Poland Defies the European Union
Pro-Abortion Groups Promote FOCA in Wake of Supreme Court Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Decision
Gonzales v. Carhart – A Step Away From Roe?
A New Dawn: Gonzales v. Carhart Begins a New Day in Abortion Law
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Decision Recognizes Trauma of Abortion
Mexico City Abortion Vote
World Bank & Abortion
Harvard Study on Abortion-Breast Cancer Link Appears Seriously Flawed But Shows that Pregnancy to Term Reduces Risk of Cancer
Amnesty International Policy Change Considered
Rogersville teen puts face on abortion debate
British Study of Hospitals Over 20 Years Finds 1 in 30 Babies Survive Abortion (i.e. "Failed Abortions")
American Idol 'Gives Back' to Abortion Groups
Mother's Day Grief…
POLAND DEFIES EU. Host country of the World Congress of Families IV held in Warsaw May 11-13, 2007, threw down the gauntlet in a frontal challenge to the European Union during the pro-family congress which attracted some 3,300 delegates from all over the world.
Poland's Minister of Education and Vice Prime Minister and the Speaker of Parliament proclaimed during the congress that Poland has no intention of agreeing to the demands of the European Union (EU) that it follow the regulations established in Brussels and the European Parliament to provide abortion, homosexual rights, same-sex marriage and other attacks on the traditional family demanded by the EU.
An EP debate and resolution which was passed last month condemned Poland for being "hateful" and "repulsive" for refusing to permit the promotion of homosexuality in schools (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/apr/07042608.html ) The resolution went so far as to suggest that "homophobic" country's such as Poland would be taken to court. Pro-family leaders were told that the Polish legislation seeking to protect children in schools from homosexual propaganda would be put forward as planned; Poland would not be interfered with or intimidated by the EU.
The Polish officials made it clear that Poland will be assuming the leadership role to end the demographic winter in Europe caused by a birthrate below the replacement level and the instability in Europe caused by sexual permissiveness.
The Congress discussed over the three days such issues impacting the family as: abortion; the move to legitimize same-sex marriage; population decline; pornography and the impact of the news and entertainment industry on the family. The 3,300 delegates attended from Latin America, the United States, Canada, western and eastern Europe including Poland, Latvia, Estonia, the Ukraine and Russia. [with files from REAL Women Canada representative Gwen Landolt at the conference in Warsaw; May 14, 2007 LifeSiteNews.com]
Canadian National March for Life – May 9-11 – Official March for Life webpage here:
PRO-ABORTION GROUPS PROMOTE FOCA IN WAKE OF SUPREME COURT DECISION. With a Supreme Court that is less likely to uphold Roe v. Wade following its decision that the national partial-birth abortion ban is constitutional, abortion advocates are looking to Congress to support an extensive bill that would enshrine abortion into law. They hope the fact that Democrats control Congress will aide their cause.
Abortion advocates first promoted the Freedom of Choice Act during the early part of the Clinton administration but gave up on it after Republicans took control of Congress because most of them were staunchly pro-life.
The FOCA bill would not only make legalized abortion the law of the land, pro-life advocates point out that it would invalidate many pro-life laws used at the state level to reduce abortions.
Following the high court's decision, leading abortion advocates said they would put the bill back on the table.
"So how are we going to defeat this ban now that Bush's appointees upheld it? Simple," NARAL's president Nancy Keenan explained in an email to her supporters that LifeNews.com obtained.
"We're starting an all-out campaign to support the Freedom of Choice Act. Here's how it starts: The Freedom of Choice Act is legislation that would codify Roe v. Wade into law, and guarantee the right to choose for generations to come," she said.
The Feminists Majority Foundation agreed and emailed its donors saying "We must work to pass the Freedom of Choice Act, which will codify Roe so that it cannot be further assaulted."
Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, have both pledged to reint
roduce FOCA in both chambers of Congress but pro-abortion Sen. Diane Feinstein admitted to the Associated Press that abortion activists likely don't have the votes to move it forward.
"We've been losing fight after fight after fight," she said.
Kim Gandy, the head of NOW, agreed with Feinstein's assessment about the Congressional attitude on abortion issues.
"It's a Democratic Congress, but it's not a pro-choice Congress," she said, adding that it was unlikely that pro-abortion forces could undo the partial-birth abortion ban or push the FOCA bill.
While abortion advocates talk about pushing FOCA, it appears they are more focused on the 2008 presidential election and appointing judges to further entrench Roe v. Wade. [20April07, Ertelt, LifeNews.com #4014, Washington, DC]
GONZALES v. CARHART – A STEP AWAY FROM ROE? For the first time since 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court has retreated from its decisions legalizing abortion on demand, primarily Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and Planned Parenthood v Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). The decision, Gonzales v. Carhart, raises many questions and contemplations. Time will answer these, but as we continue the process of determining abortion rights in America, where are we exactly?
The immediate issues that come to mind are whether this is the beginning of the end of a right to abortion, how does this effect Alabama’s laws, and what are the political ramifications? In short, it is a small step in the right direction which does not immediately effect any existing Alabama laws or laws proposed to regulate abortion in any state, but it has significant political ramifications for the 2008 presidential election.
To understand these things, it is necessary to understand the court opinion. It deals with a type of abortion process termed “partial birth abortion,” technically known as an “intact dilation and evacuation” (“intact D&E”). To use the words of Congress, it “is a gruesome inhumane procedure” in which, to use the words of the Court, “a fetus is killed just inches before the completion of the birth process.” In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, a nurse’s description of the process was the partially delivered “. . . baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were jerking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startled reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. The doctor pulled up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp . . . . He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.”
This type of procedure was first prohibited by Congress in a similar law which resulted in the Court’s decision in Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000), holding it unconstitutional because there is no health of the mother exception. Following this, Congress made extensive findings that there is no medical need for a health exception and again passed a statute which resulted in this recent court decision. The health exception referred to is universally understood to be a loophole allowing the abortion doctor virtually any excuse to perform an abortion. Such an exception renders any law useless.
The primary reason the Court upheld the constitutionality of the most recent law, even though it did not have a health exception, was because abortion doctors have available to them the normal dilation and evacuation procedure (“D&E”).
The only difference between it and the intact D&E is that in the former, the baby is taken out in parts and is obviously killed in the process. In the latter, the baby is almost born alive. The law meets the undue burden standard of Casey because it does not prohibit an abortion; the abortion may be performed using the usual D&E procedure. This decision does not overrule the Stenberg decision, because that law prohibited all D&E procedures.
The present law only prohibits abortions that meet the following criteria:
1. There must be a vaginal delivery of a living child.
2. Either the head or the trunk must be fully delivered.
3. The abortionist must by an overt act kill the partially born child.
4. The abortionist must have intentionally done the foregoing.
Another important consideration of this decision is the type of review by the court. There are two types, “facial” and “as applied.” Under a facial challenge, a law has not gone into effect and the plaintiff must prove that a law is vague and people of ordinary intelligence do not know what is prohibited or that its application is too broad. In this case it would mean the abortion doctor does not know what is prohibited or that he would not be able to perform the necessary procedure. This may unconstitutionally burden the woman’s choice.
As noted, the medical health omission was central to the abortionists’ arguments. The Court found the medical evidence uncertain and that state and federal legislators have wide discretion to pass legislation in areas of medical and scientific uncertainty. The Court concluded no health exception was necessary under the “facial” challenge before the Court. That is, on its face, without application or the law ever being put into use, it does not place a burden on the woman’s right to choose.
There is no evidence that her health would be adversely effected. However, the Court also said that an “as applied” challenge can be brought at a later time, that if in practice medical evidence shows it does not protect the woman’s health, then the statute would be unconstitutional. An as applied challenge is a possibility and, perhaps, even a probability. We are all familiar with federal courts’ propensity to strike down abortion laws. This means there is still a very real chance this law will be struck down in a later case.
The Court made a distinction essentially based on there “almost” being a life of the baby. Although the Court said the state has an interest in protecting “the life of a fetus that may become a child,” it was also reasonable for Congress to be concerned that partial-birth abortion procedure “undermines the public’s perception of the appropriate role of a physician during the delivery process, and perverts a process during which life is brought into the world.” Whether we blame Justice Kennedy or Congress, it is as if it is okay to cut the baby up first, rather than deliver it
As noted, the step was very small. It is significant in that it is the first step away from the abortion right, but it is only important if a subsequent step is taken. During the 1990’s when there were multiple states’ efforts to pass partial-birth abortion laws, there was a recognition that it would probably not prohibit many abortions, though it would certainly put a dent in the baby body parts trade (virtually whole delivered unborn children are more valuable to both private and public research entities), but that it would be significant in the education of the public on the humanity of the unborn child.
It has, no doubt, served that purpose and even the Court recognized that “the state has an interest in advancing the dialogue of the political and legal systems, the medical profession, mothers and society on the consequences of the abortion decision.” We certainly hope there will be another step to advance that dialogue to someday end the right to abortion. For these reasons, we must be encouraged.
One of the questions is whether this would effect Alabama’s law. We passed the Alabama Partial-Abortion Ban Act of 1997, Section 26-23-1, et sequel, 1975 Code of Alabama. It did not have a health exception. A lawsuit was filed which resulted in a finding, based on the Stenberg case, that it was unconstitutional. Summit Medical Associates PC v. Siegelman, 130 F.Supp.2d 1307 (M.D. Ala., 2001). It is not possible to go back and undo that court decision on that particular statute, but in any case, that statute would still not cut constitutional muster under this recent decision. It does not have the same exacting definition of a partial-birth abortion that would permit it to be recognized as the specific sole procedure. Also, there is no scienter requirement, that is, the statute did not require proof that the abortion doctor intended to take the baby’s life by this particular abortion process.
Additionally, there are no present Alabama legislative bills being considered which would have any constitutional success as a result of this decision. Any such bill must be carefully prepared to anticipate a constitutional challenge. That raises the last obvious question and that is what are the political ramifications of the decision.
Gonzales v. Carhart was a 5-4 decision. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the Court. Justice Kennedy has fully supported the right to abortion. He was, however, joined by pro-life Justices Thomas and Scalia, and the two new Justices, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. While Justice Kennedy used some very “pro-life” sounding terms in his opinion, he made it clear that the Court “assume[s] the following principles for the purposes of this opinion. Before viability, a state may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy.” Before Thomas and Scalia could join in the opinion, they wanted to be clear they were only supporting upholding the law and said through Thomas, “I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court’s abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe, has no basis in the Constitution.”
It is also notable that although Roberts and Alito joined the majority opinion, they did not join Thomas’ concurrence. Perhaps, they did not want to show their hands so early after their confirmation, where numerous questions were asked about this issue. That can, at least, be our hope.
Justice Ginsberg wrote a dissenting opinion which was joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Breyer. They stood firmly on the abortion right court decisions.
The reality of this is that we still remain one vote short of correcting the horrible mistake in American jurisprudence which has allowed the so-called constitutional right to an abortion. George Bush does not have the political strength to get another conservative Justice confirmed. The problems in his administration and the Democrat controlled Senate substantially weaken him. If an opening comes while he is president, we must be concerned he does not put another weak vote on the court, such as Kennedy is or O’Conner was, notwithstanding they were to have been pro-life.
This makes the 2008 presidential elections more important than any in many terms. This election is also particularly interesting because while, of course, every Democrat contender recognizes the right to abortion, two of the three top-tier GOP candidates are pro-choice and the third’s position is suspect. The obvious prediction would be from all those who we know to be electable today, none will probably put the fifth pro-life vote on the U.S. Supreme Court. There are a number of second tier GOP candidates who are pro-life.
