It’s not a secret that the president and the abortion industry want all of America to believe that there is a “War on Women.” Besides the fact that myself and many others believe that this war is a political scheme, it’s also being spouted by the very side who is engaging the real war on women. And never mind that Planned Parenthood supports gendercide through the willingness to abort children simply because they are the wrong gender, which Live Action has covered. The investigative video report can be watched here.
While the abortion industry claims to be all about women’s rights and terms like “reproductive freedom,” there have been some frightening instances in which one may seriously question if the industry really is holding true to these claims.
I will highlight a few instances which in particular give us justification for questioning the abortion industry’s good intentions. These include the so-called “Arrest Grandma” act, as dubbed by NARAL, which is a bill involving parental involvement when one’s minor daughter wishes to have an abortion. Also included is the Minnesota governor vetoing a bill, coming from a bipartisan legislative body, to have abortion clinics inspected by the state health department. And just a few weeks ago, an Oklahoma judge ruled it unconstitutional to limit the unsafe abortion drug RU-486. Lastly, after Utah became the first state to order a 72-hour waiting period on abortions, Planned Parenthood decried the edict as inconvenient and insulting to them.
While NARAL may call it “Arrest Grandma,” the actual name of the bill being referred to is the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA), H.R. 2299, which is certainly a more accurate description of the bill. The LifeSiteNews article on the issue does a fitting job of describing the bill.
The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA), H.R. 2299, would make it illegal to transport a minor across a state line in circumvention of a state law requiring parental involvement. It mandates that abortionists comply with parental consent laws in the minor’s home state, by giving notice or obtaining consent for the abortion from the minor’s parents.
CIANA passed the House Judiciary Committee last month.
Also pointed out by LifeSiteNews is how such a law would be supported by 70% of the American population, based on national opinion polls. NARAL, a pro-abortion organization, is taking a bill that many Americans would support – something that is necessary for maintaining not only functional families, which do help young women, but also parental rights – and spinning it to describe how it would ruin their agenda. NARAL may claim to speak for young women, but it is parents who know their own daughters best, and that means better than that family member or friend who would take a young woman to get an abortion without her parents’ knowledge or consent. Parents know crucial key facts about their daughters that NARAL does not, such as medical history. It is also parents who, for the most part, genuinely are looking out for their daughters’ well-being.
And, as is also pointed out right here at Live Action News, parental consent is needed for a variety of procedures, including any elective medical procedure. I couldn’t get my ears pierced when I was younger without my mom signing something, yet if I had been pregnant, I could have gotten an abortion without her knowing? There are almost no words to describe how ridiculous such a dichotomy is. For those who say otherwise, and I’m looking at Nancy Keenan and NARAL here, give me a break.
I wrote an article a little over a month ago when Governor Mark Dayton of Minnesota vetoed a bill, passed by a bipartisan legislative panel, that said abortion clinics were subject to state health inspections and were required to be licensed. This is one I really don’t understand, but Planned Parenthood and the ACLU argued against such a bill. Medical providers in the state are regulated, so what makes the abortion industry think its clinics are so special? The answer lies in the likely fear that Planned Parenthood and other clinics could be forced to be shut down, as they again decry such a bill as a “another ‘hate Minnesota’ bill.” It seems as if, at least in Minnesota, though also undoubtedly elsewhere, Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry and its advocates care more about their image and reputation than they do about protecting women’s health.
There has certainly been much buzz surrounding the abortion drug, also known as RU-486 or mifepristone. This is because the drug is dangerous. The excerpt below is from a recent LifeNews article detailing the constitutionality of limiting the drug in Oklahoma, though such information can also be found in countless other articles.
According to FDA reports as of December 2006, there have now been eight known deaths associated with mifepristone in the U.S., nine life-threatening incidents, 116 blood transfusions, and 232 hospitalizations. In total, more than 1,100 women have had medical problems after using the drug as of that date. The Obama administration has not published new totals, which could have well over 1,500 women in the United States alone facing significant problems after using the mifepristone abortion drug.
It seems to me that this Oklahoma judge in question, district court Judge Donald Worthington, perhaps does not know this information, or else he did not understand the bill which was signed into law which he deemed unconstitutional. This law would not even completely do away with the use of RU-486, but would rather make sure that doctors dispensed it to women in the ways suggested by the FDA. This is explicitly outlined by the FDA and is merely what Oklahoma is trying to comply with. Yet an Oklahoma judge somehow thinks abiding by FDA regulations is far too restrictive on abortion “rights.”
For me, RU-486 in particular is disturbing. I am without a doubt pro-life. If I were to ever face an unplanned pregnancy, I would never abort my child. Yet my mind has naturally gone to considering how scary it would be to give birth. Perhaps if I did not have the strong convictions that I do have, I would consider aborting so as not to go through the pain of childbirth. Yet if I took mifepristone, I would still have to go through giving birth, except to a dead baby and possibly without a doctor there. Then I read the story of Sara Carpenter, who aborted her disabled baby in such a way. My pro-life view was certainly strengthened, despite any fear associated with the pain of giving birth.
Utah recently has become the first state to pass a 72-hour waiting period on an abortion, which is the longest waiting period currently. It’s not difficult to see the benefit of a waiting period, as women have more time to consider having an abortion, which means personal reflections; going to sources offering alternatives and which are more comprehensive and less biased than Planned Parenthood; and, perhaps most importantly, ensuring that a woman is not being coerced. There are also other procedures involving waiting periods. Yet of course Planned Parenthood and its political allies reject such notions. Besides being tougher for rural women, many of whom may live far away from an abortion clinic, the bill is decried by Rep. Rebecca Chavez-Houck (D-Salt Lake City) and by the CEO of Utah’s Planned Parenthood Association, Karrie Galloway, who says: “Women make good decisions and think about their decisions and the legislature telling them how long they need to think about their decision — it’s insulting.” What I think is insulting is that Planned Parenthood cannot wait three days to get paid to kill a woman’s baby.
There are, of course, many more examples of how the abortion industry tries to smear, distort, and lie. These deceptions most often revolves around bills which, should they become law, would be educating and ultimately protecting women. Hopefully these few examples will demonstrate and prove to anyone hesitant about the intents of the abortion industry that at the end of the day, when it comes down to it, we are talking about a business. People in the abortion industry care about making money and selling a good reputation, and they will say just about anything in order to do so.
Correction: A previous version of this article asserted that deaths due to RU-486 use were because the drug was administered via teleconference. This is not substantiated and has been removed.