- The Movement
- Pro-Life Women Leaders
- Suzy B Blog
- About SBA List
- Lozier Institute
The Suzy B Blog
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
Jun 25, 2013
H.R. 1797: Pro-women, Pro-life
During the House Debate for the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and in its aftermath, abortion supporters evaded the scientific reality that abortion inflicts excruciating pain on babies by hiding behind their go-to “war on women” slogan. Although I firmly believe that we cannot and should not ignore the unborn victims of the abortion industry, I also believe H.R. 1797 is—in and of itself—a crucial piece of pro-woman legislation.
On June 17, 2013 the Obama administration released an official statement denouncing the bill, claiming, “The Administration is committed to the protection of women's health and reproductive freedom and to supporting women and families in the choices they make.” Either the Obama administration and its allies are blatantly lying, or they are utterly clueless of the facts and data concerning abortion. Consider the follow baseless allegations:
1. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y): ‘‘The last possible thing [women] ever want to do is leave their health policy to these men in blue suits and red ties.’’
Rep. Slaughter—and those who made similar innuendos—were referencing the fact that all the supporters of the legislation in the Judiciary Committee (where the bill was introduced) were male. However, one must put this information in context. The Judiciary Committee is a 23-person group that only includes five females to begin with: Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Rep. Judy Chu (D- CA), Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA), and Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA). All five Democratic women also received a 100% voting record by NARAL in 2012. This information only reiterates that these radical women did not vote on the legislation at hand, but rather in accordance with their premeditated and unrestricted abortion agendas. It is also worth pointing out to Rep. Slaughter that Roe v. Wade was decided by nine men. Perhaps she believes that the men who supported Roe v. Wade are somehow more qualified to speak about abortion because they support it.
However, in the House—which includes a larger and more diverse sample of women—pro-life women representatives led the charge for H.R. 1797. Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) spearheaded the general debate on the floor, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) led the debate on the rule that Candice Miller (R-MI) presided over, and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) oversaw the general debate. They were backed by an additional eight pro-life women who fearlessly argued for the bill on the floor.
But women’s support for H.R. 1797 does not stop with these stalwart elected leaders. As Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) pointed out, a recent poll found that 63 percent of women believe abortion should not be permitted where substantial medical evidence says that the unborn child can feel pain. Perhaps Rep. Slaughter does not agree with the legislation, but she does not speak for all women. Supporting H.R. 1797 is not a matter of leaving health decisions to a bunch of “men in blue suits and red ties”; rather, it is a matter of listening to what most women say they want with their healthcare.
2. Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA): “This 20 week abortion ban is a harmful measure that jeopardizes a woman's health and her ability to have a family in the future by denying her access to an abortion.”
In his web of rhetoric fueled by his personal ideologies, Rep. Peters conveniently disregards objective, scientific facts. For example, Rep. Diane Black reminds us, “At 21 weeks or more, a woman is 91 times more likely to die from an abortion than she was in the first trimester.” Physical complications from late-term abortions range from cervical laceration and uterine perforations to serious infections and even death. The most comprehensive, long-term study yet showed just as appalling psychological consequences, like extreme substance abuse and Post-Abortion Syndrome (comparable to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder).
Furthermore, abortions greatly hurt a woman’s chance of having a healthy family in the future. For instance, having an abortion increases the chances of later having a preterm birth and placenta previa (improper implantation of the placenta) in future pregnancies—both of which are strongly associated with infant death.
3. Rep. Hakeen Jeffries (D-NY): "We can only hope for the good of our country that our friends on the other aisle can get the extremism out of their system today so we can return to the business of the American people tomorrow."
Peters (D-CA): “Instead of bringing bills to the floor that address the major issues facing our country right now, the Speaker and Majority Leader brought another bill to vote that is much more about political posturing than helping America's economy or students. I ask the leadership of the House, 'How many jobs does this create?' 'Does this help balance our budget?' 'How many student loans will be kept at a low rate by passing this bill?’”
Perhaps a procedure that exploits women and tortures children is not “major” enough to merit Rep. Peters’ attention; however, whistleblowers nationwide have revealed that the abortion industry profoundly impacts women and their children. Last July Ms. Tonya Reaves died in Illinois after a late-term abortion perforated her broad uterine ligament and possibly severed her left uterine artery. This past February Ms. Jennifer Morbelli died in Maryland from Amniotic Fluid Embolism after notorious late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart performed an abortion on her 33-week old baby. This past May two former abortion nurses in a Delaware Planned Parenthood testified that the clinic conducted “a meat-market style of assembly-line abortions” and put women at risk for hepatitis and even AIDS. Ms. Itai Gravely is suing the Women’s Health Center of West Virginia for forcing her into having an abortion, and then leaving the baby’s head inside her womb. It is Rep. Jeffries’s prerogative to call measures that protect women from such scenarios as “extreme” and Rep. Peters’ choice to trivialize this as an unworthy matter. But as elected officials they are supposed to put these personal philosophies aside and promote public welfare—duties they have sidelined.
If the Obama administration truly seeks to protect women’s health and choices, it will pursue measures that are supported by women and are proven effective. It is imperative that the Obama administration does not allow a small cohort of radical pro-abortionists to claim the voice of all women. As a college-aged woman, part of the group targeted most heavily by the abortion industry, I am perfectly capable of recognizing that abortion abuses women, and I do not appreciate Rep. Peters, Rep. Slaughter, or any other ideologically driven politician to try to speak for me. Frankly, I find the abortion lobby’s claim that it speaks for all women to be the greatest war on women today.Read More
Tags: H.R. 1797, pro-life, pro-woman
Jun 20, 2013
Abortion supporters make ridiculous comments about HR 1797
The historic passage of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act Tuesday didn’t transpire without some excellent remarks from pro-life Congresswomen—and, of course, some incredibly misleading statements from abortion supporters.
After opening with a ramble about Miss Utah, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) told the House:
“When you consider the subject at hand, women’s right to a medically safe abortion, we once again see men taking leadership roles in invading the privacy and medical decisions of women, so that now we have a bill that is born of ignorance and disregard for medical science in every way, shape, and form… Perhaps if we could create education better of the importance of women’s lives, we would not be here with this bill before us. This bill is an abomination, plain and simple...The bill is a direct threat to the privacy rights and health of every woman living in this country, and especially women of color.”
Rep. Lee, when you consider the subject at hand, abortionists ripping pain-capable unborn babies apart limb by limb and women dying from extremely dangerous abortions, we once again see women leading the charge to protect the lives of young babies and women’s health and safety. Perhaps if we could educate our society about the importance of protecting the lives of both women and their unborn children, it wouldn’t be necessary to have this bill before us. Abortion poses a direct threat to the rights of unborn children and the health of every woman living in this country.
It’s unclear what exactly Rep. Lee meant by her assertion that this bill is “especially” a threat to women of color. Does she think that women of color somehow need more abortions than other women? Many would beg to differ; abortion is the number one killer of black lives in America today as Margaret Sanger’s racist agenda lives on.
The White House issued a disappointing but unsurprising statement:
“The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1797, which would unacceptably restrict women's health and reproductive rights and is an assault on a woman's right to choose. Women should be able to make their own choices about their bodies and their health care, and Government should not inject itself into decisions best made between a woman and her doctor.
Forty years ago, the Supreme Court affirmed a woman's constitutional right to privacy, including the right to choose. This bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and shows contempt for women's health and rights, the role doctors play in their patients' health care decisions, and the Constitution.
The Administration is continuing its efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies, expand access to contraception, support maternal and child health, and minimize the need for abortion. At the same time, the Administration is committed to the protection of women's health and reproductive freedom and to supporting women and families in the choices they make.
If the President were presented with this legislation, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto this bill.”
Mr. President, if preventing abortionists from yanking unborn children apart when they are capable of feeling excruciating pain is “an assault on a woman’s right to choose,” what exactly would be an acceptable restriction on abortion? Your horrendous voting record in the Illinois state senate and recent remarks to abortion giant Planned Parenthood haven’t left Americans—the vast majority of whom oppose late-term abortions, by the way—very optimistic.
And, if you truly believe that “government should not inject itself into decisions best made between a woman and her doctor,” then why do you continue to sing the praises of Obamacare, in which the government is forcing taxpayers to pay for the abortion coverage of others against their will?
This bill doesn’t show “contempt” for women’s rights; it shows support of women’s rights and dignity, particularly for baby girls who still live in their mothers’ wombs.
Mr. President, if abortion is worth so vehemently protecting, then why is there any reason to reduce the need for it? Does “supporting women and families in the choices they make” include supporting familial decisions to kill two-year-old children? No? Then why should it include decisions to kill 20-week-old children who feel unimaginable pain as they are viciously torn from the safety of their mothers’ wombs and dismembered in the name of “reproductive rights”?
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA):
“We do not need to change the law. Dr. Gosnell is convicted and he’s doing two life sentences in prison for murder under current law.”
Rep. Lofgren, lack of regulation and current law’s general disregard for women’s health, safety, and dignity allowed Kermit Gosnell to butcher women and their pain-capable children—many of whom he killed after birth—for so long. Given the abortion industry’s ever-growing history of negligence, do you really think that the many states that don’t adequately regulate abortion facilities are doing enough to ensure that women receiving abortions won’t die or suffer from serious complications? Are you aware that Kermit Gosnell was caught because of an unrelated drug raid?
Rep. Lofgren, do you think that our country’s laws against murder should protect all human beings, or just those who are lucky enough to escape the painful tools of abortionists? Should abortionists like Douglas Karpen go to prison for their crimes, too? And why don’t you agree that these monsters should be prevented from committing these heinous crimes in the first place?
During a press conference before the House began debating the bill, a reporter asked Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), “Many Democrats, when they were arguing for gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, said even if this saves one life, it will be worth doing. Why not support this bill then, if it undoubtedly will save lives of babies that have been carried throughout five months of pregnancy?”
She brilliantly responded:
“Well, this is um, we—we already have laws in many states of this country—this bill is, is blatantly unconstitutional and, um, and if you look at the perceived—er, if you look at the stated reason of doing this legislation, the Kermit Gosnell case, that gentleman was convicted of murder and sentenced to life.”
Rep. DeGette, do you think that other “gentlemen” like late-term abortionist and convicted murderer Kermit Gosnell should continue to be allowed to dismember and mutilate human beings with scissors? The majority of Americans don’t.Read More
Tags: DeGette, Lofgren, obama, Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act