by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli
At Priests for Life, Alveda King explains why PFL plans to continue its lawsuit against the HHS Mandate, despite the government’s attempt at an “accommodation”:
Bottom line: The government is on its own in this scheme to expand access to abortion-inducing drugs and contraceptives. We want a full exemption from this mandate, so that we have nothing to do with this scheme. If people want these drugs and the government wants to provide them, then the government will have to find a way to connect with them without our help. Our religion requires no less.
Pro-Life Action League also comments on the government’s latest HHS Mandate accommodations attempt:
This marks the eighth time the Obama administration has modified the HHS Mandate. Once again, they’re refusing to listen to the American people — or even the U.S. Supreme Court — and truly respect the employers’ conscience rights.
The new rules are nothing more than a slight variation of the so-called “accommodation” first announced in February 2012, whereby some “third party” will provide the objectionable services. I called that scheme a shell game at the time, and the description still fits. Others have called it an “accounting gimmick.”
Ethika Politika reposts an article by Michael J. New, who responds to a New York Times article which ignores evidence of abortion risks while lamenting the plight of women denied late-term abortions due to gestational age. Interestingly, the NYT author admitted that “a very small percentage of turnaways regret carrying their pregnancy to term.” In other words, even impoverished women who can’t abort because it’s too late seem to find that giving life to another human being isn’t so awful after all. And the risks of late-term abortion – and abortion in general – are certainly worth mentioning. New writes:
Throughout the article, the author takes considerable pains to give the impression that there is a strong scholarly consensus that abortion poses no serious health risks to women. He states that “reputable research” does not support claims that abortion results in a higher risk of breast cancer, infertility, and miscarriage. However, there is an impressive body of research indicating that abortion increases the risk of premature births. Additionally, there are a number of peer reviewed studies which find that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Even the 1997 New England Journal of Medicine study — frequently cited and touted by skeptics of the abortion breast cancer link — finds statistically significant evidence that late term abortions increase the risk of breast cancer.
Secular Pro-Life notes the identity crisis occurring in the pro-choice (are they still calling it “pro-choice”?) movement, while also discussing something happening in the messaging of the pro-life movement:
Meanwhile, in faith-based-land, I noticed an interesting piece in the Christian Post arguing that… “pro-life” is being overused! Specifically, the authors worry that the use of “pro-life” messaging by Christian environmentalists is diluting the term. Myself, I’m not too concerned, because I suspect 1) that any conservatives who would abandon the pro-life movement because they see the term used by a cause they don’t support likely aren’t our movement’s greatest assets anyway, and 2) it may have the beneficial side effect of busting the stereotypes that the abortion movement pushes about who pro-lifers are and what we do. But in any event, it’s quite the contrast to what’s happening across the aisle.
So where does that leave us? We’re in a good position, but the conflict is far from over, and we need to remain on high alert. Based on the signals we’re getting from pro-choice media commentators, we need to be particularly vigilant in our charitable endeavors. Pro-lifers are as active in charitable organizations as anybody else, so we have the ability to impede the pro-choice strategy here. Whatever causes you are involved in, be on the lookout for activists looking to co-opt them in the name of abortion — and when it happens, speak out against it, quickly and loudly!
Wesley J. Smith says a woman who acted as a gestational surrogate is asking for child support from the Australian couple who rejected one twin born with Congenital Myotonic Dystrophy. Smith asks,
“And why should biological parents be treated by law any differently just because a surrogate was employed then if the woman gave birth herself?”Interesting point.
At Bound4Life, Josh Shepherd has the amazing story of a mother who suffered a tragic auto accident when she was just 15 weeks pregnant. Several medical teams worked to successfully save both Amie and her son, Aiden, was delivered at 33 weeks. Amie remains in a mostly vegetative state, except when her son enters the room. Please pray for Amie and her whole family: