Category: Bioethics

Let’s Never Find Out: Part 3 — Punished

What follows is a re-post of Jay Anderson’s original piece.

NOTE: This is the third of what will be 13 daily posts from various members of the State of Ohio Blogger Alliance (SOB Alliance) on why Barack Obama is a dangerous, objectionable, and objectively unfit candidate to be president of the United States. Parts 1 and 2 of this series are linked below.

Let’s Never Find Out: Part 1 — The Mortgage Meltdown and Obama

Let’s Never Find Out: Part 2 — Drill, Baby, Drill

The daily videos involved will be from NeverFindOut.org, a project of Let Freedom Ring.

This post is part of the HOPE ON Project (Help Ohio Prevent Electing Obama Now).

__________________________________________________________

Video — “Punished with a Baby” (direct YouTube link is here):

Transcript:

Punished

WOMAN: Senator Obama, I’m afraid. In March, you told America:

OBAMA: “I’ve got two daughters. If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

WOMAN: Punished. I’m afraid because I’m a mother and I can’t imagine what this country would become if its President could look upon a baby as a punishment. And I’m afraid, because those children that you spoke of as a punishment would be your very own grandchildren.

ANNOUNCER: What happens when we elect a President who has disregard for human life? Please, America, let’s never find out.

__________________________________________________________

HOPE-ON ProjectMy Comments:
I’ve been pointing out on a regular basis (almost daily, sometimes with several posts per day on the topic) that Sen. Obama is an unfit candidate for the presidency from a pro-life perspective. But, without a doubt, the most comprehensive critique of Sen. Obama’s record on life has come from Princeton Professor Robert P. George. As the Catholic Archbishop of Denver, Charles J. Chaput, recently put it:

Anyone interested in Senator Obama’s record on abortion and related issues should simply read Prof. Robert P. George’s Public Discourse essay from earlier this week, ”Obama’s Abortion Extremism,” and his follow-up article, ”Obama and Infanticide.” They say everything that needs to be said.

In a nutshell, Professor George points out that

  • Sen. Obama supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions, and which has been credited with saving over a million lives.
  • Sen. Obama has promised that “the first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act“, which would create a federally guaranteed “fundamental right” to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including “a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined ‘health’ reasons”, and would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry.
  • Sen. Obama, unlike even many “pro-choice” legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice.
  • Sen. Obama has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a “punishment” that she should not endure.
  • Sen. Obama has stated that women’s equality requires access to abortion on demand.
  • Sen. Obama wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need.
  • Sen. Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies.
  • Sen. Obama, as an Illinois state senator, opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist’s unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. The Obama campaign lied about his vote until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done. In fact, Sen. Obama continues to lie about his inhuman voting record in regard to the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even stooping so low as to run a disgusting television ad attacking the disabled survivor of a botched abortion.
  • As Professor George notes, “You may be thinking, it can’t get worse than that. But it does.” Just keep reading.

    And Professor George is, of course, 100% correct in concluding that “Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States.” Let’s not provide Sen. Obama the opportunity to put his anti-life principles into practice. Let’s never find out what it’s like to live in an America with such a man at the helm who deems the least of these our brethren to be an inconvenient “punishment”.

    “Choice on Earth, good will to all”

    This message from Cecile Richards (the president of Planned Parenthood) just arrived in my inbox:

    **********************
    Planned Parenthood
    “Choice on earth…”
    A message from Cecile Richards
    **********************
    Choice on earth…good will to all.
    As I reflect upon the past year and consider the next, I can’t help but feel a sense of good will. Good will toward the women, men, and families that we serve. Good will toward you, my Planned Parenthood family. And good, determined will to accomplish the work that lies ahead in the new year.
    Warm wishes for you and yours during this holiday season. And thank you for your help and commitment.
    Many thanks,
    Cecile Richards, President
    Planned Parenthood Federation of America
    View the e-card sent to you by Cecile Richards and Planned Parenthood here:
    http://www.ppaction.org/ct/Z7qZXO51fLal/ChoiceOnEarth
    **********************

    The link goes to this image:

    Continue reading

    Written by Comments Off on “Choice on Earth, good will to all” Posted in Bioethics

    Video: abortionist tells med students he lies to patients

    This press release from Students for Life of America just arrived in my inbox.

