Posts

Culture of Death: Parents Successfully Sue Doctor For Wrongful Birth

Iowa’s Supreme Court recently ruled that the parents of a disabled child can sue their doctor for failing to warn them of the boy’s disability. Had Jeremy and Pamela Plowman known that their child, referred to as “Z.P.” in the lawsuit, had cerebral palsy, they say they would have had him aborted prior to birth.

Iowa is the 24th state to allow “wrongful birth” lawsuits through court decisions and the 25th overall. This decision is a logical extension of landmark abortion cases like Roe v. Wade (1973) and Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992), which established that parents have the right to kill their children in the womb for any reason. If the right to kill unborn children exists, it follows that a doctor’s failure to inform the parents of an unborn child about the presence of an undesirable trait would indeed be a violation of that right.

This case reminds us that we find ourselves in a culture of death. This is the culture created by the abortion industry, along with help from Supreme Court decisions written by Justices Harry Blackmun (of Roe) and Anthony Kennedy (of Casey).

Short of overturning Roe and Casey, there isn’t much we can do in the legal realm. However, this case provides an opportunity for the pro-life movement to gain ground in the culture.

It’s difficult for most people to relate to the victims of abortion, in part because we can’t remember our lives in the womb. That’s why it’s so important for those engaged in pro-life apologetics to share the stories of those who have survived botched abortions.

There’s a reason that the abortion industry, abortion lobby, abortion supporters, and mainstream media pretend that survivors of abortion like Gianna Jessen and Melissa Ohden don’t exist. There’s a reason they react maliciously when we show images of children killed by abortionists. They do this because their culture of death can be perpetuated only if the victims of abortion remain faceless.

I don’t know Z.P. I don’t even know his full name. But I know that he is a human being with inherent worth and that it would have been an act of violence to kill him.

Thankfully, Z.P.’s disability was not recognized prior to his birth. Let’s hope the Plowmans eventually come to understand the beauty and value of their son.


James Silberman is a guest contributor to the FPIW Blog. He is a pro-life activist from Gig Harbor, WA, and a student at Whitworth University.


 

New Undercover Video: Abortion Industry Insiders Concede That Abortion is Violent Killing

Even abortionists now admit that they are contract killers.

Abortion is a violent act that ends the life of a human being. The pro-life movement has spent countless hours attempting to convince the public of this truth.

The latest undercover video from inside the world of abortion indicates that the abortion lobby is getting ready to concede that abortion is murder.

At a National Abortion Federation conference, Lisa Harris, director of Planned Parenthood of Michigan, tells a crowd of abortion industry insiders that the pro-life argument accurately represents the nature of abortion:

“Given that we actually see the fetus the same way, and given that we might actually both agree that there’s violence in here… Let’s just give them all the violence, it’s a person, it’s killing, let’s just give them all that.”

Although this development will likely come as a surprise to many, the abortion lobby doesn’t have much of a choice. As our scientific capabilities grow, the argument that the unborn child is not a living human being becomes progressively less tenable.

Modern ultrasound technology has been a boon for the pro-life movement, and in the not-too-distant-future, 3-D printing technology will allow doctors to place exact models of unborn children in the arms of their mothers and fathers. Incubation and artificial womb technology will continue to push viability earlier and earlier into the pregnancy. New media innovations and technologies are allowing the pro-life movement to display the humanity of the unborn on a large scale.

Excluding the most dogmatic of abortion zealots, these technological developments have effectively ended the debate over whether an unborn child is human.

The abortion lobby’s admission that abortion involves killing an unborn person will be an extraordinarily difficult position to defend. As pro-life individuals, this is a huge opportunity. We are now able to show the humanity of the unborn child without any pushback on the issue. We must take advantage.

Get out and make the argument. Use images and winsome arguments to illustrate the humanity of the unborn child. And if someone wants to argue the child’s humanity further, refer them to this video.

Editor’s Note: The shocking video has been pulled by YouTube. YouTube claims the video violates the video-sharing website’s terms of service.  A copy of the video is available here: http://www.mrctv.org/videos/center-medical-progress-video.


James Silberman is a guest contributor to the FPIW Blog. He is a pro-life activist from Gig Harbor, WA, and a student at Whitworth University.

It Doesn’t Matter Whether Margaret Sanger Was a Racist

It is accepted truth on the left that Margaret Sanger was a patron saint of feminism and all-things-good-in-the-world. It is accepted truth on the right that she was a vicious racist. There isn’t a more polarizing figure in all of politics, which in the era of Trump is saying something.

In this debate, there seems to be no middle ground between the two polar opposite positions, and neither side is willing to acknowledge any evidence that might moderate their view.

The quotes that are typically used to show Sanger’s possible racism are the following (although this is by no means an exhaustive list of her writings and speeches that seem to flirt with racism):

On page 108 of the April 1932 edition of Sanger’s magazine Birth Control Review, she wrote, “Birth control must ultimately lead to a cleaner race.” She often spoke of race, even naming one of her books Women and the New Race.

In a 1939 letter to fellow eugenics advocate Clarence Gamble, she wrote, “We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Here, Sanger is writing about what she called her “Negro Project,” through which Sanger and other eugenicists were attempting to implement population control in communities of color. As her comments indicate, Sanger and others realized needed the support of black clergymen to be effective.

In 1926, she spoke to members of the Ku Klux Klan about eugenics and population control.

In her 1932 speech for to the New History Society, Sanger said that America must “keep the doors of Immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feeble-minded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others.”

On the other hand, the progressive defenses of Sanger’s views may have some merit. When Sanger spoke of race, she may have been advocating the eradication of bad genes in general, not specifically some inferior race of people based on skin color. Sanger very well may have written that she didn’t “want word to get out that we want to exterminate the negro population,” because that’s not what she was trying to do. She may have gone to the KKK because they were an influential group and she wanted their backing, regardless of whether or not she agreed with their cause of racial supremacy. I actually have no idea how a progressive would defend her statements about immigrants, but I’m sure they’d find a way for that as well.

I think it’s safe to say that although she didn’t think highly of people of color, there does not seem to be enough strong evidence to claim that she was, or was not, racist. The evidence is ambiguous and to claim definitively either way is speculation.

What we do know with absolute certainty about Sanger is that she advocated for horrible things. When she writes in a 1923 article for The Thinker that “[Birth control] means the release and cultivation of the better elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks—those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization,” both sides of the debate get caught up arguing whether or not by “human weeds” she is referring to people of color. Let’s say she wasn’t. She’s still referring to the “poor”, the “dysgenic”, the “imbecile” and the “criminal” as human weeds to be eliminated. Regardless of whether or not she was talking about specific ethnic groups, this is a patently inhumane thing to say.

In her speech to the New History Society, Sanger said that America should establish a population congress that would “apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.” Whether she was referring specific ethnic groups for segregation and sterilization is beside the point – she was advocating for the compulsory segregation and sterilization of American citizens. Her plans were carried out in some areas to devastating effect.

Sanger wrote in Women and the New Race that “the most compassionate thing a large family can do to a small child is to kill it.” Regardless of how her supporters may attempt to justify such comments, attitudes like this are indicative of the incredibly dark worldview from which Sanger was operating.

The pro-life movement would do well to refrain from making the claim that Sanger was a racist, even if the evidence indicates that she likely was. Doing so gives abortion supporters plausible deniability to our argument and distracts everyone from the universal horror of Sanger’s ideas, whether or not they were rooted in racism. There’s no need for pro-lifers to make uncertain assumptions about the existence of racist motives. Putting charges of racism aside, Margaret Sanger, as the face of the eugenics movement, is among the most nefarious characters in American history.

If pro-lifers can stay away from debatable charges of racism and stick to the fact that Sanger spoke of the poor, disabled, criminal and illiterate as “human weeds,” campaigned to exterminate the lower class, and advocated, with some success, for some of the worst human rights violations since slavery, then Sanger’s supporters can go nowhere to hide from the truth.

 

James Silberman is a guest contributor to the FPIW Blog. He is a pro-life activist from Gig Harbor, WA, and a student at Whitworth University.

FPIW Signs Letter Asking Congress to Adopt Pro-life Healthcare Reforms

Recognizing the potential for unprecedented action on healthcare reform during the 115th US Congress, several pro-life organizations have delivered a letter to legislators, calling on them to ensure that any healthcare reforms prohibit federal taxpayer dollars from being used for abortion.

Joseph Backholm, President of Family Policy Institute of Washington, signed on to the letter, joining representatives from Family Research Council, Priests for Life, American Center for Law and Justice, National Right to Life, Christian Medical Association, Students for Life of America, and dozens of other pro-life organizations.

Congress is currently considering several legislative proposals to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. The letter, which was delivered to Republican Members of Congress today, reminds them that “any bill funding healthcare must carry restrictions on abortion funding or it will end up funding the brutal practice of abortion.”

“We are greatly encouraged by the many Republican healthcare proposals that embrace the principle that abortion is not healthcare and should not be incentivized through federal healthcare programs including tax credits for health insurance,” the letter says.

The letter can be read in its entirety here.

 

 

“Pro-Choice” Should Be “Pro-Abortion”

In a recent discussion with an abortion supporter, I apparently made the mistake of calling her “pro-abortion.” She gasped and emphatically made me aware that she was not pro-abortion, just “pro-choice.”

This begs the question: what choice was she talking about? Was she talking about school choice? Health care choice? Where-to-go-for-dinner choice?

I support the Second Amendment. I think the right of an individual to choose whether they want to own a firearm for self-defense is crucial to the prevention of an abusive government. It would be reasonable to label my position pro-second amendment or pro-gun rights or simply pro-gun. Likewise, it would be very unreasonable and rather pointless to label my position “pro-choice.” That doesn’t explain what choice I am advocating.

The same goes for abortion. The phrase “I am pro-choice” is an incomplete sentence. To be intellectually honest, the speaker must specify what choice they are advocating. Just as I am pro-gun, pro-abortion is the appropriate term to describe the position of the abortion supporter.

When considering the nature of the debate, it’s easy to understand why abortion advocates so fervently demand to be called “pro-choice” rather than something which accurately defines their position: they do this because their position is ghastly.

In a legislative hearing in Florida in 2013, Planned Parenthood lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. It is Planned Parenthood’s position that children born as a result of botched abortions should be left alone on the table to die if still unwanted. When asked to defend this position, Snow’s response was, “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, the family, and the physician.”

Snow redirects the discussion to the issue of “choice” because no one can win a debate from a platform of “pro-leaving the baby to die on the table.” This goes for the killing of an unborn child as well. Pre-birth abortions entail the use of clamps to remove the child from the womb one limb at a time. Several other violent techniques are also used, including saline solution, which is used to dissolve away his or her skin. “Pro-human dismemberment” and “pro-burning the skin of a baby until his or her internal organs fall out” are not winning slogans.

It will be ‘game over’ for the abortion industry if the debate over abortion becomes focused on what abortion actually entails. That’s why they work so hard to make the debate revolve around euphemisms like “choice” without regard for the choice being discussed.

So, the next time someone tells you they’re pro-choice, ask them, “What choice?”

James Silberman is a guest contributor to the FPIW Blog. He is a pro-life activist from Gig Harbor, WA, and a student at Whitworth University.

Stop Using Religion to Justify Your Abortion

America is not and should not be a secular society, but we do have a secular government. The idea of theocracy is horrifying to nearly all Americans on all sides of every political divide; as well it should be. Theocracy strips citizens of freedom and often of their decency.

Because of this, convincing the public that your political opposition is advocating laws which are theocratic in nature is the easiest way to win the battle of ideas. This is exactly what the abortion lobby has done.

The talking points of Planned Parenthood and NARAL have been wholly mainstreamed by the education system, Hollywood, and the news media.  Their claim is that pro-life individuals seek to impose their religious views on the parents of a preborn child. Abortion supporters are the freedom fighters and pro-lifers are the theocrats. This could not possibly be further from the truth. In fact, the opposite is true.

In a debate with a pro-abortion individual, you will hear the following arguments:

“The child isn’t human until he or she can survive on their own.”

“The child isn’t human until he or she can feel pain.”

“The child isn’t human until he or she has brain activity.”

“The child isn’t human until he or she goes through the birth canal.”

“The child isn’t human until a few months after birth.”

These beliefs are all well and good for an individual to hold. This is a free country. But it’s important not to mistake these claims for science and instead call them what they are: philosophy and religion.

It is a scientific reality that conception was the beginning of all of our lives. The child, even in the earliest stages, meets every scientific requirement for being human (full set of human DNA) and every scientific requirement for being alive (metabolism and growth). It is objective fact that we have all been human and alive since the moment we were conceived.  Anything added to the discussion beyond these basic truths is either religion or philosophy.

If one wishes to ascribe to a different set of beliefs from what science tells us about the pre-born, that’s fine. But you can’t impose that arbitrary, unscientific belief system on another human being in order to take their life away. No one may use their personal philosophy or religion to legally strip the human nature from someone who is scientifically human.

The pro-life position is not one of religious legalism. It is one of science and of basic human decency. One does not have to appeal to a higher power to say, “Hey, don’t dismember that preborn child.” It should be clear to everyone with a functioning conscience and a shred of attachment to scientific reality that dismembering a preborn child is terrifyingly immoral.

The pro-abortion position is one that requires a denial of scientific realities and a silencing of the conscience. It is a movement of dehumanization and violence. And despite its advocates accusing everyone else of being the religious legalists, the pro-abortion position is one of violently imposing arbitrary belief systems on innocent human beings, in violation of every rule of pluralism and tolerance.

James Silberman is a guest contributor to the FPIW Blog. He is a pro-life activist from Gig Harbor, WA, and a student at Whitworth University.

Trump Taps Rep. Tom Price, Pro-Life Doctor, for HHS Secretary

President-elect Donald Trump has selected pro-life champion Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) to run the Department of Health and Human Services.

Price, a physician, is a known opponent of Obamacare, signaling the incoming administration’s intention of following through with its campaign promise to “repeal and replace.”

“Some Republicans have attacked the Affordable Care Act without proposing an alternative,” reported the New York Times. “Mr. Price, by contrast, has introduced bills offering a detailed, comprehensive replacement plan in every Congress since 2009, when Democrats started work on the legislation.”

Price’s piece of legislation, the Empowering Patients First Act, would repeal and replace Obamacare and create tax credits for the purchase of individual and family health insurance policies.  If passed, it would also create new incentives for people to contribute to health savings accounts, offer grants to states to subsidize insurance for “high-risk populations,” and promote competition by allowing insurers to sell policies across state lines.  His legislation also provides explicit protections for religious freedom and rights of conscience related to the practice of abortion and the dispensing of abortion-inducing drugs.

As an added bonus, Price has consistently — 100% of the time — voted to Defund Planned Parenthood.  He is an outspoken critic of abortion, calling it a “barbaric” practice.

Planned Parenthood and pro-choice advocacy group NARAL seems concerned by the selection as well:

Price has been strong on all of FPIW’s issues in Congress, stating after the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage that it was “not only a sad day for marriage, but a further judicial destruction of our entire system of checks and balances.”

Price must be confirmed by the incoming U.S. Senate next year before taking over the Department.  And of course, if confirmed, he would no longer be a member of Congress, meaning that his legislation would have to be picked up by another member of Congress. But with conservative majorities in the House and Senate, and a clear priority for the incoming Trump Administration to repeal and replace Obamacare, we don’t expect finding legislative sponsors to be an issue.

We’ll keep you updated through the confirmation process.  Follow us on Facebook and Twitter!

Opinion: Abortion is Murder and This Proves It

An Ohio judge handed down a life sentence to 20-year old Emile Weaver this week, with no chance for parole.

Just over two months ago, Weaver gave birth to a little girl — which she named Addison Grace — in the downstairs bathroom at her Muskingum University sorority house.  Weaver’s sorority sisters had speculated that she was trying to hide a pregnancy, and that her activities were both suspicious and, if pregnant, very harmful to a developing child. They would later testify that, in the months leading up to the birth, Weaver had drunk excessively, taken large quantities of pills known to cause birth defects, smoked marijuana, and played semi-violent contact sports on a regular basis.

On the morning Addison Grace was born, sorority sisters discovered blood all over the bathroom floor.  Though initially unsure of where it came from, they soon discovered Addison Grace’s little body in a dumpster outside the house, and they immediately knew.  Investigators determined that Weaver had given birth, cut the umbilical cord with a pair of scissors, and thrown away the baby she didn’t want.  Addison Grace died from asphyxiation in the plastic bag in just a few short minutes.

A jury found Emile Weaver guilty of aggravated murder, abuse of a corpse, and two counts of tampering with evidence.  Emile Weaver will spend the rest of her life in prison for a heinous crime, committed against an innocent child.  Her friends, forever haunted by finding a bloodied, dead little girl in a dumpster, will never be able to forget what they saw.  Weaver deserves prison.

But, as columnist Matt Walsh suggests, perhaps Weaver’s worst crime was just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

What if, 24 hours earlier, Weaver had bought a cheap plane ticket to Washington, D.C., or Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico, Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, or New Jersey?  These jurisdictions have no limits on the point at which a woman can obtain an abortion.  Emile Weaver could have shown up at an abortion clinic, had a late-term abortion, flown home, and never have seen a judge, faced a jury, or gone to prison.  She would have been, in the eyes of even the exact same jury, completely innocent of any crime.

So how is it that Emile Weaver is guilty of aggravated murder and sentenced to life in prison for suffocating a child in a plastic bag in Ohio, but completely innocent if she had flown to Denver and had a doctor remove it piece by piece just a few hours earlier? I’m completely convinced that there is no justifiable answer to that question.

The only thing separating murder from abortion is a thin, half-inch piece of skin and tissue, separating the inside from the outside.  We should, as Americans, at least be able to come to an understanding that setting boundaries, at least in the case of late-term abortions, is common sense.

It doesn’t matter if you think Emile Weaver would have been a horrible mother.  It doesn’t matter if you think Addison Grace would have had a horrible life.  We’ll never know the answer to either of those questions.  What we do know is that murder is wrong.

For a world so interested in social justice, we sure have some big blinders on.

Conzatti: Supreme Court Disregards Own Standards in Abortion Ruling

 

In a devastating 5-3 loss for pro-life advocates, the Supreme Court just overturned two provisions of Texas’ HB 2 law that placed restrictions on abortion providers. The law was designed to improve the safety of women by requiring abortion providers to meet surgical center health and safety standards and maintain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt struck down both of the law’s provisions, saying they placed an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to have an abortion.

In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the “decision exemplifies the Court’s troubling tendency ‘to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue,’” quoting the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Texas legislators had been careful to ensure that their law conformed to the ‘undue burden standard’ proposed by the Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). According to a summary by Public Discourse, the undue burden standard allows legislators to “regulate pre-viability abortions for the health and safety of the woman, provided the regulation does not create a substantial obstacle to the abortion right.”

In its decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court has now disregarded its own undue burden standard. According to Justice Thomas, the scrutiny applied by the majority to the Texas law “bears little resemblance to the undue-burden test the Court articulated” in Casey.

Since Texas law requires physicians performing surgical births like caesarean sections to maintain admitting privileges at local hospitals, applying this standard to physicians that perform abortions should not be controversial. Even the prochoice National Abortion Federation (NAF) recommends that “[i]n the case of emergency, the doctor [performing the abortion] should be able to admit patients to a nearby hospital (no more than 20 minutes away).” HB2 mandated doctors to have hospital admitting privileges at hospitals no more than 30 minutes away – a standard even lower than the one advocated by NAF.

By overturning the health and operating standards required by HB2, the Supreme Court has not only overruled the will of the Texas legislature, but it has also made abortion less safe for women.

An estimated 3,180 women were hospitalized for complications resulting from an abortion in 2011. Requiring abortion clinics to comply with the same medical standards for other forms of surgeries ensures that women will receive necessary medical care when complications arise.

“Our main concern is the safety of Texas women. We will continue to stand for women to keep them safe so they are not maimed or die in abortion clinics,” Jonathan Saenz, President of Texas Values, said in a statement.

The plaintiff in the case, abortion provider Whole Woman’s Health, had repeatedly been cited for safety and health violations in its clinics. In its yearly inspections of Whole Woman’s Health clinics, the Texas Department of State Health Services noted reoccurring safety violations, including the staff’s failure to maintain sterile surgical instruments, expired supplies and medication, rusty machines used on patients, dilapidated facilities, and concerns of rodents. It concluded that “the facility failed to provide a safe and sanitary environment,” remarking that the staff, which had not been trained in CPR, “did not know what a sterilization indicator was” and did not know how to properly use equipment.

Whole Woman’s Health’s terrible record of unsanitary and unsafe conditions demonstrates the importance of laws like HB2. Unfortunately, by siding with unscrupulous abortion providers, the Supreme Court disregarded the best interests of women.

Women deserve better.

Joseph Backholm Statement on SCOTUS Decision

 

 

For Immediate Release

June 27, 2016 (LYNNWOOD) — Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that struck down Texas’ law providing basic care standards in abortion clinics, FPIW Executive Director Joseph Backholm released the following statement:

“Today’s Supreme Court should serve as a reminder that the abortion industry will stop at nothing to keep the money flowing — even if that means sacrificing the health of women.

Texas’ law was not an attack on women’s health — it was an effort to ensure that women seeking an abortion could reasonably expect a basic level of care in case of an emergency.  Making abortion facilities safer for women is not a burden – it’s just common sense.

Today the Supreme Court has forced states like Texas to subsidize inferior care in order to make it easier for abortion sellers to stay in business.

Women deserve better than today’s ruling. All abortionists and abortion facilities should be held to the same basic standards of care we expect in all other surgical centers in our country.”

MEDIA AVAILABILITY:

To schedule an interview with Joseph Backholm, please contact FPIW Communications Director Zach Freeman at zach@fpiw.org or by phone at 425-608-0242.