26 Sep

How Do You Pray to End Abortion?

via LifeNews.com September 18, 2018 at 04:12PM

How do we “pray to end abortion?” There are very specific contours to this multi-faceted intention, and in this second part of this series, we continue to explore what they are.

When we pray against abortion, the starting point is that we already know where God stands on the matter. There are many very good and legitimate things for which we pray, but about which we really don’t know where God stands. Let me give sort of a trivial example. Earlier this year, in regard to the Super Bowl, a friend of mine got me interested in the Philadelphia Eagles. And so when they got to participate in the Super Bowl, I was rooting for them. And I even said a prayer that that they would be victorious in the Super Bowl!

Now, obviously, this is not the kind of prayer that is of the highest level of importance but we are permitted to pray for all kinds of things and they did end up winning the Super Bowl. But in a prayer like that, we say, Lord, obviously, whatever you want, you know. And I don’t know what you want. I don’t know if you want this team to win or not. But I pray they do. Lord, if it pleases you, let this happen. That’s one type of prayer. But when we’re praying against abortion, we already know the mind of God. We know his will. We know his heart. It is for life. God is life.

So we are praying for something that we already know. We’re aligning ourselves with the perfect will of God that the killing of these children would completely cease. And that forms, again, a basic framework of our prayer against abortion.

Now, another framework of our prayer against abortion is that it’s very, very specific. We are not just praying in a general way “for a culture of life” or in a general way “for respect for human life,” or “protection of life from conception to natural death.”

These, of course, are goals we believe in deeply, teach about and preach about. These are also very, very general aspects of the Christian vision of how the world should be. When we talk about praying against abortion, however, we’re talking about something very, very specific, namely, that the actual killing of this group of people, the children still in the womb, would stop. We pray that the protection of their lives would be restored, that the recognition that they are our brothers and sisters, worthy of protection, would, again, be restored to the minds of hearts of everybody in society, at every level of influence.

Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and the latest pro-life news.

So we’re praying for something very, very specific…that very specific acts of violence would stop…that the abortionist’s instruments would no longer go towards their body to rip them apart…that the mothers going into those abortion facilities would literally turn around and come out…that those babies would be spared…that those lives would be saved…and that this evil would no longer be permitted. All this is very, very specific. When we pray for something, we need to know what we’re asking for, and let God know what we are asking for in a very, very specific way.

In order to be specific, the thought has to be clear in our mind, and the words have to be very specific on our lips. A lot of times, when a subject is as controversial as abortion, and stirs up so many passions and emotions, some people don’t want to be specific, especially if they’re praying out loud, and especially if they’re praying in church. This goes for the clergy, too.

Some of them are afraid to bring this up. Because it is a very contentious and divisive issue, the temptation is to take refuge in a much more broad and generic, and you might say ecclesiastically politically correct wording. So we pray “for all human life from conception to natural death.” Well, that will always be an intention whether abortion is around or not. Or we pray “for a culture of life.” That, too, will always been an intention whether abortion is legal or not. Here, we’re talking about praying for an end to abortion.

So let’s be very specific, and let’s get other people to agree on that specificity. Remember, the Lord said that if we agree on anything and ask the Father for it in his name, he will give it to us. So we need to agree on what we’re asking for, and in order to that, we need to say it clearly, plainly, and without fear. Specificity by itself does not make this a “political” intention. It’s a prayer intention, which is specific.

26 Sep

As Doctors Euthanize Patients and Harvest Their Organs, The Hippocratic Oath is Dead

via LifeNews.com September 17, 2018 at 06:35PM

The Hippocratic Oath is Dead.

“Do no harm” medicine is fast becoming extinct. Contemporary health care is increasingly under the sway of a utilitarian bioethics that makes the elimination of suffering the prime directive—to the detriment of traditional standards of medical morality that deem all human life equally worthy of care and protection.