    Alberto Hodari, abortionistLast month, Dr. Alberto Hodari spoke to students at Wayne State in Detroit about his career performing abortions. In his speech, Hodari told students that doctors have a license to lie to their patients (34:05).
    The video of the entire speech with captions has now been released on Google Video.

    The speech took place on November 9, 2007.
    Also in the speech, Hodari talks about going to Mexico to do experiments on pregnant women that were outlawed in the United States (38:57). He invited students to come watch an abortion he performed (11:57) and he also spoke about how little he washed between abortions because it chafed his hands (12:13).
    “To hear Hodari speak, one wonders if Michigan is the third world,” SFLA Executive Director Kristan Hawkins said. “Planned Parenthood complains about ‘back-alley’ abortions, even though Hodari is running a business where he’s barely washing his hands between abortions.”
    Student President Ashley Tyndall said, “Several women have died while getting abortions with Hodari, and yet the Michigan board of health has never investigated him. How many women have to die before the bureaucrats start telling Hodari to wash his hands and tell patients the truth.”

    I’m disgusted, but not at all surprised. When you make a living by killing inconvenient children, you’re not going to get too worked up about lying, practicing in unsanitary conditions, or doing things with pregnant women that you can’t do in America.
    This savage in a snappy suit is indoctrinating our future doctors and hopes to recruit more abortionists. Do you find that acceptable?

    Written by Comments Off on Video: abortionist tells med students he lies to patients Posted in Bioethics

    Ultrasound Viewing Option Bill introduced in Ohio House (UPDATED)

    If our politicians in Columbus can find a way to enact H.B. 314, the state medical board will be able to “limit, revoke, or suspend an individual’s certificate to practice, refuse to register an individual, refuse to reinstate a certificate, or reprimand or place on probation the holder of a certificate” if that individual violates this new language in the Ohio Revised Code (emphasis added by Yours Truly):

    Sec. 2317.561. In addition to the requirements in section 2317.56 of the Revised Code, if an obstetric ultrasound examination is performed at any time prior to the performance or inducement of an abortion or the physician performing or inducing the abortion determines that an ultrasound examination will be performed as part of the abortion procedure, the physician shall do both of the following prior to the performance or inducement of the abortion:
        (A) Provide the pregnant woman receiving the abortion the opportunity to view the active ultrasound image of the embryo or fetus;
        (B) Offer to provide the pregnant woman with a physical picture of the ultrasound image of the embryo or fetus.
    The requirements of division (A) of this section shall be performed at no additional charge to the pregnant woman.

    4-dimensional ultrasoundI looked through the Ohio Revised Code for any other mentions of the word “ultrasound” and found nothing that requires an abortionist to perform one. I’d bet that the standards of practice for an Ohio Ob/Gyn require an ultrasound before an abortion, but I’ll confirm my hunch with my sister-in-law since she’s an Ob/Gyn resident.
    I’ll check the Ohio Administrative Code in a bit.

    Update 1: My search for the word “ultrasound” in the Ohio Administrative Code yielded 13 hits. Only the first five look like they’re worth examining. More on this later.
    Update 2: I found nothing in the Ohio Administrative Code about requiring Ambulatory Surgical Facilities (a term that includes abortion clinics) to do an ultrasound before performing an abortion. Unless you choose to interpret Administrative Rule 4731-18-01(A)(1) really really broadly:

    4731-18-01 Standards for surgery.
    (A) The surgeon of record in an operative case shall personally:
    (1) Evaluate the patient sufficiently to formulate an appropriate preoperative diagnosis;

    Too general to hang your hat on, in my opinion. Now it’s on to the Ohio Medical Board Rules.
    Update 3: I found nothing in the Ohio Medical Board Rules requiring an abortionist to perform a pre-abortion ultrasound. Now I’ll try the National Abortion Federation’s Clinical Policy Guidelines, which serve as the abortion industry’s self-published minimum standards of care for abortion providers. I haven’t found any comparable document published by any regulatory body or professional association in Ohio that would set the minimum standards of care for Ohio’s abortionists. Unless someone can prove me wrong, I’m forced to conclude that Ohio abortionists are governed by the NAF’s Clinical Policy Guidelines.

    On politicians who become serious pro-lifers

    Here’s the latest clip of Fred Thompson on YouTube. He sent this video greeting to the National Right to Life Convention:

    Fellow pro-lifers, don’t dismiss any candidate solely because he was once wishy-washy on life … or was even pro-abortion.
    I too was once in favor of abortion rights, back when I didn’t think about issues nearly as much as I simply emoted about them. After I graduated from college, some intelligent and persuasive pro-lifers confronted my ignorance in a friendly way, offering lots of facts and logic, and I realized that I had been wrong all along.
    Since then I’ve become an amateur pro-life apologist by reading voraciously, hosting debates, volunteering with local pro-life organizations, sitting on the board of a crisis pregnancy center, studying for an M.A. in Bioethics while simultaneously earning my law degree, publishing a pro-life legal note against embryonic stem cell research, and blogging here on bioethics.
    Yet I once supported abortion rights. Does that make me a flip-flopper? According to some narrow definitions I’ve been hearing lately the answer is yes (good discussions here and here and here). That’s ridiculous. The mere fact that I’ve had a change of mind and heart doesn’t justify the flip-flopper label. I’ve given money to, volunteered for, and argued on behalf of the pro-life movement since my switch. If I had done nothing (or worse, if I’d switched back to being pro-abortion to gain some kind of advantage or benefit like Dennis Kucinich did) then I’d be vulnerable to charges of flip-floppery or a lack of seriousness.
    Fred Thompson used to be mushy on abortion. He doesn’t deny it. I suspect that his former stance came from his strong federalist tendencies and a lack of serious reflection on whether the unborn is actually a person like us in every morally relevant way. Since those days, Fred’s voting record in the Senate and his public writings and speeches have been solidly pro-life. The man gives every indication that he now believes human beings have a right to life from the moment of conception, and that the federal courts overstep their authority when they support a constitutional “right” to abortion.
    Becoming a serious pro-lifer is a good thing. We pro-lifers know this because we try to persuade as many people we can to join us, and we heap praise on those who do. I understand the emotional appeal of feeling suspicious every time we hear a politician claim to be on our side. Resist the urge to emote; think instead. Look at the declared pro-life politician’s record before you dismiss him out of hand. Some of them really are on our side.

    Supreme Court: fetuses are human beings

    Are you sitting down? Read page 17 of today’s majority opinion in Carhart v. Gonzales:

    The Act does apply both previability and postviability because, by common understanding and scientific terminology, a fetus is a living organism while within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb. … We do not understand this point to be contested by the parties.

    Did you catch that? According to the explicit and undisputed wording of Supreme Court, a fetus in the womb is a living organism. The fetus is not a “potential life.” It’s a life.
    The obvious follow-up is to ask what kind of organism the fetus is, and the answer is as straightforward as it is undeniable. The fetus is a human organism. A human being.
    That’s a huge legal victory. Common sense and science finally enjoy the muscle of the Supreme Court to back up what every honest person with half a brain knows: the unborn are human beings.
    Now we can really start to undermine the silly pro-abort argument about the unborn being human but not “persons.”

    Pro-abortion forces react to Gonzales v. Carhart

    Like clockwork, the people who want to preserve a woman’s right to slaughter her child in mid-birth have begun wailing about today’s Supreme Court ruling upholding a ban on partial birth abortion. I’m feeling a delicious mix of gratitude and schadenfreude. I’ll update this post as the spluttering continues.
    Planned Parenthood:

    This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women’s health and safety. Today the court took away an important option for doctors who seek to provide the best and safest care to their patients. This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them.

    Calling partial birth abortion a “health care decision” is like calling rape an “alternative lifestyle choice.”
    Vanessa at the Feministing blog: “We’re f***ed.”
    Eleanor Smeal:

    This propels women’s right to abortion and birth control to the center of the 2008 presidential election. Elections matter: this ban is a direct consequence of a Republican, ideologically driven president and Congress, which ignored the science-based opinions of such leading medical authorities as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in passing this ban and signing it into law.
    Already, the decision in Gonzales v. Carhart will mean that women with troubled pregnancies will be forced into more dangerous situations, putting their future ability to have safe and healthy pregnancies at risk. Older women will be especially affected, as amniocentesis results are released later in the pregnancy. The health and safety of adolescents and pre-teens will also be more at risk, as they are often forced to delay their decisions about whether to abort because of lack of control over their own lives or inadequate funds.

    Ralph Neas:

    The replacement of moderate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor with ultraconservative Justice Samuel Alito has brought the Court to the brink of judicial disaster.

    Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon:

    It’s a strike at the concept that women have independent value. If you reduce a woman to a baby factory, then one who needs a late term abortion is malfunctioning in her purpose somehow, so if she dies, she’s scrap metal, I suppose. Or scrap blood and tissue, as it were. I hate to be blunt like this, but there it is. They skipped over the preliminaries about what kind of rights women should have and attacked the idea that our very existence and health matters if we’ve failed in our duties as fetal incubators.

    Written by Comments Off on Pro-abortion forces react to Gonzales v. Carhart Posted in Bioethics

    Won’t anybody ask Rudy why he hates abortion?

    Rudy Giuliani keeps repeating variations of this nonsensical statement:

    “I’m against abortion. I hate it. I wish there never was an abortion and I would counsel a woman to have an adoption instead of an abortion … But ultimately I believe it is an individual right, and the woman can make that choice.”

    I want to know why he hates abortion, but nobody ever asks him that question. No matter how he responds, he’ll make no sense.

    • If he hates abortion because it kills a human being, then he’s arguing that although he hates it, women should still have the right to kill human beings. I’d love to hear him try to untwist that logical knot.
    • If he hates abortion because it ends a “potential life”, then how can he justify any restrictions on abortion at all? A “potential life” by definition cannot be an actual (sacred?) human life, so why the objection? He also has to explain what that aborted thing actually is, if it’s not a life. Calling it a “potential something” isn’t enough. It has to already be something, because it’s not nothing. So what is it?
    • If he doesn’t actually hate abortion and just wants to preserve the legal status quo, then he’s just another liar who’ll say anything to fool the conservative base into voting for him. I would bet a lot of money that this is where Rudy actually stands, but I’d also bet a lot of money that he’ll never admit it.

    If there’s any way to make logical sense of Rudy Giuliani’s abortion stance without unmasking him as a liar, I’d love to hear it.

    4/13 Update: Hugh Hewitt blew a golden opportunity today.

    Secular fundamentalism, exposed

    Over on NRO, Patrick Lee & Robert George review Lee Silver’s new book on bioethics and dismantle his arguments against “religious fundamentalists” who supposedly wrap their religious objectives in scientific rhetoric.
    A sample:

    Silver says that the claim that human embryos are human beings at an early stage of development is “hidden theology.” This could mean two different things. First, as this claim is presented in the book, Silver asserts that we actually hold our position on the status of the human embryo on theological grounds. We are, he suggests, hiding this fact, manufacturing arguments that sound scientific, but are in reality merely a cover for our real, theological, and indeed, “fundamentalist” grounds.
    To describe such a claim as an ad hominem argument is to exaggerate its standing. It is nothing more than ad hominem abuse. Silver knows that we are Catholics, and so he uses that fact to suggest that our real ground for believing that human embryos are human beings is Catholic doctrine. But here he has things exactly backwards. Our ground for believing that human embryos are human beings is the indisputable scientific fact that each human embryo is a complex, living, individual member of the human species. Although our claim does not rest on the authority of the Catholic Church, or any other religious body or tradition, we find the Church’s teaching against human embryo-killing credible precisely because it — unlike Silver’s contrary teaching — is in line with the embryological facts. If “fundamentalism” consists in obstinately clinging to a moral, religious, or political view in defiance of empirically demonstrable findings of science that falsify its premises, we are not the fundamentalists in this debate. It is Lee Silver himself who has fallen into a form of fundamentalism.
    The biological fact that human embryos are human beings in the earliest stages of their natural development is, to say the least, inconvenient for Professor Silver. So he commits the very offense of which he accuses us and others who oppose his agenda. He hides his ideology under a veneer of science. But the veneer is easily pulled off and the truth exposed. Just examine any of the major embryology texts now in use in American medicine. What you will find is the teaching that a new human individual exists from the earliest embryonic stage forward. That individual is a complete, though, of course, developmentally immature, member of the human species, whose life — whether it lasts for nine minutes, nine days, nine years, or nine decades — is a human life.

    Read the whole review.
    You don’t need to refer to any religious or scriptural authority to make a solid case that the unborn are people too.
    Hat tip: LTI Blog

    Stem cell myth: ”Bush is banning stem cell research”

    By vetoing the bill that would have authorized federal funds for embryonic stem cell research, President Bush is not “banning” anything.
    Embryonic stem cell research remains legal under federal law. You are free to destroy embryos and harvest their stem cells without fear of federal prosecution. You just can’t get federal tax dollars to fund your research; you have to fund it yourself, or get a state or local government to foot the bill.
    In fact, the federal government will fund your research on embryonic stem cells as long as you use the cell lines derived before August 9, 2001.

    Clarity in the debate over stem cell research

    Pundits and politicians argue about stem cell research in a way that seems complicated, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Whenever things get foggy, just find out which kind of stem cell research they’re arguing about.

    1. With one exception (see #3), embryonic stem cells are harvested from a human being in his or her earliest stages of development, before those cells have had time to specialize. By definition, this requires cutting up the developing human being. This kills him or her without fail, and it’s why most people object to this type of research.
    2. Adult stem cells are found scattered among mature cells in your tissues or organs. They are very basic cells much like an embryo’s cells, and they can differentiate to yield the major specialized cell types that make up your tissues and organs. The primary roles of adult stem cells in a living organism are to maintain and repair the tissue in which they are found, but they can be coaxed into becoming other types of mature cells. Nobody has any moral objections to research on adult stem cells, and the federal government funds it.
    3. The only way to collect embryonic stem cells without killing embryos is to use the tissue found in umbilical cords and placentas, which are expelled during childbirth. Very few people know about this source of stem cells, which can eliminate any “need” for embryo destruction.

    It’s all about definitions. Once you narrow down the subject, the argument becomes much more straightforward.
    I’ve synthesized these definitions from my own work, from the NIH, and from ClearlyExplained.com.

    Senate should oppose federal funds for embryo stem cell research

    Today the U.S. Senate will vote on H.R.810, a bill which would allow Uncle Sam to spend your tax dollars to help researchers destroy human embryos in the name of science. Here are three basic reasons to call your Senator and ask him or her to vote against spending tax dollars on research that destroys human embryos:

    1. It’s immoral because it unneccessarily kills human beings.
    2. It’s unnecessary because adult stem cell research is already more successful and holds more promise … and all without killing any human beings.
    3. It’s politically unpopular when it’s explained clearly.

    Defeating this bill would not ban stem cell research. It would only prevent the federal government from spending your tax dollars to fund research that destroys human embryos. Destructive embryo research would still be legal as long as it’s funded privately or funded by a state or local government.
    Contact your Senator and urge him or her to vote “no” on H.R.810. If you’re interested in watching today’s Senate debate live, C-SPAN2 has you covered.

    Update: Evangelical Outpost understands things quite clearly.

    Written by Comments Off on Senate should oppose federal funds for embryo stem cell research Posted in Bioethics, Law

    Anthony Kennedy on abortion: steady as Jell-O

    This fall the U.S. Supreme Court will be tackling partial birth abortion again. Two cases overturning the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 will get a final hearing, and we’ll get to see where our two newest Justices stand on abortion. SCOTUSblog has posted a summary of what’s in dispute. I dug up the published opinions from both Courts of Appeals, so you don’t have to rely on the mainstream media to tell you what’s in them (both are Adobe PDF files):

    8th Circuit:
    Gonzales v. Carhart
    9th Circuit:
    Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood
    (Kook Warning: this is a Judge Reinhardt opinion!)

    Here’s the conventional wisdom on who supports the ban on partial birth abortions:

    SCOTUS vote prediction

    Kennedy is the wild card here. While he’s pro-abortion in general, he joined the conservatives in the Court’s first crack at partial-birth abortion (too bad there were only three plus Kennedy, because they lost):

    The Court’s decision today, in my submission, repudiates this understanding by invalidating a statute advancing critical state interests, even though the law denies no woman the right to choose an abortion and places no undue burden upon the right. The legislation is well within the State’s competence to enact.

    Justice Kennedy, dissenting
    Stenberg v. Carhart

    Kennedy’s dissent encourages pro-lifers and hints that he might join the conservatives again this time around. Unfortunately, it was also written six years ago. Kennedy has been sliding steadily leftward during his tenure on the Court, and it’s anybody’s guess how much “evolving” or “growing” he’s done since 2000. With Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement, he has assumed the role of the swing voter, and that kind of power is very seductive to any Justice with no discernable judicial philosophy.
    There’s plenty of reason to worry. In an abortion case eight years before he confronted partial-birth abortion, Kennedy penned this doozy:

    At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.

    The man’s unpredictable. He overturned a state constitutional amendment denying special rights for homosexuals because he deemed it “inexplicable by anything but animus.” Magic 8-ballHe overturned an anti-sodomy law. He agreed with Justice Scalia that juveniles should be eligible for the death penalty … but then he flip-flopped. He opposed the McCain/Feingold muzzle on free speech. He supported government redistribution of private property. He opposed a federal anti-gun-possession law. He supported ending the Florida recount in the 2000 presidential election. He upheld Oregon’s institution of doctor-assisted suicide.
    Enough! My brain hurts. If anyone can assemble Kennedy’s opinions into a coherent judicial philosophy, it’ll be news to me. For all we know he uses a ouija board to help him decide.
    So will Anthony Kennedy object to infanticide again? I can’t shake the sinking feeling that it all depends on how much his wife values those cocktail party invitations from Washington’s liberal “in crowd.”

    Abortion on demand is the law of the land

    Most Americans think that abortions after the first trimester are illegal, but that’s not true. Thanks to rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, a pregnant woman can get an abortion at any time through all nine months of pregnancy, for any reason. The window below summarizes how the Court built its machinery of death. Click anywhere inside the window to cycle through the cases:

    That’s the short version. Here’s a bit more detail if you’re curious.

    In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court ruled a Connecticut law prohibiting contraceptive use was unconstitutional because it violated the 14th Amendment’s implied “right to privacy” enjoyed by married couples in the home.

    Eisenstadt v. Baird extended Griswold’s reasoning and held that a Massachusetts law prohibiting distribution of contraceptives and contraceptive information was an unconstitutional invasion of the privacy of unmarried people, and unfairly treated them differently from married people.

    Roe v. Wade expanded the “right to privacy” to include a “right to abortion,” which overturned a Texas abortion ban statute. Roe established the infamous trimester framework: in the first trimester, there were no abortion restrictions of any kind; in the second trimester, states could only limit abortions in ways that protected the mother’s health; in the third trimester, states could supposedly ban abortion.

    In Doe v. Bolton, a case handed down on the same day as Roe, the Court expanded the right to abortion by striking down a Georgia statute which prohibited abortion unless the mother’s life was in danger, the preborn child was severely deformed, or the preborn child was the product of rape. In striking down Georgia’s abortion statute, the Doe court required that all abortion statutes include a “health of the mother” exception. The factors to be considered in determining “health risk” involved “physical, emotional, psychological, and familial factors, as well as the woman’s age.”

    Obviously, any woman can use this enormous loophole to get an abortion at any point in her pregnancy. All she has to do is claim that the thought of motherhood is depressing, or that she isn’t ready to enlarge her family, or that she’s too old to bear another child, or … well, you see the point. Always remember Doe v. Bolton and its all-encompassing “health exception.” It’s what opened the door to abortion on demand.

    Nineteen years later, Planned Parenthood v. Casey did away with Roe‘s trimesters and concentrated on viability as the key issue, with the majority opinion stating, “We reject the trimester framework, which we do not consider to be part of the essential holding of Roe.” Casey struck down most of a complex Pennsylvania abortion statute, and created an “undue burden” test for balancing a state’s interest in protecting the preborn against a mother’s wish to abort her child. Under this test, any state regulation that “has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus” is an unconstitutional “undue burden” on a woman’s right to seek an abortion. Most significantly, though, the Casey decision left the “health exception” requirement untouched, so abortion on demand was preserved. Silence can be deadly when a court refuses to undo injustice.

    Most recently, Stenberg v. Carhart held that a Nebraska law criminalizing partial-birth abortions was unconstitutional for two reasons: 1) it placed an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to an abortion because the ban was supposedly too vague and could therefore be stretched to ban other types of abortion; and 2) it lacked a Doe-style “health of the mother” exception. Again, abortion on demand remained sacrosanct, much to the delight of pro-abortion radicals.

    So there you have it. Any woman in America can get an abortion at any time in her pregnancy, for any reason. Spread the word, and let’s puncture the ignorance of our fellow Americans. It’d be a worthy step toward protecting the most vulnerable human beings on Earth.

    Text of Ohio’s proposed abortion ban

    The Ohio House is debating a bill that would ban abortion, but rather than relying on what the media tells you is in the bill, why not read it for yourself? House Bill 228 is very long, and a lot of it deals with lawsuits. Here are the relevant chunks that would rewrite the criminal penalties related to abortion.

    Sec. 2919.12

    (A) No person shall do any of the following:

    (1) Perform or induce an abortion;
    (2) Transport another, or cause another to be transported, across the boundary of this state or of any county in this state in order to facilitate the other person having an abortion.

    (B) Whoever violates division (A)(1) of this section is guilty of unlawful abortion. Whoever violates division (A)(2) of this section is guilty of facilitating an abortion. Unlawful abortion or facilitating an abortion is a felony of the second degree or, if the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a violation of this section, sections 2919.123, 2919.13, or 2919.14 of the Revised Code, or former sections 2919.121, 2919.151, 2919.17, or 2919.18 of the Revised Code as they existed prior to the effective date of this amendment, a felony of the first degree.
    (C) Whoever violates this section is liable to the pregnant woman, to the person who was the father of the fetus or embryo that was the subject of the abortion, and, if the pregnant woman was a minor at the time of the abortion, to her parents, guardian, or custodian for civil compensatory and exemplary damages.
    (D) Division (A)(1) of this section does not apply to a person who provides medical treatment to a pregnant woman to prevent the death of the pregnant woman and who, as a proximate result of the provision of that medical treatment but without intent to do so, causes the termination of the pregnant woman’s pregnancy.

    Sec. 2919.123

    (A) No person shall knowingly give, sell, dispense, administer, otherwise provide, or prescribe RU-486 (mifepristone) to another for the purpose of inducing an abortion in any person or enabling the other person to induce an abortion in any person.
    (B) No physician who, prior to the effective date of this amendment, provided RU-486 (mifepristone) to another for the purpose of inducing an abortion as formerly authorized under division (A) of this section as it existed prior to the effective date of this amendment shall knowingly fail to comply with the applicable requirements of any federal law that pertained to follow-up examinations or care for persons to whom or for whom RU-486 (mifepristone) was provided for the purpose of inducing an abortion.
    (C)

    (1) The state medical board shall compile and retain all reports it receives under division (C)(1) of this section as it existed prior to the effective date of this amendment. Except as otherwise provided in this division, all reports the board receives under division (C)(1) of this section as it existed prior to the effective date of this amendment are public records open to inspection under section 149.43 of the Revised Code. In no case shall the board release to any person the name or any other personal identifying information regarding a person who uses RU-486 (mifepristone) for the purpose of inducing an abortion and who is the subject of a report the board receives under division (C)(1) of this section as it existed prior to the effective date of this amendment.
    (2) No physician who provides RU-486 (mifepristone) to another for the purpose of inducing an abortion as formerly authorized under division (A) of this section as it existed prior to the effective date of this amendment shall knowingly fail to file a report required under division (C)(1) of this section.

    (D) Whoever violates this section is guilty of unlawful distribution of an abortion-inducing drug. Unlawful distribution of an abortion-inducing drug is a felony of the second degree or, if the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a violation of this section, section 2919.12, 2919.13, or 2919.14 of the Revised Code, or former section 2929.121, 2919.151, 2919.17, or 2919.18 of the Revised Code as they existed prior to the date of this amendment, a felony of the first degree.
    If the offender is a professionally licensed person, in addition to any other sanction imposed by law for the offense, the offender is subject to sanctioning as provided by law by the regulatory or licensing board or agency that has the administrative authority to suspend or revoke the offender’s professional license, including the sanctioning provided in section 4731.22 of the Revised Code for offenders who have a certificate to practice or certificate of registration issued under that chapter.
    (E) As used in this section:

    (1) “Federal law” means any law, rule, or regulation of the United States or any drug approval letter of the food and drug administration of the United States that governs or regulates the use of RU-486 (mifepristone) for the purpose of inducing abortions.
    (2) “Physician” has the same meaning as in section 2305.113 of the Revised Code.
    (3) “Professionally licensed person” has the same meaning as in section 2925.01 of the Revised Code.


    Sec. 2919.13

    (A) No person shall purposely take the life of a child born by attempted abortion who is alive when removed from the uterus of the pregnant woman.
    (B) No person who performs an abortion prior to the effective date of this amendment or who, on or after the effective date of this amendment, performs or induces an abortion in violation of section 2919.12 or administers RU-486 (mifepristone) to another for the purpose of inducing an abortion in violation of section 2919.123 of the Revised Code, shall fail to take the measures required by the exercise of medical judgment in light of the attending circumstances to preserve the life of a child who is alive when removed from the uterus of the pregnant woman.
    (C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of abortion manslaughter, a felony of the first degree.

    Sec. 2919.14

    (A) No person shall experiment upon or sell the product of human conception which is aborted. Experiment does not include autopsies pursuant to sections 313.13 and 2108.50 of the Revised Code.
    (B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of abortion trafficking, a felony of the first degree.

    Sec. 2919.24

    (A) No person, including a parent, guardian, or other custodian of a child, shall do any of the following:

    (1) Aid, abet, induce, cause, encourage, or contribute to a child or a ward of the juvenile court becoming an unruly child, as defined in section 2151.022 of the Revised Code, or a delinquent child, as defined in section 2152.02 of the Revised Code;
    (2) Act in a way tending to cause a child or a ward of the juvenile court to become an unruly child, as defined in section 2151.022 of the Revised Code, or a delinquent child, as defined in section 2152.02 of the Revised Code;
    (3) If the person is the parent, guardian, or custodian of a child who has the duties under Chapters 2152. and 2950. of the Revised Code to register, register a new residence address, and periodically verify a residence address, and, if applicable, to send a notice of intent to reside, and if the child is not emancipated fail to ensure that the child complies with those duties under Chapters 2152. and 2950. of the Revised Code.

    (B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of contributing to the unruliness or delinquency of a child, a misdemeanor of the first degree. Each day of violation of this section is a separate offense.
    (C) For the purposes of this section, a child is “emancipated” if the child has married, entered the armed services of the United States, become employed and self-subsisting, or otherwise become legally independent from the care and control of the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian.