing informed that it allows for abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy, and 54 percent when they found it abortion could be used as a form of contraception or when a mother doesn’t like the sex of the baby.
On issues of taxpayer funding for abortion, 45 percent opposed, with only 33 percent supporting such spending, and 22 percent undecided.
No gender gap: The data shows that men and women responded similarly to the issue.
AFTER LEARNING MORE ABOUT ROE’S IMPACT, MILLENNIAL OPPOSITION TO THE RULING ROSE ALMOST 30 PERCENT.
After learning about Roe’s realities, support for Roe DROPPED from 40 percent to 35, while opposition to Roewent from 12 percent to 41 percent.
Noteworthy, after learning more about Roe’s actual impact, women were more likely to be strongly opposed. We found 20 percent of men and 14 percent of women strongly supported Roewhile 23 percent of men and 13 percent of women somewhat supported Roe. But for those opposed to Roe, 18 percent of men and 14 percent of women somewhat opposed while 19 percent of men and 30 percent of women strongly opposed.
MILLENNIALS DO NOT SUPPORT ENDANGERING A WOMAN’S LIFE WITH RECKLESS CHEMICAL ABORTION DRUG DISTRIBUTION
Given the realities of abortion drugs (that women have died when receiving the chemicals later in pregnancy or when given them while experiencing an ectopic pregnancy), a physical exam has been required before distributing abortion drugs like RU-486. A clear majority, 56 percent of Millennials, oppose selling the drugs on-line or dropping the requirement for a physical exam because of the risks to women.
As about a third of abortions are now caused by Chemical Abortion drugs making this not only a trend, but the forefront of the fight to protect women from abortion industry abuses.
WHEN IT CAME TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD, MILLENNIALS ALSO WANTED THEIR TAX MONEY TO GO ELSEWHERE.
Room for growth for the pro-life movement: the public perceptions of Planned Parenthood. We found that Millennials’ general acceptance of Planned Parenthood doesn’t extend to Planned Parenthood’s specific business model. For example, 41 percent had an unfavorable reaction to Planned Parenthood after learning about the corporation’s political engagement in the millions and their more than $1 billion in income, with about half of that coming from taxpayers. When examining Planned Parenthood’s decline in services like breast exams, Pap tests, STD treatment and pre-natal services, 43 percent had an unfavorable reaction compared to 32 percent who still favored Planned Parenthood.
A general support for Planned Parenthood did not equal specific support for them and their corporate practice.
WINNERS: FEDERALLY QUALIFIED HEALTH CENTERS
Messaging on alternatives to Planned Parenthood can be highly effective in reaching this generation. In looking at the availability and wide variety of services at Federally Qualified Health Centers (10,000+ nationwide treating 25 million Americans annually offering all of PP’s services except abortion) compared to Planned Parenthood (with 650 facilities treating 2.4 million people a year and no ability to provide overall healthcare), Millennials support for funding Planned Parenthood dropped dramatically.
By about a 3 to 1 margin (48 percent to 17 percent), Millennials said they preferred that their tax monies went to Federally Qualified Health Centers rather than Planned Parenthood.
Even Planned Parenthood knows that most women don’t need them for medical care. Planned Parenthood’s President Leana Wen recently wrote, “Nationwide, one in five women will get health care at Planned Parenthood in her lifetime.” By definition, that means 4 in 5 know they have other options, while the other woman may be regretting she ever walked through those doors. Millennials are open to those other options.
FORGET THE LABELS: TALK SPECIFICS WITH MILLENNIALS
Hawkins observed: “On the issue of abortion, labels like pro-life, pro-choice, access, health, or women’s rights often camouflage the true realities of the policies that today crisscross the country.
“Especially as we talk with Millennials, who are often outside the political structure of Washington D.C., the anti-abortion movement must be clear on what we are advancing and its impact on mothers, the preborn and taxpayers. And for those elected officials who want to engage in life-affirming legislation, Millennial voters are listening when you compassionately address the specifics of Life in law.”
via LifeNews.com January 9, 2019 at 10:43AM
Conservative nonprofit PragerU filed suit against Google in California court on Tuesday for allegedly violating state law in restricting access to Prager’s educational videos on YouTube, according to a copy of the complaint obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.
The suit claims that YouTube’s restrictions on many of Prager’s videos violate California law in four ways: Restricting the nonprofit’s freedom of speech contrary to the state constitution; discriminating against Prager on a religious and political basis in violation of the state’s civil rights act; “engaging in unlawful, misleading, and unfair businesses practices” contrary to the state’s unfair competition laws; and breach of contract for violating YouTube’s own terms of service.
Many of Prager’s videos have been placed in “restricted mode,” which often makes them unavailable for users who are part of or using a larger network, such as networks operated by schools, libraries and public institutions. The suit also claims that YouTube capriciously and discriminatorily demonetized Prager’s videos, depriving them of earning advertising revenue from their videos.
Prager previously filed suit against Google, YouTube’s parent company, in federal court. That suit lost at the district level and is currently pending on appeal before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Attorneys for Prager said they filed the second suit at the state level on the recommendation of the federal judge in the first case.
“We originally filed a lawsuit that had two federal claims, one under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the other for unfair competition and advertising under the Lanham Act,” said lead PragerU attorney Peter Obstler. “We also filed five claims in that lawsuit under California law, including a free speech claim under the Liberty of Speech clause of the California Constitution that takes a much broader view of state action. We also filed state law claims for discrimination under the Unruh Act, unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices, and breach of contract.”
“We’ve taken an appeal to the Ninth Circuit on the merits of the two federal law claims, and the state law claims were dismissed without prejudice. In other words, the court made very clear that the state law claims were dismissed out of deference to state law courts, that the state courts should decide issues of their own law – not the federal court,” Obstler continued. “Today we’ve come full circle by filing a state law action, as the judge requested we do, in a state court to litigate those issues there. So we’re now going to have a two track litigation.”
PragerU CEO Marissa Streit said she remains optimistic about the federal case but added that “there is reason to believe certain claims are even stronger in California. Specifically claims relating to YouTube’s breach of contract and consumer fraud.”
“They claim to be a public forum for free expression, but they behave instead as a publisher with editorial controls. You cannot have it both ways,” Streit said.
Prager has previously battled censorship from Facebook, as well as Google. Nine Prager videos in a row received zero views on Facebook and two were deleted for allegedly violating the company’s “hate speech” policies in August. Facebook later apologized for its censorship of Prager, which the tech giant said was done “mistakenly.”
Representatives for Google did not immediately return a request for comment.
LifeNews Note: Peter Hasson writes for Daily Caller. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience.
via Live Action News January 26, 2019 at 11:47AM
Pro-life Senator Steven Daines (R-Mont.) addressed the crowd during last Friday’s March for Life to announce that he is forming the first-ever caucus in the Senate to focus on pro-life issues. The caucus will be similar to one in the House of Representatives, which has been in existence since 1981. Sen. Daines hopes that the two groups can work together going forward to further pro-life legislation.
“We’re finally going have in the Senate what the House has had for many years, so that the House and the Senate can work together on having a more strategic approach in how we’re going to move pro-life policies to the president’s desk,” Daines said in an interview with the National Review. “This will allow us to bring the pro-life groups that work off the Hill, as well as pro-life senators and other staff on the Hill, to unify us so we’re all pulling in the same direction to advance the pro-life cause,” he added.
The caucus will focus primarily on judicial confirmations until the Senate Republicans have enough votes to override the Democratic legislative filibuster and pass pro-life bills. However, Daines also hopes to drum up support for other issues in the meantime, including the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. The act would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, as that’s the time when scientific research suggests that preborn children can experience pain. The Pain Capable bill failed in the Senate last January, although a recent poll suggests that 60 percent of Americans would be in favor of such a ban.
Daines spoke to the National Review about the importance of these issues. “We’ll keep the fight up on important legislation like the Pain Capable Protection Act and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act,” he said. “We’ll be looking for ways we can find some common agreement, for example on late-term abortion. That should be stopped. There’s no reason the Pain Capable bill isn’t getting 60 votes. Public opinion is on our side there.”
It hasn’t yet been announced which senators will be joining the new caucus, although Daines mentioned that several pro-life colleagues have expressed an interest.
The post Montana’s Sen. Daines forms Senate’s first ever pro-life caucus appeared first on Live Action News.