Abortion: It’s A Hitler Thing

Hitler, enjoying the article referenced below.

I happened today upon a charming little piece of work entitled “Why Defunding Planned Parenthood Will Bankrupt America.”  The gist of the article, which the author helpfully puts in bold letters, is that abortion will save us all money. Yes, folks, you heard it here: it’s much cheaper to kill human beings than to let them grow up and be a drain on society.

This is an argument I hear pretty often when talking to people about abortion. After I school them in basic biology so they have no choice but to stop telling me the embryo is not a separate human being, they fall back on utilitarian arguments, or what I like to call the Hitler Thing. “Crime has gone down since Roe v. Wade,” they’ll say. Or, “What would we do with all those babies?”

I usually reply with, “Well, you know, I don’t really have all the answers to crime or ‘overpopulation’ (by now it’s late and I don’t feel like getting into the fact that overpopulation is a myth). I don’t know that I can give you a simple prescription for how to make life better for human beings, but I know what the answer isn’t: killing the weakest and smallest human beings.”

I encourage you to read the article I mentioned so you can see the Hitler Thing at work. It sounds just as elegant and reasonable as Der Fuhrer’s “final solution” to the Jewish problem must have seemed to Germans in the 1930s. As a pro-life activist, don’t be tripped up by the utilitarian argument. Learn how to argue against it. Remind any anti-lifer who attempts to use the Hitler Thing on you that society exists for people, and not the other way around. Recommending we kill humans because there’s too much crime or not enough food is like burning down your house because you have termites, or sawing a few inches off your legs because your pants don’t fit.

Our president, the man we elected to the highest office in the nation, opposed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003. He didn’t vote against it because he wasn’t in Congress at the time, but in a speech to Planned Parenthood in 2007 he said:

Some people argue that the federal ban on abortion was just an isolated effort aimed at one medical procedure—that it’s not part of a concerted effort to roll back the hard-won rights of American women. That presumption is also wrong.

That’s it, you guys. I admit it. I oppose Partial Birth Abortion not because I have a problem with half-born babies being stabbed in the back of the neck with scissors so their brains can be sucked out with a vacuum, but because I can’t stand the idea of women having equal rights. You got me!

This is the kind of moral upside-downness that pervades our culture. In whatever passes for morality in Obama’s mind, denying women equal rights with men is a far worse than stabbing babies in the back of the neck with scissors, never mind that it is beyond me what “equal rights for women” has to do with abortion. Men don’t get pregnant, but if they did, I’d have a problem with them aborting their babies, too.

Until we as a culture recognize that abortion is inherently evil and must be prohibited, we have unfailing proof that our moral compass is pointed in the wrong direction. Many of the same people who sob their eyes out because gay couples can’t register at Macy’s have no problem with women killing their unborn children for any reason at all. This tells us there is something terribly wrong with our morals: namely, that as a nation we no longer have any.

Why Rush Limbaugh is Wrong about Abortion & the Casey Anthony Case

In one of his recent broadcasts, Rush Limbaugh, while talking about the tragic Casey Anthony story, said this:

 “You know, what I don’t understand about it is they’re [the media] all card-carrying liberals.
When does the death of a child bother them? I’ve never seen them get so upset
over the death of a child. If the child had died, what, two years earlier in the womb
this woman would be a star. She’d be a hero. “

I’ve listened to the audio from that excerpt several times now, and every time I hear it, I’m bothered a little more. Why? Because Rush is assuming something about pro-abortion-choice people that is very rarely true.

OF COURSE abortion advocates are bothered by the murder of two-year-old Caylee Anthony. Everyone is! Here is something pro-life people have common ground with virtually the entire planet on: it’s wrong to murder two-year-old girls.

What most abortion advocates disagree with pro-life people on is whether the preborn are valuable human beings in the same way that Caylee was.

To say that abortion advocates are inconsistent by feeling outrage over Caylee Anthony’s murder and not about abortion is the ultimate example of an informal logical fallacy called “begging the question,” or assuming what you’re trying to prove.

Yes, it’s inconsistent IF the preborn are valuable human beings like you and I, which is exactly what I believe and defend. But most abortion advocates currently disagree. They think the preborn is more comparable to a mole or a tumor that, if allowed to live, will eventually become a full human being, but not until that being has the present capacity to exhibit one or more functions, like consciousness, viability or breathing oxygen through the lungs. It makes perfect sense for them to feel outrage over Caylee’s murder and not about the killing of a bunch of pre-human moles, and if I thought that the preborn were merely pre-human moles, I would agree with them! There would be a HUGE difference between removing a pre-human mole and murdering a two-year-old girl!

On a side note, there’s a smaller segment of the pro-abortion-choice movement that believes the preborn ARE full human beings like you and me, but that they’re unique dependency on the mother’s body is what gives the mother the right to abort, to protect her bodily integrity. We need to be prepared to dialogue with these people too, but the Casey Anthony story doesn’t apply to them either. They would say that if Casey Anthony indeed did kill her daughter, it would have been morally wrong because her daughter (Caylee) was not dependent on Casey’s body in the same way she was as an embryo or fetus. Thus, I’m focusing on the larger segment of pro-abortion-choice people in this article, who also believe that the preborn is not like you and me, but more comparable to a tooth right before it’s pulled by a dentist.

I think there IS a way to use Caylee’s story while talking about abortion, without begging the question. I’ll demonstrate question begging first, and then what I believe is a more appropriate method.

Begging the Question:

Me: Did you hear about the Caylee Anthony story?
Abortion Advocate: Yeah, isn’t that horrible?
Me: Absolutely. It was really difficult to hear the details of that case.
Abortion Advocate: Yeah, it’s tragic how many stories are out there about parents going crazy and killing their kids.
Me: Totally. But you believe in a woman’s right to have an abortion, don’t you?
Abortion Advocate: Well, yes…
Me: Then it’s inconsistent for you to say that what happened to Caylee Anthony was horrible, because you’re for the killing of 3,300 pre-toddlers every day!
Abortion Advocate: Wait, what?
Me: Yeah, because obviously there’s no good difference between a born toddler and a preborn embryo, so you have to either be fine with killing both, or you’ll want to protect both. You can’t have it both ways.
Abortion Advocate: I don’t want to talk to you anymore.

Notice in that illustration that I assumed the preborn is a valuable human being, instead of making a case for the humanity of the preborn. Watch the difference in the next version:

Not Begging the Question:

Me: Did you hear about the Caylee Anthony story?
Abortion Advocate: Yeah, isn’t that horrible?
Me: Absolutely. It was really difficult to hear the details of that case.
Abortion Advocate: Yeah, it’s tragic how many stories are out there about parents going crazy and killing their kids.
Me: Yeah, as someone who is pro-life, I’m particularly concerned about that.
Abortion Advocate: What do you mean?
Me: Well, I think that children are being killed by their parents a lot more often than we hear about, because I believe that preborn humans are just as valuable as born humans.
Abortion Advocate: Why would you think that? Fetuses are nothing like toddlers.
Me: Yeah, it may sound weird at first if you haven’t thought about it before, but here’s my case. We know from the science of embryology that after the fertilization process is over, the result is a unique, individual, whole human being that is biologically alive. (For example, it’s growing, and dead things don’t grow.) We also know that being is a member of the human species because humans beget humans, but I believe a third thing too: I believe that this living human is valuable.
Abortion Advocate: What do you mean when you say “valuable?”
Me: I believe all humans are intrinsically valuable, and have basic rights, regardless of how much we benefit society. In fact, I’m not sure we can make sense of the idea of “equal human rights” unless you agree with that. Many pro-choice people think that all humans are equally valuable after they’re born, or once they’re conscious, or viable, or exhibits one of several other functions. But I think we’re valuable even before we can do things like live on our own, and have conscious awareness.
Abortion Advocate: You’re losing me. Why can’t consciousness be what makes you valuable? My own consciousness sure is valuable to me!
Me: Definitely! But think of the ramifications of basing the value of a human being on consciousness. It’s true that the preborn aren’t conscious, at least not in the way most people use the term. But neither are newborns. Nor are one-month old infants, for that matter. So if the present capacity to be consciously aware is really what gives humans the right to life, there would be nothing wrong with killing infants that are not yet conscious either.
Abortion Advocate: Well, I know I’m against that!
Me: Yeah, me too! So, because I believe the preborn qualify as full human beings like you and me, I’m deeply concerned that more than 3,000 children a day are being killed, and yet most people aren’t as outraged about that as they are about Caylee Anthony, because while everyone agrees that Caylee was fully human, many don’t agree that the preborn are fully human. But I believe all humans are equally valuable, and that we shouldn’t discriminate against humans based on race, ethnicity or gender, nor should we discriminate based on size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependency.
Abortion Advocate: I’m not sure that I agree with your case, but let me chew on it a while.
Me: That would be fine. Maybe I could buy you a cup of coffee in a few weeks and we can chat some more. I’ve been doing a lot of the talking today, and I’d love to learn more about your views on this subject.
Abortion Advocate: That sounds great. Thanks!