The prestigious New England Journal of Medicine has been among the instigators of this shift. As early as 2005, the journal published (without significant criticism) the so-called Groningen Protocol—a bureaucratic checklist from the Netherlands that instructs Dutch doctors which terminally ill or seriously disabled babies they can lethally inject. In 2010, NEJM published advocacy in favor of an invidious health-care rationing measure known as the QALY (“quality-adjusted life year”), adoption of which has the effect of limiting care to the disabled and disadvantaged whose lives are bureaucratically rated as lower in quality than the lives of others.

In its September 6, 2018, edition though, NEJM has outdone itself. With Belgium and the Netherlands already allowing the conjoining of organ donation and euthanasia, and with Canada debating whether to follow them off that moral cliff, the journal has published a radical proposal that would demolish the ethical foundation of transplant medicine—the “dead donor rule.”

The rule requires that donors be declared dead before vital organs are procured and that the surgical transplant procedure not be the cause of the donor’s death. In their NEJM piece “Voluntary Euthanasia—Implications for Organ Donation,” Dr. Ian M. Ball and bioethicists Robert Sibbald and Robert D. Truog urge that those rules be loosened in countries where euthanasia is legal:

Although some patients may want to be sure that organ procurement won’t begin before they are declared dead, others may want not only a rapid, peaceful, and painless death, but also the option of donating as many organs as possible and in the best condition possible. Following the dead donor rule could interfere with the ability of these patients to achieve their goals. In such cases, it may be ethically preferable to procure the patient’s organs in the same way that organs are procured from brain-dead patients (with the use of general anesthesia to ensure the patient’s comfort).

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

In other words, rather than wait for the patient’s heart to stop after lethal injection—as currently is done in the Netherlands and Belgium—the patient could be anesthetized and his organs procured while he is still alive.

Bear in mind that legal euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands is not limited to the terminally ill. In Canada, the euthanasia patient’s death need only be “foreseeable,” whatever that means, and even that vague limitation is under court attack. And bear in mind, too, that patients requesting euthanasia usually do not receive any suicide counseling services before they are killed.

Conjoining euthanasia with organ donation would thus send the insidious message to vulnerable people that their deaths have greater social value than their lives. For the particularly vulnerable, that could be the point that tips their decisions. Moreover, following the path the authors urge would transform a life-saving medical sector into one that also ends lives, imposing on transplant specialists the dual role of both healer and killer.

The NEJM was once one of the most powerful institutional opponents of medical utilitarianism. In 1949, it published a famous and powerful argument against allowing such values into the practice of medicine. Writing after the revelation of the depraved practices of the Nazi regime’s doctors, who engaged in infanticide, the killing of disabled adults, and many other infamies in the name of science, Leo Alexander, a psychiatrist and medical adviser to the office of chief counsel at the Nuremberg war crimes trials, warned that the utilitarian infection that destroyed German medical ethics could spread:

Whatever proportions these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who investigated them that they had started from small beginnings. The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived.

All it took for doctors to be led astray, Alexander warned in “Medical Science Under Dictatorship,” was utilitarian calculation, “the infinitely small wedged-in lever from which this entire trend of mind received its impetus”:

Physicians have become dangerously close to being mere technicians of rehabilitation. . . . In an increasingly utilitarian society these patients [with chronic or terminal diseases] are being looked down upon with increasing definiteness as unwanted ballast. A certain amount of rather open contempt for the people who cannot be rehabilitated with present knowledge has developed. . . . At this point Americans should remember that the enormity of a euthanasia movement is present in their own midst.

Would today’s NEJM publish Alexander’s powerful anti-utilitarian advocacy? How could it? By running articles openly supportive of infanticide, health-care rationing by “quality” of life, and now of conjoining euthanasia and organ harvesting, the NEJM has become the very wedge against which Alexander so powerfully inveighed.

Perhaps it is time for a name change. I suggest that the New Euthanasia Journal of Medicine more accurately identifies the values it embraces.

