Tag Archives: abortion law

Clarification On Some Debate Points

Posted on by

Late Tuesday, MPR News posted an article to clarify some of what was said in Tuesday’s Vice-Presidential debate about Minnesota’s abortion law.

The article reports:

While they are allowed, abortions late in pregnancy are exceptionally rare. According to Minnesota data, in the last five years for which data is available just seven induced abortions have been reported in the third trimester of pregnancy. Abortions later in pregnancy are generally sought due to serious or fatal fetal anomalies, risk to maternal health or life or barriers that delay abortion access such as policy or financial need. It is illegal to kill a baby after birth as former President Donald Trump claimed in the presidential debate in September.

The 2023 law also dropped some state reporting requirements for abortion providers and ended the so-called “Born Alive Infants Protection Act.” Doctors and patients who’d pressed for the law change said the new law doesn’t prevent providers from trying to save the life of a child. Instead, they said it would let them bypass previously required medical interventions in situations where parents want to bond with their infant born with a fetal anomaly that is typically fatal.

These are basically wiggle words. As reported, the Minnesota law does allow abortion in the third trimester. The law also does not require providers to try to save a baby’s life. So Tim Walz did sign one of the most liberal abortion laws in the country.

There were other moments during the debate where the moderators made comments that were misleading or outright lies. One has to do with the fact that the moderators stated that the Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were here legally. That statement is technically true, but very misleading.

As The New York Post reported, Vice-Presidential candidate JD Vance provided some details:

Sen. JD Vance was accurately describing the migrant crisis fueled by Kamala Harris and Joe Biden when CBS moderator Margaret Brennan decided to insert herself with a “fact check.”

“Just to clarify for our viewers, Springfield, Ohio does have a large number of Haitian migrants who have legal status,” she said smugly.

Vance was rightly annoyed by the interruption and said, “The rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact-check, and since you’re fact-checking me, I think it’s important to say what’s actually going on.”

He then proceeded to truthfully, forcefully explain what “legal status” means:

“So there’s an application called the CBP One app, where you can go on as an illegal migrant, apply for asylum or apply for parole, and be granted legal status at the wave of a Kamala Harris open border wand.”

At which point CBS decided to CUT OFF HIS MIC.

This was the most shameful moment in a long history of shameful moments by moderators biased against Republicans. They “fact-checked” the truth, then stopped the politician from responding.

Well played, sir. well played.

A Campaign Based On Lies

Posted on by

One of the main issues in the Democrat party campaign for the presidency is abortion. Unfortunately, they have decided that rather than fight their fight on the merits, they are simply going to lie about the issue. First of all, Roe v. Wade was overturned because it violated the 10th Amendment. A federal ban on abortion would also violate the 10th Amendment and would also be overturned by the courts. President Trump has already said he would oppose a federal ban on abortion, but that is not what the Kamala Harris campaign is reporting. The campaign is also lying about what constitutes an abortion and what medical care should be available to women who miscarry.

On Friday, The Federalist posted an article explaining how a recent claim by the Harris campaign is a lie.

The article reports:

Democrats and their corporate media allies are so desperate to get rid of pro-life laws that they’ll fabricate stories to wrongly smear them as not only bad for women but deadly.

The latest is ProPublica’s story of a Georgia woman who died after a North Carolina abortionist gave her chemical abortion pills — which, contrary to Democrat narratives, are unsafe. The article, however, pretends the death was caused by Georgia’s pro-life laws. The author of the story repeatedly attempts to conflate a procedure used to treat miscarriages, dilation and curettage (D&C), with elective abortion.

In ProPublica’s telling, 28-year-old Amber Nicole Thurman had ingested the chemical abortion pill regimen, which consists of the drugs mifepristone and misoprostol. Mifepristone ends the life of the developing human being; misoprostol helps achieve complete expulsion of the embryo.

It’s worth noting that the FDA’s 2000 approval of mifepristone acknowledged its risks and enacted safety requirements, including a seven-week gestational limit, requiring women to see a physician in person, and a mandatory one-time post-abortion appointment to confirm that the uterus was empty and that bleeding had subsided. The FDA also required manufacturers of the abortion pill to report all adverse health events that were reported to them, such as infection or excessive bleeding — not just patient deaths. 

But thanks to Democrat efforts to relax safety requirements for abortion pills, important safeguards no longer apply. When Thurman experienced “complications” from the abortion, which ProPublica wrongly asserts are “rare,” she went to the hospital for a D&C.

While ProPublica claims, “Thurman had told doctors her miscarriage was not spontaneous — it was the result of taking pills to terminate her pregnancy,” Thurman was not experiencing a miscarriage. She had undergone an abortion. Her unborn twins had already died, and she had retained parts of their bodies or the placenta — a known complication of abortion pill use and one of the very reasons for the FDA’s requirement for a post-abortion follow-up visit with a doctor. 

The article concludes:

Amber Thurman did not die because of Georgia’s abortion law, which was enacted to protect the lives of mothers and preborn children. She died from complications of medical abortion. Perhaps, had the FDA decided not to remove its mandatory requirement for a doctor’s follow-up visit from abortion pill labeling, and had she received more appropriate care, she might have survived.

ProPublica says, “Thurman’s case marks the first time an abortion-related death, officially deemed ‘preventable,’ is coming to public light.” But what about the death of Alexandra Nunez? Or Rebecca Charland, Tonya Reaves, Jennifer Morbelli, Maria Santiago, Lakisha Wilson, Jamie Lee Morales, Cree Erwin Sheppard, Keisha Atkins, Tia Archeiva Parks, or April Lowery — all of whom died during or shortly after their abortions?

Were their deaths preventable? Or is maternal death associated with elective abortion acceptable, even though such abortions are performed on healthy mothers with healthy babies?

Abortion has risks. I have friends who as a result of legal abortions were not able to have children when they wanted to have them. There was also a study in Japan in the 1970’s linking abortion to an increased risk of breast cancer. This is not a safe procedure whether it is done with drugs or other methods.

Ghoulish Laws

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Life News reported that the Democrats in the Maine Senate rejected an amendment to an abortion law that would have banned the sale of aborted baby body parts.

The article reports:

The Democrat-controlled Maine Senate rejected an amendment to a late-term abortion bill Tuesday that would have prohibited the sales and trafficking of aborted baby body parts.

The Maine Wire reports state Sen. Eric Brakey, R-Androscoggin, introduced the amendment as legislation to allow abortions through all nine months of pregnancy appears poised to pass.

The bill, LD 1619, sponsored by Gov. Janet Mills, a pro-abortion Democrat, would legalize abortions up to birth for any reason an abortionist deems “necessary.” Currently, abortions are prohibited after 24 weeks.

“If this legislation to legalize abortion up to the point of birth is to go into law, the least we can do is to establish this moratorium on the trafficking of fetal body parts so that the legislature can thoughtfully consider this issue in the coming years and develop more permanent policy,” Brakey said prior to the vote.

However, the state Senate rejected his proposal in a 23-11 vote, with state Sen. Rick Bennett, R-Oxford, joining Democrats in voting to kill the amendment. However, Bennett did vote against the bill itself.

The article concludes:

Pro-abortion Democrats control the state legislature, and the bill is expected to pass this week.

Polls consistently show strong public opposition to late-term abortions. The vast majority of Americans recognize that babies in the womb should be protected, at the very least, once they are viable.

Karen Vachon, executive director of Maine Right to Life, said the governor is returning a favor to the Planned Parenthood abortion chain, which “spent millions buying elections in Maine and around the country.”

“Pro-abortion leaders have lied repeatedly about their true intention,” Vachon said. “During the campaign in 2022, they were content with the law the way it was. In January, they announced they would propose a narrow expansion to address specific instances of tragic fetal disease and debilitation. Now they’ve moved the goal post once again, proposing abortion on demand, with no limitations to the point of birth.”

Research about late-term abortions shows that viable unborn babies are aborted for elective reasons in states where it is legal. Medical groups representing tens of thousands of doctors say late-term abortions that kill viable unborn babies are never medically necessary.

I can’t imagine voting not only to kill a baby up until the point of birth, but to vote also to sell the parts of the aborted baby for profit.