The Suzy B Blog

Jun 28, 2013
Despite Pro-abortion Mob, Texas Fights for Life

On Tuesday, abortion advocates in Austin, Texas defeated a pro-life bill that would’ve protected the lives of unborn children 20 weeks and older.  Democrat state senator Wendy Davis led the charge against defenseless unborn babies. 

It’s sometimes interesting to examine the leaders and supporters of a particular movement.  Leaders of the Civil Rights Movement, like Martin Luther King, Jr. organized peaceful protests and civil disobedience to fight the injustice of segregation; British abolitionist Josiah Wedgwood created medallions that illustrated the humanity of enslaved people and the inhumanity of slavery; Lewis Hine campaigned against child labor by traveling the country with photos displaying children’s horrible working conditions.   

And pro-abortion zealots, in Occupy Wall Street-esque mobs, scream about “women’s health” while opposing abortion regulations that would prevent Texas abortionist Douglas Karpen from twisting the heads off of living babies outside the womb; increase medical standards at abortion centers, making them safer for women; and ban late-term abortions that are dangerous for both women and pain-capable unborn children. 

The majority of Americans don’t support abortion on demand during the later months of pregnancy.  The ones who do are the extremists who orchestrated an eleven-hour spectacle inside the Texas legislature and all over Twitter.

President Obama tweeted his support of the anti-democratic chaos; opponents of S.B. 5 weighed in on twitter with an unsurprising amount of vulgarity; and Nancy “sacred ground” Pelosi tweeted that she was “inspired” by Davis’s “courage and dedication” that will allow pain-capable unborn children to continue to suffer from late-term abortions if Governor Rick Perry doesn’t call another special legislative session. 

The mass of unruly abortion supporters who behaved so uncivilly in Texas is a sharp contrast to the pro-life movement, which has organized a peaceful March for Life every January for the past 40 years and doesn’t resort to furiously disrupting the legislative process when democracy doesn’t go their way.    

The behavior and words of abortion supporters say a lot about their movement. 

Thankfully, Gov. Perry has refused to give up in his defense of unborn children.  Undaunted by the uncivilized pro-abortion mob, he issued a call for another special session of the Texas legislature, which is set to begin July 1. 

“We will not allow the breakdown of decorum and decency to prevent us from doing what the people of this state hired us to do,” Gov. Perry said.

Stop the Gosnells launched a Stand with Texas petition and Online for Life initiated one called Is This Your Voice.  Both petitions give pro-life individuals the opportunity to speak out against the abortion lobby and in favor of protecting unborn children without having to viciously storm the gallery of the Texas State Senate to obstruct the legislative process. 

Read More

Tags: Karpen, Perry, Texas
Jun 28, 2013
North Dakota Legislation Defends Basic Constitutional Rights

Although the Texas late-term abortion bill captured the spotlight this week, North Dakota also faced challenges to abortion legislation on Tuesday. In March, Gov. Jack Dalrymple signed three pro-life bills that require abortion “doctors” to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals; ban abortion after the detection of a fetal heartbeat; and ban abortion for the purpose of gender selection or genetic abnormalities. On Tuesday, the Red River Women’s Clinic, North Dakota’s last remaining abortion provider, filed a federal challenge to the latter legislation.

Abortion supporters claim that these bills violate the U.S. Constitution as interpreted in Roe v. Wade. However, Senator Margaret Sitte has a different take. "Roe v. Wade was written before we had sonogram technology, before we knew what we do know now about life,” Sitte said. In order to truly uphold constitutional principles—especially the most basic right to life—we must embrace scientific advancements and evaluate Roe v. Wade accordingly. America’s founding is based on the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—rights that the Constitution guarantees in the Fifth Amendment to all persons. The Equal Protection Clause reiterates that these rights must be provided in a non-discriminatory manner. As Americans United for Life President Charmaine Yoest pointed out,

“A civil society does not discriminate against people – born and unborn – for their sex or for disability.  We should be celebrating diversity, not destroying it. Women in particular have been targeted for death in the womb, and we’ve also seen dramatic abortion rates for children with disabilities which put them at risk for extinction. Gov. Jack Dalrymple, Rep. Bette Grande and the legislators in North Dakota have shown courageous humanity in passing this legislation.”

Rep. Bette Grande (R-ND), a fearless leader of the National Pro-Life Women’s Caucus, sponsored both bills being challenged. However, her comprehensive, fact-based research is no match for pro-abortion lies. “They said they were going to have a lawsuit the whole time, there’s nothing new there, but it still comes down to the fact we have people like Gosnell out there and no checks and balance in the abortion industry,” said Grande. When asked about her lifesaving and unprecedented legislation, Grande humbly responded, ''It's a good day for babies.”

North Dakota’s bills—and similar proposals nationwide—utilize modern technology and data to guarantee this equal right to life in the United States. Recently, a number of pro-life women highlighted the urgent need to coincide substantiated facts with rule of law by spearheading efforts to pass HR 1797. This bill wholly relies on physicians’ testimonies and scientific evidence—like ultrasounds showing unborn babies reacting to external stimuli—that unborn children feel excruciating pain during late-term abortions.

As for now, North Dakota’s pro-life laws are scheduled to take effect August 1, 2013. The Susan B. Anthony List applauds Rep. Grande’s work, and supports her future efforts to promote a culture of life.

Read More

Tags: abortion, constitution, legislation, North Dakota
Jun 25, 2013
Supreme Court Takes Sidewalk Counseling Case

This week, attention is focused on the Justices of the Supreme Court as they release their last decisions before summer break. While much of the hullabaloo centers on this term’s blockbuster cases involving affirmative action, the Voting Rights Act, and same-sex marriage, the Court also announced that it would hear a particularly important case next term.

In Massachusetts, as in many places, pro-lifers offer sidewalk counseling outside abortion clinics to pregnant mothers who are considering, or are scheduled for, abortion. Very often, these women are uncertain and scared; tragically, many feel as if they have no other choice but abortion. The enormous abortion industry, realizing the potential for big money and determined to perform as many abortions as possible, looks to take advantage of these vulnerable women. It is for this reason that the work of pro-life sidewalk counselors is so important. In fact, countless lives have been saved because of the dedication of those who offer help and resources to pregnant women outside abortion clinics.

Unfortunately, Massachusetts has enacted a law that prohibits anyone from standing within thirty-five feet of an abortion clinic’s entrance, exit, or driveway. Of course, it contains an exemption for abortionists and clinic employees on their way to work. But the law’s main effect is to suppress the free speech of sidewalk counselors, and to create a zone where only abortion-supporting speech is welcome.

Well, that may change. The Supreme Court has agreed to consider a challenge to the Massachusetts law on the grounds that it unconstitutionally infringes on the First Amendment free speech rights of those wishing to speak to abortion-minded women for the purposes of offering and discussing alternatives to abortion.

It seems that this law creates a “content-based restriction” on free speech, which, to the Supreme Court, has always been a big no-no. In a 2000 case, Hill v. Colorado, the Court upheld, 6-3, a Colorado law that similarly restricted pro-lifers’ free speech. However, the pro-life petitioners here argue that the Massachusetts law is different because it “applies only at abortion clinics” and it allows pro-abortion speech but not pro-life speech, thus creating a buffer zone where “disfavored speakers” are completely excluded. Perhaps it would be different if the law mandated a zone of silence where neither side could speak; but the law instead gives government preference to one type of speech over an opposing type of speech. We shall see whether the Court agrees that free speech includes sidewalk counseling.

Also worth noting: the makeup of the Court has changed since 2000. But all three dissenters in Hill remain on the bench.

The case is McCullen v. Coakley, 12-1168.

Read More

Tags: supreme court
Syndicate content