Abortion Gang: "It doesn't matter ellaOne kills unborn or not"

At the AbortionGang, NYCprochoiceMD shares his/her thoughts on the possibility that the emergency contraception ellaOne does more than prevent contraception.

We want to ensure that women who have personal views that would lead them not to choose abortion know that the use of post-coital contraceptives is consistent with their beliefs. We want everyone to know as much as possible about all their options. So to counter the myth that emergency contraception is equivalent to an abortion, we scream as loud as we can that it isn’t.

But we have to remember that in the end it doesn’t matter how it works or why. All that matters is what’s in the heart of the woman and if she wants to lend her body to a zygote for the 38 weeks required to gestate a full-term fetus. The rest is just semantics.

So on one hand NYCprochoiceMD can understand that some women may not want to take a pill which would possibly kill their developing child but he/she doesn't really care because whether a human being is killed or not is "just semantics."

Planned Parenthood Rep: Viewing an ultrasound can change a woman's mind on abortion

The State-Journal Register has an article about RU-486 abortions provided at a Planned Parenthood in Springfield, Illinois. The article contains a number of quotes from "nurse practitioner Stephani Cox, Planned Parenthood’s downstate lead clinician."

In some cases, it seems that Ms. Cox goes off Planned Parenthood's usual script.

With regards to abortion protesters:

“They don’t cause any trouble,” Cox said. “We haven’t had a problem, really.”

On contraceptives:

“They’ve never been through this, for the most part,” Cox said. “They feel many things, among them embarrassed for getting in this situation.

“We try to have them not beat themselves up, because it happens, and there’s no method of contraception that’s 100 percent other than abstinence.”

On how viewing an ultrasound can affect a woman's decision:

During a visit that takes several hours, a client undergoes a blood test and a sonogram, Cox said.

The client always is offered a chance to view the sonogram, she said. After looking at the sonogram or going through Planned Parenthood’s required counseling, she said, some women have decided not to proceed with their planned abortions.

Kagan revised ACOG's statement on partial-birth abortion

In the National Review, Shannen Coffin describes how Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was the author of an often used clause in an American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists statement on partial-birth abortion which was supposed to be from a select group of medical experts.

There is no better example of this distortion of science than the language the United States Supreme Court cited in striking down Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion in 2000. This language purported to come from a “select panel” of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a supposedly nonpartisan physicians’ group. ACOG declared that the partial-birth-abortion procedure “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.” The Court relied on the ACOG statement as a key example of medical opinion supporting the abortion method.

Years later, when President Bush signed a federal partial-birth-abortion ban (something President Clinton had vetoed), the ACOG official policy statement was front and center in the attack on the legislation. U.S. District Court Judge Richard Kopf, one of the three federal judges that issued orders enjoining the federal ban (later overturned by theSupreme Court), devoted more than 15 pages of his lengthy opinion to ACOG’s policy statement and the integrity of the process that led to it.

Like the Supreme Court majority in the prior dispute over the Nebraska ban, Judge Kopf asserted that the ACOG policy statement was entitled to judicial deference because it was the result of an inscrutable collaborative process among expert medical professionals. “Before and during the task force meeting,” he concluded, “neither ACOG nor the task force members conversed with other individuals or organizations, including congressmen and doctors who provided congressional testimony, concerning the topics addressed” in the ACOG statement.

In other words, what medical science has pronounced, let no court dare question. The problem is that the critical language of the ACOG statement was not drafted by scientists and doctors. Rather, it was inserted into ACOG’spolicy statement at the suggestion of then–Clinton White House policy adviser Elena Kagan.

Instead of believing that parital-birth abortion "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance" the panel's original statement said they, "could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman."

That language by itself (which would have basically destroyed the pro-choice case for partial-birth abortion) didn't sit well with Kagan who thought such a statement "would be a disaster." So she suggested the ACOG add the "may be the best" clause and they did, word for word.

Yuval Levin writes,

What’s described in these memos is easily the most serious and flagrant violation of the boundary between scientific expertise and politics I have ever encountered. A White House official formulating a substantive policy position for a supposedly impartial physicians’ group, and a position at odds with what that group’s own policy committee had actually concluded? You have to wonder where all the defenders of science—those intrepid guardians of the freedom of inquiry who throughout the Bush years wailed about the supposed politicization of scientific research and expertise—are now. If the Bush White House (in which I served as adomestic policy staffer) had ever done anything even close to this it would have been declared a monumental scandal, and rightly so.

This is why I don't trust unverified information from abortion promoting groups like the ACOG. If you don't have a problem with the killing of a human child who is more born than unborn then why would you have a problem with lying?

Life Links 6/29/10

Planned Parenthood of the Heartland is suing to prevent new Nebraska abortion restrictions from taking effect.

The new law would require women wanting abortions to be screened by doctors or other health professionals to determine whether they were pressured into having the procedure. Those women also would have to be screened for risk factors indicating they could have mental or physical problems after an abortion.

Planned Parenthood hasn't disclosed whether they are planning to challenge Nebraska's new fetal pain law which prohibits abortions after 20 weeks.


I didn't think I've ever read something like this in the New York Times Magazine.

At week 24, the fetus is a fully formed baby, weighing over a pound and measuring nearly a foot long. The mother has felt it kicking and seen it in lifelike detail on a screen; were she to go into labor, it would perhaps survive. The procedure to end her pregnancy at that stage takes days, not minutes, and its risks are much higher. Abortion providers who are willing to do it — indeed, who have the stomach for it — are quite rare.

A Milwaukee firefighter named Robert Johnson has been caught preying on a child after the girl became pregnant and he encouraged her to have an abortion to cover his tracks. He has been suspended with pay. I can't find any story which indicates whether the girl had an abortion or not.

British government: Killing babies unborn babies is okay, hurting them is bad

This is one of those stories that boggles my mind.

In Britain, the NHS will use tax dollars to pay for abortions. Close to 90% of Britain's abortions are funded by the NHS. So they clearly have no problem killing unborn children.

Yet NICE, another government funded health entity in Britain, has issued guidelines which call for every pregnant woman to receive a carbon monoxide test to see if she's been smoking.

"During pregnancy, smoking puts the health of the women and her unborn baby at great risk both in the short and long-term, and small children who are exposed to second-hand smoke are more likely to suffer from respiratory problems," Professor Mike Kelly, Nice director of the centre of public health excellence, said.

The Telegraph has this quote from the Department of Health:

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: "We welcome the publication of these new guidelines. Smoking in pregnancy is a major public health concern posing risks to both mother and baby. We want the NHS to use this guidance to develop the best possible services for pregnant women."

So they have no problem with funding the intentional killing of more than a hundred thousand unborn children every year but are quite concerned about how smoking affects the health of unborn children.

Another IVF clinic blunder

This time a fertility clinic in Connecticut implanted one woman's embryonic children into another woman with the same last name. The clinic then quickly informed the woman who underwent the transfer and she took the morning after pill. The clinic has been fined $3,000.

State records say the lab technician only checked the last name on the container with the embryos, not the medical record number and last four digits of the Social Security number as required.

She discovered the error the next day, but the embryos already had been transferred to the wrong patient. The woman who owned the embryos also was informed of the error. She had not been in treatment since 2006, but had continued to store embryos at the center.

Life Links 6/28/10

National Right to Life has responded to the paper by the UK’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists which claimed unborn children can’t feel pain before 24 weeks.

Ironically, the article concedes the evidence that by 20 weeks pain receptors are present throughout the unborn child’s skin, that these are linked by nerves to the thalamus and the subcortal plate, and that these children have coordinated aversive reactions to painful stimuli, and experience increased stress hormones from it.

This article is an effort by acknowledged abortion promoters to mislead the public at-large – and most tragically women considering abortion – about the increasing evidence demonstrating the unborn child’s sensitivity to pain.

The Boston Globe has an editorial criticizing the NIH and NIH director Francis Collins for not allowing federal funds to be used researching human embryonic stem cell lines created by an IVF clinic which used objectionable language on their informed consent papers. It’s a great example of the desire of some to dismiss any regulation which prevents something scientists want.

Collins’ refusal wasn’t without regret. He said it was “frankly rather painful” for his advisory committee to recommend against approval of the cell lines, but that “rigorous guidelines are only meaningful if they are rigorously applied.”

That sentiment is admirable, but in this case a “rigorous’’ application of the consent rules worked against the greater good.

In a new book, University of Illinois historian Leslie Reagan argues that German measles played a large role in the shift of public attitude on abortion.

Where abortion had been illegal and shameful, it became a subject of open public discussion and debate, Reagan said. In the midst of a German measles epidemic, the most "respectable" women - married, middle-class, white mothers - began to openly speak of their pregnancies, their concern about having a child with severe malformations, and their need for abortions, she said.

Joining them with vocal support for reforming the abortion laws was a diverse coalition difficult to imagine today - including, for instance, the PTA, Republicans, unions, medical associations and a long list of Protestant churches.

But that history, like German measles (also known as rubella), has largely been forgotten, according to Reagan, a professor of history, of law and of women's studies.

Life Links 6/25/10

In the National Post, Andrea Mzorek and Rebecca Walberg take apart the World Health Organization's estimates on maternal deaths because of abortion.

It's a tragedy whether 700 or 70,000 women die from abortions. However, the issue is much bigger than the number. The assumptions used to calculate the 70,000 are debatable and the methodology isn't up to scientific standards. In the end, 70,000 is nothing more than a stab in the dark by the World Health Organization's own admission.

The source for the 70,000 lies in a series of reports published by WHO called Unsafe Abortion. There, researchers repeatedly clarify how hard it is to study the issue due to the lack of data. One citation (of many) reads: "As there are no feasible data collection methods that can reliably reflect the overall burden of unsafe abortion, one is left to work with incomplete information on incidence and mortality from community studies or hospitals ... This is then adjusted to correct for misreporting and under-reporting." It's no big surprise that some of the world's poorest or war-torn nations don't keep impeccable abortion statistics. So researchers rely on assumption after assumption.

In the UK, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have issued a report saying the unborn can't feel pain before 24 weeks because their nerve endings aren't sufficiently formed. The report also claims that past 24 weeks, the unborn are sedated and possibly might not feel pain and anaesthetics shouldn't be required for fetal surgery. In another report they refused to list fetal conditions which would justify an abortion after 24 weeks. In this Telegraph article, it appears the committee didn't pay any attention to the evidence that premature infants feel pain.

Professor Allan Templeton, president of the Royal College, who chaired the review, told The Times that research put forward by anti-abortion campaigners that the human foetus did feel pain at or before 24 weeks was based on evidence from premature babies. This did not apply to the foetus in the womb, he said.

Huh? Well, what if the premature babies were younger than 24 weeks? Wouldn't that kind of destroy the presumption that before 24 weeks the nerve endings aren't sufficiently formed?


Planned Parenthood of the Heartland is planning on opening an abortion clinic in Omaha late this year.


In Iowa, a man who protests at Planned Parenthood had his house vandalized with pro-abortion graffiti.


One wonders if Planned Parenthood would treat a prolife protester like National Right to Life treats Bill Baird?

Mr. Baird, 78, who once ran the nation's first abortion clinic, was among those attending the National Right to Life Convention at the Hyatt Regency Pittsburgh International Airport on Thursday. A regular attendee, his routine for decades has been to picket from 11:30 to noon on behalf of abortion rights, then join his rivals for lunch inside.

"My unborn daughter will only be recognized as a full human being if she can have an abortion"

Below is an interesting quote from someone who thinks it should be legal to kill unborn human beings at virtually any stage of development and has no problem de-humanizing them when they aren’t her own child.

Jessica Valenti (who is apparently pregnant - congratulations) writes,

Putting aside for a moment the fact that this line of reasoning is completely desperate, I have to say that part of the reason Palin and other “feminists” scare me so much is because I’m a happy woman with a family of my own, including a baby on the way. I want my daughter to grow up in a country that sees her as a full human being and has laws and policies that reflect as much – not one where politicians take her rights away and call it feminism.

And seemingly in Jessica’s mind, the central way for her unborn daughter to be seen as full human being in our society is to make sure that the intentional killing of unborn human beings (like her daughter) is legal for mothers who don’t want them.

Would you like a side of french fries with that cognitive dissonance?

Life Links 6/24/10

Researchers in Italy have published a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine detailing the long term success of their work in using stem cells to treat patients who were blinded in one eye by chemical burns. From the AP:

In the Italian study, the doctors removed scar tissue over the cornea and glued the laboratory-grown stem cells over the injured eye. In cases where both eyes were damaged by burns, cells were taken from an unaffected part of the limbus.

Researchers followed the patients for an average of three years and some as long as a decade. More than three-quarters regained sight after the transplant. An additional 13 percent were considered a partial success. Though their vision improved, they still had some cloudiness in the cornea.

Patients with superficial damage were able to see within one to two months. Those with more extensive injuries took several months longer.

The Times of India has a piece on a study by Sri Lankan researchers which found abortions tripled the risk of women getting breast cancer later in life. It was a smaller study with 300 women.


A psychiatrist in Oregon is planning on opening a “Death with Dignity house” where individuals can kill themselves.

Weisberg told KGW-TV he felt compelled to act after watching a TV interview with Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who pioneered assisted suicide.

A 14-year-old girl in Texas has been arrested after giving birth at home and then getting an adult neighbor to throw the infant boy’s body in the trash.

Houston police said no adults were present — only another 14-year-old and two 11-year-olds — when the girl gave birth April 16, and the group learned about child birth from the Internet. The newborn was placed on a mattress and was "alive for some time," but died after his head was covered with the amniotic sac, Senior Officer C.P. Abbey said.

The UK’s Telegraph has an article on a woman who had an abortion after suffering from hyperemesis gravidarum. Prolife advocate Ashli Foshee McCall wrote a book entitled, Beyond Morning Sickness: Battling Hyperemesis Gravidarum, to help women suffering from hyperemesis gravidarum.

Quote of the week

"I’m a Unitarian Universalist with atheistic tendencies."

-by bagpiper2005 in an evidence-free Opposing Views diatribe against prolifers

North Carolina clinic will stop performing abortions

An abortion clinic in North Carolina will stop performing abortions after this Saturday. National Women's Health Organization was owned by Susan Hill, an abortion advocate who died earlier this year.

National Women's Health Organization of Raleigh, which was founded in 1976 by the late women's rights activist Susan Hill, is "in transition," said Ann Rose, a longtime friend of Hill's who has been affiliated with the business.

Rose said the last day of procedures would be Saturday but would not elaborate on that or on what "in transition" means for the clinic's staff and potential patients.

The clinic was widely believed to be for sale after Hill died of breast cancer in February.

In addition to the Raleigh facility on Haworth Drive, Hill owned abortion centers in Columbus, Ga., and Jackson, Miss.

Her brother, Dan Hill of Durham, said he is uncertain about the status of the clinics but said Susan Hill had no children and no heirs to leave the businesses to.

Life Links 6/23/10

A study by University of Iowa researchers has found that women seeking elective abortion experience high rates of partner violence. Planned Parenthood of the Heartland participated in the study and Penny Dickey, their chief operating officer, was a study co-author.

"Women seeking termination of pregnancy comprise a particularly high-risk group for physical or sexual assault," said Audrey Saftlas, UI professor of epidemiology and lead author of the study. "In our study, almost 14 percent of women receiving an abortion reported at least one incident of physical or sexual abuse in the past year....

The study was the first to comprehensively evaluate battering among abortion clients, with 8.4 percent of those in a current relationship screening positive for battering.

Wesley Smith reports that Jack Kevorkian admitted on Larry King that he killed his first victim, Janet Adkins. Smith writes,

So, Kevorkian has admitted he’s a repeat murderer. Technically, since there is no statute of limitations for murder, he could be prosecuted for Atkins’ homicide. Instead, he’ll keep getting high level interviews, movies made about him starring Al Pacino, and $50,000 speaking fees at state funded universities. We sure do have a twisted love for outlaws in this country.

A teenager in Malaysia has died after having an abortion.

Life Links 6/22/10

A Florida man has been found guilty of killing his girlfriend after she had an abortion against his wishes.

Danielle DeAnn Stubbs, 26, was shot twice -once in the head - in her Pineverde Lane home in January 2009.

McMillian testified in the death-penalty case that he fired two shots in a dark bedroom after Stubbs told him she killed his unborn child.

A New York Times blog discusses how NARAL New York is itching for a vote on a bill to codify Roe v. Wade. Leading Democrats are concerned they don't have the votes.


The NIH has denied a request to allow 42 embryonic stem cell lines from an IVF clinic to be placed on the federal stem cell registry. These cells can't be used in research that receives federal funds.

The availability of the lines, which were created by the private infertility clinic Reproductive Genetics Institute in Chicago, had been eagerly awaited because they carry mutations for a wide variety of diseases, including cystic fibrosis, Huntington's disease and muscular dystrophy. Scientists hope studying them will yield a wealth of information about those and other diseases, leading to new treatments.

The lines had been obtained from embryos donated by couples who were undergoing treatment for infertility and had decided not to use them because tests showed the embryos carried genetic defects.

But the advisory panel found that consent forms permitting use of the embryos contained unusually broad language and those who signed the forms gave up all rights to sue the clinic for any reason.

Eleanor Clift writes in Politics Daily about EMILY's List and how the change in leadership also has supposedly changed their endorsement criteria.

Younger women have a more complex view of abortion, and they don't view the issue as passionately as their mothers. "If you ask them if they support abortion rights, they say they don't know or they don't want to answer that question," says Jen Bluestein, Emily's List communications director. For an organization created around the core mission of promoting reproductive choice, that could be a problem, and that's why its new president, 36-year old Stephanie Schriock, a native of Montana with a strong libertarian streak, is forging a new way forward.....

It's the definition of pro-choice that is evolving under Schriock's leadership, and it apparently will be a lot more flexible than was the case when Malcolm was at the helm, reflecting the changing times and the scientific advances that have clouded the issue. The Emily's List candidate questionnaire is not a lengthy document that asks a candidate to pledge support to very precise and extreme positions. It's about commitment to Roe v. Wade, and for most Democrats, men and women, that's an easy threshold to meet.

In the past, to be endorsed by EMILY's List female candidates had to favor tax-funded abortions. I wonder if that's still the case.

Pro-choice group says Supreme Court nominee Kagan believes "the Constitution affords a right to abortion"

The Center for Reproductive Rights posted a press release today in which they point to their legal analysis of Kagan's memos and conclude that Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's record suggest that she believes "the Constitution affords a right to abortion." They aren't completely sold on her yet.

In short, Kagan's record suggests that she agrees with the general proposition that the Constitution affords a right to abortion. But her positions on the specific contours of that substantive right are less discernable. In fact, some of her writings raise questions about the depth of her consideration of the significance of reproductive rights to women's health, lives, and equality.

They're troubled by one memo where Kagan notes it "ludicrous" to consider elective abortions part of "needed medical care." According to the CRR, "once a woman decides to terminate her pregnancy, the medical need for an abortion is immediate."

FEED ME!!!

The California Institute of Regenerative Medicine’s (created by California’s embryonic stem cell initiative Prop. 71) appetite for wasting spending state money continues to grow. From the California Stem Cell Report:

The California stem cell agency plans to spend $15.7 million next year for its day-to-day operations, up 28 percent from this year's estimated spending of $12.3 million.

The $3.4 million increase is for the fiscal year that begins in 10 days. The hefty hike in spending comes at a time when the rest of state government is mired in a financial crisis that shows no signs of ending. CIRM's funds are provided, however, from state bonds – money borrowed by the state – and cannot be touched by the governor or the legislature under the terms of Prop. 71, which created the agency.

Because CIRM's budget consists of borrowed cash, the ultimate cost of its operations will be substantially higher than the nominal figures provided by the agency. CIRM has access to $3 billion in bonds. With interest, that translates to roughly a $6 billion bill for the state of California. In other words, the agency's operations will really cost nearly $32 million – not $15.7 million. And the $490,008 salary of CIRM President Alan Trounson will actually cost the people of California something a hair shy of $1 million.....

The biggest increase in the budget is for salaries and benefits – a 22 percent ($1.5 million) increase from about $7 million to $8.5 million. The agency, which now has 45 employees, plans to hire five more persons in the coming year. The budget documents do not discuss hiring scenarios if legislation passes that would remove the 50 person cap at CIRM. Increases in state-mandated benefits amount to $400,000. Assuming an average of 47.5 employees for the year, salaries and benefits will consume $178,589 for each staffer.

Life Links 6/21/10

The apparent ignorance of the regular writers at the RH Reality Check never ceases to amaze me. This time, Robin Marty chastises Cardinal Daniel DiNardo because he calls an embryo an embryo in a letter to the commissioner of the FDA. Marty writes,

Also, the Cardinal seems to have forgotten developmental biology -- an embryo is at least 21 days post-fertilization. Before that, you have a blastocyst or a zygote.

Robin, ....Ummm.... a blastocyst is a name for an embryo at a certain stage of development and your link to a Mayo clinic web page does nothing to prove a pre-implantation embryo isn’t an embryo. Only ignorant people or people attempting to dehumanize human embryos try to act like blastocysts aren’t embryos. Even the National Institutes of Health defines blastocyst as “a preimplantation embryo of about 150 cells produced by cell division following fertilization.”

Also, as an employee of a pro-abortion web site, you might also want to avoid linking to a page whose subheader reads (my emphasis), “Fetal development begins soon after conception. Find out how your baby grows and develops during the first trimester.”

In 2009, the number of reported euthanasia cases rose in the Netherlands by 13%.

Last year a total of 2,636 Dutch people were killed by euthanasia, with 80 per cent of cases involving people dying at home after their doctors administered a lethal dose of drugs.

This compares to 2,331 reported deaths by euthanasia in 2008, which saw a 10 per cent rise on 2007.

The New York Times has a piece on a pro-choice adoption agency which is attempting to encourage abortion providers to be more open to talking to women about adoption.

Now Ms. Lohser, 33, works for Spence-Chapin Adoption Services, a New York adoption agency that supports abortion rights, and has come to regret the lack of information she had been able to provide women in Cleveland. If a client said she didn’t think she could carry a pregnancy to term, then never see the child again, Ms. Lohser’s response was, she recalled, “Yup, check, me either.” She did not realize how much more common open adoptions had become; she knew of no adoption agency that would speak to women with an open mind about abortion.

At ProWomanProLife, Andrea Mzorek posts a Canadian study’s findings on abortion and preterm delivery.

After adjusting for baseline characteristics, women with one previous abortion were 45% more likely to have a premature child at under 32 weeks; 71% more likely at less than 28 weeks; and more than twice as likely at less than 26 weeks. This association was even stronger for those with two or more abortions.

The San Franscisco Chronicle has an article on Shinya Yamanka winning the Kyoto Prize for creating induced pluripotent stem cells. The writer, Chronicle’s Science Editor David Perlman, can’t help himself from deceiving his readers in describing President Bush’s embryonic stem cell funding policy.

Before his discovery, those pluripotent human stem cells could only be harvested from human embryos, a source posing such powerful ethical issues that former President George W. Bush banned virtually all embryonic stem cell research eight years ago. The ban remained in force until President Obama reversed it last year.

Even after the reversal of the policy, reporters across America still have so much trouble honestly describing the policy which limited federal funding on embryonic stem cell research. I understand the goal of lying about the policy while it was still in place but why now? In at least one previous article Perlman shows he can accurately describe the Bush policy so why is he intentionally describing it inaccurately now?

Overheard

Jonah Goldberg on the role of science in policy making:

The most important point isn’t about cheap politics and hypocrisy. It’s about the fundamental misunderstanding of the role of science in policymaking.

Obama once told reporters that “the promise that stem cells hold does not come from any particular ideology; it is the judgment of science, and we deserve a president who will put that judgment first.”

Putting aside the fact that it now appears many scientists were wrong about the promise of stem cells (at least so far), this is morally deranged. If scientists discovered that experimentation on five-year-old children showed huge promise to cure diseases or solve the energy crisis, we wouldn’t say, “Oh, well, scientists say it’s okay.”

.....

Scientists are technicians, not moral philosophers. While they can provide facts that inform good decision-making, they can’t distill morality in a test tube. Politicians shouldn’t abdicate to the guys in white coats their responsibilities to answer moral questions the white-coats can’t answer.

Life Links 6/18/10

Looks like Alaska Governor Sean Parnell was right.

The Alaska Department of Health and Social Services said today that 664 abortions were funded last year through Denali KidCare.

Gov. Sean Parnell recently vetoed money to expand Denali KidCare, the health care program for low income kids and pregnant women, because some of the money funds abortions. Parnell said at the time that the program funded “hundreds” of abortions. Anchorage Democratic Sen. Bettye Davis had disputed that, saying a “very small number” of abortions are funded.

Women on Denali KidCare can have an abortion funded if a physician decides it's "medically necessary." The state doesn't define what is "medically necessary," leaving that to be determined by the treating physician.....

There were 55,754 Alaskans enrolled in Denali KidCare last year, including 7,947 pregnant women.

There were 1,875 abortions performed in Alaska in 2009. It's quite obvious that Alaska abortionists are using their own definition "medically necessary" when around 8% of the pregnant women enrolled in Denali KidCare get "medically necessary" abortions and taxpayer-funded "medically necessary" abortions make up more than a third of the state's abortions.

Alaskans have their Supreme Court to thank for this ridiculous scenario where a fund designed to help children and give prenatal care to pregnant women turns into an abortion fund which funds more than a third of the state's abortions.


World Magazine has a piece on 5 women who chose life after receiving troubling prenatal diagnoses and being advised to have abortions.


Susanne Schultz writes about companies attempting to clone human embryos are weaseling their way around a California law which prevents paying women for eggs destined for research purposes.

The oocytes used by Stemagen for cloning research come from women who are paid $5,000 to $10,000 per egg extraction. These women are recruited by Select Surrogate to sell their eggs to clients waiting in the adjacent IVF units that belong to Reproductive Sciences Center. Payment for eggs for reproductive purposes is legal in the United States.

But the La Jolla group of companies adds a twist. Wood told me that they ask women to agree that if more than 12 eggs are extracted, they will donate some of them, without additional payment, to research. As the Center for Genetics and Society has suggested, this arrangement poses a possible conflict of interest, a concern strengthened by our investigation.

The Food and Drug Administration's panel of reproductive health experts has voted unanimously to endorse ellaOne, a pill taken up to 5 days after intercourse which may have post-fertilization effects.

"The fact is..."

Overheard at Mo Rage in a post entitled, "The fact is, anti-abortion people really don't want abortions to go away."

First there was RU486, the "day after" contraceptive pill and now there is a new one that is reputedly effective up to 120 hours after conception. So, the fact is, we have two different ways to make sure that a true abortion procedure never has to happen again. That's a fact. But the other fact is, the anti-abortion side, the anti-abortion people don't want this issue to go away. They want to keep their "good fight". And it's stupid.

Isn't it great when someone who doesn't know the difference between RU-486 and Plan B, has no clue about the effectiveness rates of emergency contraception, and apparently can't understand why prolifers would be concerned about an emergency contraceptive which might have post-contraceptive effects starts claiming that prolifers don't want abortions to go away.

But prolifers are stupid ones, eh?