Abortions News /abortionsnews Abortions News - Abortion Information Fri, 24 Mar 2017 16:24:55 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.7.3 Neil Gorsuch is an absolute GENIUS compared to the idiotic liberal senators questioning him /abortionsnews/2017-03-24-neil-gorsuch-is-an-absolute-genius-compared-to-the-idiotic-liberal-senators-questioning-him.html Fri, 24 Mar 2017 16:24:55 +0000 Judge Neil Gorsuch is simply fantastic.

On Tuesday this week, Trump’s Supreme Court nominee made a reference to Charlie Brown in response to a question from Senator Diane Feinstein. Making a case for judicial restrain, Gorsuch said, “Well senator, that reminded me of, you know, when Charlie Brown is going in to kick the ball and Lucy picks it up at the last second. And that struck me as raising serious due process concerns, fair notice and separation of powers concerns. When a executive bureaucracy can overturn a judicial precedent without an act of Congress.”

It’s no surprise that liberals like Senator Feinstein and Chuck Schumer detest this man with every fiber of their beings. But to understand this vitriol, one has to understand who Judge Gorsuch is, and even more than that, who he isn’t.  

In the second presidential debate, Hillary Clinton was asked a question about her vision for the Supreme Court. In response, Clinton gave an answer that sounded as though it was pulled directly off the DNC website. “I want a Supreme Court that will stick with Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose, and I want a Supreme Court that will stick with marriage equality,” she said. Clinton added that she wanted a Supreme Court that “doesn’t always side with corporate interests,” and one that understands that “because you’re wealthy and you can give more money to something doesn’t mean you have any more rights … than anybody else.”

Hillary Clinton (and most other democrats for that matter) believe that the Supreme Court needs to become an institution that advances progressivism and continuously rejects conservative constitutionalism. They want all of the Justices to take a partisan, one-sided approach to interpreting the law and applying it to modern day politics. The only problem with this strategy is that it’s not how the Supreme Court was originally supposed to operate.

It goes without saying that judges must reject partisan politics, and if they have their own opinions on certain issues, those opinions are not supposed to impact decisions that are made. Judges aren’t supposed to say, “I’m a liberal so I’m going to rule as one in every case that comes before me.” Rather, Justices on the Supreme Court need only to adhere to the United States Constitution and the rule of law. In other words, there is no room for Democrats or Republicans in the highest court in the land; there is only room for strict constitutionalists.

In a memorial tribute to the late Justice Scalia, Gorsuch said, “Judges should instead strive … to apply the law as it is … not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might serve society best.” Indeed, this is the reason why so many conservatives are so fond of Gorsuch, just as they were fond of Scalia – it’s not because these men are Republicans, but because they are constitutionalists.

When compared to the intellectual capacity of the liberal democrats questioning him, Gorsuch comes across as an absolute genius.

At one point during the confirmation hearing, Diane Feinstein explained her concerns about Judge Neil Gorsuch, and in doing so, made herself look like a fool. “I find this originalist judicial philosophy to be really troubling,” the California senator said. “I firmly believe the American Constitution is a living document, intended to evolve as our country evolves.”

But to say that the Constitution is a “living and breathing document” is an oxymoron, similar to saying “jumbo shrimp” or “deafening silence.” A nation’s constitution, by definition, is the foundation it is built upon. It is the one thing that is supposed to remain the same, even as society changes around it. If the Founding Fathers meant for the Constitution to be changed for political expediency, what would be the point of establishing a Constitution at all?








Liberals freak out over Obamacare replacement law – claim it would result in “thousands of births” of babies that should be aborted /abortionsnews/2017-03-19-liberals-freak-out-over-obamacare-replacement-law-because-it-would-result-in-thousands-of-births-of-babies-that-are-currently-being-aborted.html Sun, 19 Mar 2017 16:22:44 +0000 In 2008, Barack Obama said at a town hall event in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, that he didn’t want his daughters to ever be “punished” with an unexpected child. “I’ve got two daughters, nine years old and six years old,” Obama explained. “I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

Punished with a baby? Why is the miracle of childbirth and the continuation of human life considered a punishment?

Cathleen Decker is a columnist and political analyst for the Los Angeles Times. She covered her 10th presidential campaign in 2016, and “has also covered seven races for governor and a host of U.S. Senate and local elections,” according to her bio. But as Decker demonstrated in a tweet last week, years of experience as a columnist don’t prevent you from saying foolish things.

On March 13, Decker wrote, “GOPcare’s ban on Planned Parenthood would result in loss of healthcare to many in rural/low income areas; thousands of births would result.” In other words, it seems that Ms. Decker believes fewer abortions and more childbirths is a bad thing, rather than something that should be celebrated.

Of course, this is not how the majority of Americans think. Even the most radical feminist might look at such a tweet and conclude that it does more harm to the pro-abortion argument than good. Indeed, several users on Twitter let Decker know that they weren’t happy with what she had said.

“Note the negative connotation to ‘… thousands of births would result,’” wrote one user. Another said, “Your apparent horror at the thought of babies being born in low-income areas is telling, and not in a good way.” Yet another Twitter user sarcastically wrote, “The horror! Thousands of births! Of human beings! Who were conceived!”

Whether they choose to admit it or not, the liberals have a very different view of the sanctity of life than do conservatives. (RELATED: Read about how Donald Trump has banned federal funding of abortions). Through their support of abortion as a means to prevent “inconvenient” pregnancies, liberals demonstrate a lack of appreciation for the most innocent form of life. This lack of appreciation usually stems from the false notion that life inside the womb is nothing more than a clump of cells, and therefore the disposal of it is neither immoral nor unethical.

One day, decades from now, our country will hopefully look back on the practice of abortion and be ashamed that there once was a time where innocent life had virtually no value.





Washington Post distressed that defunding Planned Parenthood would cause more babies to live /abortionsnews/2017-03-16-washington-post-distressed-that-defunding-planned-parenthood-would-cause-more-babies-to-live.html Fri, 17 Mar 2017 03:28:00 +0000 Washington Post reporter Sandhya Somashekhar believes the biggest problem with the possible defunding of Planned Parenthood is the thousands of additional pregnancies that will be allowed to continue.

The newly released American Health Care Act includes a provision in the bill that would prohibit states from directly spending federal funds on entities that provide abortions. That would mean that Planned Parenthood, which is responsible for more than 300,000 abortions each year, would have difficulty finding sustainability.

According to a new budget analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, which assesses the fiscal impact of major legislative bills, they predict that excluding Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid program would leave 15% of low-income women without services to help avert unwanted pregnancies. Analysts believe that any savings of federal money would be partially offset by the fact that there would be “several thousand” more births paid for under Medicaid, which already picks up the costs of about 45 percent of all U.S. births. And many of those new babies would likely qualify for the Medicaid program.

The decision in the bill follows the current sentiment felt by many citizens. Recent polling found 56 percent of Americans in battleground states want Planned Parenthood defunded. Many people are familiarizing themselves with Planned Parenthood’s eugenists roots and are beginning to understand that the organization only receives funding because it helps with population control. This organization purposely positions itself as an available source to poor and low-income women, the same people Margaret Sanger, legendary eugenicist and Planned Parenthood founder, would have considered undesirables.

Planned Parenthood is in the business of killing babies, not family planning or the overall health of women and babies. They don’t even offer prenatal care, which would be the most basic necessity for the health of a baby that a woman may plan to keep. (RELATED: Get more news like this at Abortions.news.)

Aside from receiving taxpayer money to fund the operation, Planned Parenthood has also been caught in the disgusting act of selling the body parts of aborted babies, which is what prompted lawmakers to recommend that Congress defund it. There are also numerous reports that Planned Parenthood is involved in Medicaid fraud and failures to report suspected sex trafficking and sexual abuse of minors.

For Sandhya Somashekhar and the analysts, a human life simply comes down to dollar signs, but human lives were never intended to be measured by money. There are numerous health organizations available to the less fortunate that will help them with the decision to have a baby, and if they are unable to provide a suitable home, support can be given to accommodate the new life. These women do not have to rely on an organization that throws pizza parties when they reach a certain number of abortions performed.





Human cell cultures widely used in vaccines were STOLEN from dead donors… while Big Pharma reaps billions in profits /abortionsnews/2017-03-15-human-cell-cultures-widely-used-in-vaccines-were-stolen-from-dead-donors-while-big-pharma-reaps-billions-in-profits.html Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:38:09 +0000 The use of human cell cultures in the production of various vaccines has raised both safety and ethical concerns over the years. The scientific community, the Catholic Church and many other organizations have discussed and debated the fine line between scientific breakthrough and ethical dilemma concerning human diploid cell cultures WI-38 and MRC-5, both of which were extracted from aborted fetuses.

The human diploid WI-38 cell line was first developed by Dr. Leonard Hayflick at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, PA in July 1962. The culture was extracted from a therapeutically aborted female fetus of about three months gestational age. Lung tissue samples from the aborted fetus were used in creating the culture. The fetus specimen came from a Swedish woman who underwent a legal abortion due to an unwanted pregnancy.

The cell strain is considered a pioneer in normal human cell strains, which experts have since used to safely culture viruses and develop vaccines. Researchers have been able to develop vaccines against more than 10 diseases – including measles, mumps, polio, rubella, varicella, rabies and hepatitis A – from the WI-38 cell strain, preventing nearly 200 million incidences of disease and approximately 450,000 deaths in the U.S. between 1963 to 2015.

The human diploid MRC-5 cell line was developed in 1966 by researchers at the National Institute for Medical Research. The strain was “…also derived from foetal lung tissue, taken from a 14-week male foetus removed for psychiatric reasons from a 27 year old woman with a genetically normal family history and no sign of neoplastic disease both at abortion and for at least three years afterward,” researchers noted. Vaccine manufacturers at the time put more focus on working with the alternative fetal cell strain for fears of not having enough stock of the WI-38 strain for future needs.

Consent, ownership and compensation

While the human diploid cell cultures WI-38 and MRC-5 were extracted from legally aborted fetuses, issues surrounding ownership and compensation for the derived strain remain in question.

In the case of the WI-38 strain, it remains unclear whether the Swedish woman gave her consent to use the aborted fetus for research purposes. It is also highly unlikely that she received any compensation for the procedure. It seems that we will never have the answers to these questions because some of the key figures involved in the development of the strain have passed away – the gynecologist who performed the abortion and the virologist who arranged the transfer of the fetal lung sample to Dr. Hayflick. The woman involved has also made it clear that she cannot be bothered to discuss the abortion. On the other hand, Dr. Hayflick was compensated very well for selling the samples to hundreds of scientists at US$15 per ampoule, before eventually going broke over legal disputes.

The use of cells from aborted fetuses, and the dubious donor-researcher transactions if and when they happen, seem to only worsen biopiracy to the benefit of big pharmaceutical companies. Currently, the vaccine industry is projected to have a market value of $48.03 billion by 2021. Increased funding for research, greater immunization efforts and more investments are likely to drive vaccine production and revenues for the pharmaceutical industry.

Vatican raises ethical concerns over fetal cell strains

The Vatican released a statement in 2005 condemning the use of human cell line from aborted fetuses, and called for “rigorous legal control of the pharmaceutical industry producers.” The Vatican has also expressed support for parents who refuse to vaccinate their children. “As regards the diseases against which there are no alternative vaccines which are available and ethically acceptable, it is right to abstain from using these vaccines if it can be done without causing children, and indirectly the population as a whole, to undergo significant risks to their health,” the Vatican statement said.

The statement, entitled Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared from Cells Derived from Aborted Human Fetuses, was published in Medicina e Morale by the Center for Bioethics of Catholic University in Rome.










Vaccine warning for VEGANS: Vaccines are made with a cocktail of animal parts, human fetal tissue cell lines and African monkey cells /abortionsnews/2017-03-14-vaccine-warning-for-vegans-vaccines-are-made-with-a-cocktail-of-animals-parts-human-fetal-tissue-cell-lines-and-african-monkey-cells.html Tue, 14 Mar 2017 15:34:28 +0000 Vegans and vaccines: If you’re eliminating animal products from your diet, should you be taking a closer look at vaccine excipients?

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention posted a document online detailing the small amount of ancillary ingredients or excipients included in 61 different FDA licensed and approved vaccines. The agency says that the information as set forth in manufacturer package inserts is current as of January 6, 2017. Natural News has archived a copy just in case an abrupt 404 error show up at the CDC link.

See this link for updates from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about licensed vaccines.

Having an open mind about the safety or efficacy of some vaccines for any reason, and merely suggesting further study about side effects, is subject to immediate scorn from the Big Pharma-loving mainstream (or fakestream) media. Remember how the media went bananas during and after the nationally televised September, 16, 2016, GOP presidential debate when CNN tried to push then-candidate Trump and several of his rivals into the full-on, anti-Vaxxer camp?

Citing the example of an employee whose vaccinated newborn wound up with autism, Trump mentioned that doses should be reasonably administered over a two- or three-year period rather than all at once. Ben Carson (now HUD Secretary) and Sen. Rand Paul, both of whom are medical doctors, agreed with Trump on the same national stage that vaccinations should be given incrementally.

Responding to media pressure, Green Party candidate Jill Stein, an MD herself, even had to backpedal furiously in August 2016 after seemingly equivocating on vaccine safety.

A good faith discussion about vaccines hardly transforms someone into an anti Vaxxer. Even a non-scientist — i.e., your typical self -important, lazy journalist — should know that the the science in general continues to probe for the best-possible outcome and to challenge accepted hypotheses when appropriate.

Reviewing the CDC data, vegans, and any concerned citizen for that matter, may want to take particular note that the WI-38 cell culture is an ingredient in six different vaccines including the Adenovirus vaccine. As Health Ranger Mike Adams, Natural News founder explained last week, WI-38 is derived from aborted human fetuses, as is the MRC-5 cell line, found in the chicken pox and rabies vaccines among others.

Moreover, CDC information lists African Green Monkey kidney cells as one of its components in the ACAM2000 smallpox vaccine, and and three other vaccines contain generic monkey kidney cells. The ACAM2000 insert sheet confirms the presence of African Green Monkey kidney cells.

As Mike Adams detailed, the Dr. Frankenstein-like ingredients in the CDC list “include toxic metals (aluminum salts), bizarre animal cells from humans, monkeys, cows, pigs and chickens, ingredients derived from GMOs, the radioactive element barium, artificial coloring chemicals, excitotoxins such as glutamate, chemical cleansing agents (Triton X-100), dangerous bacterial strains (E.coli), toxic chemicals such as glutaraldehyde, thimerosal (mercury) and much more.”

Apparently the in-the-tank fakestream media accused Natural News of putting out fake news when it came to monkey kidney cells in vaccines. The proof is in the putrid pudding, however, about what Adams characterized as vaccine denialism. (RELATED: Read more about the pharmaceutical industry and its enablers at Vaccines.news.)

In the current state of polarized America, with corporate media mouthpieces and social justice warriors ever vigilant on Twitter and other platforms, fake news has devolved, in part, to a classification for news that others disagree with for ideological — and perhaps financial — reasons.

As Adams has pointed out, when it comes to vaccines, real is called “fake,” and what’s called “fake” is real.

That being said, vegan and non-vegans alike can review the posted material from the CDC and the Natural News content and draw their own conclusions about vaccine cocktails.








The ultimate abortion is SELF-abortion: New realization could see “progressives” terminating their own lives in celebration of women’s rights /abortionsnews/2017-03-10-the-ultimate-abortion-is-self-abortion-new-realization-could-see-progressives-terminating-their-own-lives-in-celebration-of-womens-rights.html Fri, 10 Mar 2017 17:45:57 +0000 I’ve always pondered the irony of people who support abortion, framing the act not as the willful destruction of human life or the end result of bad behavioral choices, but instead as a “woman’s right to choose” – death.

Liberals are the most ironic – well, hypocritical anyway – in their thinking regarding this issue. They deflect conservatives’ view of abortion as denying women a “choice” about what they ought to be able to do with their own bodies, but they:

— Support groups and movements that deny all sorts of “choices” for other Americans, including gun rights, free speech rights, freedom of religion and assembly rights, and the right to back certain political parties and their candidates;

— Fail to understand that the woman had a “choice” not to have sex or, perhaps, unprotected sex to begin with;

— And the victim in all of this – the unborn child, who is the most vulnerable – has its choice made for it by women (and Democratic lawmakers) who support…the “right to choose.” What about the rights of the unborn child? Liberal Democrats care more about the rights of illegal aliens than the unborn because the unborn can’t vote (and yes, illegal aliens vote). It should also be pointed out that the unborn child did not ask to be created – let alone killed – and that there are no advocates in any court for the unborn after one U.S. Supreme Court, in another time filled with justices who are no longer alive, found some hidden “constitutional right” to kill unborn children. (RELATED: President Trump just banned federal funding of abortions.)

But hey, maybe we’re onto something here. Maybe libs who are constantly harping about how there ought to be fewer humans sucking up finite resources on our planet could someday decide that the only decent thing to do is to self-abort after the fact.

No? Why not? Wouldn’t self-termination be the ultimate celebration of “women’s rights?” Or does self-termination, in the progressive sense, really only apply to their view of conservatives? Because we know how you libs feel about us. But hey, fair enough – it’s mutual.

Of course, self-termination will never happen. Liberals are far too selfish to do that. In fact, the most hypocritical liberal of all is the one who champions a “woman’s right to choose” (to kill her unborn child) after being born herself/himself. It certainly is easier to extinguish an unborn life while being damned thankful your mother and father didn’t make the same decision.

It’s too early to tell whether President Donald Trump will have the opportunity to put enough constitutionally-minded justices on the Supreme Court – justices who also have a conscience and understand that a woman’s “right to choose” actually takes place before she undresses – but he’s certainly off to a good start. If the Senate can find the time at some point to give constitutional jurist Neil Gorsuch a confirmation hearing and eventual vote, even if it takes Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell implementing the nuclear option like his former colleague Harry Reid  did, Trump will have made a good start.

Then and only then can Americans – most of whom believe abortion should only be legal in certain narrow circumstances – finally get some closure on an issue that, until the 1973 Roe v Wade decision, was left up to states to decide for themselves if they would permit it. At the time of the decision, only a handful of states permitted it. (RELATED: Planned Parenthood not meeting safety standards, employees not washing hands after abortions.)

In the meantime, we’ll continue having to put up with liberal hypocrisies that only they have some divine right to bestow the gift of life (or take it away) on other completely helpless human beings, a decision they themselves would never allow others to have over them.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.




Pro-life websites could be punished with prison under new French law /abortionsnews/2017-02-22-pro-life-websites-could-be-punished-with-prison-under-new-french-law.html Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 In an effort to silence Pro-life websites and activists, a new law in France will impose a punishment that includes a maximum sentence of two years in prison and a fine of $30,000 if a person makes anti-abortion remarks.

The reason? According to the law, it’s for “spreading or transmitting allegations or indications liable to intentionally mislead, with the purpose of deterring [from abortion], on the characteristics or medical consequences of a voluntary interruption” of pregnancy. In layman’s terms, if a person states that abortions have adverse physical and mental side effects, they are breaking the law because according to lawmakers there is no proof of this claim. The offense has been formally named “numerical obstruction.”

Last Thursday set the final stage of a lawmaking process that saw multiple versions of the law come before the Assembly and the Senate.  The upper house tried on several occasions to lessen the severity of the wording but never intended to completely get rid of the proposal. In cases, where no agreement can be made between the two governing bodies, the National Assembly has the final word, and so the law was passed virtually outlawing pro-life speech.(RELATED: Read more news like this at Censored.news)

The major problem with the wording of this legislation is that any person or group that speaks out publicly against abortion or calls attention to the dangers associated with the procedure can become subject to criminal prosecution. This could go on to include protests or handing out pamphlets related to a pro-life movement.

Abortion is funded by tax money during the first 12 weeks of gestation and considered a “Fundamental Right” in France. The government felt compelled to take legislative action when they discovered that Google searches for abortion providers would also bring up results for pro-life websites that discourage the voluntary termination of pregnancy.

According to The New American, “the pro-life sites explained that there are risks associated with abortion, and suggested places where a pregnant woman could go if she wished to seek help in keeping the baby. The pro-life groups assert that abortion can have negative side effects and cause health problems or psychological consequences.”

The French government states there is no proof of adverse health effects associated with abortion; therefore the website is perpetuating a lie. “Freedom of expression does not signify a right to lying,” asserted Laurence Rossignol, French Minister for Families, Children, and Women’s Rights. There are however numerous studies that prove abortions can have negative side effects that the Ministry is obviously choosing to ignore. (Read more news like this at Abortions.news)

To contrast pro-life websites like www.ivg.net, the Ministry of Health created a pro-abortion website that provided information only on access to abortion, as opposed to giving options for both termination and family planning. Instead, the Government site provides a page on what the Ministry of Health calls “misinformation about the voluntary interruption of pregnancy,” and they argue that pro-life sites are not information sites, but are rather just pretending to be. Women are also provided with addresses and encouraged to go to Planned Parenthood or other pro-abortion clinics. The site makes it a point to say that “post-abortive trauma” isn’t very prevalent, however “some women” may have a negative experience after the fact.

In response to the outrage from pro-life citizens Rossignol claims, “anti-abortion activists will remain free to express their hostility to abortion, provided they are honest about who they are, what they do, and what they want.” If a pro-life site does not do that, said Rossignol, then it is guilty of “manipulating minds.” The law is obviously written to impose itself upon the freedom of speech of pro-life activists. Further proof of this comes from the fact that there is no provision in the law to punish pro-abortionists for disseminating “misleading” information.

There is, however, resistance to the new law. Jean-Marie Le Mene, President of the Fondation Lejeune, stated, “That which dissuades from abortion is not false information, but correct information.” The France equivalent to the Republican party called the law an infringement on freedom of expression and voted in opposition. They have vowed to ask the Constitutional Council to set the law aside as being contrary to the French Constitution’s protections of free speech.






Planned Parenthood not meeting safety standards, employees not washing hands after abortions /abortionsnews/2017-02-22-planned-parenthood-not-meeting-safety-standards-employees-not-washing-hands-after-abortions.html Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 Pro-life activists are moving once again against the horrid abortion mill Planned Parenthood, targeting a clinic in Alabama after a number of alleged infection control violations and other serious offenses were uncovered.

As reported by Life News, Fr. Terry Gensemer, of CEC for Life, said at a recent press conference that his organization had documented some 15 pages of alleged violations at the local Planned Parenthood clinic during a state health inspection in September. He called Planned Parenthood a repeat offender and said the abortion mill has a long history of health and safety violations at the Birmingham facility.

“In 2010, this facility was placed on a year-long probation after failing to report cases of statutory rape,” he said, ticking off past violations. “In 2012, it was sued for negligence when their abortionist performed a surgical abortion on a woman with an ectopic pregnancy, rendering her infertile. In 2014, its own employees were caught selling abortifacients out of the parking lot.

“How many chances is ADPH willing to give this dangerous facility, and how many women will have to pay the price?” he continued. “This facility has shown no regard for the lives of their patients or the regulations of the state they wish to operate in. They should be shut down immediately, not given another free pass.” (RELATED: Mental Health Related Deaths Have Skyrocketed Over 50% In Last 3 Years – What’s Behind The Surge?)

During the September health inspection some of the more serious violations included staff not practicing good handwashing techniques in between abortions and other procedures and their failure to properly clean and sterilize instruments, Life News reported.

Also, CEC for Life said the clinic failed to determine whether five of its employees had ever been adequately screened Tuberculosis and Hepatitis B, as well as other highly infectious diseases.

“If Planned Parenthood can’t be trusted to sterilize surgical instruments or wash hands, it can’t be trusted at all – and it certainly shouldn’t be trusted with our tax dollars,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue, an organization working with CEC for Life to permanently close the Birmingham facility. “The fact that this facility over a long period of time has never been able to comply with the law shows it is too dangerous to operate and should be shut down for good.”

None of this matters to Left-wing Democrats, who are prone to claim that Planned Parenthood is now some untouchable federal line item sucking up a half-billion dollars a year in taxpayer funding. As reported by The National Sentinel, Democrats treat it like an entitlement program no different than Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

One of the Left’s favorite excuses for continuing funding is that Planned Parenthood provides so many women’s health services to the poor and indigent. But in fact, as an undercover investigation by pro-life group Live Action revealed recently, staffers at a number of Planned Parenthood clinics around the country said they don’t do much prenatal care, and that ultrasounds are only offered to women who want an abortion.

And, of course, several ranking officials with Planned Parenthood were caught in an undercover sting by the Center for Medical Progress attempting to negotiate the sale of aborted fetal body parts, in a possible violation of federal law.

Another of the Left’s excuses to force taxpayers – including tens of millions who have moral and religious objections to abortion – to continue funding Planned Parenthood is that no government funds go directly to fund abortions. Okay. But those funds go to help pay rent and overhead expenses and other necessities that then free other funds Planned Parenthood receives that do go directly to abortions. So while “no taxpayer funding goes to abortions,” taxpayer funding goes to everything else so that the organization can use its other revenue streams for abortion. (RELATED: Religious Vaccine Exemptions Explode More Than 50% In New Jersey)

Same thing, really.

For decades Left-wing politicians and government bureaucrats have ensured that all taxpayers fund Planned Parenthood. But now that pro-life Republicans control Congress and Donald Trump is president, it’s possible they will move to finally take Planned Parenthood off the public dole and let it survive – or die off – on its own dime. It’s not an entitlement.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.







Post-birth abortions: Radical liberals think newborns should be legally killed if they survive /abortionsnews/2017-02-15-post-birth-abortions-the-alt-left-thinks-newborns-should-be-legally-killed-for-up-to-first-year-after-birth.html Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 A regional lobbyist for Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion business in the U.S., has expressed that it should be a mother’s choice to terminate the life of an abortion survivor. Post-birth abortion is legally murder, but Planned Parenthood aren’t the only ones to see things differently.

When the former president of the United States, Barack Obama, was serving in the Illinois Senate, he opposed a proposed law several times which would have forced physicians to provide care for abortion survivors. Obama’s pro-abortion stance contributed to rejecting the bill, which aimed to ensure that abortion survivors would be saved. Obama believed that the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act conflicted with women’s reproductive rights.

The pro post-birth abortion statement made by Planned Parenthood’s regional lobbyist, Alisa LaPoit Snow, came during a Florida legislative hearing for a proposal requiring doctors to care for infants who survived the abortion procedure. At the hearing, a lawmaker asked what Planned Parenthood would prefer to do with a newly born baby from a failed abortion. The lobbyist’s response was that the decision should be made collectively by the mother, physician and family. (RELATED: Find more abortions news at Abortions.news)

Planned Parenthood believes that disabled babies should be killed if it’s deemed to be in the best interests of the family. “From the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the fetus and the newborn baby,” said the lobbyist, who is clearly okay with killing any beings who are unaware that the future exists.

Leftists claim that it should be okay to kill a newborn child in instances where abortion was permissible. They believe that sustaining the newborn’s life could affect the family’s well-being. Since they view the moral status of the newborn to be the same as the fetus, they see no difference between the two. Adoption isn’t a viable solution to them because they don’t agree with the associated psychological distress that the mother will have to deal with. Post-birth abortion advocates are using the same arguments as abortion advocates to justify the practice.

What would legal post-birth abortion do for the rights of disabled children? There are major possible implications for newborns who are mentally challenged, physically handicapped or diseased. How non-person classifications are determined could prevent certain births that are mandatory by today’s standards. Personhood amendments would certainly keep this topic controversial. (RELATED: Find women’s health news at WomensHealth.news)




Twisted: Teenage Disney star advocating abortions to young followers /abortionsnews/2017-02-09-twisted-teenage-disney-star-advocating-abortions-to-young-followers.html Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 One needs go no further than the most recent crop of young Disney actors to see how society has been transformed, and the younger generation of women have been conformed, since Roe vs. Wade was codified by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1973. This nation-changing decision, as explained by PBS.org., argued that the Texas statues banning or restricting all abortion, “except those necessary to save the life of the mother,” violated a woman’s “constitutional right to privacy.” (RELATED: Discover more news concerning abortion at Abortions.news.)

In this landmark decision, another very serious decree was made. The justices singularly dismissed a simple State of Texas argument against abortion. The Texas lawyers believed a fetus deserved protection. The Supreme Court came to the opposite conclusion. They ultimately ruled that “prenatal life was not within the definition of “persons” as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution.” The highest court in the land had completely discounted the formation and growth of bone, brain, and blood in the womb as being a life worth preserving. The reverberations from these rulings have fundamentally changed the nation’s culture, social mores, and familial structure.

Fast forward to 2017, and what does Rowan Blanchard, a fifteen year-young female Disney starlet believe? She’s a big proponent of “intersectional feminism” and abortion. On a recent Instagram post, the teen declared her unwavering support for abortion to over five million of her impressionable followers. One of her female heroes is Cecile Richardson, the CEO of Planned Parenthood.


The two were interviewed by Paper Magazine shortly after Richardson had been at Congressional hearings defending the work of Planned Parenthood in the wake of the Center for Medical Progress undercover videos depicting persons in the organization discussing the various ways they can manipulate their abortion technique to provide more fetal body parts to sell. In the Paper Magazine article, responding to the teen’s comment about the “male anger complex,” Ms. Richardson remarked about all those “angry men” she testified in front of who “were looking for a fight.”

The teen star is becoming well known for her savvy fashion selections as well as her social activism. The media fawns over her celebrity reputation. After her interview in New York Magazine, the periodical declared that the Girl Meets World star “Gives us hope for the Future.” The young Ms. Blanchard admits that she’s no expert in feminism and she is still open to learning. She defines feminism as the work of “undoing patriarchal structures against marginalized people — structures that fight against people of color, that fight against women, that fight against disabled people, that fight against the LGBTQ.”

Posing in clothes from Kenzo, Dolce & Gabbanna, and Sonia Rykiel, Rowan Blanchard appears to be clueless that the origins of planned parenthood and the mind of its progenitor Margaret Sanger was to eliminate people of color and those Sanger and other eugenicists felt were unfit. It would be a good bet that Ms. Blanchard hasn’t given much thought to the invasive and damaging techniques used to extract, cut, and tear out 60 million unborn American children from the womb of their mothers since 1973. Or that her hero Cecile Richardson is the head of an organization that sells fetal body parts for profit.

Let’s hope the young Disney star will be open to hearing the rest of the story.










(Photo credit: Life.news.com)