The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: anti abortion activists
mike pence

Mike Pence And Anti-Abortion Groups Escalating Attacks On Trump

A leading anti-abortion group, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America (SBA), has slammed former President Donald Trump for avoiding questions on abortion access and threatened to campaign against him if he doesn't commit to a national abortion ban of no more than 15 weeks into pregnancy.

The group issued its warning after the Trump campaign told The Washington Postthat Trump believes the Supreme Court — in its controversial ruling that reversed its longstanding position in Roe v Wade — was correct to leave abortion laws at the state level.

“President Donald J. Trump believes that the Supreme Court, led by the three justices which he supported, got it right when they ruled this is an issue that should be decided at the state level,” Steven Cheung, a Trump campaign spokesperson, told the Post.

SBA president Marjorie Dannenfelser called the statement a “morally indefensible position for a self-proclaimed pro-life presidential candidate” in her scathing response, which mentioned Trump by name.

“President Trump’s assertion that the Supreme Court returned the issue of abortion solely to the states is a completely inaccurate reading of the Dobbs decision and is a morally indefensible position for a self-proclaimed pro-life presidential candidate to hold,” Dannenfelser said.

"Life is a matter of human rights, not states’ rights,” she added. “We will oppose any presidential candidate who refuses to embrace at a minimum a 15-week national standard.”

Responding to Dannenfelser, a Trump spokesperson told NBC News that the “focus here should be on saving lives and avoiding the Radical Left’s traps, not on dividing the pro-life community."

Prominent Republican pols, including Trump, have either softened or wholly abandoned strict positions on abortion after the Supreme Court’s decision to end 50 years of federal abortion rights sparked a rise in the already strong support for reproductive rights.

A PRRI poll conducted throughout 2022 found that most Americans (63 percent) opposed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe, with 43 percent saying they “strongly opposed” the ruling.

In addition, nearly 70 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the country’s abortion laws, a Gallup poll released in February found. In contrast, only 15 percent believe abortion laws ought to be stricter.

According to the Post, Republicans — reeling from their underwhelming performance in the 2022 midterms, whose exit polls showed abortion as the second most important issue for voters after inflation — have privately considered toning down their anti-abortion rhetoric and instead depicting Democrats as villains on the matter.

Speaking virtually on Saturday at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition, a conservative event for evangelicals, Trump did just that, falsely implying that Democrats supported “ninth-month” abortions.

"I will continue to stand strong against the extreme late-term abortionists in the Democrat Party who believe in abortion on demand in the ninth month of pregnancy,” Trump said, per Fox News.

Trump’s former vice president, Mike Pence, attended the event in person and criticized his former boss for his “states’ only issue” position on abortion, telling reporters that the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling “did not mean that [abortion is] a state’s only issue.”

Pence said, “All it meant was that states now have the ability to craft legislation that protects the unborn. I also hold to the view that Americans want to see leaders at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue who will stand for the sanctity of life.”

Study: Many 'Pro-Life' Americans Would Help Friends Or Family Get Abortion

Study: Many 'Pro-Life' Americans Would Help Friends Or Family Get Abortion

Washington (AFP) - Almost half of Americans morally opposed to abortion would help a friend or family member with arrangements to get one, and a majority would offer emotional support, a new study said Friday.

The authors of the paper, which appeared in the journal Science Advances, wrote the finding showed that people are willing to cross ideological and partisan lines to help others in their personal networks, something they referred to as "discordant benevolence."

"At first blush, these people may appear as hypocrites. They are not," said Sarah Cowan, a sociologist at New York University and the lead author of the article, in a statement.

"They are at a moral crossroads, pulled by their opposition to abortion and by their inclination to support people they care about."

The study was drawn from surveys and interviews conducted in 2018 and 2019 respectively, and comes after Texas passed a law allowing residents of the state to sue others who "aided or abetted" abortions performed after six weeks of pregnancy.

The Supreme Court could soon roll back decades of precedent by ruling abortion is not a constitutional right. The issue is deeply contentious and divides the public along political lines between Democrats and Republicans.

The new study was based on survey responses from more than 1,574 people, and separately 74 in-depth interviews.

Of those morally opposed, 76 percent said they would offer emotional support —- compared to 96 percent of those who are not morally opposed, or whose view depended on circumstances.

But the type of support varied greatly, reflecting the social meaning of money and the view that spending money is a means to enact one's values, the authors said.

Just six percent of those morally opposed would directly help a friend or relative pay for the procedure, compared to the 45 percent who said they would help with ancillary costs.

Among those not morally opposed, 54 percent would help pay for the procedure, which typically costs $500 in the first trimester.

Moral conflict

Social scientists have long been interested in what explains helpful behavior.

Factors are thought to range from the act of kindness causing a person to feel good about themselves, to a sense of duty to their kinship networks and expectation of reciprocity in future.

But the authors said scenarios where rendering help placed the helper in a moral conflict were less studied.

Based on their in-depth interviews, they found people who were willing to help despite their inner opposition relied on three main rationalizations.

The first was "commiseration," or reasoning that people are worthy of care despite their imperfections in an imperfect world.

The second was "exemption" -- carving out an exception for their loved ones in particular, while the third was "discretion," -- the idea that what is right or wrong is inherently personal, not universal.

"If it were my sister...I would want to talk to her to make sure she's thinking about every possible thing," said Ryan, a person interviewed in the survey.

"But if, ultimately, she's like 'No, (Ryan), I can handle this,' then, 'Ok, do what you gotta do,' you know? But it's just because you love someone."

Anti-Abortion Videos Provoke Ethical Crisis For Doctors, Pols — And Media

Anti-Abortion Videos Provoke Ethical Crisis For Doctors, Pols — And Media

With the release of two more videos this week, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) is continuing to cause political problems for Planned Parenthood, while at the same time presenting a challenge to media outlets: How to strike a balance between covering the group’s activities and inadvertently abetting it by spreading its strident anti-abortion message.

On Tuesday, the CMP released its third video: the first episode of a series called “Human Capital,” which will continue the exploration of what the organization claims are illegal activities by Planned Parenthood — specifically, monetary transactions for the transfer of tissue from aborted fetuses to medical clinics for research purposes.

The first two edited videos, released earlier this month, consist mainly of clandestine recordings of lunch meetings with senior staffers at Planned Parenthood in California, discussing the procedures in frank and explicit detail.

The new video, “Human Capital — Episode 1,” centers on an interview with Holly O’Donnell, a phlebotomist who worked at StemExpress, a California-based company that facilitates the transfer of tissue and other specimens to medical researchers.

“Human Capital, Episode 1” repurposes some material from the first two videos, namely footage of Dr. Deborah Nucatola and Dr. Mary Gatta discussing the monetary aspects of the transaction. Other Planned Parenthood doctors are shown throughout the nearly 12-minute video discussing pricing and tissue collection, among them Dr. Savita Ginde, a medical director at Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains, who is the subject of a fourth video, which was released Thursday.

The videos employ the same techniques that the CMP used in its previous pieces – ominous music, black-and-white stills. “Human Capital” includes graphics of a fetus in a womb with monetary amounts displayed over body parts. At one point, O’Donnell admits that she fainted on her first day on the job, when she discovered staffers would separate fetal tissue from vaginal tissue.

The CMP’s strategy of releasing visceral, deliberately upsetting videos is working: Several states have called for an investigation into Planned Parenthood, and both the Senate and the House are considering legislation to strip the nonprofit organization of its federal funding.

Although Republican politicians have been the most outspoken on the issue, Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley, and Hillary Clinton have weighed in. Clinton diplomatically reiterated her support for the work Planned Parenthood has done but said the videos “raise questions about the whole process,” while Sanders denounced the videos and O’Malley dismissed them outright.

All this is occurring despite evidence that Planned Parenthood is doing nothing illegal, as Media Matters, FactCheck.org, and RH Reality Check have all reported – which is also made clear through the transcripts of the unedited footage that the CMP released.

But Planned Parenthood’s image has been hammered repeatedly, and when CEO Cecile Richards’ comments only fanned the flames, the organization hired crisis communications firm SKDKnickerbocker, a company that has long had ties to Planned Parenthood and Democratic causes. And now the nonprofit’s attempt at damage control has become its own story – and a new target for its opponents.

Conservative media is asserting that mainstream and liberal-leaning news organizations are failing to adequately cover the story. Sean Davis in The Federalistpoints to the Huffington Post, Vox, and BuzzFeed for evidence of a media blackout, while NewsBusters, which exists solely to combat what it sees as liberal bias in the media, has scrutinized the television coverage from several organizations, including CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, and PBS.

Their claims have some merit: SKDKnickerbocker issued a memo to journalists earlier this week “that discouraged them from airing the undercover videos, arguing that they were obtained under false identification and violated patient privacy, Politico reported.

Planned Parenthood’s “patients’ privacy should not be further violated by having this footage shared by the media,” the memo reads. Politico even tweeted about receiving the memo – although the tweet was later taken down.

The memo describes the CMP as “an extreme activist organization whose sole mission is to prevent women from accessing health care and to destroy Planned Parenthood,” and links the group to those responsible for the 2009 murder of the Kansas late-term abortion provider, Dr. George Tiller.

Furthermore, Valley News Live, the website for KVLY and KXJB in Fargo and Grand Forks, North Dakota, respectively, reported that their local Planned Parenthood affiliate sent them, along with other journalists, the same release, asking them not to air the video for patient privacy. A portion of the memo, which they reprinted in full, reads:

When your network decides whether to consider this story newsworthy, or whether to use any of this footage at all, we urge you to keep this in mind: The extremists who entered Planned Parenthood labs under false pretenses violated research protocol, and, worse, violated the privacy of patients involved. Those patients’ privacy should not be further violated by having this footage shared by the media.

CMP

Still taken from Center for Medical Progress/YouTube

Conservatives don’t have a monopoly on the backlash. Camille Paglia, an avowed liberal, toldSalon that it was “shockingly unprofessional” for liberal media to ignore or under-report the story:

When the first secret Planned Parenthood video was released in mid-July, anyone who looks only at liberal media was kept totally in the dark about it, even after the second video was released. But the videos were being run nonstop all over conservative talk shows on radio and television. It was a huge and disturbing story, but there was total silence in the liberal media. That kind of censorship was shockingly unprofessional. The liberal major media were trying to bury the story by ignoring it. Now I am a former member of Planned Parenthood and a strong supporter of unconstrained reproductive rights. But I was horrified and disgusted by those videos and immediately felt there were serious breaches of medical ethics in the conduct of Planned Parenthood officials.

Despite conservative protestations, The Huffington Post, BuzzFeed, and Vox have each reported on the controversy, though the extent of their reporting has varied. Vox has elected to cover each new video release by updating its previous coverage, rather than publishing new pieces, as per the site’s stated style for covering ongoing stories. BuzzFeedhas published a couple of articles about Republicans’ comments when the story first broke, as well as an explainer. And Huffington Posthas run several stories, mostly by political reporter Laura Bassett, covering the political and legal response.

David Daleiden, the anti-abortion activist and the CMP’s executive director, toldThe New York Times that he had enough footage for about a dozen videos “that he can release at the rate of one a week for the next few months.” On Friday, they promised 8 to 10 more videos were on the way. This puts media outlets in a tight spot: If the CMP continues to unveil new videos underscoring the same points, do they have the obligation to cover, and effectively promulgate, each new release? And what about the dubious actions of the CMP?

Thanks to the CMP’s efforts, there are now federal probes into Planned Parenthood, but four congressional Democrats have asked that Attorney General Loretta Lynch and California Attorney General Kamala Harris investigate the California-based group itself; Harris has announced that she will.

After the third video was released, featuring the interview of an ex-StemExpress employee, the company filed for a temporary restraining order against CMP. The order, granted by the Los Angeles Superior court, prohibits the CMP “from releasing any video of three high-ranking StemExpress officials taken at a restaurant in May.”

While that appears to be the first legal action against the CMP, RH Reality Check has reported that the group’s agents allegedly used fake names, fake identification, and a sham company – BioMax Procurement Services, LLC – to infiltrate conferences, some of which had incredibly strict security and screening procedures. If the CMP operatives are revealed to have forged the state government seal and obtained California driver’s licenses using false names, they can be charged, Michael Kraut, a California defense attorney, told RH Reality Check reporters.

Daleiden told Federalist Radio that he was aware of the potential legal issues involved in what he was undertaking:

I had a pretty clear sense… of exactly what I was getting myself into doing a project like this. I’m quite aware of all of the applicable laws that come into play when you’re doing investigative journalism-type work. I’m proud to say that The Center for Medical Progress follows all applicable laws in the course of the work that we do.

There is also evidence that one of the names used by the operatives, Brianna Allen, is the name of a pro-choice advocate and president of a student feminist club at Davis Senior High School in Davis, California, which is where Daleiden graduated in 2007. Brianna M. Allen of Davis said that, while she doesn’t have proof that he used her name for his activities, she hasn’t been able to access her credit report, and contacted RH Reality Check to let them know that she had no ties to the CMP nor to Daleiden.

As one might expect, the videos decline to emphasize that fetal tissue has long been used by researchers, including, notably, in the development of the polio vaccine. Because fetal tissue is also less likely to be rejected in grown humans, it has possibilities for treating patients with Parkinson’s Disease, diabetes, and heart disease. The National Institutes of Health spent $76 million in human fetal tissue research last year. Planned Parenthood has said that fewer than five states actually supply tissue for donation, and that tissue is not donated unless consent is given by the woman, which happens after she has already decided to have an abortion.

CMP claims its “Human Capital” “exposé” is the result of 30 months of investigative work that includes “dozens of eyewitness testimonies, and nearly 200 pages of primary source documents,” which they will be releasing on their site. The group’s message to Planned Parenthood, politicians, and journalists is clear: They aren’t going away, and neither are the issues they have raised.

Photo: via Flickr 

Federal Judge Rules Alabama Abortion Restrictions Unconstitutional

Federal Judge Rules Alabama Abortion Restrictions Unconstitutional

By Alana Semuels, Los Angeles Times

Dealing the second blow to anti-abortion activists in less than a week, a federal judge has ruled that an Alabama law that would have shut three of the state’s five abortion clinics is unconstitutional.

The law, a version of which has been passed in multiple states across the country in recent years, requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. A similar Mississippi law was blocked last week by a federal appeals court in one of the most conservative districts in the country.

“The court is convinced that, if this requirement would not, in the face of all the evidence in the record, constitute an impermissible undue burden, then almost no regulation, short of those imposing an outright prohibition on abortion, would,” wrote U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson, in his 172-page opinion, released Monday.

The ruling, by a vote of 2-1, leaves similar laws vulnerable to challenges, but it also raises the possibility that this issue will advance to a higher court. Before the Mississippi law was blocked last week, a similar Texas law was allowed to stand by a different panel of judges, and the Supreme Court often steps in when different courts offer contrasting decisions on the same issue.

Alabama’s attorney general announced soon after the ruling that the state will appeal.

The Alabama lawsuit was filed by Planned Parenthood Southeast and Reproductive Health Services, which argued that none of the doctors who provide abortions in Montgomery, Birmingham, or Mobile would be able to obtain admitting privileges, and that closing the clinics would make it onerous for women to travel to have abortions.

Thompson agreed, writing that the admitting privileges requirement “would have the effect of imposing a substantial obstacle for women who would seek abortions in Alabama. The law would therefore impose an undue burden on their constitutional right to have an abortion.”

The Alabama law, which was enacted in 2011, had not been enforced while the lawsuit was pending. Similar laws were enacted in Oklahoma and Kansas the same year; an Idaho law passed in 2011 was permanently blocked by a federal district court. Arizona’s admitting privilege law, enacted in 2012, has been permanently blocked by a federal appeals court.

But similar laws still stand in Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas. It will go into effect in Louisiana on Sept. 1.

Many of the legislators who have sponsored or supported admitting privileges laws have been clear: They would completely ban abortion, if they could.

“Even though I continue to be disappointed that the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed abortion to remain the law of the land, we can take these measures to protect the health of women,” said Alabama state Sen. Scott Beason, who sponsored the law.

The Alabama lawmakers have passed other abortion restrictions: banning abortion if a fetal heartbeat can be heard and lengthening the period of time a woman must wait before she gets an abortion to 48 hours, from 24.

Abortion rights activists cheered the ruling Monday as a pushback against the laws that have been passed across the country in recent years.

“As the judge noted today, the justifications offered for this law are weak at best,” said Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the ACLU. “Politicians, not doctors, crafted this law for the sole purpose of shutting down women’s health care centers and preventing women from getting safe, legal abortions.”

Photo: World Can’t Wait via Flickr

Interested in national news? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!