LifeNews.com Note: Wesley J. Smith, J.D., is a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture and a bioethics attorney who blogs at Human Exeptionalism.

11 Sep

How to Pray to End Abortion: Uniting the Church in Prayer to God Through Jesus

via LifeNews.com September 10, 2018 at 03:19PM

A topic central to ending abortion, and so high on the priority list of pro-life activities, is praying to end abortion. In this series of articles, I want to talk more specifically about how exactly we do that.

We are often asked to pray for an end of abortion, and I certainly hope it’s already a key intention in your daily prayers. But there’s a structure to how we pray about abortion. Of course, there’s a structure to how we pray as Christians to begin with: we pray to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit in the holy church. We pray as the body of Christ.

Of course, we pray directly to Jesus also, and directly to the Holy Spirit. Many, though not all, Christians pray for the intercession of Mary and the angels and the saints. But the basic structure of Christian prayer, as Jesus taught us the model for all prayer, the Our Father, is a prayer to the Father through the Son — that is, we recognize that Jesus is the only way to the Father, and that he has opened up that way by giving us the eternal redemption in his shed blood and in his resurrection, and through our baptism, and through our incorporation to his body. That is indeed how and why, having been filled with the spirit, we dare to call God our Father.

But in that overall framework of Christian prayer, we often pray for a specific intention. When we do, especially for an intention as big as ending abortion, there are other characteristics of that particular type of prayer that we want to explore and that can make our prayer against abortion even more effective.

Let’s think of it, first in this way. We’re talking about the slaughter of tens of millions of God’s children in the womb. This is taking place every day, and it’s taking place under the cover of law – “law,” which, of course, is unjust, which is not law at all but rather an act of violence.

And so when we think, first of all, about praying to end abortion, we are talking about praying to end it totally. We’re talking about praying to stop it. There’s no nuance when it comes to what our goal is in regard to abortion. We’re not just trying to speak against it, or bear witness against it, or reduce the numbers of abortions. We are here to end it, to bring it to a total cease; to stop the bloodshed, to stop the killing. It’s a fundamental injustice against not only the rights of that baby but against the rights of the baby’s Creator.

And so we’re praying against the most fundamental evil of our day. Abortion is a slap in the face to God, the Creator. “I formed you in the womb,” he says to Jeremiah. Psalm 139 declares how wonderfully each of us is fashioned in secret, in our mother’s womb. So we know it’s the handiwork of God that abortion is destroying, and abortion is a no to God. But in Christ, God says a great yes. Christ is the great Amen to all God’s promises. And so the way of the Christian, the way of salvation, is always saying yes to God’s plan.

SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you like this pro-life article, please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

And that is what we mean we say a prayer to end abortion. We want to turn the no into a yes. We want to affirm what God is already doing. Mary says, “Be it done to me according to your word.” “Fiat.” Be it done to me. I am receiving a word from God, a choice of God, the will of God. His choice comes first. “It was not you who chose me. It was I who chose you,” Jesus told us. God always teaches us that his will, his choice are first, and then our will and our choices fall in line with that freely. He doesn’t force us. But in that free obedience, we find fulfillment and happiness, and indeed salvation.

So when we are praying against abortion, we are setting ourselves up to be carried into this great yes to God and to his plan and to his designs, specifically in regard to the life of that child, whom God’s choice has already brought into existence. When we pray against abortion, we’re not praying for simply future children who might exist. We’re praying primarily for children who already exist, whose existence has already begun who God thought about from all eternity, and whose plan for them has already begun to unfold. Their DNA characteristics are all already determined. They’re already living and growing inside of their mothers, and now abortion threatens to end and to destroy that.

We’ll continue reflecting on what it means to pray to end abortion in part two of this series.

09 Sep

700 Parents Show Up to School Board Meeting to Demand School Stop Pushing Sex on Their Kids

via LifeNews.com September 7, 2018 at 06:48PM

There’s been something of an awakening happening in California recently. While the state’s faith community led the charge in shutting down the latest attempt to curb the free speech and religious rights of certain counselors and ministries, concerned parents are standing against the implementation of sex education curricula in the state that introduces children, as young as 11, to sexually explicit content. The California legislature passed AB 329 in 2015, changing state law related to sexual health education to include LGBT issues, and sexual practices as part of statewide curriculum for K-12 graders in the state. The bill included a provision allowing parents to pull their child/children from their school’s sexual education class. Parents are taking advantage of this provision now and asking their school boards to implement policies that help them do just that.

Yesterday, about 700 parents showed up at the Chino Valley Board of Education meeting to demand the school district allow parents to opt out of K-12 sex education curricula. Concerned parents from varied ethnicities and backgrounds held signs reading “Let Parents Decide” and “Support Parents’ RIGHT TO DECIDE”. Pastor Jack Hibbs with Calvary Chapel Chino Hills and about 40 other concerned citizens spoke in favor of a proposal to require the school district to notify parents when “comprehensive sexual education”, HIV prevention education, family life education, and even instances which may imperil their child’s physical/bodily privacy on school premises.

The proposal complies with state law by granting parents the right to exclude their children from classes that teach them inappropriate sexual activity and impose an LGBT agenda on children. Parents are right to be concerned about sexual “health” curriculum in their schools that encourage children to explore certain graphic sexual acts with one another as young as 7th grade. The proposed policy would give parents ample time to shield their child from “comprehensive sexual education”. Let’s hope the Board of Education listens to the hundreds of parents who showed up and enact this sensible policy.

Parents across the country need to be cognizant of how sexual and gender ideologues are co-opting school boards and sexual health curricula to change sexual and gender norms of future generations. Changes in sexual health curriculums should steer children away from risky sexual behavior, by encouraging them to abstain from sexual activity all together until they’re married, not encourage them to explore sexual acts and identities. Sexual education programs, like California’s, will only serve to perpetuate sexually-transmitted infections (which, according to the CDC, are already at record highs) and a “hook-up” culture that tells young men and women their self-worth comes from the number of sexual partners they have.

SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you like this pro-life article, please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

What’s at stake is the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, not the state. When it comes to sensitive, controversial, or even inappropriate subject matter, parents — not bureaucrats, teachers, or any other government official — should have the final say in what their children will be exposed to. It’s bad enough the state of California wants to implement objectionable sex education programs for young children, worse yet would be a failure of local school boards to allow parents to protect their children from harmful sex education programs.

Next month the Chino Valley Board of Education will have an opportunity to approve this common-sense measure. Let’s pray they do the right thing by the parents of their school district and equip them with the ability to exclude their children from harmful “comprehensive sexual education.”

LifeNews Note: Tony Perkins is the president of the Family Research Council.

09 Sep

Kavanaugh Tells Senate That Government Can’t Force Christian Groups to Pay for Abortions

via LifeNews.com September 6, 2018 at 06:21PM

During questioning today by pro-abortion Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono, Judge Brett Kavanaugh defended his decision in a key case ruling against the Obama HHS mandate that forced Hobby Lobby, Little Sisters of the Poor and other Christian-run businesses and organizations to fund abortion drugs in their employee health care plans.

Priests for Life, a pro-life organization, was one of many that filed suit against the mandate and Kavanaugh ultimately sided with Priests for Life in its case against the HHS abortion mandate.The appeals court judge indicated the mandate was a substantial burden against the pro-life group’s religious views because it would have fined the pro-life group thousands upon thousands of dollars for failing to pay for abortion drugs.

“When the Government forces someone to take an action contrary to his or her sincere religious belief (here, submitting the form) or else suffer a financial penalty (which here is huge), the Government has substantially burdened the individual’s exercise of religion. So it is in this case,” Kavanaugh wrote.

During her questioning, Sen. Hirono complained that his ruling put Kavanaugh in the position of elevating religions rights ahead of the so-called unlimited right to an abortion.

Doesn’t the ruling assert that “the freedom of religion clause supersedes other rights?” Hirono asked.

“I made it clear in the decision that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has a two-part test,” he said about how the Obama HHS mandate violated federal laws protecting religious liberty.

Kavanaugh added, “I concluded that penalizing someone thousands and thousands of dollars for failing to fill out a form because of their religious beliefs was wrong.”

SIGN THE PETITION: Vote to Confirm Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh

During previous questioning, Kavanaugh made it clear that the pro-life businesses and groups in question were opposed to being forced to pay for “abortion-inducing drugs.”

Kavanaugh replied to pro-life Senator Ted Cruz: “In that case, they said filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objected to.”

Observers of the hearing on Twitter noticed the exchange:

Father Frank Pavone, National Director; Janet Morana, Executive Director, and Alveda King (niece of Martin Luther King, Jr.), full-time director of Civil Rights for the Unborn for Priests for Life, were named plaintiffs in the case. All of them informed LifeNews after his nomination that they support Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination.

“Judge Kavanaugh understands the importance of religious liberty to all Americans,” Father Pavone said in comments to Lifenews. “That was clear in his dissenting opinion in our case, Priests for Life vs. HHS, which eventually made it to the Supreme Court. He’s exactly the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court at this point in time.”

Sarah Pitlyk, a former law clerk to Judge Kavanaugh and special counsel for the Thomas More Society, which is a leading pro-life legal group, says Kavanaugh has an excellent record and perhaps the best record of any of the finalists president Trump is considering. As she writes about the Priests for Life case:

During the Obama administration, he voted in Priests for Life v. HHS to invalidate the so-called accommodation to the contraceptive mandate, which required religious organizations to sign a form facilitating access to contraceptives for their employees. Judge Kavanaugh was one of few federal judges (Neil Gorsuch was another) to hold that the law imposed a “substantial burden” on the organizations’ exercise of religious liberty, and one of even fewer to conclude that the contraceptive-mandate accommodation violated the law. The Supreme Court later vindicated his position by vacating decisions that upheld the contraceptive-mandate accommodation.

09 Sep

Planned Parenthood Will Spend $20 Million on Pro-Abortion Candidates Trying to Take Over the Senate

via LifeNews.com September 5, 2018 at 04:34PM

It is mind-boggling just how much the abortion giant Planned Parenthood spends to influence elections.

On Wednesday, the largest abortion provider in America announced a political spending campaign of $20 million to elect pro-abortion lawmakers to Congress in November, Roll Call reports.

Planned Parenthood Votes plans to use the money to hold rallies and run door-to-door canvassing in Arizona, Nevada, New Hampshire, Florida, Minnesota, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, according to the report.

It plans to work with Color of Change PAC, the Service Employees International Union and Center for Community Change Action to try to put the U.S. Senate and House back into the hands of pro-abortion Democrats.

Here’s more:

Deirdre Schiefling, executive director of Planned Parenthood Votes, said it was the largest ground game ever organized by Planned Parenthood.

“This is all fuel to an already raging fire,” Schiefling said, adding that “days are numbered” for any politician who opposes abortion rights.

Of particular concern is the U.S. Senate, which currently is holding hearings on U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. If confirmed, he would be a fifth conservative justice on the high court, opening up the possibility of more abortion restrictions or even the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

If pro-abortion Democrats regain control of the Senate, however, they could block future nominees to the Supreme Court and other federal courts, and continue to block pro-life legislation such as measures defunding Planned Parenthood.

SIGN THE PETITION! Congress Must De-Fund Planned Parenthood Immediately

The abortion chain is throwing a lot of money into the mid-term elections in hopes of its allies regaining the Senate. In March, it announced plans to spend $20 million on TV and digital ads, mailers and on-the-ground efforts. Then in April, Planned Parenthood and several partner groups released a $30 million election budget to take over Congress.

Abortion activists said their campaign targets include infrequent voters, young women and people of color, according to the report.

Republicans narrowly hold the U.S. Senate. However, they have too few votes to overcome filibusters on key pro-life bills such as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and bills to defund Planned Parenthood. Just a few more pro-life wins in the Senate could see important pro-life legislation passed. A few losses could bring pro-abortion Democrats back into power.

Two years ago, Planned Parenthood spent more than $38 million to back Hillary Clinton and other pro-abortion candidates in 2016.

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion business in America, aborting approximately 320,000 unborn babies every year. Its most recent annual report showed a record income of $1.46 billion, with about half a billion dollars coming from taxpayers.

In December, the U.S. Department of Justice said it is investigating whether the abortion chain illegally sold aborted baby body parts.

05 Sep

Massive Pro-Life Protest With 20,000 People Forces Guatemala to Cancel Bill to Legalize Abortions

via LifeNews.com September 5, 2018 at 02:22PM

Last month, pro-lifers celebrated as a bill to legalise abortion was rejected by the senate of Argentina. However, in Guatemala, it didn’t even come to a vote, as pressure from the pro-life majority forced women’s groups to drop a clause that would legalise abortion in some circumstances.

A bill sponsored by the leftist Convergencia opposition party had included a clause that would  allow underage girls that have been the victims of sexual abuse to abort in the first 12 weeks.

Defending human life

Guatemala only allows abortion when the mother’s life is at risk, and has strongly opposed any moves to impose widespread abortion. Last year, the military blocked a Dutch ship distributing illegal abortion pills, saying it would defend “human life and the laws of our country”.

On Sunday 20,000 people, backed by the Catholic and Evangelical churches, took to the streets in protest of the bill and in support of life and family.  This fierce opposition forced activists into a hasty retreat, leading to them deciding to remove the clause yesterday.

Paula Barrios from Women Transforming the World (a project of the UN Population Fund, which has been known to support coercive abortion and involuntary sterilisation), told AFP “we’re not ready to talk about” abortion in Guatemala.”

REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.

Fight across Latin America

Without the abortion clause, the bill, which aims to provide social and educational support for girls who become pregnant, is likely to be adopted by Parliament. Also due to be debated is a bill which as well as toughening abortion laws, prohibits same-sex marriage and defines family as being limited to a father, mother and children.

The fight around the right to life for the unborn is continuing across Latin America, with ongoing proposals for liberalising abortion in Chile and Brazil, but the victory in Guatemala and the recent victory in Argentina shows that a united pro-life effort can be enough to uphold the rights of the unborn.

LifeNews Note: Courtesy of SPUC. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children is a leading pro-life organization in the United Kingdom.

02 Sep

McMaster administration seeks federal permission to exclude abortion providers

via abortion – Google News August 27, 2018 at 02:22PM



Abortion providers in South Carolina may be cut off from Medicaid funding if the federal government approves a request submitted last week by Gov. Henry McMaster’s administration. 

In a document sent to the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on Thursday, state officials acknowledged that critics have called the request a “disgraceful, thinly veiled attempt to defund Planned Parenthood.”

McMaster has been recently vocal about stripping Planned Parenthood of any government money. In July, he vetoed $16 million in family planning funds from the Medicaid agency’s budget to stop a small fraction of it from ending up at Planned Parenthood. One week later, he instructed Medicaid to continue funding family planning but asked agency officials to exclude Planned Parenthood clinics from its provider network. 

While government money may not be used to pay for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest or when a mother’s life is jeopardized by her pregnancy, abortion clinics in South Carolina offer other health care services, such as pelvic exams, that qualify for Medicaid reimbursement. 

In response to McMaster’s executive order, Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit against his administration in late July, arguing that Medicaid beneficiaries have a right to seek family planning services at the provider of their own choosing. 

None of this was mentioned in the letter McMaster sent Thursday to the federal government. Instead, he wrote, the S.C. Medicaid agency wants to improve “preconception care” for low-income beneficiaries of the program. 

“South Carolina has made great strides in recent years to improve infant and maternal health among Medicaid beneficiaries,” McMaster wrote. “To continue this success, we will pursue a comprehensive approach to care that manages a myriad of health services for our beneficiaries, supports clinical practices that integrate care, and promotes providers that seek to improve the collective health and well-being of both parents and children.”

South Carolina has a higher infant mortality rate than most states. Meanwhile, as the number of babies born here has steadily decreased over the past decade, the number admitted to neonatal intensive care units each year has climbed.

Data published by the state health department shows nearly 1,000 woman gave birth in South Carolina last year having received no prenatal care at all. And 11 counties lack a single OB-GYN. 

If approved, abortion providers would not be eligible to offer health care services to Medicaid beneficiaries. State officials explained in their application the program will focus on providers that can “adequately care for the overall health needs of the Medicaid members they serve.”

Furthermore, the application argues, health care delivered outside the patient’s “primary care medical home results in fragmented care and threatens the integrity of the delivery model. Identifying and treating chronic disease, such as diabetes and hypertension, are critically important to ensuring high quality preconception care.”

In the official application, state officials objected to the idea that McMaster’s request is “political in origin.” S.C. Medicaid spokeswoman Colleen Mullis said the federal government is not bound by a specific time frame in making a decision about the request. Texas submitted a request last year to exclude abortion providers and has not received an answer. 

McMaster spokesman Brian Symmes declined to respond to criticism about the governor’s proposal. 

A Planned Parenthood spokeswoman did not immediately respond to questions. 






Reach Lauren Sausser at 843-937-5598. 



02 Sep

Planned Parenthood Clinic Loses Its License Because It Can’t Find Anyone to Kill Babies in Abortions

via LifeNews.com August 27, 2018 at 10:32AM

A Missouri Planned Parenthood can’t abort unborn babies any more after it lost its license earlier this month.

The Kansas City facility has been struggling to find a new abortionist since March. Without one, the abortion facility was not able to complete its annual state inspection in June, a requirement for licensure.

KCUR reports the Kansas City facility’s license expired on Aug. 10 because of the incomplete inspection.

Recently, the facility managed to find a new abortionist, but the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services says it must begin the inspection process again to receive a new license, according to the report.

Planned Parenthood complained about the inspection requirement, telling the news outlet that it already addressed the deficiencies that state inspectors found.

“We met our deadlines and submitted things to them as requested and, without any other information from the department, we hear that our license has expired, with no response to our application until after the date of expiration,” said Emily Wales, chief compliance lawyer for the abortion chain.

Not having an abortionist was just one of several deficiencies that state health inspectors discovered. Another involved the facility’s compliance with the state informed consent law, which requires that patients receive information about abortion risks and alternatives, the report states. The facility also is not in compliance with a law requiring admitting privileges to a nearby hospital in case of patient emergencies.

SIGN THE PETITION! Congress Must De-Fund Planned Parenthood Immediately

A Planned Parenthood spokesperson said they have been referring patients to other facilities for abortions.

The Kansas City facility had been open for only nine months when it closed because it could not find anyone willing to abort unborn babies. According to Operation Rescue, the abortion facility did abortions twice a week, but its abortion numbers were lower than expected and many women did not return for abortion appointments after the state mandated 72-hour waiting period.

The pro-life group reported:

For example, during their first week of abortion services last September, eight out of eleven women who received informed consent for abortions failed to return, thanks to pro-life activists who offered assistance and information to Planned Parenthood’s potential abortion customers.

This leaves only two communities in Missouri that still conduct abortions. While the Reproductive Health Services Planned Parenthood facility in St. Louis facility remains busy, the Columbia facility only conducts abortions two days per month, according to local pro-life leader Kath Forck, who heads up the 40 Days for Life campaigns there.

Planned Parenthood also had plans to open abortion facilities in Joplin and Springfield, but it has not been able to meet licensing requirements at those locations either.