Live Action and Students for Life of America Launch Dear Congress Video Contest to De-Fund Planned Parenthood

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Live Action and Students for Life of America Launch Dear Congress Video Contest to De-Fund Planned Parenthood

Contact: Kate Bryan, [email protected], (323) 454-3304

Mary Powers, Communications Director, Students for Life of America: [email protected]

Live Action, the new media pro-life group responsible for recent undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood aiding and abetting child sex trafficking, has teamed up with Students for Life of America, the nation’s largest pro-life youth organization, to launch a pro-life YouTube video contest for youth who want show why Congress must de-fund Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider.

The contest is open to all high-school and college-age youth (14 to 25). Video entries must be under 5 minutes long and should explain why Congress must de-fund Planned Parenthood of its $363 million in taxpayer subsidies. The deadline for entry is Monday, March 7th at midnight. The top video will win a $1000 prize, a runner-up will receive $500, and Third Prize will receive a Survivors Pro-Life Training Camp Scholarship ($400 value).

“America’s youth see the corruption inside Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry,” said Live Action president Lila Rose. “Visual media is a powerful tool to expose the injustice of abortion from Planned Parenthood’s aiding and abetting of sex trafficking to its violent destruction of the ultimate victim of abortion, the unborn child. This generation is eager to use visual media to communicate the truth about abortion.”

Kristan Hawkins, Executive Director of Students for Life of America (SFLA), says the contest helps show that America’s future is pro-life: “A majority of Americans are now pro-life, and this is in large part because of a new pro-life generation of young people speaking up for the victims of abortion who cannot speak for themselves. This generation will see the end of abortion in America, and they want to get started right now – de-funding Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. There are simply no excuses why Congress should continue funding Planned Parenthood for a single day longer.”

Instructions on how to enter are at Studentsforlife.org and ExposePlannedParenthood.net websites.

###

21 thoughts on “Live Action and Students for Life of America Launch Dear Congress Video Contest to De-Fund Planned Parenthood

  1. The "truth" about abortion is not that it is killing life. That is a given. The real truth about abortion is that all sides are in complete agreement that it's an awful, terrible thing. Everybody in America hopes that abortion rates will be lowered. But the truth of the matter is that de-funding Planned Parenthood is the single worst thing you can do to lower abortion rates. A measly 3% of their services are abortion-related, while 97% of their services go towards preventing unwanted pregnancy. If you want to lower abortion rates, you need to provide affordable contraception, sexual education, support social services and programs that help low income families, and support affordable health care. You're going about this all the wrong way.

    The real truth about abortion is that it is actually much safer for women than going through with pregnancy. By barring women from access to abortion, you are putting their lives in danger: no woman should be forced to go through with a pregnancy and risk her life and health because she does not have access to abortion.

    Reply

    1. Alexa, can you clarify a few things for me? In your comment you state the following:

      -Abortion is killing life
      -Abortion is an awful terrible, thing
      -Everybody in America hopes that abortion rates will be lowered

      But then your last paragraph states that:

      -Abortion is safer for women than going through with a pregnancy
      -No woman should be forced to risk her life by going through with a pregnancy; she should have access to abortion.

      Reply

    2. I can't understand how you can maintain the belief that abortion is 1) Killing life 2) Awful 3) Terrible 4) Too common, but then go on to say that abortion should be an option for women.

      If abortions were not accessible, the rates would surely go down. Abortion rates have actually gone up since birth control became available and the more people that use birth control, the higher the abortion rates have gone. Check the CDC website for yourself. So clearly, handing out cheap (crappy) contraceptive methods is not the answer.

      If abortion is killing life, why do you think it should be an option for women? In what other circumstances is it acceptable to kill innocent human life because they pose a possible (but NOT certain) risk to one's own life?

      Reply

      1. Magdalena, thanks for your questions and discussion!

        There are several reason that I think abortion is killing life & awful, but should also be an option for women:

        — Pregnancy is one of the most dangerous things a woman can go through. No American should be forced to put himself in harm's way in order to save another person's life. If they want to volunteer to do so, then that's great. But we can't force it on people. Under that reasoning, we should also force people to donate all viable kidneys to strangers, as well as donate blood and bone marrow every 2 months, as well as skin for grafts, etc. Think of all the lives we could save if all healthy citizens were legally bound to put their own bodies in harm's way to save the lives of others. Under that reasoning, we should also bring back the military draft and force our young people to put their lives in harm's way to save others. For the same reasons that I don't support doing any of those things, I don't support banning abortion.

        — I anticipate that you will say to the above point that donating organs is different because women choose to have sex and so they should accept the consequences. It's not different, not least because of the extraordinary problem of rape in America. At least one in 6 women will be raped in her lifetime, and some estimates are as much as 1 in 3. If nearly a third of America's women are being forced to have sex against their will (and who knows how many more are being pressured into sex by partners or men in positions of power), it's no different to force those women to bear the children of their rapists than it is to force all Americans to go through physical ordeals to donate parts of their liver, blood, skin, on a regular basis, to those who would otherwise die.

        — Another reason I think abortion should be an option is called the band-aid solution. This is the same reason that I support needle-exchange programs. Obviously drug addiction is a terrible thing and I wish there was less of it. But providing a facility where drug addicts can access clean needles saves lives. Similarly, with abortion, women are going to try to abort no matter what the law says. Just look at history. And if it's illegal, they're going to try it themselves or with questionable doctors. By providing a safe facility where they can do so saves lives.

        — I have a question for you: why do you say that PP hands out "cheap" and "crappy" contraceptive methods? What makes a contraceptive method crappy? What is a NON-crappy contraceptive method, in your opinion? Planned Parenthood provides IUDs, which is the primary contraceptive method that most of the women in the world use outside the US. It's a surgical procedure and it's not cheap. It has a 99.9% effectiveness rate. What is cheap or crappy about this? Are you aware of the actual methods that PP provides, or are you just talking about the pill and condoms?

        — Lastly I have another question for you. I would like your advice. I never want to ever have children; in fact, I never want to get pregnant. I am doing all that I can think of in order to prevent this from ever happening in my lifetime: this includes not having sex with my fiance and taking birth control pills in case I were to get raped (as well as for other medical reasons–many women take the pill for non-contraceptive reasons). The problem is that my fiance wants to have sex after we get married. What should I do in this scenario? Should I ask him to agree to no sex until I'm no longer fertile (~25 years)? The pill isn't 100% and you are calling it "crappy." Is it reasonable to ask him to agree to a sexless marriage? Is this what you would recommend most people do in my situation? How is it possible to really ensure that I absolutely never get pregnant, particularly when I'm married, and particularly when rape is so prevalent in our society? Adoption is not an option for me, because I simply cannot go through with a pregnancy — I would lose my job, lose my body (I'm a professional model) — my entire career would be over instantly. Plus, I really just DO NOT want to get pregnant. How can I make absolutely sure this NEVER happens to me?

        Reply

        1. First, I would challenge you that pregnancy is one of THE most dangerous things a woman can go through. It's a completely natural life process. If you look at history, like you said, you will see that the overwhelming majority of women handle pregnancy just fine. It isn't always "fun" or easy, but our bodies are certainly capable. In fact, women used to deliver their own babies in many cultures. Some probably still do. Pregnancy has certain risks but again, the overwhelming majority of the time, those risks can be managed. Many other things that many women do on a daily basis are risky, some much worse for our health than pregnancy, such as smoking, binge drinking, texting and driving, even exercise has risks. Please stop making pregnancy out to be this huge threat to women's lives. It's disingenuous.

          Reply

          1. I'm sorry if I made it out to be more dangerous than it is! I didn't mean to blow it out of proportion. Of course most women survive pregnancy (today, at least! Not so throughout history). But the facts are that it has way more side effects than abortion, as well as a much higher mortality rate.

            You're growing a human inside you and pushing it out of a tiny little hole. It's a massive ordeal and it's hugely strenuous. The risks can be managed, but just because it's possible to manage them doesn't mean you should be forced to take those risks.

        2. You were wrong to anticipate that I would say that because women CHOOSE to have sex, they must accept the consequences. Whether or not a woman chooses to have sex (although I always hope it is a matter of choice as I think rape is one of the most heinous crimes there is) really has little to do with my stance on abortion. My thought pattern goes like this: Human life has intrinsic value —> Human life begins at conception —> It is wrong to kill human life —-> Abortion is unacceptable in ANY circumstance.