Yes, that was longer, but I never begged the question either. I made a case for the humanity of the preborn, and then explained why I think Caylee Anthony is comparable to the preborn, even though she was older and able to do many more things functionally than the preborn can.

One final warning to pro-life advocates: If you do use Caylee’s story to talk about abortion right now, you’re in danger of appearing to some like you’re trying to hijack a horrific story about a dead toddler in an attempt to push an agenda. Imagine a pro-life organization that put out a press release on September 11, 2001 saying, “did you know that more unborn babies die from abortion every day than people that died in the twin towers this morning?” I make that point when talking about abortion statistics during presentations today, to give those numbers more meaning, but if I did that on the day those 3,000 people in the World Trade Center died, it would have been seen by many as a cheap, political bait-and-switch. Be mindful about the way you talk about this story, and to whom.

While I think it’s unfair to criticize abortion advocates for seeming inconsistent for being outraged about Caylee Anthony and not abortion, I DO think that the same criticism can be made of pro-life people that are more outraged about Caylee Anthony than abortion. I think many pro-life advocates hear horrific stories like this one or what happened to Laci and Connor Peterson, and understandably express outrage. But did you know that in 2008, the same year Caylee was killed, 94,360 unborn children also lost their lives in the state of Florida? Do you feel just as upset about their deaths? What about the thousands of preborn human beings that are being slaughtered today in abortion facilities across the country? How about tomorrow? Think of the young human beings that are alive today whose hearts will stop beating tomorrow because their heart got sucked down a tube and into a plastic cup along with the rest of their body parts. Are they deserving of the same outrage, even though their manner of death is currently legal?

They should be.

The days of being “pro-life in name only” are over. We need people to stand up and do something about this. We need people to educate themselves, at least enough to make a clear and concise defense of the pro-life position. We need those people to be talking to the pro-choice people around them. We need those people to be praying and counseling outside of abortion facilities, being the last hope for the preborn children at that clinic. We need those people to give money generously to groups that are putting on big projects to protect the preborn. We need those people to vote for life on Election Day.

Because no matter how outraged you are about Caylee Anthony’s murder today, 3,300 other human beings will be killed tomorrow.

 

Josh Brahm is the Director of Education at Right to Life of Central California’s Fresno/Madera office, and host of  “Life Report: Pro-Life Talk | Real World Answers.” Get more of Josh’s unique perspectives on pro-life topics at www.ProLifePodcast.net.

PPNNE’s Actions in New Hampshire Reveal Its Abortion-minded Agenda

In the wake of New Hampshire’s recent decision to strip Planned Parenthood of $1.8 million in taxpayer funds, the abortion giant is again demonstrating to the American people their single-minded dedication to their abortion agenda. In New Hampshire, Planned Parenthood is willing to defend abortion at the cost of women’s healthcare. A recent editorial article analyzes the situation well:

The council [of New Hampshire] voted 3-2 against the [$1.8 million] contract primarily because Planned Parenthood performs abortions.

Its gravy train halted, Planned Parenthood got aggressive. It made a poster that features Executive Councilor Dan St. Hillaire’s face on the inside of a birth control pill container. The text states that St. Hillaire (personally, it is implied) denied women “health care” and “access to birth control.”

But the Executive Council voted to approve state contracts with 11 other community services groups that provide health care to women. The other groups just don’t provide abortions. So the issue is not “health care” for women; it is abortion. That and Planned Parenthood’s access to easy money.

As with any organization, Planned Parenthood’s prioritizes with the use of their revenues—and by this metric, it is clear that the organization’s priority is abortion. While Planned Parenthood is cutting down on contraception and cancer screening services even as abortion services remain untouched, the NH abortion provider is also launching a sizable PR campaign to defend its access to taxpayer dollars. The article goes on to explain:

Planned Parenthood claims that the Executive Council is denying services to women, but Reuters reported over the weekend that public funds from that contract make up only 20 percent of Planned Parenthood’s budget in New Hampshire. Given that Planned Parenthood claimed it had to restrict services for lack of funds, it is interesting that it had enough money to make fancy posters and go on a PR blitz. The Executive Council certainly didn’t order the organization to cut services for women, but continue spending on marketing, political activism and executive pay.

As this incident helpfully illustrates, one of Planned Parenthood’s core functions is political activism. The council was right to channel its community-service money to groups that focus more on services and less on politics.

Interesting that they could pay for the abortionist’s salary as well as the PR blitz. Like the Joker says in The Dark Knight, “You see, in their last moments, people show you who they really are.”

Myth Vs. Reality: Planned Parenthood And Black Genocide

Give me a break.

Have you ever seen a Planned Parenthood magazine ad? If you know anything about the reality of PP, you’ll find them quite funny.

They usually depict smiling, interracial groups of people, enjoying freedom of “choice” in their own special ways, usually in bright sunlight, with professionally whitened teeth.

Have you ever been inside a Planned Parenthood clinic? It would be interesting to see how many new customers they’d bring in if they used a snapshot of one of their waiting rooms as an advertisement. Here in Texas, what I have mostly seen are dingy walls, birth control brand logos on every poster and calendar and clock, uncomfortable chairs, dirty carpet, and of course, young, desperate-looking women, many of them black or Hispanic, sitting alone or with young, desperate-looking men.

The old adage “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer” must be embroidered on a throw pillow in Cecile Richards’ house. These minority women living at or below the poverty line, the ones PP wants you to think they are helping, are the “human weeds” this organization was invented to destroy.

Planned Parenthood may provide something in the way of actual health care for some women. (Then again, if the PP agenda was not so vociferously pushed on children, we probably wouldn’t need quite so many STD checks and penicillin shots.) But any help they provide is incidental. Planned Parenthood was founded to curtail the “mongrel” population. Margaret Sanger wanted to discourage poor people of color from breeding, and to this day, whether they admit it or not, the foundation she created carries out her purpose.

Abortion kills a disproportionate number of black babies. The preceding link uses Center for Disease Control statistics to show that abortion kills more black Americans than the seven other leading causes of death combined. When you consider that fact, and then consider that Planned Parenthood’s original raison d’etre was to, well, kill a disproportionate number of black babies, you realize why it is horrifying to see a black person holding a “Keep Abortion Legal” sign.

Of course, most people – of all races– have bought the lie that Planned Parenthood is here to help them, to provide flavored condoms and pap smears and other forms of tender loving kindness. When – and only when – the black population of America learns the truth about Margaret Sanger’s genocidal organization, we will have a real chance of eradicating it – and abortion – from our midst.

Unfortunately, there is not yet enough of an outcry from the black community against this nefarious organization. Too many black politicians drop the pro-life plank from their platform when they realize it won’t fly with their party. Jesse Jackson famously went from pro-life to pro-choice for political reasons in the 1980s before his unsuccessful bids for the Democratic candidacy for president.

One of the many other black Americans who has bought the PP lie – in cash – is our President. In 2007, he spoke in front of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. In reading his speech, a shocking revelation is made. Here are Obama’s words, verbatim:

“In 1966, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America gave its first Margaret Sanger Award to Martin Luther King, Jr. And in his acceptance speech, which was delivered by his strong and wonderful wife Coretta, Dr. King wrote, ‘Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by non-violent, direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her.’”

Upon researching further, one finds this:

“Like all poor, Negro and white, they have many unwanted children. This is a cruel evil they urgently need to control. There is scarcely anything more tragic in human life than a child who is not wanted… Negroes were once bred by slave owners to be sold as merchandise. They do not welcome any solution which involves population breeding as a weapon. They are instinctively sympathetic to all who offer methods that will improve their lives and offer them fair opportunity to develop and advance as all other people in our society.”

That was Dr. King himself, in his speech accepting the award.

Dr. King spoke out against abortion on many occasions, and in 1966 abortion was still illegal and therefore not provided at Planned Parenthood.  It was birth control and sterilization that Sanger believed could be used to keep “unwanted” populations down. What is obvious here is that Martin Luther King, Jr., was deceived. Even our nation’s most famous and celebrated advocate of civil rights for black Americans misunderstood Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger.

Which was exactly her plan. Here she is in her own words:

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Sanger apparently found her “colored ministers.” One of them, sadly, was Dr. King, and the other is President Barack Obama, who said in his speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, “There will always be people, many of goodwill, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield. “

Recently, when the House voted to defund Planned Parenthood (it was shot down in the Senate), Obama defended the organization, saying in response to video evidence acquired by Live Action showing PP breaking the law: “I think sometimes these issues get manufactured…”

Does anyone else feel an overwhelming urge for a slow, sarcastic clap? You kind of have to hand it to Planned Parenthood. They’ve spent the past century legally killing babies, a disproportionate number of whom are black, and what have the country’s most prominent black leaders done but thank and laud them? In effect, they have said, Thank you for killing us, thank you for sterilizing us, thank you for encouraging our teenagers to have premarital sex, leading to more abortions, more poverty, and more struggle!

The message is clear for black leaders like Dr. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., and an outspoken pro-life activist. The message is clear for organizations like Live Action who continue to expose Planned Parenthood. On this fundamental issue, they will not yield, so you must not yield.

For more on this issue, see the film Maafa 21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Kristen Walker is Vice President of New Wave Feminists. Her personal blog can be found here.

Barack Obama, the Pro-Life President?

Three years ago an anonymous person in a an online discussion forum informed me that abortion was an issue that no one cares about. It was unimportant to voters. This same person boldly proclaimed that their man had won -Obama, the abortion president. They said they had campaigned for Barack Obama and were regular donors to Planned Parenthood and NARAL. Roe V Wade was law. Abortion was a settled issue. The Freedom of Choice Act would be signed. Being pro-life was a waste of time. You might have thought abortion was going to become a literal add-on to the Bill of Rights, if not already so in effect.

Barack Obama has been a galvanizer in the pro-life movement however and the best example of extraordinary pro-choice hubris since Margaret Sanger. His personal list of pro-abortion efforts is long and we won’t revisit them here for lack of time and space. Along the way though, Obama has lied to everyone from the American people to the Pope. He actually promised Benedict XVI fewer abortions. Strangely, recent data would suggest that in some ways when it comes to enacting legislation to reduce abortions, having Obama for a president does work, even President Obama himself, does not.

Since the election of Barack Obama, there has been perhaps more pro-life activity than ever before. Live Action has continued to expose various Planned Parenthood abuses while they and dozens of other pro-life websites and blogs provide pro-life updates. The explosion of Facebook as a social network has changed more than middle east politics. It has become virtual web connecting thousands of at home pro-life activists in you might call, “a pro-life spring”. In addition, 40 Days for Life has gone global in 247 cities while clinics have closed and many others have reduced their staffing and hours.

The election of Obama has had an interesting effect. The de-funding and restriction of abortion has become pandemic. Obama’s Kronkite, The Daily Kos even abandoned it’s usual sneering pro-abortion tone for the length of one whole article expressing concern about pro-life legislation. Wasn’t victory secure? They were promised more abortions! The Obama effect was not readily apparent. Obama’s pro-abortion policies could have left some discouraged, yet this past January’s March for Life saw the largest gathering of pro-life supporters ever. More than 300,000 peaceful persons -roundly ignored by the media.

It’s harder to ignore a protest when it happens in the voting booth however and more so in the state houses across America. People are tired of funding the industry responsible for 1.2 million recorded elective abortions every year. They are tired of an industry that does not play by house rules and refuses to treat women like patients even while they boast of providing health care. Knowledge is power. More women than ever who have regretted their abortions are sounding the alarm. Want to know how good a job a business is doing? Just ask the customer. It would seem that abortion is not an issue that no one cares about.

So I guess thanks are in order. Thank you Mr President! Thank you for being such a wonderful pro-life catalyst. Thank you for lighting a fire under more people than ever and lighting a fire in their hearts for the unborn. Your presidency will not be in vain. Despite all your efforts Mr President, there are prayerful people every day outside abortion clinics across America giving people hope and saving lives because hope cannot be sold. It is something that is given. Thank you, for reminding people that human life cannot be bought so cheaply. You can buy abortions, but you can’t buy consciences.

NPR Highlights Pro-Life Victories

NPR ran one of those fun stories over the weekend that gives an overview of pro-life efforts and accomplishments on a state level for the past several months. There are a lot of them–and in the press, it makes our movement look strong, determined, and organized. Which, of course, it is.

I’ve highlighted an abortion supporter’s take on current pro-life strategy before here, and in the NPR article, there’s an interesting quote from Marjorie Dannenfelser about the same topic:

The heartbeat and fetal pain efforts, as well as new state laws requiring abortion clinics to show women sonograms of their fetuses, are a potent new tactic advanced by the anti-abortion movement.

There should be no mystery that our goal is the end of abortion because it’s the taking of a human life,” Dannenfelser says. “And science-based arguments are often the ones that rule the day — the measures of pain, when you can hear a heartbeat, see a sonogram.

“These give us our best chance,” she says.

The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was a public education win for pro-lifers because of how it illustrated the humanity of the unborn and the inhumanity of abortion. For the same reason, it was also easy to defend in court and secure approval from the SCOTUS. We should be able to apply the same principle, for vastly greater practical effects, in some of the abortion bans being considered and passed today.

Pro-Abortion Center for American Progress: “Abortion Is Slowly Becoming Legal in Name Only”

Abortion supporters are getting very anxious these days. Even as Planned Parenthood fights in court for its funding and pro-abortion lawyers take a few pot shots at some of the milder abortion restrictions to come out in the past year, the movement remains incredibly gun-shy of many new, innovative pro-life laws.

Sally Steenland of the pro-abortion Center for American Progress does a good job of summing up the perfect storm that some pro-life state lawmakers are hoping to create first with 20-week bans, then with heartbeat bills, and then *gasp!*…personhood amendments:

Antichoice activists promoting the 20-week ban have a clear, determined strategy. Their alleged reason for the law is that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, though doctors strongly dispute such a notion. Their real strategy is to invalidate Roe v. Wade without actually having to overrule it. They hope that one of the state laws will be challenged, make its way to the Supreme Court, and be upheld. Linda Theis, a former president of Ohio Right to Life,believes her state’s so-called “heartbeat bill” offers the Supreme Court “an engraved invitation to overturn Roe.”

Once a threshold of fetal pain at 20 weeks is established, they believe it is only a matter of time before they can “prove” that fetuses can feel pain at 12 weeks, or four weeks, or three days. Indeed, the Ohio Assembly just passed legislation that would prohibit abortion after a doctor can detect a fetal heartbeat, which happens at six to seven weeks, before many women even know they are pregnant.

The other side is playing connect-the-dots right now and they are very, very scared by the picture they draw. They’re taking it seriously. Will we take it just as seriously and make their legislative and judicial nightmares come true?

Media Matters’ Spin Machine Breaks

Remember Media Matters, the wannabe news “watchdog” website that breeds blog posts like cockroaches? They’re a very prolific sock-puppet for every group that is not pro-life–and about as teeming with simple, small, yet ever-multiplying dirty content as an unwashed sock, too. I am hesitant to address their latest articles about Live Action because I suspect it will be somewhat like fighting the Hydra of Greek mythology: I will cut off one head only to see it sprout two more in its place–which look exactly the same as the original, of course, but are just a little angrier.

But here goes nothing.

Media Matters thinks Live Action’s new IN Medicaid video is a “hoax” because the video in fact:

has demonstrated that Planned Parenthood’s concerns – that women on Medicaid who rely on Planned Parenthood for preventive health care would lose that access under the Indiana law denying funds to Planned Parenthood – were accurate.

By “that access,” Media Matters means “access to Planned Parenthood”:

To recap: Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards warned that women would not be able to go to Planned Parenthood for preventive care if they lost their funding. Rose claimed that she has “caught on tape” a Planned Parenthood worker in Indiana saying that because of the “new law,” a Medicaid recipient cannot get preventive care at Planned Parenthood.

But Planned Parenthood’s argument against Indiana’s law is not simply that women would “lose their access to Planned Parenthood.” Planned Parenthood could probably get on fine with 9,300 less patients–but according to Planned Parenthood, those patients could not get on fine without Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood’s argument, given by Cecile Richards in a recent press release, is that Indiana’s law:

would have a devastating impact on women’s health and take away health care from thousands of women in Indiana, leaving them at greater risk for undetected cancers, untreated infections and unintended pregnancies.

But in our investigation, Planned Parenthood Indiana clinics admit that Planned Parenthood is not the only option for healthcare that women on Medicaid have. Media Matters thinks the whole controversy about defunding Planned Parenthood is about a tautology, to wit: you can’t defund Planned Parenthood because then people can’t go to Planned Parenthood. In reality, the controversy is about whether or not Planned Parenthood is the only healthcare provider for women in need in Indiana–and the undercover tapes prove that they’re not.

Media Matters has so absurdly misunderstood the point of Live Action’s investigation it is hard to read with a straight face–and I wonder if the author could have written it with one. Apparently we’ve gotten their spin machine spinning so fast it may have broken.

OH House Bans Abortion After Detectable Heartbeat

From Reuters, this exciting news from Ohio yesterday:

The Ohio House of Representatives on Tuesday voted to ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detectable, which can be as early as six weeks.

The House voted 54 to 43 for the ban, along party lines, with most Republicans voting in favor.

If enacted, the law would be a challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling which upheld a woman’s right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, usually at 22-24 weeks.

I’ve never personally had a problem with the “incremental” strategy of eliminating abortion so long as you keep on ticking through more and more “increments.” Now that 6 states have banned abortion at 20 weeks, creating a direct conflict with Roe v. Wade that no pro-abortion groups have challenged even nearly a year after the first ban was passed, it’s time to call their bluff and up the ante on them. Enter Ohio, with a proposal to ban abortion early in the first trimester. This would be effectively a total abortion ban, since almost all abortions (over 90%) don’t even take place until after the baby develops a heartbeat anyway.

Republican Ohio House Speaker William Batchelder said he knows this bill will face a court challenge.

But I’m not so sure. NARAL & co. are hopping mad about this legislation, but will they have the guts to mount a legal challenge if the bill passes in the Senate? Maybe Planned Parenthood and friends will have to–after all, a ban that starts at 5 or 6 weeks, unlike at 20, rather cuts the cord (as it were) on their abortion business…

“We’re writing bills for courts,” he said.

Good. And let’s keep rewriting them until we force the abortion industry into court with us.

Check out Lila’s Commentary from FoxNews.com on Why Planned Parenthood is Irrelevant to Women’s Health

From Fox News:

Indiana has become Ground Zero in the national battle to defund the largest abortion chain in America, Planned Parenthood.

As it well should be.

When I walked into the Bloomington, Indiana Planned Parenthood clinic posing as a 13-year-old girl impregnated by a 31-year-old man, I knew what would happen — because the same thing had happened in all the other Planned Parenthood clinics I had already visited.

The counselor or nurse may acknowledge that she is required by law to report the abuse to Child Protective Services, but then assures me in the strictest confidence that she won’t. Then she will coach me on how to circumvent parental notification laws by going out of state for the abortion, and tells me to lie about her boyfriend’s age. Ultimately, I am promised an abortion and sent out the clinic door–back to the “boyfriend.”

istandwithindiana.com

2011 Breaking Records for Pro-Life Laws Passed

I’m loathe to repost anything from the Daily Kos, but they provided this nifty graphic attributed to the Guttmacher Institute showing legislative trends on abortion for the past 25 years. The volume of pro-life laws passed just in the first half of this year is off the charts.

But, with the occasional exception of landmark bills like the new fetal pain bans, most of these laws have been relatively low-hanging fruit. In the second half of 2011, we still have votes on a Personhood Amendment in Mississippi and a personhood law in Alabama to look forward to–and who knows how many other brave pro-life majorities in state houses across the country will keep pushing the envelope? Prediction: the Supreme Court will hear the case that could overturn Roe in the next 5 years, if we make sure to pass the laws that challenge it.

Even Liberal Pro-Aborts Puzzled by Romney’s SBA Refusal

Michelle Goldberg of The Daily Beast has an insightful analysis of Candidate Romney’s “Weird Abortion Gamble,” as she terms it, in refusing to sign the SBA List’s 2012 Pro-Life Presidential Leadership pledge. It’s also a good blow-by-blow documentation of his shifting self-identification as pro-life vs. “pro-choice.”

On one hand, it seems oddly principled of Romney, a candidate who has always been guided by expediency when it comes to abortion.

But on the other, as I have blogged before, Romney had little to lose by signing the pledge:

Indeed, given Romney’s history, it’s surprising that he’s not bending over backward to shore up his anti-abortion credibility. After all, one thing that activists on both sides can agree on is that following Romney’s pronouncements on choice over the years produces a sort of whiplash. Running against Ted Kennedy for Senate in 1994, he was resolutely pro-choice, citing the death of his brother-in-law’s teenaged sister from a botched abortion as the reason for his conviction. Then, while living in Utah in 2001 and contemplating a political career in that state, he distanced himself from his earlier position. “I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice,” he wrote in a letter to the editor of the Salt Lake City Tribune.

[…]

It could be that this time around, Romney is giving up on the religious right from the outset. Unlike in 2008, he’s skipping Iowa. Maybe he thinks there’s a constituency for moderation in the Republican Party, and that he can somehow turn his mercurial stand on abortion into an advantage. So far, there’s no pro-choice Republican like Rudolph Giuliani in the mix, nor a figure like McCain who’s been butting heads with family-values types for years. In this field, Romney may have no choice but to run to the left of the other candidates on social issues while trying to convince an ever-more right-wing party to make him its tribune. That will be a supremely tricky thing to do, though when it comes to ideological bobbing and weaving, Romney has had many years of practice.

Multiple observers with many different viewpoints are converging on the conclusion that Candidate Romney’s inexcusable refusal to sign a basic pro-life pledge means the obvious–he isn’t really pro-life.