Abortion organizations were horrified at the decision and many pro-life organizations were ecstatic. One must be careful in assessing response from such persons. They are, most likely, in a fundraising mode. The real assessment of the case must be that it reinforces some principles that have been expressed in the Roe and Casey decisions about the state having some interest in protecting life, but it does not step away from the constitutional right to abortion. The statements in Gonzales v. Carhart are not strong enough and do not go far enough. We must be encouraged, however, because the educational part of this process has helped more Americans recognize the personhood of the unborn child. [A. Eric Johnston, Esq., The Southeast Law Institute, Inc.™, April 27, 2007]
Changing Law to Protect Human Life, State by State
A New Dawn: Gonzales v. Carhart Begins a New Day in Abortion Law
"The State has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed. It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form." [Justice Anthony M. Kennedy]
The Gonzales v. Carhart decision of April 18 is the most significant Supreme Court abortion decision in 15 years — since the Casey decision in 1992. While there are still five justices who support Roe and our opponents have already introduced federal legislation that would in effect codify Roe v. Wade as the law of the land, Gonzales dramatically opens up new doors for us. The decision will allow us to apply all of our work that we've been preparing over the past several years — in legislation, litigation, and research on the impact of abortion on women.
The decision changes the landscape in several ways:
Gonzales has restored the guidelines from Casey that are more deferential to state legislation.
It reinforces the importance of informed consent. Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority:
"The State has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed. It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the
event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form."
This is an unprecedented passage in an opinion by a majority of the Supreme Court justices.
For the first time in 34 years, the Supreme Court narrowed the unlimited emotional health exception of Doe v. Bolton to a focus on "significant health risks." It opens the door for utilizing all our research on the negative impact of abortion on women.
It opens the door to more aggressive regulation of abortion.
It also has implications for bioethics. The Gonzales opinion shows greater Supreme Court humility than in Casey in 1992; the new majority will defer more to state legislatures. There is a considerably diminished possibility that the new Supreme Court majority will create, for example, a new "right to human cloning" or a new "right to destructive embryo research." They will leave these decisions to the states… We now turn to next cases and next legislation. We're confident that most of the cases in the lower federal courts will now be resolved in favor of the state legislation…Because there are still five justices on the Court who favor Roe, the continuing challenge is that abortion legislation cannot create a "substantial obstacle" to abortion "before viability." We are critically evaluating the challenges and planning for the best possible path through the courts. [1May07, Clarke D. Forsythe, Esq., Americans United for Life]
PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN RECOGNIZES TRAUMA OF ABORTION. A new language has crept into the rulings of Supreme Court justices, demonstrated most prominently by last month's decision to enact a ban on partial-birth abortion. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, in his majority opinion that "some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustain. Severe depression and loss of self esteem can follow."
This nod to the very stark reality of post-abortion trauma hails more than just a victory over a procedure that is dangerous to children and mothers everywhere – it marks the beginning of official recognition of the trauma that abortion can cause to women. It has been reported by the Texas Justice Foundation that over 2,000 affidavits of women who have been emotionally and physically traumatized by abortion were presented to the high court, and were used to form parts of the majority opinion that has ultimately ended the practice of partial-birth abortion.
The voices of those who have been injured by abortion continue to rise up against this practice and have truly begun to make an impressive impact. Through the sharing of testimony, the evidence presented by organizations dedicated to healing victims of post-abortion trauma, and a variety of studies and data not available before, the truth about abortion's negative effects is slowly being revealed. Hopefully, Justice Kennedy's sentiments and concern for women suffering after choosing abortion will continue to resound in a body that makes such weighty decisions concerning women's health.
The importance of the high court's recognition of negative emotional reactions to abortion cannot be understated. An important milestone was reached acknowledging the reality of trauma after abortion. This reflects a deeper change in the way people think about abortion – a change from seeing it as 'a procedure' to a traumatic event that can be destructive to women and men, and all those who love and support them. With this change in thought, we are much better equipped to uphold truly healthy and positive choices for women, instead of merely changing a law on the surface with no real consideration of how such policies perpetrates an assault against women and diminishes the very heart and soul of humanity itself. [Rachel's Vineyard, May 2007]
Supreme Court's Partial-Birth Abortion Decision Hits on Post-Abortion Pain. When the Supreme Court handed down its decision upholding the national ban on partial-birth abortions, the focus of the case and reaction to it centered on the pain the three-day-long abortion procedure causes an unborn child. However, Justice Anthony Kennedy also touched on post-abortion problems and pain. People on both sides of the abortion debate were surprised that the high court delved into the issue of how abortion adversely affects women. They say it's a line of argument against legalized abortion that could set up an eventual decision overturning Roe v. Wade itself. Kennedy's majority opinion in the partial-birth abortion case, said it was “self-evident” and “unexceptional to conclude” that “some women” who have abortions suffer “regret,” “severe depression,” “loss of esteem” and other ills. He pointed out that “some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustain." "Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow," Justice Kennedy added. [23Apr07, LifeNews.com]
Mexico City Abortion vote. Mexico City legislators voted in 4/07 to legalize abortion in the capital city during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy [Sun-Sentinel.com – Fort Lauderdale,FL,USA]
Bush Admin Spars With European Nations on World Bank and Abortion. The Bush administration and European nations sparred on Tuesday over language in a World Bank document outlining health strategies for poor nations. The countries are upset that an American representative tried to insert language into the document that they say would limit abortions for teenagers.
The battle pitted [pro-abortion] diplomats from France, Germany, Italy and Norway against the U.S. representative, Whitney Debevoise, during a discussion of the document. Officials from the nations told Reuters that they were upset that Debevoise wanted to change the phrase "reproductive health services," which abortion advocates have been pushing in various international and UN documents to try to promote abortion. Debevoise suggested "age appropriate access to sexual and reproductive healthcare" instead, but the European nations said that could limit the ability of teenagers to get such care or abortions in poorer nations. An unnamed representative of the U.S. Treasury said the World Bank negotiations on language have been going on for over a year and have not concluded.
