Planned Parenthood speaks the truth about the humanity of the unborn
When Dr. Deborah Nucatola, medical director of Planned Parenthood, describes the process by which the organization preserves and removes organs and tissues in unborn children during abortions, it exposed Planned Parenthood’s false claims that its overriding concern is for women’s health. Even more importantly, it exposed the lies that are made to attempt to maintain support for abortion through denying the humanity of the unborn.
In the video, Dr. Nucatola admits that Planned Parenthood clinics alter procedures in order to extract the organs and tissues from unborn children. She says that they consider this in deciding where to grab and crush the child with forceps, and even in manipulating the child to change its “presentation” (breech or feet-first) in order to preserve body parts intact. Whether or not the latter activity violates the law against partial-birth abortion, as some have suggested, it is unethical and gives the lie to Planned Parenthood’s claim that its first priority is to protect women’s health. In the medical field, one does not alter standard medical procedure in order to preserve the possibility of harvesting body parts if the patient dies. This elevation of organ harvesting over women’s safety is directly in line with their fight to prevent abortion clinics from meeting surgical safety standards.
Whether or not Planned Parenthood’s activities are illegal—a full investigation should occur to determine this. But they are incredibly troubling nevertheless and it is difficult to see how this practice is not illegal. Nucatola casually describes killing a human being and stripping it—that dehumanized object—of its parts, and she described this all while she was enjoying a fine meal, with wine, like a civilized human. She nonchalantly talks about how one can “crush” a head being while preserving his or her organs. Continue reading
by Lois Kerschen
We need to change the language and the focus of the discussion about abortion in the Democratic Party. This was the consensus at the Democrats for Life Caucus at the Democratic state convention in Texas last summer.
For one thing, the pro-choice advocates in attendance didn’t want to be called “pro-abortion” because they said no one is in favor of abortion, even though that is the “choice” referred to in “pro-choice.” So, when asked if it would be more accurate to describe them as pro-choice, they said that might fit better as long as abortion is one of the choices.
However, the pro-life advocates said that they too are better described as “pro-choice” because they promote more than one option, and the concept of choice means selecting from a variety of options. It isn’t really a choice if there is only one option – that is a case of being forced to accept the default.
The pro-choice people said, though, that since abortion is legal, the pro-life people couldn’t be considered “pro-choice” unless one of the choices is abortion, in addition to raising the child or placing the child for adoption.
So it seems that both sides considered themselves to be “pro-choice.” In that case, if we all agree that a pregnant woman has three options for the future of herself and her child, then why are we arguing?
As pro-life Democrats, we believe that every person has worth and dignity and that every life has value. This is true not just of the innocent child in the womb, but even of those who have committed unspeakable crimes. The sanctity of human life is something that cannot be forfeited.
Democrats for Life of America is shaped by this consistent commitment to life—an approach we like to call whole life—and we believe that this consistency is vital to ending the culture of violence that permeates our society and to building a culture of life.
Of course, there is no consensus among pro-life Democrats when it comes to the death penalty and how we, as a society, should respond to brutal crimes and assaults on human dignity and life. For those who are pro-life, defending the life of an unborn child is quite obviously necessary, as the child is innocent and defenseless. But what about those who are not innocent and whose acts of violence have violated the sanctity of life?
Most of us who are whole life have come to believe that the death penalty is not the right response. Taking a human life to show the value of human life seems unlikely to work, and the reality is that we know that it does not work: The death penalty is no more effective as a deterrent than life in prison without the possibility of parole. To take a life needlessly cannot be reconciled with our consistent commitment to life.
by J. P. Richardson
When the United States Senate on April 22 voted 99-0 to pass the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015, the senators boldly broke through the stopped-traffic gridlock of senatorial intransigence, showing the country what our two-party system can accomplish when everyone aims for the common good above partisan interests. A long time had passed since Democrats and Republicans voted unanimously on a bill that includes language about abortion. Maybe this is a first, in fact. If not a first, the first was so long ago that we don’t remember it.
Every citizen ought to remember this one. Win-win-win-win. Victims of human trafficking win, first and foremost, because the bill would provide help, both immediate and long-term, that victims desperately need. Right-to-lifers win because the language of the Hyde Amendment, which has prevented federal funding of abortion for many years, is preserved in the bill. Democrats win because Republicans agreed to vote to confirm President Obama’s nominee for attorney general, Loretta Lynch. And, last but not least, babies not yet born who might have been aborted win their rightful opportunity to keep living their natural lives.
The debate over the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and the lack of debate over the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act show how both parties are only half-way towards understanding the abortion crisis in America. We can and should protect both unborn children and their mothers.
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which bans abortions after 20 weeks, should be passed. A majority of countries in Europe prohibit abortion after 13 weeks. Given that information, a 20-week ban seems very reasonable.
It is not enough to simply ban abortion after 20 weeks. Congress should consider providing legal support for mothers by passing the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act. As John Oliver so wisely observed on Last Week Tonight, this is the best way to honor our mothers.
Abortion-rights groups have pushed the notion that the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is some radical infringement to trample the rights of women. However, limiting abortion after 20 weeks is not a radical position, but very much mainstream. What is radical is the Democratic Party’s official position against the legislation and the party’s advocacy for abortion up through the ninth month of pregnancy. Polls consistently indicate overwhelming opposition to abortions after the first trimester. A majority of women, even Democratic women, millennials, and Hispanics support a 20-week ban over a 24-week ban.
by Mary Ann Chimera
Writing letters for publication is a dicey gamble, but also a great tool for educating the public. It’s dicey because before your letter is published it has to meet criteria set by the editorial page editor and staff. These vary from not only from publication to publication but from editor to editor.
Nevertheless, editors are aware that a diversity of opinion, especially by local readers, sells newspapers. Readers are very interested in what friends and neighbors have to say.
Especially with hot issue topics like ours, we often find ourselves in opposition to the beliefs of today’s media people. Our letters accordingly must be crafted to overcome antilife biases. Here are some of the criteria I impose on my own letters before submitting them.