          Reply

        3. I believe your analogy is flawed, but not because of the matter of choice. It is flawed because you are comparing two very different sitations. While I do think that it is commendable to donate blood, organs, etc to help others whose lives are in danger, that is very different. You are comparing someone who is alive and (presumably) dying of a natural cause with someone who is alive and, in most cases, in good health. You are comparing the obligation to intervene to save someone (I do believe there is at least some obligation) with the direct intervention to kill someone. Do I believe ALL human life has dignity and is worth saving? Absolutely. But you're comparing apples and oranges here. If someone is dying despite doctor's best efforts to save them, that is one thing. In that situation, the natural course of that individual's life would, if doctors cannot help them, end in death. With a pregnancy, however, the natural course often ends in healthy births. Even those who are born not 100% healthy can often be saved with proper medical attention. But what you're advocating for is the right to intervene with that natural process and kill another human being.

          Reply

          1. You say that the 2 situations are different because in the organ donation situation, someone is dying because of a natural cause. However, you can get liver damage and require blood transfusions from unnatural things like car crashes, war-related injuries and natural disasters . So it's not really different in terms of the "natural" part. In some cases yes, but in many cases, no. So for argument's sake, let's say the law requires you to donate your blood and organs only in instances where the person is suffering from unnatural causes. Anyone who's just dying an ordinary "natural" death doesn't get organs or blood. Does that change anything for you in the analogy?

            You say: with the person needing an organ or blood, "….the natural course of that individual's life would, if doctors cannot help them, end in death. With a pregnancy, however, the natural course often ends in healthy births."

            Do you know any pregnant women who have been through a whole pregnancy successfully and safely without seeing a doctor or midwife? Doctors are extremely involved in both examples of organ transplants and childbirth. The percentage of C-sections that occur is enormous in the U.S. A C-section is hardly a "natural" childbirth. So I would say that with pregnancy, the "natural" course is not actually healthy birth — it's a relatively dangerous thing that is made nearly completely safe with the help of a doctor. Similarly, liver failure or blood transfusions are a relatively dangerous thing that are made pretty much completely safe and successful with the help of a doctor.

            In terms of the idea of direct intervention to kill someone, vs. spontaneous intervention to save someone: that's an interesting comparison to make and it's making me think. It seems that you're saying that because a woman has to take action to abort the fetus, and the potential organ donor simply has to sit back on his couch and watch TV and be passive to kill the organ recipient, the examples are different. But I would argue that being passive is still an intervention that kills someone. In both cases, the potential to save someone depends on giving something of your body. In both cases, the potential to save someone requires action — in the case of childbirth, it requires you to go through labour. The reason it's called labour is because it's work — it's active, it's direct, and it's physically bringing life into the world. If a woman didn't participate in labor but instead passively tried to let the baby just spew out of her, it simply wouldn't come out, and she would die.

        4. You appeal to history again, let's take a look:

          "In 1960 (that’s 13 years before Roe V. Wade for those who are keeping score), Dr. Mary Calderone, who was then medical Director for Planned Parenthood, wrote (even as she was promoting legalized abortion) that “Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure….whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being performed by physicians.” –Calderone, Mary Steichen. “Illegal Abortion as a Public Health Problem.” American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 50 No. 7. July 1960.

          “…From the 1940s through the 1960s…the best available evidence shows a dramatic decline in abortion-related deaths occurring even before the first states liberalized abortion laws in 1967.” –FactCheck.Org

          Reply

          1. Magdalena, what do you mean by my “appeal to history”? I wrote that women throughout history have aborted babies. I'm not sure how your information about abortion being safe when it is performed by a physician is relevant.—

        5. "The Center for Disease Control, which has been compiling abortion data since 1970, has published numerous reports that show that the number of abortions jumped dramatically each year following Roe V. Wade. In the year 1970, just fewer than 200,000 abortions were performed; by 1977, the number had eclipsed 1 million, and continued to rise for another 13 years. Legalization of abortion is unquestionably correlated with an increase in abortions, not a decrease." – <a href="http://-http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5713a1.htm” target=”_blank”>-http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5713a1.htm

          I would challenge you to find documented cases of coat hanger abortions. There are few, if any, on record. In fact, the only one I know of occurred in 2009; abortion had been legal for decades at that time. This is one of those situations where a statement got repeated so often that people just accepted it as truth, despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever of it ever being an epidemic. If you find evidence to the contrary, please let me know.

          Reply

          1. Magdalena, I can't find the quote that you wrote here in the article that you linked to. Is it on a different page somewhere?The study that you linked to states that the number of legal abortions rose beginning in the 1970s. Before Roe v Wade, the only abortions that were legal were ones that came out of rapes or were medically dangerous pregnancies. After Roe v Wade in the 1970s, more types of pregnancies became legal to abort. So it makes perfect sense that “legal abortion rates” would rise after abortion became more widely legal.However, what this study does NOT say is that the total numbers of abortions rose. There is no way of tracking the numbers of illegal abortions because these, by definition, are not reported or recorded. The study is only looking at the numbers of legal abortions. When more types of abortions became legal, abortion rates rose, because the law changed, not because people's behavior changed. It is invalid to say that rates of abortion total rose after legalization based on the article you cited.— On Wed, 3/2/11, IntenseDebate Notifications <[email protected]> wrote:

        6. As far as cheap/crappy (perhaps a better word would have been unreliable) contraception, the pill has a 98% effectiveness rate when used perfectly. That includes taking it at the same time every day, never missing a day, not taking it in combination with antidepressants or other drugs/herbs that interfere with its use, and even then, it's not failproof. I wish I knew the source and exact info, I'll look for it again, but I recently read that a good percentage of women who get abortions were using the pill when they became pregnant. Fun fact: the pill was the first drug ever created to make a healthy body do something contrary to it's natural process; in other words it was the first drug created to be taken by healthy people as opposed to those who were sick. IUDS are more effective, but as you said, also more expensive, and so this is obviously not what I was referring to when I said "handing out" contraceptives. While Planned Parenthood may provide this as a method, it is inaccessible to those who don't have 500-1k upfront.

          Reply

          1. I agree that the pill is a little bit creepy, particularly in terms of the environmental effect it's having.

            But anyway, when the pill is used in combination with condoms, the effectiveness goes way up, even if you don't remember to take it at the same time every day. I didn't realize IUDs were so expensive upfront – that is unfortunate.

        7. I applaud your obvious responsibility in attempting to do whatever it takes to make sure you never have to even think about making a life-altering (in your case) and life-killing (in the baby's case) decision like abortion. I am aware that some people take birth control for other reasons than its primary purpose; I did this too when I was 18 because of severely irregular and problematic menstrual cycles. However, I found out that there are other more natural ways to regulate one's cycle, and I decided to go that route because I didn't like the side effects of the BC pill I was on.

          I would never reccomend a sexless marriage, but if I'm being completely honest, neither would I recommend a marriage at all if it wasn't one open to life. My personal beliefs aside, though, yes, the only way to ensure that you *absolutely* never get pregnant is to not ever have sex; even then, as previously mentioned, even that isn't "absolute" because you could, God forbid, be raped.

          Reply

          1. Thanks very much for your thoughtful reply. I guess my question now is just whether I should the government force me to bear a child in the case of rape (keeping in mind that I've done everything I can to protect myself, including lifelong abstinence) and keeping mind that the constitution prohibits indentured servitude?—

        8. You say you cannot go through with the pregnancy because you would lose your career and your body. I'm sorry, but how is that even comparable to the killing of innocent human life? There are other career paths, and anyway look at Heidi Klum. She's had kids and still models. I guess I can't relate to thinking it is acceptable to kill a human life for the sake of keeping my own exactly the way I want it. I would, as you suggested, sacrifice an organ to save another person's life; I'd certainly sacrifice my preferred career to do the same.

          Also, sorry this is in like a zillion small comments, for some reason it wouldn't let me post just one long one.

          Reply

          1. I wish that I were Heidi Klum, but my career is the kind where if I miss a few days of work, I will be totally shut out — you can't flake out on a photo shoot if you're not a huge celebrity like her!

            So you're basically saying you would be willing to give up an organ, and you would also be willing to give up your career to save lives. But what makes the lives of the unborn more significant than the lives of people you could save through a career? Take this example: there is a cardiac surgeon who saves on average 3 lives each day she works in a hospital. She gets raped and gets pregnant, and the pregnancy is complicated. She has to go on bed-rest for 3 months. Is it more ethical in this scenario for her to get an abortion, so that she can continue to work at her job where she will save 270 lives (90 days x 3 lives/day) or stay on bed-rest so she can save 1 life?

    3. Um Going through with the pregnancy is safe. That whole line of abortion is safer than full term pregnancy is BS! Prove it to me. Here is the real fact: A study of medical records in Finland found that 94 % of maternal deaths associated with abortion are not identifiable from death certificates alone. The researchers found that linking death certificates to medical records showed that the death rate associated with abortion is three times higher than that associated with childbirth.(3) Paediatric Perinatal Epidemiology, 2004

      Stop parroting the same stuff PP and other Pro choicers quote. It's all be proven to be lies.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *