The following news release was issued today, May 22, 2013.
GENEVA, Switzerland — Legalized abortion is widely touted as beneficial to women, but a wealth of medical and psychological evidence suggests otherwise, according to a new analysis of decades of research. The analysis was released today at the World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Global Outreach (MCCL GO) and National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund (NRLC), an NGO based in Washington, D.C. Jeanne E. Head, R.N., Patrick Buckley and Scott Fischbach, who are in Geneva introducing the analysis, are calling for a renewed emphasis on providing women with improved maternal health care.
"Women face numerous risks with abortion, legal or illegal, and those risks are substantially greater in the developing world," said Jeanne Head, R.N., National Right to Life vice-president for international affairs and U.N. representative. "Yet some in the international community have focused their resources primarily on legalizing abortion at the expense of women’s lives and health."
"The evidence is overwhelming: Abortion is dangerous for women," said MCCL GO Executive Director Scott Fischbach. "Abortion is by its very nature a violent and damaging procedure."
"Rather than legalize or promote abortion, governments should protect the equal dignity and basic rights of all human beings, including women and their unborn children," said Patrick Buckley, Geneva main representative for the U.K. Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.
The analysis, "How Abortion Hurts Women," provides an overview of extensive research from multiple countries into the risks of abortion. Documented complications include hemorrhage, infection, cervical damage, uterine perforation, pelvic disease and retained fetal or placental tissue. Large record-based studies from Finland, Denmark and the United States found that maternal mortality rates were significantly higher after abortion compared to childbirth.
Long-term risks of abortion, including subsequent preterm birth, infertility, cancer, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy and placenta previa, can substantially impede future reproductive success. In addition, abortion is associated with increased risk of negative psycho-social consequences. For example, a 2011 meta-analysis published in the British Journal of Psychiatry found an 81 percent increased risk of mental health problems. Anxiety, depression, alcohol and drug use and suicidal behaviors have been found to increase following abortion, along with damage to key relationships.
In the developing world, these dangers increase where basic maternal health care is unavailable. Ms. Head explains: "The incidence of maternal mortality is mainly determined by the quality of maternal health care. Legalization does not improve outcomes, but only increases the number of women subjected to the risks of abortion."
MCCL GO and National Right to Life called upon the WHA to focus its resources on the improvement of women's health care in the developing world.
"We call upon the WHA to acknowledge that abortion needlessly puts women at serious risk, both physically and psychologically," Mr. Fischbach added. "We urge the World Health Assembly to adopt measures that protect women from abortion and improve women's health care."
The analysis is available in English, French and Spanish at the MCCL GO website, www.mccl-go.org.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Thursday, May 16, 2013
New breakthrough in human cloning should recall ethical problems
Yesterday the journal Cell published research from a group of scientists (most of them from Oregon Health and Science University) indicating that they successfully derived stem cells from cloned human embryos. This breakthrough—after years of technical difficulties that stalled cloning efforts—should refresh the many ethical concerns regarding the enterprise of human cloning.
The Oregon researchers used the cloning process known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), in which the nucleus from a somatic cell (a regular body cell) is transferred into an enucleated egg, which is then stimulated. The result (when successful) is a developing human embryo that is genetically (virtually) identical to the donor of the somatic cell. The researchers were able to grow these cloned embryos to the blastocyst stage, at which point they were killed by the derivation of stem cells. Such cells are sought for the purpose of biomedical research.
The biggest concern here is the destruction of human life. Cloned embryos are living human organisms at the embryonic stage of development. They are members of the species Homo sapiens, like each of us, attempting to traverse a period of life through which each of us once passed. The Oregon scientists created these young human beings in order to then kill them by harvesting their useful parts. They treated them as a natural resource, mere raw material, to use instrumentally for the theoretical future benefit of others. This practice is utterly incompatible with a commitment to the equal and intrinsic value of every member of the human family, at all developmental stages and in all conditions, a value that we share simply by virtue of our common humanity.
Human cloning also raises other ethical concerns, including the commodification of human life; the dangers to the health (and possible exploitation) of women, from whom eggs must be harvested; the tenuous barrier between "therapeutic cloning" (SCNT for the purpose of killing cloned embryos to derive stem cells) and "reproductive cloning" (SCNT for the purpose of implanting cloned embryos in a woman's uterus and allowing them to develop toward maturity), which could result in the birth of a cloned baby; and the possible development of other Brave New World technologies, such as genetic engineering.
Cloning can also be rejected on practical grounds. Indeed, Ian Wilmut, who famously used SCNT to clone Dolly the sheep, abandoned human cloning research for precisely this reason. Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) seem to offer the same potential benefits as stem cells from cloned embryos (they are pluripotent and patient-matched), and they are easier and less expensive to produce. Moreover, every proven stem cell treatment to date has used ethically-uncontroversial adult stem cells. In short, the therapeutic benefits sought from human cloning can be achieved without it.
Dr. David Prentice notes that 60,000 people worldwide receive adult stem cell transplants each year. Dozens of diseases and conditions are treated. "Given that science has passed cloning by for stem cell production," Prentice writes, "this announcement [by the Oregon scientists] seems simply a justification for making clones, and makes reproductive cloning and birth of human clones more likely."
The lead Oregon researcher said that "the ethics of human cloning ... is not our focus." But it should be.
The Oregon researchers used the cloning process known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), in which the nucleus from a somatic cell (a regular body cell) is transferred into an enucleated egg, which is then stimulated. The result (when successful) is a developing human embryo that is genetically (virtually) identical to the donor of the somatic cell. The researchers were able to grow these cloned embryos to the blastocyst stage, at which point they were killed by the derivation of stem cells. Such cells are sought for the purpose of biomedical research.
The biggest concern here is the destruction of human life. Cloned embryos are living human organisms at the embryonic stage of development. They are members of the species Homo sapiens, like each of us, attempting to traverse a period of life through which each of us once passed. The Oregon scientists created these young human beings in order to then kill them by harvesting their useful parts. They treated them as a natural resource, mere raw material, to use instrumentally for the theoretical future benefit of others. This practice is utterly incompatible with a commitment to the equal and intrinsic value of every member of the human family, at all developmental stages and in all conditions, a value that we share simply by virtue of our common humanity.
Human cloning also raises other ethical concerns, including the commodification of human life; the dangers to the health (and possible exploitation) of women, from whom eggs must be harvested; the tenuous barrier between "therapeutic cloning" (SCNT for the purpose of killing cloned embryos to derive stem cells) and "reproductive cloning" (SCNT for the purpose of implanting cloned embryos in a woman's uterus and allowing them to develop toward maturity), which could result in the birth of a cloned baby; and the possible development of other Brave New World technologies, such as genetic engineering.Cloning can also be rejected on practical grounds. Indeed, Ian Wilmut, who famously used SCNT to clone Dolly the sheep, abandoned human cloning research for precisely this reason. Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) seem to offer the same potential benefits as stem cells from cloned embryos (they are pluripotent and patient-matched), and they are easier and less expensive to produce. Moreover, every proven stem cell treatment to date has used ethically-uncontroversial adult stem cells. In short, the therapeutic benefits sought from human cloning can be achieved without it.
Dr. David Prentice notes that 60,000 people worldwide receive adult stem cell transplants each year. Dozens of diseases and conditions are treated. "Given that science has passed cloning by for stem cell production," Prentice writes, "this announcement [by the Oregon scientists] seems simply a justification for making clones, and makes reproductive cloning and birth of human clones more likely."
The lead Oregon researcher said that "the ethics of human cloning ... is not our focus." But it should be.
MN Senate approves pro-life health care amendment
The following news release was issued today, May 16.
ST. PAUL — The Minnesota Senate last night approved a pro-life amendment, offered by Sen. LeRoy Stumpf, DFL-Plummer, to the Market Rules bill (H.F. 779).
The Senate approved on a voice vote the insertion of a reference to the chapter of law that created MNsure, the state's new health insurance exchange required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA or ObamaCare), to Statute 145.414. The statute prohibits requiring insurance companies to offer coverage for elective abortions in Minnesota. Although this statute has been in place for several years, it is important that it now includes a reference to MNsure to clarify that the new state program does not require insurance companies to offer coverage of abortion.
The House previously adopted the same provision when it adopted the Fritz Amendment to the House version of the bill by a vote of 71-63 on Apr. 22.
"Including this reference in statute is critical to establish once again that insurance companies operating in Minnesota do not have to pay for abortions," said MCCL Legislative Director Andrea Rau. "We applaud Rep. Patti Fritz and Sen. Stumpf, as well as the Senate and House, in protecting women and their unborn babies by adopting this provision."
ST. PAUL — The Minnesota Senate last night approved a pro-life amendment, offered by Sen. LeRoy Stumpf, DFL-Plummer, to the Market Rules bill (H.F. 779).
The Senate approved on a voice vote the insertion of a reference to the chapter of law that created MNsure, the state's new health insurance exchange required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA or ObamaCare), to Statute 145.414. The statute prohibits requiring insurance companies to offer coverage for elective abortions in Minnesota. Although this statute has been in place for several years, it is important that it now includes a reference to MNsure to clarify that the new state program does not require insurance companies to offer coverage of abortion.
The House previously adopted the same provision when it adopted the Fritz Amendment to the House version of the bill by a vote of 71-63 on Apr. 22.
"Including this reference in statute is critical to establish once again that insurance companies operating in Minnesota do not have to pay for abortions," said MCCL Legislative Director Andrea Rau. "We applaud Rep. Patti Fritz and Sen. Stumpf, as well as the Senate and House, in protecting women and their unborn babies by adopting this provision."
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Lessons of Gosnell: 'The real trial has only just begun'
Philadelphia abortion provider Kermit Gosnell was convicted yesterday on three counts of first-degree murder (of newborn babies), one count of involuntary manslaughter (of a pregnant woman), 21 counts of illegal abortion (of unborn babies over 24 weeks) and more than 200 other crimes. He will spend the rest of his life in prison. Eight other members of Gosnell's staff pleaded guilty to various charges, four of them to murder.
According to the grand jury investigation and several weeks of court testimony, Gosnell routinely delivered living newborn babies and then killed them by jabbing surgical scissors into the back of their necks and severing their spinal cords. (The grand jury said Gosnell killed hundreds of infants this way, but he destroyed most of the records, so only three first-degree murders were proved in court.) The conditions of his clinic were disgusting and unsanitary; women were overdosed with drugs and treated by unlicensed staff, and at least two women died; aborted babies' bodies were stored in the refrigerator next to employee lunches, and severed baby body parts were collected in jars.
Gosnell's "house of horrors" was allowed to operate for many years because state officials turned a blind eye and chose not to inspect abortion facilities for political reasons (according to the grand jury report). Here in Minnesota, state officials do not license or inspect abortion centers at all, and MCCL-backed legislation to license abortion facilities in the same way as other outpatient surgical centers was vetoed in 2012 by Gov. Mark Dayton. This status quo has never been more indefensible. In the wake of Gosnell (as well as problems uncovered in numerous other abortion facilities around the country, including Texas-based Whole Woman's Health, which recently came to Minnesota), will pro-choice advocates like Dayton accept reasonable health and safety standards in abortion clinics? How could they not?
Abortion defenders say the lesson to be learned is that pro-life restrictions on abortion drive women to "back-alley butchers" like Kermit Gosnell. This argument is difficult to take seriously in an era of abortion on demand. And no one could have been driven to Gosnell had proper oversight shut him down or forced him to abide by the law—oversight that was obstructed by pro-choice politicians. (Regardless, the fact that submitting to the killing of an innocent human being may be hazardous to one's health provides no moral justification for making such killing easier.)
The Gosnell case also shines a light on the dark reality of late-term abortion in the United States, and reveals the need to ensure protection for infants and enforce the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. And it points to the graphic nature of killing babies, before birth or after, and the logically tenuous boundary between abortion and infanticide. As Princeton professor Robert P. George explains:
According to the grand jury investigation and several weeks of court testimony, Gosnell routinely delivered living newborn babies and then killed them by jabbing surgical scissors into the back of their necks and severing their spinal cords. (The grand jury said Gosnell killed hundreds of infants this way, but he destroyed most of the records, so only three first-degree murders were proved in court.) The conditions of his clinic were disgusting and unsanitary; women were overdosed with drugs and treated by unlicensed staff, and at least two women died; aborted babies' bodies were stored in the refrigerator next to employee lunches, and severed baby body parts were collected in jars.
Gosnell's "house of horrors" was allowed to operate for many years because state officials turned a blind eye and chose not to inspect abortion facilities for political reasons (according to the grand jury report). Here in Minnesota, state officials do not license or inspect abortion centers at all, and MCCL-backed legislation to license abortion facilities in the same way as other outpatient surgical centers was vetoed in 2012 by Gov. Mark Dayton. This status quo has never been more indefensible. In the wake of Gosnell (as well as problems uncovered in numerous other abortion facilities around the country, including Texas-based Whole Woman's Health, which recently came to Minnesota), will pro-choice advocates like Dayton accept reasonable health and safety standards in abortion clinics? How could they not?
Abortion defenders say the lesson to be learned is that pro-life restrictions on abortion drive women to "back-alley butchers" like Kermit Gosnell. This argument is difficult to take seriously in an era of abortion on demand. And no one could have been driven to Gosnell had proper oversight shut him down or forced him to abide by the law—oversight that was obstructed by pro-choice politicians. (Regardless, the fact that submitting to the killing of an innocent human being may be hazardous to one's health provides no moral justification for making such killing easier.)
The Gosnell case also shines a light on the dark reality of late-term abortion in the United States, and reveals the need to ensure protection for infants and enforce the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. And it points to the graphic nature of killing babies, before birth or after, and the logically tenuous boundary between abortion and infanticide. As Princeton professor Robert P. George explains:
Dr. Gosnell is only the front man; and the real trial has only just begun. The defendant is the abortion license in America. The Gosnell episode highlights the irrationality of the regime of law put into place by the Supreme Court in 1973 and fiercely protected by Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the politicians they and other "pro-choice" advocacy groups help send to Washington and the state capitols. Something as morally arbitrary as a human being's location—his or her being in or out of the womb—cannot determine whether killing him or her is an unconscionable act of premeditated homicide or the exercise of a fundamental liberty. Yet something like that is the prevailing state of American law under Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Its incoherence and indefensibility have been laid bare by the prosecution of Dr. Gosnell. Whatever now happens to him, it will no longer be possible to pretend that abortion and infanticide are radically different acts or practices. If we are to condemn snipping the neck of a child delivered at, say, twenty-four or twenty-six weeks to kill him or her, how can we defend dismembering or poisoning a child in the womb at twenty-six, thirty, or even thirty-four weeks? And even more fundamentally, if we are bearers of inviolable dignity and a basic right to life in virtue of our humanity, and not in virtue of accidental qualities such as age, or size, or stage of development or condition of dependency—if, in other words, we believe in the fundamental equality of human beings—how can a right to abortion (where "abortion" means performing an act whose purpose is to cause fetal death) be defended at all?The real trial has only just begun.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Be their voice
The helpless live in silence
Relying on your choice
So stand with them in courage
And bravely be their voice.
Design by Josiah Jost; poem by Lisa Jost. Available at www.defendsouls.com.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
The gender equality argument for legalized abortion
The following originally ran in the January-February 2013 issue of MCCL News and was published in March at LifeNews.com and NRL News Today.
Many defenders of legalized abortion argue that it is required by gender equality. The burdens of pregnancy and childbirth fall upon women but never upon men. So only with access to abortion can women be truly equal and able to determine the course of their lives.
President Barack Obama has said, in the context of supporting abortion, "[W]e must ... ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams." U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and others contend that the alleged constitutional right to abortion should be grounded in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ("no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws") rather than in the Due Process Clause (as the Court in Roe v. Wade asserted). Equality under the law requires abortion access.
This argument may seem persuasive on the surface, but it does not withstand the scrutiny of reason. First, unequal burdens are not necessarily unjust or contrary to human equality. The burdens of caring for five-year-old children, for example, weigh heavily on the parents of five-year-old children and not at all on almost everyone else. Laws against killing or abandoning five-year-olds do not affect everyone in the same way—we might even claim that they deprive parents of "the same rights, freedoms and opportunities" as non-parents. But clearly they are not wrong.
Likewise, the burdens of pregnancy fall on women and not men, and a law against killing unborn children by abortion would impact women in a way it does not impact men. But such a law would not be unjust for that reason. Laws may affect people differently given different circumstances, but that does not mean that they treat people differently. Everyone should be equally prohibited from killing innocent human beings. This prohibition is not gender-specific. No one has a right to take innocent life.
Second, men and women are equally morally responsible for their offspring, even though this obligation can take different forms (women, by virtue of human reproductive biology, uniquely gestate children). Men can more easily run from their parental duties than women, but the solution to this dereliction is not to authorize the killing of human beings in the womb. Rather, men must take responsibility and be held responsible by law if necessary.
Third, the argument from gender equality falsely presupposes that pregnancy is a disability and that pregnant women need a "corrective" surgical procedure (abortion) to become equal to men. This denigrates women and their reproductive powers while elevating the male body to the standard of human sexuality. "True equality requires society to accept women with their fertility intact," writes Teresa Collett, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul.
Fourth, women do not need abortion to achieve social equality and career success. This has never been more obvious, and suggesting otherwise has never seemed more offensive. "Why is it that we assume women are incapable of dealing with the adversity of an unwanted pregnancy by any other means than that of destroying life? Is this a flattering view of women?" asked Janet E. Smith in her 1978 essay "Abortion as a Feminist Concern."
"In this day of unparalleled opportunities for women, when women pride themselves on their ability to fend for themselves, when many agencies are designed for helping women in distress—why do we assume that women who become pregnant when inconvenient for them are not resourceful enough to find a way to nourish the life they have conceived?"
Placing a child for adoption is an ethical and life-affirming way to relinquish responsibility, and pregnancy care centers and maternity homes help women in need face the challenges of pregnancy and parenthood. But more can and should be done to accommodate the essential role mothers play in our society.
Abortion, because it takes the life of an innocent human person, is a deep violation of equal human dignity, not an affirmation of it. Legalized abortion excludes an entire class of human beings from the protection of the law by allowing them to be dismembered and killed at the discretion of others. And the practice of sex-selection abortion (the legality of which is supported by Obama) targets unborn baby girls specifically because of their gender.
There is no equality in abortion.
Many defenders of legalized abortion argue that it is required by gender equality. The burdens of pregnancy and childbirth fall upon women but never upon men. So only with access to abortion can women be truly equal and able to determine the course of their lives.
President Barack Obama has said, in the context of supporting abortion, "[W]e must ... ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams." U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and others contend that the alleged constitutional right to abortion should be grounded in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ("no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws") rather than in the Due Process Clause (as the Court in Roe v. Wade asserted). Equality under the law requires abortion access.
This argument may seem persuasive on the surface, but it does not withstand the scrutiny of reason. First, unequal burdens are not necessarily unjust or contrary to human equality. The burdens of caring for five-year-old children, for example, weigh heavily on the parents of five-year-old children and not at all on almost everyone else. Laws against killing or abandoning five-year-olds do not affect everyone in the same way—we might even claim that they deprive parents of "the same rights, freedoms and opportunities" as non-parents. But clearly they are not wrong.
Likewise, the burdens of pregnancy fall on women and not men, and a law against killing unborn children by abortion would impact women in a way it does not impact men. But such a law would not be unjust for that reason. Laws may affect people differently given different circumstances, but that does not mean that they treat people differently. Everyone should be equally prohibited from killing innocent human beings. This prohibition is not gender-specific. No one has a right to take innocent life.
Second, men and women are equally morally responsible for their offspring, even though this obligation can take different forms (women, by virtue of human reproductive biology, uniquely gestate children). Men can more easily run from their parental duties than women, but the solution to this dereliction is not to authorize the killing of human beings in the womb. Rather, men must take responsibility and be held responsible by law if necessary.
Third, the argument from gender equality falsely presupposes that pregnancy is a disability and that pregnant women need a "corrective" surgical procedure (abortion) to become equal to men. This denigrates women and their reproductive powers while elevating the male body to the standard of human sexuality. "True equality requires society to accept women with their fertility intact," writes Teresa Collett, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul.
Fourth, women do not need abortion to achieve social equality and career success. This has never been more obvious, and suggesting otherwise has never seemed more offensive. "Why is it that we assume women are incapable of dealing with the adversity of an unwanted pregnancy by any other means than that of destroying life? Is this a flattering view of women?" asked Janet E. Smith in her 1978 essay "Abortion as a Feminist Concern."
"In this day of unparalleled opportunities for women, when women pride themselves on their ability to fend for themselves, when many agencies are designed for helping women in distress—why do we assume that women who become pregnant when inconvenient for them are not resourceful enough to find a way to nourish the life they have conceived?"
Placing a child for adoption is an ethical and life-affirming way to relinquish responsibility, and pregnancy care centers and maternity homes help women in need face the challenges of pregnancy and parenthood. But more can and should be done to accommodate the essential role mothers play in our society.
Abortion, because it takes the life of an innocent human person, is a deep violation of equal human dignity, not an affirmation of it. Legalized abortion excludes an entire class of human beings from the protection of the law by allowing them to be dismembered and killed at the discretion of others. And the practice of sex-selection abortion (the legality of which is supported by Obama) targets unborn baby girls specifically because of their gender.
There is no equality in abortion.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
More than one-third of all abortions paid for by taxpayers
The following news release was issued today, May 7.
ST. PAUL — Taxpayer-funded abortions have reached their highest point ever as a percentage of annual abortions in the state. After 16 years of taxpayer-funded abortions, Minnesotans have funded more than 62,000 abortions at a cost of $19.9 million, according to a just-released report from the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS). Nearly all of these abortions have been elective.
Since its successful 1995 challenge to Minnesota's law which prohibited funding of most abortions, the state's abortion industry has steadily marketed taxpayer-funded abortions to low-income women. Taxpayers now pay for 33.4 percent of all abortions performed in the state—the highest percentage ever.
"The state's abortion facilities get a steady stream of taxpayer revenue by targeting economically vulnerable women," said Scott Fischbach, Executive Director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL). "It is time to end this exploitation of poor women and their unborn children."
Minnesota taxpayers have been required to fund elective abortions since the Minnesota Supreme Court's 1995 Doe v. Gomez ruling. In that decision, the Court created a state "right" to abortion on demand and obligated all taxpayers to fund abortions, including purely elective procedures.
Since the Doe v. Gomez ruling, taxpayers have paid $19,914,885 for a total of 62,252 abortion procedure claims. Taxpayers' portion of the 2011 numbers (the latest available) was $1,215,500 for 3,693 abortions. Prior to the court decision, taxpayers were charged about $7,000 per year for about 23 abortions in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother.
Twelve facilities performed taxpayer funded abortions in 2011; eight of them account for more than 99 percent of these abortions. One facility—Regions Hospital & Clinic—has since stopped doing abortions, and two more—Midwest Health Center for Women and Meadowbrook Women's Clinic, both in downtown Minneapolis—were sold to Texas-based Whole Woman's Health, which combined them into one facility last year.
"Polls continue to show that most Minnesotans and most Americans are opposed to taxpayer funded abortions, yet they continue to be forced to pay for them," Fischbach said.
MCCL helped to pass a ban on taxpayer funded abortion during the 2011 legislative session; it was vetoed by Gov. Mark Dayton. The measure would have ended the forced funding by taxpayers of this mistreatment of poor women and the killing of unborn children.
ST. PAUL — Taxpayer-funded abortions have reached their highest point ever as a percentage of annual abortions in the state. After 16 years of taxpayer-funded abortions, Minnesotans have funded more than 62,000 abortions at a cost of $19.9 million, according to a just-released report from the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS). Nearly all of these abortions have been elective.
Since its successful 1995 challenge to Minnesota's law which prohibited funding of most abortions, the state's abortion industry has steadily marketed taxpayer-funded abortions to low-income women. Taxpayers now pay for 33.4 percent of all abortions performed in the state—the highest percentage ever.
"The state's abortion facilities get a steady stream of taxpayer revenue by targeting economically vulnerable women," said Scott Fischbach, Executive Director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL). "It is time to end this exploitation of poor women and their unborn children."
Minnesota taxpayers have been required to fund elective abortions since the Minnesota Supreme Court's 1995 Doe v. Gomez ruling. In that decision, the Court created a state "right" to abortion on demand and obligated all taxpayers to fund abortions, including purely elective procedures.
Since the Doe v. Gomez ruling, taxpayers have paid $19,914,885 for a total of 62,252 abortion procedure claims. Taxpayers' portion of the 2011 numbers (the latest available) was $1,215,500 for 3,693 abortions. Prior to the court decision, taxpayers were charged about $7,000 per year for about 23 abortions in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother.
Twelve facilities performed taxpayer funded abortions in 2011; eight of them account for more than 99 percent of these abortions. One facility—Regions Hospital & Clinic—has since stopped doing abortions, and two more—Midwest Health Center for Women and Meadowbrook Women's Clinic, both in downtown Minneapolis—were sold to Texas-based Whole Woman's Health, which combined them into one facility last year.
"Polls continue to show that most Minnesotans and most Americans are opposed to taxpayer funded abortions, yet they continue to be forced to pay for them," Fischbach said.
MCCL helped to pass a ban on taxpayer funded abortion during the 2011 legislative session; it was vetoed by Gov. Mark Dayton. The measure would have ended the forced funding by taxpayers of this mistreatment of poor women and the killing of unborn children.
Friday, May 3, 2013
Whole Woman's Health seeks counselor to 'close the deal' on abortion sales
The following news release was issued on May 2.
MINNEAPOLIS—Texas-based Whole Woman's Health chain of abortion facilities has a new online job listing seeking an "Empower Line Phone Counselor" for its Minneapolis abortion facility. One of the general requirements for the new abortion worker is to "Be able to 'close the deal' or book the appointment" for an abortion. The listing also states that the new hire must "understand that we do not create victims. We trust and listen to women."
"Whole Woman's Health takes a crass approach to the business of abortion, which victimizes women and their unborn babies," said Scott Fischbach, Executive Director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL). "Its goal to 'close the deal' reduces the abortion of unborn human beings to a profit-driven sales transaction."
Minimal experience is needed for this "counselor" who will urge women to make a life-altering decision: a high school diploma or GED and "one year's experience in a health care facility or working in a customer service/phone service position." In other words, a 19-year-old who has taken orders in an auto repair shop is qualified to counsel women to have their unborn children forcibly dismembered and removed from their womb.
"We are shocked at this callous attitude toward the women of our state who are facing a life-or-death decision when calling Whole Woman's Health," Fischbach said. "We hope that women seek counsel and help from one of the 90 compassionate, caring pregnancy care centers in our state."
The Whole Woman's Health Minneapolis abortion facility is part of a nationwide chain of abortion facilities. It has a long, dirty history of fines and violations. It was fined $83,000 in Texas, along with its medical waste vendor, for illegally dumping the remains of aborted babies in open trash receptacles. Eight of its abortionists were recently brought before the Texas Medical Board for numerous allegations, including the illegal dumping of private patient medical records, HIPAA violations, and violations of Texas informed consent laws. Several Whole Woman's Health abortionists have previous disciplinary histories, including one who was responsible for a patient's death.
MINNEAPOLIS—Texas-based Whole Woman's Health chain of abortion facilities has a new online job listing seeking an "Empower Line Phone Counselor" for its Minneapolis abortion facility. One of the general requirements for the new abortion worker is to "Be able to 'close the deal' or book the appointment" for an abortion. The listing also states that the new hire must "understand that we do not create victims. We trust and listen to women."
"Whole Woman's Health takes a crass approach to the business of abortion, which victimizes women and their unborn babies," said Scott Fischbach, Executive Director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL). "Its goal to 'close the deal' reduces the abortion of unborn human beings to a profit-driven sales transaction."
Minimal experience is needed for this "counselor" who will urge women to make a life-altering decision: a high school diploma or GED and "one year's experience in a health care facility or working in a customer service/phone service position." In other words, a 19-year-old who has taken orders in an auto repair shop is qualified to counsel women to have their unborn children forcibly dismembered and removed from their womb.
"We are shocked at this callous attitude toward the women of our state who are facing a life-or-death decision when calling Whole Woman's Health," Fischbach said. "We hope that women seek counsel and help from one of the 90 compassionate, caring pregnancy care centers in our state."
The Whole Woman's Health Minneapolis abortion facility is part of a nationwide chain of abortion facilities. It has a long, dirty history of fines and violations. It was fined $83,000 in Texas, along with its medical waste vendor, for illegally dumping the remains of aborted babies in open trash receptacles. Eight of its abortionists were recently brought before the Texas Medical Board for numerous allegations, including the illegal dumping of private patient medical records, HIPAA violations, and violations of Texas informed consent laws. Several Whole Woman's Health abortionists have previous disciplinary histories, including one who was responsible for a patient's death.
Monday, April 29, 2013
The expansion of euthanasia in Europe
In the May 2013 issue of First Things (subscription necessary for online access), Wesley J. Smith tracks the steady expansion of euthanasia in the Netherlands and now Belgium—"from the terminally ill, to more seriously chronically ill, to people with serious disabilities, to those suffering from existential anguish or mental illness," including "the profoundly depressed" and those with "early dementia." Some patients, including many disabled newborn babies, are euthanized even though they have made no request for death. Switzerland, meanwhile, has become a haven for "suicide tourism," a place where people come, many of them merely disabled or depressed, and are helped to kill themselves.
Rather than eliminate the suffering—by caring for those who need help, fixing their depression, and so on—Europe is increasingly choosing to eliminate the sufferers. This is disturbing stuff.
Consider the reaction to one of the first joint euthanasia killings in Belgium:
Rather than eliminate the suffering—by caring for those who need help, fixing their depression, and so on—Europe is increasingly choosing to eliminate the sufferers. This is disturbing stuff.
Consider the reaction to one of the first joint euthanasia killings in Belgium:
In 2011, Belgian media extolled the joint deaths of an elderly couple, who were lethally injected with the apparent knowledge and support of their local community. ... The couple's demise was celebrated by a Belgian bioethicist, who said, "It is an important signal to break a taboo. ... This can be viewed as a normal way of dying and viewed as such by the community at large. ... People think that euthanasia can only be applied to terminal cancer patients. But the group is a lot bigger. And this is a beautiful example that allows us to provide a dignified death to this couple, thanks to euthanasia." Most societies see joint suicides by elderly couples as tragic. For some in Belgium, they are beautiful.Even worse, Smith shows how euthanasia followed by organ harvesting has become a reality:
As reported in Applied Cardiopulmonary Pathophysiology in 2011, four patients (three disabled and one mentally ill) were euthanized and their lungs harvested. The authors seem to hope for more opportunities to study the efficiency and efficacy of harvesting organs from euthanized patients. ... [T]he acceptance of joint killing and harvesting sends a cruel message to disabled and mentally ill people that their deaths could have greater value than their lives.Smith concludes:
I think widespread popular acceptance of euthanasia in Europe ... is a symptom of cultural nihilism. Consider: A hundred years ago, when people really did die in agony, there was little call for legalizing euthanasia. Yet today, when most pain can be significantly alleviated if not eliminated, we see calls for so-called "death with dignity." Clearly, more is going on than just a desire to eliminate suffering.In the United States, Oregon and Washington (and arguably Montana via court ruling) have legalized physician-assisted suicide, but it has thus far been resisted everywhere else.
What is the antidote? Love. We all age. We fall ill. We grow weak. We become disabled. Life can get very hard. Euthanasia raises the fundamental question of whether our culture will retain the moral capacity to sustain a culture of care for those who have entered life's most difficult stages. On that question, it seems to me, hangs the moral future of Western civilization. For as the Canadian journalist Andrew Coyne has cogently warned: "A society that believes in nothing can offer no argument even against death. A culture that has lost its faith in life cannot comprehend why it should be endured."
Friday, April 26, 2013
Senate votes against women's safety, defeats MCCL-backed amendment
The following news release was issued April 26.
ST. PAUL — State senators yesterday voted down an amendment that would protect women entering abortion facilities. The measure was part of H.F. 1233, the $11.3 billion omnibus health and human services budget bill the Senate passed late Thursday evening.
"This is a sad day for the women of Minnesota," said MCCL Legislative Director Andrea Rau. "The abortion industry has always lobbied in its own best interests, and the majority of state senators have responded by extending special privileges to abortion facilities at the expense of women's safety."
Sen. Michelle Fischbach, R-Paynesville, took up the issue of licensing abortion facilities by offering an amendment that contains the language of S.F. 752. The amendment requires that abortion facilities be licensed in the same manner as outpatient surgical centers, and also allows for up to two inspections per year.
Unlike the state's other outpatient surgical centers, surgical abortion facilities currently are neither licensed nor inspected. The Fischbach amendment would ensure that abortion facilities are accountable to the Minnesota Department of Health by closing the existing loophole in the licensing law.
The bill would require facilities that perform 10 or more abortions per month to be licensed by the state. The licensing bill would apply to the state's five abortion facilities, which together perform the vast majority of all abortions in Minnesota. In 2011, a total of 11,071 abortions were performed in the state.
Thursday's vote occurred in the midst of the lengthy trial of Kermit Gosnell, a Philadelphia abortionist accused of several counts of murder at his filthy facility. Employees have testified to a wide range of dangerous and illegal conditions at Gosnell's abortion facility. Women allegedly were injured, illegally drugged and contracted STDs over a period of decades due to the lack of inspections.
The amendment was voted down on a vote of 30-35.
"This common-sense legislation is necessary to ensure the safety of women," Rau added. "There is no reason for abortion facilities to be given special exemption from licensing that governs other outpatient surgical centers in the state."
ST. PAUL — State senators yesterday voted down an amendment that would protect women entering abortion facilities. The measure was part of H.F. 1233, the $11.3 billion omnibus health and human services budget bill the Senate passed late Thursday evening.
"This is a sad day for the women of Minnesota," said MCCL Legislative Director Andrea Rau. "The abortion industry has always lobbied in its own best interests, and the majority of state senators have responded by extending special privileges to abortion facilities at the expense of women's safety."
Sen. Michelle Fischbach, R-Paynesville, took up the issue of licensing abortion facilities by offering an amendment that contains the language of S.F. 752. The amendment requires that abortion facilities be licensed in the same manner as outpatient surgical centers, and also allows for up to two inspections per year.
Unlike the state's other outpatient surgical centers, surgical abortion facilities currently are neither licensed nor inspected. The Fischbach amendment would ensure that abortion facilities are accountable to the Minnesota Department of Health by closing the existing loophole in the licensing law.
The bill would require facilities that perform 10 or more abortions per month to be licensed by the state. The licensing bill would apply to the state's five abortion facilities, which together perform the vast majority of all abortions in Minnesota. In 2011, a total of 11,071 abortions were performed in the state.
Thursday's vote occurred in the midst of the lengthy trial of Kermit Gosnell, a Philadelphia abortionist accused of several counts of murder at his filthy facility. Employees have testified to a wide range of dangerous and illegal conditions at Gosnell's abortion facility. Women allegedly were injured, illegally drugged and contracted STDs over a period of decades due to the lack of inspections.
The amendment was voted down on a vote of 30-35.
"This common-sense legislation is necessary to ensure the safety of women," Rau added. "There is no reason for abortion facilities to be given special exemption from licensing that governs other outpatient surgical centers in the state."
Thursday, April 25, 2013
New UNICEF Report draws attention to protecting babies in early months of life, before and after birth
The following news release was issued today, April 25, by MCCL GO.
NEW YORK, N.Y. — Concern for the developmental health of the unborn child worldwide is a focus of a new report issued by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). Pro-life citizens and organizations are encouraged to join their voices in this call for greater care for early human life.
"Improving Child Nutrition: The achievable imperative for global progress" underscores the critical importance of the first 1,000 days of human life, from conception through the child's second birthday. The G8 leaders, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, and the World Health Assembly have made adequate nutrition for babies, unborn and born, a top investment priority.
"MCCL GO enthusiastically supports this new U.N. emphasis on healthy outcomes for babies," said MCCL GO's Scott Fischbach. "The global nutrition community has recognized the importance of caring for unborn children and their mothers, which gives us much hope in our efforts to educate leaders about the need to protect human life."
Recognizing the lifelong impact of undernutrition and stunting, UNICEF is calling for various means of intervention on behalf of unborn and newly-born babies. Programs will advocate for proper nutrition and health care for pregnant women and their babies in order to achieve the best outcome for children.
"Poor nutrition in the first 1,000 days of children's lives can have irreversible consequences," the UNICEF report states. "It is difficult to think of a greater injustice than robbing a child, in the womb and in infancy, of the ability to fully develop his or her talents throughout life."
These concerns are reflected in the U.N.'s foundational documents regarding children, including the Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959), which states that "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth," and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), which recognizes that "every child has the inherent right to life."
MCCL GO shares these beliefs in the rights of children. Every unborn child is innocent and deserves protection from harm, whether by malnutrition, assault on the child's mother or abortion.
"Indeed, it is a great injustice to rob an unborn child of his or her future," Fischbach said. "Whenever the U.N. speaks up for and establishes programs to help pregnant women and their unborn babies, MCCL GO is there to support them."
MCCL GO is a pro-life global outreach program of the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Education Fund with one goal: to save as many innocent lives as possible from the destruction of abortion. Learn more at www.mccl-go.org.
NEW YORK, N.Y. — Concern for the developmental health of the unborn child worldwide is a focus of a new report issued by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). Pro-life citizens and organizations are encouraged to join their voices in this call for greater care for early human life.
"Improving Child Nutrition: The achievable imperative for global progress" underscores the critical importance of the first 1,000 days of human life, from conception through the child's second birthday. The G8 leaders, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, and the World Health Assembly have made adequate nutrition for babies, unborn and born, a top investment priority.
"MCCL GO enthusiastically supports this new U.N. emphasis on healthy outcomes for babies," said MCCL GO's Scott Fischbach. "The global nutrition community has recognized the importance of caring for unborn children and their mothers, which gives us much hope in our efforts to educate leaders about the need to protect human life."
Recognizing the lifelong impact of undernutrition and stunting, UNICEF is calling for various means of intervention on behalf of unborn and newly-born babies. Programs will advocate for proper nutrition and health care for pregnant women and their babies in order to achieve the best outcome for children.
"Poor nutrition in the first 1,000 days of children's lives can have irreversible consequences," the UNICEF report states. "It is difficult to think of a greater injustice than robbing a child, in the womb and in infancy, of the ability to fully develop his or her talents throughout life."
These concerns are reflected in the U.N.'s foundational documents regarding children, including the Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959), which states that "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth," and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), which recognizes that "every child has the inherent right to life."
MCCL GO shares these beliefs in the rights of children. Every unborn child is innocent and deserves protection from harm, whether by malnutrition, assault on the child's mother or abortion.
"Indeed, it is a great injustice to rob an unborn child of his or her future," Fischbach said. "Whenever the U.N. speaks up for and establishes programs to help pregnant women and their unborn babies, MCCL GO is there to support them."
MCCL GO is a pro-life global outreach program of the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Education Fund with one goal: to save as many innocent lives as possible from the destruction of abortion. Learn more at www.mccl-go.org.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Whole Woman's Health has history of shoddy practice, legal trouble
 |
| Sign outside WWH clinic in Texas |
Whole Woman's Health is an abortion chain based in Texas, and it only recently opened its facility in Minnesota. The group's track record is cause for concern.
In 2011 the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality determined that WWH of Austin and WWH of McAllen were violating Texas law regarding disposal of the remains of aborted children. WWH was putting babies' bodies (and other abortion refuse, including syringes and disposable surgical instruments) into open public dumpsters. WWH was penalized $40,410 (the two clinics combined), and its medical waste vendor $42,612, for a total of $83,022 (see Appendix 1, page 8 of the Texas Commission's Annual Enforcement Report).
In 2012 the Texas Medical Board disciplined two WWH abortionists for violating standards of patient care. They were both fined $3,000 and required to take a medical education course. Many other WWH abortionists have previous disciplinary histories. One abortionist at Meadowbrook Women's Clinic, which became WWH Twin Cities, was previously disciplined by the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice.
WWH in Texas has also been found illegally dumping private medical records. One WWH abortionist was recorded mocking the informed consent information he is required to provide patients, and disregarding the 24-hour waiting period.
 |
| "The facility failed to provide a safe and sanitary environment," according to state inspection |
- "Based on observation and interview the facility failed to provide a safe and sanitary environment."
- "The facility failed to ensure the staff was trained in sterilization process of surgical instruments."
- "The facility failed to provide safe equipment in the patient's procedure rooms."
- "The facility failed to staff the clinic with a registered nurse(s) or a licensed vocational nurse(s)."
- "The facility administration failed to ensure staff received training, education, and orientation to their specific job description."
- "There were numerous rusty spots on the suction machine used on the patient for evacuation of the products of conception."
- "The facility's floor was stained and discolored which give the appearance of being dirty."
- "An interview with the administrator ... confirmed the bed was broken in room #1, there was a hole in the [floor] in procedure room #2, the floors were stained, and the evacuation plan of the building was not posted for the safety of the patients and employees."
- "The facility's staff failed to monitor the expiration dates on sterile supplies."
- "The facility failed to maintain the sterility of the surgical instruments."
- "The facility failed to have current emergency medication in the emergency crash cart."
- "The facility failed to provide emergency airway equipment."
- "The facility failed to follow [federal regulations] concerning portable fire extinguishers."
House approves MCCL-backed amendments related to women’s safety, abortion
The following news release was issued today, April 23.
ST. PAUL — Several pro-life amendments supported by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) were offered in the Minnesota House of Representatives on Monday. All were approved as part of the $11 billion health and human services budget bill and the health insurance exchange bill the House passed late last night.
Rep. John Ward, DFL-Baxter, took up the issue of licensing abortion facilities by offering an amendment that contains the language of H.F. 900. The amendment requires that abortion facilities be licensed in the same manner as outpatient surgical centers, and also allows for up to two inspections per year.
Abortion facilities are currently neither licensed nor inspected; the Ward amendment would ensure that abortion facilities are abiding by Minnesota's existing laws. The requirement would apply to the state's five abortion facilities, which together perform the vast majority of all abortions in Minnesota. In 2011, a total of 11,071 abortions were performed in the state. The amendment passed on a vote of 71-62.
"This common-sense legislation is necessary to ensure the safety of women," said MCCL Legislative Associate Andrea Rau. "There is no reason for abortion facilities to be given special exemption from licensing that governs other outpatient surgical centers in the state."
Rep. Mary Liz Holberg, R-Lakeville, offered an amendment to H.F. 779, the health insurance exchange bill, specifying that abortion would not be included in the essential health benefit package for policies sold in the exchange. Because the essential health benefit package sets the minimum required benefits, abortion could still be offered in policies sold in the exchange; however, it would not be a mandated benefit. The language of the amendment makes an exception for abortions done to save the life of the mother, and in cases where the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. Rep. Holberg's amendment was approved 70-64.
"Abortion is not health care, and House members rightly agreed that it ought not be considered essential to health insurance coverage," Rau said. "Abortion is an elective procedure in nearly every case."
Another H.F. 779 amendment to update an existing law stating that insurance companies can't be required to provide abortion coverage was offered by Rep. Patti Fritz, DFL-Faribault. Although the law (145.414) already covers insurance carriers operating in the exchange, this amendment serves to clarify the intent of the Legislature. The House passed the amendment on a 71-63 vote.
ST. PAUL — Several pro-life amendments supported by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) were offered in the Minnesota House of Representatives on Monday. All were approved as part of the $11 billion health and human services budget bill and the health insurance exchange bill the House passed late last night.
Rep. John Ward, DFL-Baxter, took up the issue of licensing abortion facilities by offering an amendment that contains the language of H.F. 900. The amendment requires that abortion facilities be licensed in the same manner as outpatient surgical centers, and also allows for up to two inspections per year.
Abortion facilities are currently neither licensed nor inspected; the Ward amendment would ensure that abortion facilities are abiding by Minnesota's existing laws. The requirement would apply to the state's five abortion facilities, which together perform the vast majority of all abortions in Minnesota. In 2011, a total of 11,071 abortions were performed in the state. The amendment passed on a vote of 71-62.
"This common-sense legislation is necessary to ensure the safety of women," said MCCL Legislative Associate Andrea Rau. "There is no reason for abortion facilities to be given special exemption from licensing that governs other outpatient surgical centers in the state."
Rep. Mary Liz Holberg, R-Lakeville, offered an amendment to H.F. 779, the health insurance exchange bill, specifying that abortion would not be included in the essential health benefit package for policies sold in the exchange. Because the essential health benefit package sets the minimum required benefits, abortion could still be offered in policies sold in the exchange; however, it would not be a mandated benefit. The language of the amendment makes an exception for abortions done to save the life of the mother, and in cases where the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. Rep. Holberg's amendment was approved 70-64.
"Abortion is not health care, and House members rightly agreed that it ought not be considered essential to health insurance coverage," Rau said. "Abortion is an elective procedure in nearly every case."
Another H.F. 779 amendment to update an existing law stating that insurance companies can't be required to provide abortion coverage was offered by Rep. Patti Fritz, DFL-Faribault. Although the law (145.414) already covers insurance carriers operating in the exchange, this amendment serves to clarify the intent of the Legislature. The House passed the amendment on a 71-63 vote.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Is Whole Woman's Health performing abortions illegally?
The following news release was issued today, April 17.
MINNEAPOLIS—Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) today called upon Attorney General Lori Swanson and state Health Commissioner Edward Ehlinger, M.D., to enforce the Woman's Right to Know law in our state.
"Whole Woman's Health abortion center in Minneapolis is doing same-day abortions and that is illegal in our state," stated Scott Fischbach, MCCL Executive Director. "Since 2003 we have had a mandatory 24-hour waiting period before any abortion can be performed, and Whole Woman's Health is not above our laws."
The Whole Woman's Health abortion center website offers "same-day surgical procedures" at its Minneapolis facility. At a minimum, this information is false and misleading to women if indeed they cannot walk in and have their unborn child aborted. If Whole Woman's Health will perform a same-day abortion, it is clearly illegal.
Whole Woman's Health is a Texas-based abortion chain that has a history of breaking state laws. Whole Woman's Health was fined $83,000 in Texas (see p. 116), along with its medical waste vendor, for illegally dumping the remains of aborted babies in open trash receptacles. Eight of its abortionists were disciplined by the Texas Medical Board for numerous allegations, including the illegal dumping of private patient medical records, HIPAA violations, and violations of Texas informed consent laws. Several Whole Woman's Health abortionists have previous disciplinary histories, including one who was responsible for a patient death.
"Their past record demonstrates that Whole Woman's Health is willing to violate the law. This only underscores the need to license and inspect abortion facilities in the state," Fischbach said. "And while abortion centers are not licensed or inspected by the State of Minnesota, the least that the Attorney General and Health Commissioner can do is enforce the laws that we have on the books."
MCCL supports S.F. 752 / H.F. 900 to require licensing of abortion facilities. This legislation would empower the state to ensure a degree of safety for women and to hold abortion providers to state standards for outpatient surgical centers.
MINNEAPOLIS—Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) today called upon Attorney General Lori Swanson and state Health Commissioner Edward Ehlinger, M.D., to enforce the Woman's Right to Know law in our state.
"Whole Woman's Health abortion center in Minneapolis is doing same-day abortions and that is illegal in our state," stated Scott Fischbach, MCCL Executive Director. "Since 2003 we have had a mandatory 24-hour waiting period before any abortion can be performed, and Whole Woman's Health is not above our laws."
The Whole Woman's Health abortion center website offers "same-day surgical procedures" at its Minneapolis facility. At a minimum, this information is false and misleading to women if indeed they cannot walk in and have their unborn child aborted. If Whole Woman's Health will perform a same-day abortion, it is clearly illegal.
Whole Woman's Health is a Texas-based abortion chain that has a history of breaking state laws. Whole Woman's Health was fined $83,000 in Texas (see p. 116), along with its medical waste vendor, for illegally dumping the remains of aborted babies in open trash receptacles. Eight of its abortionists were disciplined by the Texas Medical Board for numerous allegations, including the illegal dumping of private patient medical records, HIPAA violations, and violations of Texas informed consent laws. Several Whole Woman's Health abortionists have previous disciplinary histories, including one who was responsible for a patient death.
"Their past record demonstrates that Whole Woman's Health is willing to violate the law. This only underscores the need to license and inspect abortion facilities in the state," Fischbach said. "And while abortion centers are not licensed or inspected by the State of Minnesota, the least that the Attorney General and Health Commissioner can do is enforce the laws that we have on the books."
MCCL supports S.F. 752 / H.F. 900 to require licensing of abortion facilities. This legislation would empower the state to ensure a degree of safety for women and to hold abortion providers to state standards for outpatient surgical centers.
Friday, April 12, 2013
10th anniversary of Woman's Right to Know Law signing
The following news release was issued April 12, 2013.
ST. PAUL — This Sunday, April 14, marks the 10th anniversary of Governor Tim Pawlenty's signing of the Woman's Right to Know law that is saving lives in Minnesota every day. Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) was instrumental in assisting state lawmakers to pass this lifesaving measure into law.
Enactment of Woman's Right to Know followed an epic nine-year legislative war that involved endless legislative committee hearings, numerous floor votes over nine consecutive legislative sessions, and three different vetoes from pro-abortion Governors Arne Carlson and Jesse Ventura.
"This protracted fight to inform and empower women was well worth the effort, and remains a reminder that through perseverance, justice for women can be achieved," said MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach.
Woman's Right to Know is a straightforward "informed consent" law that empowers a woman seeking an abortion. Women considering abortion are now provided a wide range of information (in English, Spanish, Braille and audio recording) compiled by the Minnesota Department of Health about abortion, including medical facts, risks and complications, alternatives and information about agencies that offer aid. One of the most important provisions of the law is that once the woman is provided the informed consent information, she is given 24 hours of reflection prior to undergoing an abortion.
The law took effect on July 1, 2003, and the impact has been dramatic. Every year since enactment, many more pregnant women have been provided the Woman's Right to Know information than actually have aborted. In 2011 alone, 13,645 women were provided information and only 11,071 actually went ahead with the abortion—a difference of 2,574!
From its enactment in 2003 through 2011 (the last available report from the Minnesota Department of Health), records indicate that 15,696 women have chosen life for their unborn children after receiving the Woman's Right to Know information.
Woman's Right to Know has also been a leading factor in the reduction of abortion numbers, as well as the abortion rate. The number of abortions reported to the Minnesota Department of Health has decreased every year except for one since the law took effect.
"We commend Gov. Pawlenty and all the DFL and GOP legislators who fought for so many years to make this possible," Fischbach added.
ST. PAUL — This Sunday, April 14, marks the 10th anniversary of Governor Tim Pawlenty's signing of the Woman's Right to Know law that is saving lives in Minnesota every day. Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) was instrumental in assisting state lawmakers to pass this lifesaving measure into law.
Enactment of Woman's Right to Know followed an epic nine-year legislative war that involved endless legislative committee hearings, numerous floor votes over nine consecutive legislative sessions, and three different vetoes from pro-abortion Governors Arne Carlson and Jesse Ventura.
"This protracted fight to inform and empower women was well worth the effort, and remains a reminder that through perseverance, justice for women can be achieved," said MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach.
Woman's Right to Know is a straightforward "informed consent" law that empowers a woman seeking an abortion. Women considering abortion are now provided a wide range of information (in English, Spanish, Braille and audio recording) compiled by the Minnesota Department of Health about abortion, including medical facts, risks and complications, alternatives and information about agencies that offer aid. One of the most important provisions of the law is that once the woman is provided the informed consent information, she is given 24 hours of reflection prior to undergoing an abortion.
The law took effect on July 1, 2003, and the impact has been dramatic. Every year since enactment, many more pregnant women have been provided the Woman's Right to Know information than actually have aborted. In 2011 alone, 13,645 women were provided information and only 11,071 actually went ahead with the abortion—a difference of 2,574!
From its enactment in 2003 through 2011 (the last available report from the Minnesota Department of Health), records indicate that 15,696 women have chosen life for their unborn children after receiving the Woman's Right to Know information.
Woman's Right to Know has also been a leading factor in the reduction of abortion numbers, as well as the abortion rate. The number of abortions reported to the Minnesota Department of Health has decreased every year except for one since the law took effect.
"We commend Gov. Pawlenty and all the DFL and GOP legislators who fought for so many years to make this possible," Fischbach added.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Pro-choice tension, the moral irrelevance of birth, and three possibilities
Consider the following three stories:
So here are three possibilities:
- Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell is currently on trial for delivering viable babies and then killing them by severing their spinal cords (he is also charged with the murder of a pregnant woman).
- Last week a Planned Parenthood lobbyist testified against a Florida bill to protect babies born alive after failed abortions. The Planned Parenthood representative said that "any decision that's made [about the fate of the living newborn child] should be left up to the woman, her family and the physician." She objected to transporting the infant to a hospital for possibly-lifesaving care because in "those situations where it is in a rural health care setting, the hospital is 45 minutes or an hour away," so "there's just some logistical issues involved that we have some concerns about." (President Obama, as an Illinois state senator, repeatedly voted against legal protection for already-born abortion survivors because such protection would undermine the logic of "abortion rights.")
- Last year two bio-ethicists argued in the Journal of Medical Ethics for the moral permissibility of "after-birth abortion" (the killing of human infants), a position that has been expounded for decades by leading pro-choice philosophers like Michael Tooley and Peter Singer.
So here are three possibilities:
- We may deny rights to the voiceless and powerless human beings in utero (and ex utero) according to our own preferences, according to what we think is best or most convenient for us. Might makes right. This seems to be the Planned Parenthood/Kermit Gosnell position.
- Our rights are based on possession of certain acquired properties (usually higher mental functions) that some human beings have and others lack, that can be gained and lost throughout the life of a human being, and that some have to a greater degree than others. Human equality is a myth. And since both unborn and newborn children fail to meet the criteria, both abortion and infanticide are okay. This is the Peter Singer/Michael Tooley/Journal of Medical Ethics position.
- Our rights are based on what (the kind of being) we are. So all human beings by nature—irrespective not only of race, gender and social status, but irrespective also of age, size, location, ability, stage of development and condition of dependency—have an equal fundamental dignity and right to life. This is the pro-life position.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
International Day of the Unborn Child: March 25, 2013
The International Day of the Unborn Child is to be celebrated by all citizens on Monday, March 25, 2013. It is a day to recall the remarkable journey of life each member of the human family has taken in our commonality as human beings and our uniqueness as individuals.
Initiated by Pope John Paul II to coincide with and to honor the Feast of the Annunciation, the March 25 event has grown into a day of celebration and remembrance for all unborn human beings. It is a time to celebrate human dignity and the amazing world of the developing child yet to be born. It is also a day to remember the millions of unborn children whose lives have been ended by the violence of abortion.
In 1993, El Salvador became the first country to officially celebrate a "Day of the Right to Be Born." Subsequently other countries have begun official celebrations for the unborn, including Argentina with "Day of the Unborn" in 1998, Chile with "Day of the Conceived and Unborn" in 1999, and also in 1999, Guatemala's "National Day of the Unborn." Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Peru, the Philippines, the Dominican Republic and Paraguay are all nations that now celebrate a day for the unborn child.
While many nations celebrate the unalienable worth and value of every unborn child, we must raise our voices against the current U.S. administration's unrelenting war on the innocent unborn child. Since President Obama's election in 2008, the U.S. administration's policy of advocating the destruction of unborn children has come in all forms, from taxpayer funding of abortion and embryo-killing research, to funding efforts abroad to rid other countries of their pro-life constitutions. Never before in the history of the world has an unborn child faced such a great struggle just to be born.
It is important in 2013 to recall how much we have learned about the intricate world of the unborn child and humanity itself. Current developments include intrauterine surgery, ultrasound, neo-natal intensive care, fetal heart monitoring and much more. We also know now that the unborn child has the ability to feel pain.
To help spread this message of this special day, MCCL GO has created web graphics for pro-life people and groups to share. They are available for free here (click to enlarge) and at MCCL's Facebook page.
MCCL GO is a pro-life global outreach program of the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Education Fund with one goal: to save as many innocent lives as possible from the destruction of abortion. Learn more at www.mccl-go.org.
Please subscribe to our RSS Feed.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Richard Dawkins and the ability to feel pain
"With respect to those meanings of 'human' that are relevant to the morality of abortion, any fetus is less human than an adult pig," tweeted Richard Dawkins on Wednesday, echoing philosopher Peter Singer, who has made the same comparison.
(Dawkins is probably the world's most famous, or infamous, proponent of atheism, but a belief in atheism need not entail the pro-choice position on the ethics of abortion that Dawkins holds. Indeed, that position is contravened by science and reason accessible to people of any or no faith, independent of any religious teaching or texts.)
A clarification must be made regarding Dawkins' use of the term "human." It can be used in a biological sense to mean a living human organism—a member of the species Homo sapiens—and in that sense the fetus, from the beginning of his or her existence at conception, is a full-fledged human being, like you and me only at an earlier developmental stage, while the pig is not and never will be. But Dawkins uses "human" in a different sense to refer to certain characteristically-human qualities that he considers morally relevant with respect to how a being ought to be treated—qualities that may not be possessed by all human beings (those who have yet to acquire them, or who have lost them, are excluded from serious moral regard) and that may be possessed by some non-human animals (such as pigs).
Dawkins went on to further discuss abortion and clarify his position. He considers the ability to experience pain the decisive factor: Only beings who can feel pain deserve the sort of moral respect that would preclude killing them. Only when an unborn child is developed enough to feel pain is abortion (presumably) morally impermissible.
But this position does not seem defensible. Surely we may not kill people as long as we do so in a painless fashion. So it must be, as Dawkins puts it, the ability to feel pain that counts. But what about people who are under anesthesia or temporarily comatose? What about people with the condition called congenital insensitivity to pain? They cannot experience pain. Do they not still have a right to life? Imagine an intelligent alien race whose physiology is such that, though in every other way like us, they cannot feel pain or pleasure. Imagine a person whose brain has been surgically altered to prevent the experience of pain. Are these people not still people?
Even normal, adult human beings who can suffer pain have that ability in varying degrees. Does that mean that our moral worth, our right not to be killed, is also a matter of degree? Are some people more valuable than others? Philosopher Christopher Kaczor writes:
Dawkins will have to rethink his position. (In the meantime, he can at least support current legislation in the United States to stop the dismemberment and killing of unborn children developed enough to feel pain.)
(Dawkins is probably the world's most famous, or infamous, proponent of atheism, but a belief in atheism need not entail the pro-choice position on the ethics of abortion that Dawkins holds. Indeed, that position is contravened by science and reason accessible to people of any or no faith, independent of any religious teaching or texts.)
A clarification must be made regarding Dawkins' use of the term "human." It can be used in a biological sense to mean a living human organism—a member of the species Homo sapiens—and in that sense the fetus, from the beginning of his or her existence at conception, is a full-fledged human being, like you and me only at an earlier developmental stage, while the pig is not and never will be. But Dawkins uses "human" in a different sense to refer to certain characteristically-human qualities that he considers morally relevant with respect to how a being ought to be treated—qualities that may not be possessed by all human beings (those who have yet to acquire them, or who have lost them, are excluded from serious moral regard) and that may be possessed by some non-human animals (such as pigs).
Dawkins went on to further discuss abortion and clarify his position. He considers the ability to experience pain the decisive factor: Only beings who can feel pain deserve the sort of moral respect that would preclude killing them. Only when an unborn child is developed enough to feel pain is abortion (presumably) morally impermissible.But this position does not seem defensible. Surely we may not kill people as long as we do so in a painless fashion. So it must be, as Dawkins puts it, the ability to feel pain that counts. But what about people who are under anesthesia or temporarily comatose? What about people with the condition called congenital insensitivity to pain? They cannot experience pain. Do they not still have a right to life? Imagine an intelligent alien race whose physiology is such that, though in every other way like us, they cannot feel pain or pleasure. Imagine a person whose brain has been surgically altered to prevent the experience of pain. Are these people not still people?
Even normal, adult human beings who can suffer pain have that ability in varying degrees. Does that mean that our moral worth, our right not to be killed, is also a matter of degree? Are some people more valuable than others? Philosopher Christopher Kaczor writes:
The kung fu master can put his arms around a burning cauldron, endure the searing of flesh, and carry the weighty object. The proverbial princess cannot stand the pea under her multiple mattresses. Many men cannot bear the least discomfort, and many women endure childbirth without anesthetic. Certain injuries and diseases greatly hinder the human capacity for pain, as do drugs of various kinds, as do differences in degrees of concentration and experience. ... Our experiences of pains and pleasures are conditioned by our prior experiences, beliefs, and habits. Since no two human persons have the same experiences, beliefs, and habits, no two human persons have equal capacities for pleasure and pain, and therefore human persons do not have equal rights [if rights depends on the ability to feel pain, which Kaczor rejects].This is not to say that pain and suffering are morally irrelevant—clearly they matter a great deal. But it is just as clear that the ability to experience pain is not a necessary criterion for having a right to life or for deserving the kind of moral respect that precludes killing for socio-economic reasons. Nor can the ability to experience pain serve as the basis for equal dignity and rights.
Dawkins will have to rethink his position. (In the meantime, he can at least support current legislation in the United States to stop the dismemberment and killing of unborn children developed enough to feel pain.)
Monday, March 11, 2013
Abortion, women's equality, and the misogynist male standard
Erika Bachiochi, who in 2011 authored "Embodied Equality: Debunking Equal Protection Arguments for Abortion Rights" in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, explains a key problem with the claim that "women's social, relational, and legal equality requires abortion":
By equating equality with abortion access, we have capitulated to the misogynist view that equality requires women to become more like men, i.e., not pregnant. This is not to say in a biologically determinist fashion that because women's bodies have the capacity to gestate fetal life, women are assumed by nature to be designed only, or even primarily, to be wives and mothers. It is to say that a culture that relies on abortion to achieve equality between the sexes takes male—wombless—physiology as the norm, and in so doing perpetuates the cultural devaluation of motherhood, and of parenting generally, and the social conditions that are often inhospitable to childrearing. Abortion leaves every societal and familial injustice just as it is, and expects nothing more or different of men.
Sexual equality via abortion looks to cure biological asymmetry—the fact that women get pregnant and men don't—by promoting the rejection of women's bodies. Authentic equality and reproductive justice would demand something far more revolutionary: that men and society at large respect and support women in their myriad capacities and talents which include, for most women at some time in their lives, childbearing.
If pregnancy and motherhood are understood as burdensome conditions to women—experiences that represent our inability to compete with wombless men—they will never be given the respect and accommodation they deserve. Not all women become mothers, but those who do so depend upon a cultural esteeming of both pregnancy and motherhood—the nurturance of an individual and unique human being—for their social and professional support.
To belittle the moral status of the unborn child is to belittle the state of pregnancy, and so too the child's mother. To upend the mother's bond with her unborn child by allowing abortion is also to deny the paternal duties that come with siring offspring. Current abortion law treats pregnancy as a woman's choice—and so too her problem. And many men have been just as happy to (have sex and) oblige.
The sacrifices that mothers endure during their pregnancies—and mothers and fathers endure beyond—would be far more honored (and perhaps even rewarded) were we as a culture honest about the dignity of the human beings—born and unborn—entrusted to our care.
Friday, March 8, 2013
The consequences of more webcam abortions in Minnesota
We noted last week that Whole Woman's Health in Minneapolis may soon offer RU486 abortions remotely via telemedicine. These "webcam abortions" are already offered at the Planned Parenthood facility in Rochester. What will be the consequences?
A recent study of webcam abortions in Iowa, which were introduced in 2008 and administered at 11 different clinics by 2010, provides evidence that the use of telemedicine for abortion does precisely what one would expect: it increases the incidence of RU486 abortions, increases the percentage of overall abortions that use RU486, and increases the incidence of abortion among women in rural areas—which increases the overall incidence of abortion relative to what it would otherwise be.
None of that is good for the unborn children who are killed by this chemical abortion method. It is certainly not consistent with a desire to reduce the number of abortions. But what about the women?
Dr. Jacqueline Harvey of ReproductiveResearchAudit.com notes that the study's authors (who strongly favor abortion) neglect the health consequences of webcam abortions for women. The researchers "fail to note medical [RU486] abortions have greater rates of complications than surgical abortions," she explains. "The researchers only examine geography and service delivery, not safety or complication."
In her own analysis, then, Harvey uses "the number of abortions by type provided in the ... study" together with "the percentage of women facing complications from each abortion method (also provided by [the study's lead author in his other work])" to conclude that "the increased prevalence of medical abortion will likely yield an 11% increase in the number of women suffering from complications."
An estimated 11 percent increase in the number of women suffering from abortion complications. Based on data provided by abortion advocates, including one who worked for Planned Parenthood in Iowa at the time of the study.
And that is not to mention concerns about the webcam method itself, such as the absence of doctors nearby to treat complications. "The incidence of requiring follow-up care face-to-face with a physician is greater with medical abortions than with surgical abortions—in spite of the fact that telemedicine is justified as expanding access to abortion in rural areas that lack qualified doctors," writes Harvey. "Telemedicine therefore increases the incidence of women electing for the abortion method with a greater incidence of risk, confounded with reduced access to medical professionals when these risks become reality."
It was for the health and safety of pregnant women that the Minnesota Legislature passed a ban on webcam abortions in 2012—requiring simply that a doctor be physically present when administering RU486—but the measure was vetoed by Gov. Mark Dayton. And now this dangerous and abortion-expanding practice is beginning to grow.
A recent study of webcam abortions in Iowa, which were introduced in 2008 and administered at 11 different clinics by 2010, provides evidence that the use of telemedicine for abortion does precisely what one would expect: it increases the incidence of RU486 abortions, increases the percentage of overall abortions that use RU486, and increases the incidence of abortion among women in rural areas—which increases the overall incidence of abortion relative to what it would otherwise be.None of that is good for the unborn children who are killed by this chemical abortion method. It is certainly not consistent with a desire to reduce the number of abortions. But what about the women?
Dr. Jacqueline Harvey of ReproductiveResearchAudit.com notes that the study's authors (who strongly favor abortion) neglect the health consequences of webcam abortions for women. The researchers "fail to note medical [RU486] abortions have greater rates of complications than surgical abortions," she explains. "The researchers only examine geography and service delivery, not safety or complication."
In her own analysis, then, Harvey uses "the number of abortions by type provided in the ... study" together with "the percentage of women facing complications from each abortion method (also provided by [the study's lead author in his other work])" to conclude that "the increased prevalence of medical abortion will likely yield an 11% increase in the number of women suffering from complications."
An estimated 11 percent increase in the number of women suffering from abortion complications. Based on data provided by abortion advocates, including one who worked for Planned Parenthood in Iowa at the time of the study.
And that is not to mention concerns about the webcam method itself, such as the absence of doctors nearby to treat complications. "The incidence of requiring follow-up care face-to-face with a physician is greater with medical abortions than with surgical abortions—in spite of the fact that telemedicine is justified as expanding access to abortion in rural areas that lack qualified doctors," writes Harvey. "Telemedicine therefore increases the incidence of women electing for the abortion method with a greater incidence of risk, confounded with reduced access to medical professionals when these risks become reality."
It was for the health and safety of pregnant women that the Minnesota Legislature passed a ban on webcam abortions in 2012—requiring simply that a doctor be physically present when administering RU486—but the measure was vetoed by Gov. Mark Dayton. And now this dangerous and abortion-expanding practice is beginning to grow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)