The official also said that the U.S. backs large parts of the document that promote legitimate health care rather than abortion. "It covers a full spectrum of support for health care in developing countries … ," the spokesperson said. The World Bank has come under fire from pro-life advocates for years for trying to push abortion on poor nations, most of whom have laws respecting the right to life of unborn children. [25Apr07, DC LifeNews.com]
bortion Advocates Target Leading Pro-Life Bush Administration Official
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — Ellen Sauerbrey is a leading Bush administration official who handles population-related issues for the president. She represents the United States at the United Nations and other worldwide gatherings but abortion advocates are targeting her because she carries the president's pro-life policies wherever she goes. Sauerbrey is the Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration. In her capacity she's urged that the United Nations not use documents to coerce nations into approving legalized abortion and she called on China to released Chen Guancheng, an attorney who was jailed on bogus charges after calling for the nation to end forced abortions. Because of her actions, the Population Research Institute says Sauerbrey recently received a harshly worded letter signed by 19 European Union politicians. They urged her not to attend this year's World Congress on Families IV. That's an event in Warsaw, Poland next month featuring an international coalition of pro-life leaders, organizations, and scholars. Colin Mason, PRI's media director, tells LifeNews.com that "The EU politicians told Sauerbrey that by going to Warsaw she would 'provide an official U.S. government stamp of approval to extremist and intolerant views held by some participants and attendees.'" [24Apr07, DC, LifeNews.com]
HARVARD STUDY ON ABORTION-BREAST CANCER LINK APPEARS SERIOUSLY FLAWED. A new survey conducted by Harvard researchers on the link between abortion and breast cancer concludes that there is no link. However, further analysis shows they did not allow enough time for the possible onset of breast cancer following the women's abortions thus skewing their data.
Published in the April 23 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, a JAMA journal, the researchers say that neither induced abortion nor spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) appears to be associated with breast cancer risk in premenopausal women.
Michels and her associates at Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health followed women over a period of 10 years and asked them about whether they had abortions or miscarriages during that time.
But critics say the results are flawed because the researchers did not allow enough time following the abortion for the potential cancer to develop.
Joel Brind, president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, told LifeNews.com that "This isn't the first time that Harvard Nurses Study researchers  have produced the wrong epidemiological results."
"They were wrong about combined hormone replacement therapy reducing the risk of heart attack and stroke, and they're wrong about abortion," he said.
Brind, a professor at New York's Baruch College, pointed out that breast cancer cases have risen 40 percent since abortion was made virtually unlimited in the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade.
He said researchers should have analyzed only the abortions that occurred early in the study, allowing enough time after the abortion to see if breast cancer developed
In 1996, Brind and other researchers conducted analysis of all the major studies done in the field to that time.
They concluded that women who had an abortion before their first term child had a 50% increased risk of developing breast cancer while women who had an abortion after their first child sustained a 30% increased risk.
"I see no reason why this study would change my opinion that having an abortion increases the risk about 30% over not having gotten pregnant in the first place," Brind told the New York Times in response to the study.
“I believe also that this particular study, were the data properly handled and reported, would have come up with a result in agreement with that," he added.
A few years ago, the British Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists confirmed Brind's study and said it contained no major flaws or errors.
Meanwhile, Karen Malec of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, criticized the results as well.
"We call on journalists to challenge Michels et al. to conduct a proper study that allows sufficient follow-up time between exposure to abortion and the development of breast cancer," she said in a statement given to LifeNews.com.
Malec also criticized the study as political because it received funding from the National Cancer Institute, which has discounted the abortion breast cancer link because of the politics of abortion and convened one-sided panels to try to disprove it.
"So why has the NCI continued to spend millions of dollars to fund studies on the abortion-cancer link?" asked Malec. "Clearly, its scientists must either suspect a link or know that it exists."
There are 17 statistically significant studies that show a link between abortion and breast cancer, 8 of which were conducted in the United State. It is estimated that upwards of 10,000 cases of breast cancer each year presently, and up to over 25,000 per year in twenty or thirty years hence, are or will be attributable to induced abortion.
Eve Sanchez Silver, a former Susan G. Komen medical research analyst and Hispanic outreach director, confirms the abortion-breast cancer link.
Silver explained that the breast is an organ that is not mature at birth and does not become fully mature until after 32 weeks of pregnancy.
As a result of that state of development, interruption of pregnancy via an abortion before 32 weeks leaves breast cells exposed to estrogen, which is highly carcinogenic.
Related: Eve Sanchez Silver – http://stopabortionbreastcancer.org
National Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer – http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com
[23April07, Ertelt, LifeNews.com, Boston]
Abortion-Breast Cancer Study Found Having Baby Reduces Cancer Risk. A study by Harvard University researchers that's come under fire for denying the link between abortion and breast cancer also contained confirmation that carrying a pregnancy to term helps reduce a woman's risk.
Pro-life advocates say the finding shows women should be encouraged to seek abortion alternatives.
Lost in the abortion-breast cancer link debate was the fact that the researchers affirmed previous studies showing that a full-term pregnancy before age 35 reduces the long-term risk of developing breast cancer. They said the fact was well-established and that their own research renewed the evidence for it.
Karin Michels of Brigham and Women's Hospital, who headed the study, said that someone who has had an abortion "misses out on the potential benefit she would have had if she had a full-term pregnancy." Respo
nding to the finding on childbirth, Karen Malec, of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, told LifeNews.com that "Even the NCI agrees that increased childbearing, starting at an early age, protects women from breast cancer." "Legislators have a moral obligation to require abortion providers to inform expectant mothers that if they have an abortion, their breast cancer risk will be higher than it would be if they have a baby. That's settled science," she explained. [25Apr07, LifeNews.com]
British Study of Hospitals Over 20 Years Finds Many Babies Survive Abortion. A new study from Britain involving an analysis of 20 years of data covering 20 hospitals finds that one baby in 30 survives an abortion attempt.
The survey sheds more light on how many abortions are unsuccessful and the kind of care medical facilities should offer babies who survive botched abortions. Many of the babies who survived the failed abortions were born at 20-24 weeks into the pregnancy at West Midlands hospitals. That's just before and right at the point of viability.
The study by the West Midlands Perinatal Inst, published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, found that some of the babies survived but others lived only for a few hours after the failed abortion. About 190,000 abortions take place in England annually involving about a quarter of all pregnancies and almost always involving a healthy baby. Abortions are allowed up to the 24th week of pregnancy there.
This particular study covered the outcomes of 3,189 abortions done between 1994 and 2005 specifically because the baby had some sort of disability. Some 102 “seriously handicapped” babies, killed for having Down’s syndrome or heart defects, were not killed in the abortion procedure.
Most of the abortions were what is now called “medical” meaning chemically induced. This method, the study found, results in the high numbers of survivals, particularly in later term children.
Julia Millington of the pro-life group Alive and Kicking Campaign told LifeNews.com that the survival rates were likely seen in other places in England. "If 102 out of 3,189 babies aborted for reasons of impairment are born alive, then how many healthy babies must be surviving?" she said. “With live births after abortion occurring in 18 out of the 20 maternity units in the West Midlands alone, it is difficult to comprehend the numbers of babies around the country left fighting for their lives,” Millington added, saying that hospitals should have policies to care for them.
The West Midlands region accounts for only one-tenth of the “terminations” in the UK. "The survival instinct of these premature babies is very strong but without proper neonatal care they stand no chance at all." "One in 30 babies aborted for medical reasons is born alive, a study has found. They lived for an average of 80 minutes – although in some cases foetuses survived for over six hours."
But Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service abortion business, stressed that babies born alive after a failed abortion are rare.
"It would be wrong to imply from this retrospective study, that if women undergo a medical induction abortion at under 24 weeks' gestation for reasons aside from fetal abnormality, that this is at all likely to result in a live birth," she said.
Related: Alive and Kicking Campaign – http://www.aliveandkickingcampaign.org
One baby in 30 left alive after medical termination
[20April07, Ertelt, LifeNews.com #4014, London; Evening Standard, Birmingham, England, April 20, 2007, LifeSiteNews.com]
Rogersville teen puts face on abortion debate. Doctors advised Lori Vance in 1991 that her unborn child Donna Joy should be aborted in the seventh month due to no fewer than five major brain defects being detected. The most serious was holoprosencephaly caused by a failure of the embryo's forebrain to divide to form bilateral cerebral hemispheres – the left and right halves of the brain. Any one of the five defects would likely have prompted the same advice from a doctor, but Vance made the choice not to follow that advice and see the pregnancy through.
Today Donna Joy is a 15-year-old eighth-grader at Rogersville Middle School who despite her disabilities is enjoying a happy childhood. She and her family have lived in Rogersville for two years.
In 1991 Vance was given a choice – complete the pregnancy or follow the doctors' advice and agree to a procedure commonly called a "partial birth abortion." From now on the government will be making that decision for pregnant women.
On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 in favor of upholding the constitutionality of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Vance said the Supreme Court decision is cause for celebration.
"I chose not to go through with the late-term abortion because Donna Joy's life doesn't really belong to me, it belongs to God, so it's only his for the taking," Vance told the Times-News Wednesday. "I wasn't going to be a part of killing my own child. I knew that she could have awful handicaps, but it didn't matter to me because I still loved her. She was still my child."
For the past decade she and Donna Joy have crusaded for the partial birth abortion ban, addressing Congress and appearing in the national media.
Donna Joy, the girl who lived, became a poster child for the partial birth abortion ban cause.
"When I was pregnant with my daughter, doctors said that she had a fatal brain disorder and was completely incompatible with life," Vance said. "Every doctor I went to told me that I had to have a late-term abortion, and when they described it, it's obviously what's known as partial birth abortion. I refused it, and I had her, and when she turned 5 she became the oldest survivor that we knew of at the time of her group of brain disorders.
"Now she's about to turn sweet 16. She has fri
ends. She sings in the church choir. She took the blue ribbon in the Special Olympics for bowling. That's quite a feat considering she does have cerebral palsy and peripheral blindness. She's beautiful, and she's a little bit of a ham."
Vance was watching a debate on the issue on television in 1997 and heard some of the people involved in the debate say that children with the same brain defects as Donna Joy could not be saved.
Donna Joy was 5 at the time, and Vance yelled at the TV, "That's not true!"
In 1997 Vance lived in Maryland and called her congressman, Roscoe Bartlett. It was Bartlett who put Vance in touch with Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who sponsored the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.
Her name was Lori Watts at that time, and Donna Joy Watts gained national attention. Since then Vance has remarried and moved to Rogersville, and both she and Donna Joy now have the last name Vance.
"Senator Santorum's people called me and asked me to come to Washington, D.C., to speak to Congress, and I told my story there," Vance said. "There was a big (controversy) on Capitol Hill for a couple of days because Sen. Barbara Boxer from California had Donna Joy ejected from the Senate chamber. (Boxer) said that since Donna was not yet 6 years of age and because it was an exploitive use of a child that she must be kept from the Senate chamber during the proceedings, and that really made me mad.
"In the end I think more people heard our story because of what Senator Boxer did than would have if she just would have left us alone."
Following her appearance before Congress, Vance and Donna Joy went on the talk show circuit, appearing on programs such as the Rush Limbaugh radio show and the Phil Donahue TV show.
Vance said she was heartbroken while on the Donahue show sitting beside a mother who listened to the advice of her doctor and went through with a late-term abortion.
"I really and truly felt for her, and I could tell in the green room when she looked at my daughter it was very difficult for her," Vance said. "She made that choice herself. She's still the mother of a dead child. I have nothing but love and sympathy for women who make that decision."
In 2003, Vance and Donna Joy were invited back to Washington, D.C., to watch President Bush sign the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act into law.
Vance said Wednesday's Supreme Court decision upholding that bill is a great victory.
"I don't think there's a word in the English language for the emotions I'm feeling right now," Vance said. "Relief. Happiness. And I'm relieved for the children that won't have to die in such a terrible way as of noon today."
Donna Joy won't say much about the issue, but her mother says she has a real understanding of it.
She will see pro-abortion advocates on TV and say, "They don't like me. They wish I was dead," Vance said. [04/18/2007 By JEFF BOBO, http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=3751878]
AMNESTY INT'L POLICY CHANGE CONSIDERED. There’s no mention of an important policy change that Amnesty International is currently considering. It’s hard to even find indication of it on their website, except from secondary news sources. It seems that the Amnesty International Executive Committee prefers to keep the fact that they are considering adding abortion to their list of human rights from the public – perhaps because of the inherent contradiction that supporting such a ‘right’ would cause.
For decades, Amnesty International has taken a stand to protect those who are unable to defend themselves on many issues of life and death – everything from improving working conditions in third world countries to trying to end the death penalty. But now, they are considering promoting abortion as a ‘necessity of life’. The countless women who are left emotionally and physically damaged by ‘safe and legal’ abortion are being left without protection. Remarkably, in light of Amnesty International’s involvement in stopping the practice of forced abortions in China, this new policy under consideration rings especially erroneous.
Women for Life International is currently launching a campaign to help educate Amnesty International about the effects that abortion has on women, and encouraging them to continue to protect the health and safety of women worldwide by not recognizing abortion as ‘beneficial’ to women. You are invited to write a letter to send to the Amnesty International Executive Committee, particularly for letters from post-abortive women and men, and those involved in their healing.
This is an opportunity that we must take to impact the status and health of women worldwide. Amnesty International has a wonderful record of supporting human rights and helping those in need. We must remind them that mothers and children worldwide need protection from coerced abortion as much as from any other menace which devalues and threatens the lives of their children. [Rachel's Vineyard, May 2007]
‘Idol Gives Back’ to Abortion. The widely popular TV program "American Idol" is raising funds that will be funneled to organizations that support abortion and failed safe-sex programs. Through their "Idol Gives Back" efforts, dollars will be sent to UNICEF and Save the Children, two organizations that promote killing children via abortion internationally.
Other notable "Idol Gives Back" partners include iTunes and MySpace.
If we want to truly help the poor, we should only be sending our donations to organizations that have removed themselves from abortion, population control via chemical abortion, and condoms that fail to protect against HIV/AIDS, STDs, etc.
We should be promoting life and chastity, not death and destructive behavior.
Important reads – The truth about UNICEF and global family planning. [Rock For Life Report, 3May07]
The Truth About UNICEF
UNICEF is, undoubtedly, the most well known and, probably, the most popular UN agency among Americans. The organization received $282 million from the United States alone in 2002. What is not well known, however, is UNICEF's evolution from a life affirming, child saving and Nobel peace prize-winning foundation to a contraceptive-distr
ibuting, abortion-performing and sterilization-providing partner of some of the world's most notorious "family planning" organizations.
UNICEF, which originally stood for United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund, was established by the United Nations in 1947 during the aftermath of World War II. Funded by voluntary contributions from governments and the public, its original purpose was to provide emergency food, water, shelter and medical care to children throughout the world. This task they accomplished well, receiving international acclaim and respect. In 1950, the UN asked UNICEF to extend its work beyond emergency relief and to focus on the long-range needs of children. In 1953 the organization's name was changed to the United Nations Children's Fund while the original acronym remained.
Until the mid 1960's UNICEF fulfilled its mission and performed a great service to many of the neediest children in the world. (Volunteers still do monumental work in inoculating, feeding and otherwise caring for children's basic needs.) However, as the world and the UN began to change, more unscrupulous programs replaced these worthy works and the original mission was lost to population control euphemisms and "reproductive health issues". A recent series of articles in the British medical journal, The Lancet, on the growing number of preventable childhood deaths worldwide provide a clear indication that UNICEF needs to redirect its "emphasis [on] its traditional mission of child survival". (1)
The 1960's brought an increased life expectancy to inhabitants of third world countries. Improved medical technologies and the development of vaccines either eliminated, cured or controlled a number of diseases. Improved methods of communications and means of more rapid transportation lowered death tolls in areas struck by natural disaster. At the same time, there was a resurgence of the Malthusian theory that the world was suffering from overpopulation and was headed for doom – there was not enough food to go around. This same decade entertained the development of new methods of fertility control – the "birth control pill", the IUD and sterilization. Theories of overpopulation and the development of birth control methods combined to fuel debate on population control. Population growth was being viewed as one reason why poor people stayed poor and deprived children remained deprived. Measures for preventing or interrupting pregnancy were seen as part of "maternal and child health services". (2)
There was major controversy in the UN – so much so that the organization's structure was threatened. The World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF were reluctant to join in the debate. WHO was unsure about the health effects of the pill and UNICEF did not want to act before WHO. Controversy within UNICEF itself threatened to split the Executive Board in the spring of 1966. It was proposed that UNICEF funds would be spent on providing women with access to family planning in those countries where the government requested it but that UNICEF would not offer any advice nor provide supplies or equipment to make them. Opponents argued "it would be wrong for UNICEF to depart from its original mandate of saving children in order to engage in activities to prevent them from being born". (3) The proposal was withdrawn and the issue tabled for a year.
In June of 1967, the UNICEF-WHO Joint Committee on Health Policy revived the debate using a revised argument. The committee submitted a report to the board suggesting that family planning programs supported by UNICEF should be part of a wide range of health services for both mothers and their children. After all, they reasoned, birth spacing was a health service that would benefit both mother and child. The report was accepted. Despite the fact that the terms used were understood to specifically exclude contraceptives, the phrases "family planning" and UNICEF were permanently joined.
Also in 1967, UN Secretary General U Thant announced the creation of a new UN fund – the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), which would specifically underwrite population-control activities. The UNFPA received contributions from those nations that opted to do so. By 1970, UNICEF was receiving large grants from UNFPA and had an expanded policy in place to supply contraceptives. The cooperation between UNICEF and UNFPA grew and soon thereafter, was extended to other organizations including International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).
A good deal of the controversy surrounding UNICEF comes primarily and directly from this policy of supplying and distributing contraceptives. Many contraceptives are, in reality, abortifacients. One of the effects of these contraceptives is to prevent the newly fertilized ovum, a new human life, from implanting in the mother's womb, thus destroying it. The so-called "contraceptives" that UNICEF provided were actually causing early abortions.
Despite their arguments during the World Population Conference in Bucharest in 1974 that UNICEF's interests and activities in promoting birth control were to benefit maternal and child health, the "family planning" program in Pakistan is just one example that revealed a quite different story:
Pakistan had initiated an "all-out national family planning program" in 1965. With the assistance of UNICEF, the plan aimed to provide each and every fertile couple in the country (approximately 20 million) with contraception, preferably an IUD. Doctors, health inspectors and midwives were trained to insert the device and anyone who participated received financial rewards. However, when the campaign was extended to more rural parts of the country, where no health centers (and, thus, no medical backup) was available, problems arose. Women, completely unaware of the potential dangers (acute pain, bleeding, infection), suffered serious injuries; many were rendered sterile. By 1974, when the health problems caused by IUD's became more widely known, the program ran into increasing resistance. "So much for family planning using IUD's as a benefit to women's health". (4)
The public record proves much to those willing to look and learn. The proceedings and finances of UNICEF, other UN organizations and pro-abortion groups such as IPPF are a matter of public record. Throughout the 1970's the Population Information Program published The Population Reports. These reports were in-depth scientific studies on the latest methods of fertility control and guides to governments seeking information for population programs. The Population Information Program was the responsibility of George Washington University Medical Center in Washington, D.C. until July 1, 1978 and then that of John Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. These Reports clearly outline UNICEF's involvement with population control throughout that time frame. UNICEF was named as an organization assisting in the following:
April 1974 "On Oral Contraceptives" – UNICEF supplied tables and raw materials equivalent to more than five million cycles.
March 1977 "Guide to Sources of Family Planning Program Assistance" – UNICEF is listed as a source of assistance for oral contraceptives, IUD's, condoms, diaphragms, injectibles and spermicides.
September 1977 "Guide to equipment selection for sterilization procedures" – UNICEF is listed as a source of equipment assistance and instrument kits for sterilization by mini-laparotomy and by colpotomy. "Sterilization equipment may be obtained through a variety of national and international donor agencies … United Nations (UN) agencies – the United Nation's Children's Fund (UNICEF)… Of the five kits shown, two were developed by UNICEF." (5)
January 1979 "Within the U.N. System, about 80 percent of contraceptives (oral) funded by the UNFPA are purchased by UNICEF and twenty percent by WHO." (6)
May 1979 "The UNFPA is also funding the purchase of an increasing number of IUD's for developing country programs, with the actual procurement undertaken by UNICEF (about 97 percent) and WHO (about three percent)." (7)
1985: UNICEF received $700,000 from the World Bank for a population project in Kenya that included sterilization facilities in district hospitals and family planning clinics.
1987 – 1988: UNICEF cooperated in a project to organize, expand and improve the quality of sterilization in mobile units countrywide. Additionally, UNICEF budgeted almost $800,000 for the purchase of contraceptives and national child-spacing programs in Jamaica and Tanzania. (8)
In 1987 an International Conference on Better Health for Women and Children through Family Planning was held in Nairobi, Kenya under the sponsorship of UNICEF and six other organizations – UNFPA, World Bank, WHO, IPPF, the UN Development Program and The Population Council. This conference was significant for two reasons: it made clear that the UNICEF of 1987 was vastly different from the UNICEF of 1967 and, in aligning with the world's leading pro-abortion organizations, UNICEF went on record officially endorsing abortion.
In 1967 UNICEF categorically rejected any connection with contraceptives. In 1987, it joined its collaborators in endorsing a Resolution for Action that included not only contraceptive research, development, distribution and practice, but pressed for abortion – regardless of the legal status – as well as increased collaboration with agencies whose agendas included contraceptives, sterilizations and abortion – often under political coercion. One of the conference Recommendations for Action read " … legal, good quality abortion services should be made easily accessible to all women." (9)
In 1988 UNICEF published Facts of Life, a booklet promoting birth control and the use of various contraceptives. The booklet contained no mention of abstinence or natural family planning and failed to mention the abortifacient nature of contraception.
1988 – 1989: UNICEF received $5.4 million for family planning services and population control programs. UNICEF was also named as the agency to provide contraceptive supplies in Cape Verde Sweden.
1990: UNICEF contributed $1.3 million to aid in surgical contraceptive services in Malawi and $1.8 million for family planning projects in Burundi. (10)
At the opening of UNICEF's Executive Board meeting in New York on April 16, 1990, a number of member states proposed a more active campaign to support abortion. Some European countries were even proposing that UNICEF become an advocate for abortion in countries where it was illegal. Archbishop Renato Martin, Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the UN, and his staff reacted quickly drafting a letter to the Vatican that evening. The next day, Martino addressed the Board: "the Holy See views with great alarm some repeated proposals that this UN agency, established for the well being of children, become involved in the destruction of existing human life, even to the point of suggesting that UNICEF become an advocate for abortion in countries whose sovereign legislation does not allow it. The Holy See firmly opposes such proposals not only on moral grounds, but also because they would bring a totally unacceptable deviation from the stated purpose of UNICEF in favour of children". (11) The Vatican ended up withdrawing its annual contribution to UNICEF in 1996.
At its inception, the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child stated, in part: "Whereas the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including legal protection, before as well as after birth …" In 1991, the Declaration was revised to offer state protection of a child only after birth. It remains that way today. (12)
In 1995, UNICEF came under the leadership of a new director – Carol Bellamy. Bellamy had served as a state senator in New York during the mid-1970's. She twice voted against the Aid to Live Aborted Child Act (a law which required professional medical personnel to provide the same care to infants surviving an abortion and born alive as any other premature baby) and supported other pro-abortion bills. Canada's Stephen Lewis, another pro-abortion advocate and former NDP Ontario leader, was appointed Bellamy's deputy executive director.
Throughout her tenure as director of UNICEF, a period strife with conflict in many areas of the world, Bellamy has staunchly advocated more help for refugee women who are sexually assaulted. While this may appear noble on the part of UNICEF at the surface, the advocated "help" includes provision of "morning after" pills, "reproductive health kits" bumping desperately needed medical supplies and even food from supply convoys, warehouses full of condoms but no penicillin and abortion services for children as young as ten years old. During the Balkan conflict, Albanian refugee camps received enough reproductive health kits to supply 350,000 people for six months – they were terribly short on antibiotics, but the shipment of birth control arrived! Not long after her appointment, UNICEF issued a press release announcing it would be distributing "contraceptives and drugs to terminate pregnancies" to "a million starving refugees in flight along the border between Rwanda and Zaire." (13) Bellamy was re-appointed for another five-year term in 2000.
1995: A restraining order was enacted against a two-year-old WHO and UNICEF anti-tetanus program. Two labs had found "B-hCG" sterilizing agent in the vaccine. The Filipino program had already "vaccinated" 3.4 million people – all women, mainly between the ages of twelve and 45. The hormone-laced vaccine was also discovered in Mexico, Nicaragua, Tanzania, India and Nigeria. The anti-hCG hormone causes not only sterilizations but also incurab
le autoimmune disorders, miscarriages and birth defects. (14)
1997: UNICEF issued its 107-page The State of the World's Children that praised China for passing legislation on child rights. These "rights" supposedly guarantee Chinese citizens the "right and obligation to receive education". No where did UNICEF's report mention, however, the considerable international attention that the unconscionable human rights abuses received just the year before: forced child labor, Chinese sweatshops (where children worked for less than one dollar per month), forced abortions and "dying rooms" in Chinese Government orphanages. (15)
To read the remainder of this article, visit: http://www.all.org:80/article.php?id=10105.
Global family planning
Planned Parenthood has long been an advocate of family planning around the world. Recently, STOPP received two documents that clearly spell out the PP philosophy and the true needs of people in developing countries. We believe that reading these two documents will give you a tremendous understanding of why PP is wrong. Therefore, we present them here:
The first document is an Associated Press news story of July 10, 2000.
The headline read, "New Campaign to Promote U.S., Support for Global Family Planning," by Edith M. Lederer, an Associated Press writer.
The article said, in part,
"Family planning supporters have launched a multimillion-dollar education campaign to get the American public and the U.S. Congress to expand access to reproductive health care and contraceptive services around the world. Half a dozen leading women's, children's and environmental groups have joined one of America's richest foundations to spread the message that family planning is the key to saving the lives of mothers, children and planet Earth."
The organizations behind this effort include: Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., Population Action International, the National Audubon Society, Save the Children, CARE, and the Communications Consortium Media Center.
Funding is coming from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. The campaign, called PLANet, will include television, newspaper and magazine advertisements to mobilize public support and lobby lawmakers and opinion-makers and will cost about $13 million the first year.
The campaign stresses that family planning could save about three million children's lives a year by helping women space births by at least two years, and save the lives of some of the 600,000 women who die every year from the complications of pregnancy and childbirth.
Gloria Feldt, president of PPFA, said about the campaign, "For so many years the adversaries of family planning have been very loud and very vocal. I think it is high time for the message of the importance of being able to plan and space your family … to be out there just as strongly as the adversaries are delivering their message."
John Flicker, president of the National Audubon Society, said, "International family planning can reduce population pressures on our planet. It is our best opportunity to address the single most important root cause of environmental degradation."
Charles MacCormack, president of Save the Children, said the joint campaign will hopefully "build a new constituency to save the lives of women and children." As part of its effort, the organization is launching a new campaign called "save the mother, save the children."
In announcing the campaign, sponsoring organizations emphasized the alleged threat of overpopulation. The AP news story referenced earlier contained the following scare sentence, "With world population at 6 billion and growing by nearly 80 million people each year, the campaign is also pushing the message that slowing population growth will protect the environment and allow developing countries to invest in education, jobs and health care."
Of course, all the hype about overpopulation is a lie. Readers of The Ryan Report already have the facts, and we will present some realities on the next two pages. But PP continues to push the big lie in the hopes it can capture more of our taxpayer money.
To read the remainder of this article, visit: http://www.all.org/stopp/rr0010.htm
Mother’s Love – Mother’s Day Grief. Many Churches have a beautiful tradition of giving honor to mothers on Mother’s Day. Often the Pastor will invite all mothers to stand at the conclusion of Church services for a special blessing…
For the post-abortive woman, Mother’s Day can trigger buried feelings of intense grief and loss. As she sits there and contemplates motherhood – listening to the words of the song – blest is the fruit of your womb, gentlewoman, and gentle mother – she is brought face to face with her past abortion.
When a woman chooses abortion it is an act of disintegration. The mind has to deny what is happening to the body. The mind buys the lie that the culture of death sells – abortion is a non-event, the removal of a blob of tissue, the solution to a problem and the end of a mere potential – nothing more.
The body and heart, on the other hand, have a different story to tell – which is that at the moment of conception mother and child begin to communicate on a hormonal level and this information is permanently recorded in the mother's brain. This conversation with the child, which is supported by scientific research, creates a conflict with what the woman is trying to deny in her mind. This conflict often plays itself out in post-abortion symptoms such as nightmares, flashbacks, panic attacks, drug and alcohol abuse, bouts of crying, anger, to name a few.
In other words, “From the earliest moments of pregnancy, a woman is physiologically prepared to attach to her infant… As this process is interrupted, the body has no internal mechanism to realize and process that the child did not live… maternal identity is often harmed…As grief begins to surface, the woman’s own pain and tears may prove to be the very evidence that she is a loving mother (whether to her living children or those in heaven). Her sorrow bears evidence that she cares deeply about all of her children. Had her aborted child or children lived, she would have provided this love.” Te
rry Lennox, RN, MA, LCCE, CLC
Mother’s Day can be a moment of grace. Through the contemplation of the truth of motherhood, the body and heart are able to speak to the mind and the mind is able to hear – a moment of re-integration – a moment to hear the truth that they have lost a child, not a blob of tissue. This is where the intense grief comes from…
Nothing is definitively lost – you are a mother.
If you or someone you know is hurting from an abortion on this Mother’s Day – consider the gift of a Rachel’s Vineyard retreat – a place where mothers and fathers are allowed to explore and contemplate their tears and what they mean – labor pains giving birth to the reality of their lost child or children.
When grief is finally allowed — then grief can be resolved.
[Susan Gliko serves as the Coordinator for Rachel’s Vineyard Retreats in Montana’s post abortion outreach “Rachel’s Hope”; Rachel's Vineyard, May 2007]