Abortion Advocates Promoting Religious Bigotry For Political Purposes.

Campaign To Stigmatize Mormons

Life News is reporting that abortion supporters are planning to descend on parking lots of large evangelical churches with literature and to make telephone calls to Catholics in swing states to try to dissuade them from voting for pro-life Governor Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon.  

When we consider the racial component in abortion where the vast majority of abortion clinics are in areas that are disproportionally Hispanic or Black and considering that black women have 30-35 percent of all abortions and Hispanic women have 25 percent and other minorities have 9 percent, no pro-lifer should be surprised at these attempts to promote religious bigotry.  Almost nothing is as pathetic as promoting religious bigotry for political purposes.

The pro-life movement is made up of millions of religiously unaffiliated people, millions of Mormons, millions of Catholics, evangelical, reformed, Pentecostal, charismatic, holiness, fundamentalist, independent Christians as well as people from other religious faiths.  Our commitment to the sanctity of life and to the protection of the unborn transcends our theological disagreements.

Nevada pro-life advocacy includes many Mormons.  We are all deeply aware as to how instrumental Mormons have been, along with other pro-life Catholics, evangelicals and others in promoting the pro-life cause in Nevada.  Together we have kept Planned Parenthood from establishing abortion promoting statewide sex education in our schools, from getting abortion referring school based clinics into our schools and we’ve protected conscience rights for pro-life pharmacists.  We’ve also crushed an attempt to pass ERA in Nevada four years ago which, if successful, could have amended the US Constitution to wipe out all abortion laws and regulations.  Mormons have been a huge and faithful part of that coalition preventing these evils.

That’s why it is always a shock to hear any pro-lifer say they would not support a pro-life Mormon because of his or her religious beliefs.  Our common cause of stopping another 56 million abortions dwarfs whatever differences we have.  Is any pro-lifer really willing to let theological differences get in the way of electing someone who will appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court, wipe out the Obama abortion policies, veto abortion legislation, sign pro-life legislation, remove abortion from Obama care etc?

The pro-life movement is starring into the abyss of another generation of abortion.  Right now the balance on the Supreme Court is at least 5-4 in support of abortion rights.  If President Obama were to win re-election he will likely replace retiring pro-life justices and protect Roe v Wade for another generation.  He will keep pursuing federal funding of abortion, increase abortion in Obama care, oppose abortion limitations and move to roll back our gains.  We are facing another 50 million abortions and no pro-lifer could possibly go refuse to vote for another pro-lifer based on his religion.

Abortion advocates are going to engage in religious bigotry.  Don’t give them an inch.

Making Abortion Illegal Does NOT Increase Maternal Mortality

Abortion advocates argue that legalization of abortion reduces maternal abortion.  NOT!  We've known this is not true for years.  Education, good medicine and quality health care reduce maternal mortality, not abortion.  In many nations that have legalized abortion, there are higher maternal mortality rates and there are lower maternal mortality rates in many nations with restrictive abortion laws.  A 2010 Lancet study found lower worldwide mortality rates, but they did not mention abortion, despite pressure from abortion advocates to do so.

Life News reporter Andrew Bair cites a powerful Chilean study confirming that restricting abortion does not increase maternal mortality.  

"A new study conducted on behalf of the Chilean Maternal Mortality Research Initiative (CMMRI) reaffirms that legalized abortion does not reduce the rate of maternal mortality. To the contrary, since Chile enacted a law protecting unborn children in 1989, the maternal mortality rate has dropped significantly."

Why did maternal morality drop?  "The study included analysis covering 50 years of maternal mortality data (1957-2007) from Chile’s National Institute of Statistics. The analysis found that the most important factor in reducing maternal mortality is the educational level of women. 'Educating women enhances women’s ability to access existing health care resources, including skilled attendants for childbirth, and directly leads to a reduction in her risk of dying during pregnancy and childbirth,' according to Dr Elard Koch, epidemiologist and leading author of the study.'

Education, good medicine and quality health care reduce maternal mortality, not abortion.  Click here to read the rest of the story.  

More Reading:

• Lancet Study Shows Abortion Advocates Wrong on Worldwide Maternal Mortality Claims
• Women's Health and Abortion: Evidence shows that legalizing abortion does not reduce maternal mortality
• The Lack of Modern Medicine and Quality Health Care, Not the Prohibition of Abortion, Results in High Maternal Mortality Rates
  

Abortion Nearly Triples Breast Cancer Risk, New Study Finds

Steven Ertelt at Life News is reporting that a new study says that "Abortion Nearly Triples Breast Cancer Risk."  This is nothing new. Karen Malec of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer says, “Fifty-four of 67 epidemiological studies since 1957 report an abortion-breast cancer link."

Abortion advocates can find solace in statements from the National Cancer Institute and various cancer groups to say there is no link between abortion and breast cancer, that is, that there is no increased risk to a woman's lifetime risk of developing breast cancer if she's had an induced abortion.  

But as Malec notes, “National Cancer Institute (NCI) branch chief Dr. Louise Brinton and her colleagues admitted in a 2009 study led by Jessica Dolle that abortion raises risk."  The significance of this is that Brinton was one of the leaders of the effort at NCI to debunk the ABC link.  It's too bad when people at the NCI turn science into political science.

How many more studies have to keep pouring in before NCI and others recognize this harmful link between abortion and the increased risk of developing breast cancer?  How long will it be before these studies suggesting this link between an induced abortion and an elevated risk of abortion is required to be disclosed as part of proper and full consent to having an abortion?  

I'm not holding my breath to "authorities" recognizing the risk.  They have too much invested in it.  They've assured women for years that abortion is a fundamental good.  It would take a metanoia-something akin to a spiritual conversion for them to admit that what they have been advocating and advising for and to women for so many years as a fundamental good has led to so much harm.  But it's time that women be told of these studies which suggest a link as proper informed consent. 

Click here to read more.

Don Nelson

Nevada LIFE

Women Deserve to Know of Abortion-Premature Birth Link

Amy Sobie, writing over at Life News, says that November was "Prematurity Awareness Month."  One of the dirty little unknown secrets about abortion is that it not only increases the risk of physical, emotional and psychological risks to women who abort, it also impacts subsequent children.  One way it does this is that it increases the risk that subsequent children will be born prematurely.  Premature birth is associated with "epilepsy, autism, mental retardation and cerebral palsy."  I've been most aware of the danger of cerebral palsy.  My Nevada LIFE colleague Toni Berry and I spoke with past president of the American Association of Pro-life Ob/Gyns Dr. Byron Calhoun about this at length on our old radio show voice for life.  Click here to read a briefing on the link between premature births and prior abortions.  Click here to read about the abortion breast cancer link.

Sobie also notes that "In a paper published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in 2009, a Canadian research team examined data from 37 studies and found that having a prior abortion increased the risk of subsequent preterm birth by 36 percent, while having more than one prior abortion increased the risk by 93 percent. (Preterm birth is defined as a birth that takes place before 37 weeks gestation.)"

Sobie also notes that women who have pre-term births before 32 weeks double their life time risk of breast cancer.  Considering all this, Sobie says failure to disclose these risks is a "form of coercion."  "...as the evidence linking abortion and preterm birth continues to pile up, women and their loved ones are not being told of the risks. The result is that women and girls will end up undergoing abortions without having the information needed to make a decision — which is a form of coercion. And it puts the mothers, their unborn children and any future children they may have at risk."

Read more of the article at Life News.

Don Nelson
Nevada LIFE

Nevada LIFE Press Release: Keep Abortion, Abortifacient Drugs, Planned Parenthood Out Of NV Schools

Press Release

  No On SB 247: Keep Abortion, Abortifacient Drugs, Planned Parenthood Out Of NV Schools

• Important Provisions Removed From School Based Health Clinics Bill.
• Removes provisions prohibiting abortion counseling, referrals, distribution of abortifacient drugs.
• Removes provisions requiring written parental consent to receive and services.
• Likely allows groups like Planned Parenthood to be sponsoring organization or facility.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 7, 2011

Contact Don Nelson, Nevada LIFE, 775-530-0029

The following statement can be attributed to Nevada LIFE President Don Nelson:

Nevada LIFE opposes SB 247 which would establish “the Program for School-Based Health Centers” because important provisions have been removed that would forbid any school based clinic proposed by SB 247 to “Counsel or advocate abortion in any way or refer any pupil to a person who counsels or advocates abortion” and “Distribute at the school-based health center or a public  school any contraceptive or abortifacient drug or device, or any similar product.”  The provision requiring written parental consent to receive services has also been dropped.  Any parental consent will subject to up to the discretion of the state health bureaucrat who is in charge of the program.

Removing these provisions is a shameful bait and switch.  Abortion should not be promoted, counseled for or referred for in Nevada public schools.  Without these provisions, SB247 would allow abortion counseling, abortion referrals, referrals to abortion advocates, and the distribution of contraceptives and abortifacient drugs through these school based health care clinics without parental consent.  It is unconscionable that schools provide abortion referrals, counseling, and chemical birth control abortion causing drugs.

Nevada LIFE also opposes SB 247 because it opens the door to groups like Planned Parenthood who may qualify as sponsoring organizations or “sponsoring facilities.”  The continuing scandals and recent allegations regarding abuses at several Planned Parenthood affiliates uncovered by independent journalists posing as sex traffickers for teen prostitution rings should prohibit Planned from having access to our schools.  That would be like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank.

No group like Planned Parenthood should be allowed to participate because of their inherent conflict of interest.  Planned Parenthood profits from selling some birth control bills, especially the abortifacient Plan B.  No group profiting from the sales of any abortion or contraceptive products should be able to mine public schools for new customers.

-30-

No Doubt That Pro-Lifers Have Earned Right To Action On Our Issues

The November elections were a huge win for pro-lifers and resulted in huge gains in the Congress. That's what makes the comments of SOME conservatives and SOME Republicans so unpersuasive when they try to kick pro-lifers to the curb and tell the new Republican House majority not to take on socially conservative issues like abortion. Pro-lifers have earned the right to action on our issues. There would be no Republican majority in the House nor the substantial gains in the Senate without so many candidates taking a pro-life position.

Pro-lifers have known for many years that there is a general pro-life advantage for candidates taking a pro-life position. This year was no different. Right after the election, the Polling Company found that 31 percent of voters said that abortion "affected" their vote. 22% of all voters voted for pro-life candidates, while only 8 percent voted for pro-abortion candidates. That gave pro-life candidates a net pro-life advantage of 14 percent. There are not many legislators who will kick a cause with a 14 percent advantage to the curb.

When asked "did the issue of funding for abortion in the Obama health care law affect the way you voted in today's election?," 31% of all voters said yes. 27 percent of all voters voted "for candidates who opposed the health care law," and 4% who said they voted "for candidates who favored the health care law."

That means 87 percent of the voters who opposed the abortion funding provisions of the Reid-Obama-Pelosi abortion health care law supported the candidate who held our position. National Right to Life's Douglas Johnson says " there has been a net shift in the pro-life direction in the House of 40 to 55 votes, depending on the issue."

It was also a good year to have pro-lifers on your side. Despite being vastly outspent by abortion advocates, National Right to Life notes that their PAC "supported 285 federal candidates nationwide. Of those, 235 (or 82%) won their races." "In the most competitive races, National Right to Life PAC actively worked in 122 federal races nationwide. Of those, 84 (or 74%) won" with nine are still undecided at the time. Of these twenty candidates were in highly competitive races against candidates supported abortion supporting EMILY's List. In 70 percent of those races, the pro-life candidate supported by National Right to Life PAC won.

Now you know why Planned Parenthood, NARAL and others are in hysterics, begging their supporters for more money and promising not to go away. There were exceptions like Harry Reid. But Reid had to pretend to be pro-life and paint himself as the "reasonable" pro-lifer and his opponent as being an extremist. More on that in the days to come.

After the election one conservative Nevada radio personality asked whether the pro-life position is a conservative position. O well. There may be some conservatives who are not pro-life but a substantial majority are. And not only is the pro-life position the conservative position, it's THE American position.

The Polling Company found that 53 percent of those voting in 2010 said they opposed almost all abortions and only 41 percent supported abortion regardless of the reason. And most of that 41 percent (25 percent) would limit abortion to the first three months of life. That's why a spokeswoman for Gallup can call the pro-life position "The New Normal."

That's also why pro-lifers can expect to and will see important pro-life legislation and action not only in the Congress, but in the states. There's no doubt that we've earned it.

Short Video Shows How Obama-Reid Care Funds Abortion

Nevada LIFE, the pro-life group I belong to, has written a lot the last two years on how Obama-Reid Care funds abortion. Here's a short video that makes it easy to understand.  It shows why the Hyde Amendment, contrary to Harry Reid's false claims, does not apply to the health care law, why Obama's executive order is worthless and where the money is going to fund abortion.  See also our Ten Ways Reid-Pelosi-Obama Care Covers Abortion.  Here's the video from Population Research Institute's Dr. Steve Mosher, one of my favorite guests in my seven years as a pro-life co-host at Immaculate Heart Radio.