Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

PLM Newsletter – Month of March, 2012

Posted by on Mar. 5, 2012 at 10:17 PM
  • 2 Replies
  • 666 Total Views

"If I choose and desire my child, then ipso facto I have granted it the right to live, and it will live. But the inverse is equally the case, by means of nothing more or less than my choice: Caesar's thumb is up, or Caesar's thumb is down." ~ Lord Nicholas Windsor



Interesting Posts

- A Man's Right to Choose (borrowed from another group)

- Planned Parenthood Sells Condoms With GPS Showing Sex Location

- Movie to pass on

- State Supreme Court: Overturn Roe, Unborn Have Right to Life

- Facebook Censors Pro-Life Image, OKs DIY Abortion Instruction

- “The Basis for Defending All Human Life” Series

- Pick Life

- the "survey" done with catholics and BC

- President Barack Obama’s Pro-Abortion Record: A Pro-Life Compilation

- FYI - Links to Later Term Abortion Clinics


Ultrasound is a window to the womb

By Mary Spaulding Balch, JD,
National Right to Life Director of State Legislation

Editor’s note. This appeared as an “opposing view” in Monday’s USA TODAY

Airline passengers must listen to safety instructions, illustrated with seat belts and life vests. No one argues that showing the images insults people who have already decided to fly or is a government intrusion into the pilot-passenger relationship.

In the ultrasound debate, the true paternalists are those who would “shelter” women from seeing their unborn child’s beating heart at 22 days, or viewing her kicking and moving inside the womb at seven weeks.

In a 1992 case upholding key regulations on abortion, the U.S. Supreme Court held that states can require information that “is truthful and not misleading” be made available to a woman to help ensure that she “apprehend the full consequences of her decision.” The court stated that doing so reduces “the risk that a woman may elect an abortion, only to discover later, with devastating psychological consequences, that her decision was not fully informed.”

Clearly, real-time ultrasound images of the unborn child are truthful, not misleading, and can lead to a more informed decision.

Ultrasound is a window to the womb allowing the mother to view for herself what is inside her, seeing not opinion but objective and accurate fact. Vaginal ultrasounds now attacked as intrusive are routinely used by abortion practitioners. If they are invasive, what about the insertion — in the same place — of the violent suction apparatus, much more powerful than a home vacuum, used in many abortions.

Abortion practice is hurried and impersonal. Instead of a visit to the family doctor, it usually involves an abortion practitioner the woman has never seen before. The physician-patient relationship is non-existent. The decision to have an abortion is major, having potential ramifications not only on the mother, but also on the life of the unborn child.

All the uproar begs the question: What are abortion advocates afraid women will see on the ultrasound screen?


Legislative Alert

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), a longtime pro-life leader, recently introduced H.R. 3803, the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. This bill would protect unborn children capable of feeling pain at 20 weeks and beyond.

Nebraska, Kansas, Idaho, Oklahoma, and Alabama have already passed this bill, and part of the SBA List’s Pro-Life Presidential Leadership Pledge is to get this bill advanced and signed into law at the federal level.

Take just a moment to contact your Representative and urge them to co-sponsor and support Rep. Trent Franks’ Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

Tell your Representative to co-sponsor the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act


Pro-Choice Propaganda of the Month

On Feb. 29th, the Blunt Amendment failed in the Senate by 2 votes. The Blunt Amendment would have ensured that religiously-affiliated organizations and others are not coerced by the government to provide abortion-inducing drugs that violate their religious and/or moral convictions. Of course, the usual suspects, pro-choice senators with the help of the media, went berzerk with scare tactics that made the amendment sound as if millions of people would never be able to get any kind of heath care at all...

Blunt Amendment: Schumer’s over-the-top rhetoric

"..This whole debate [over the Blunt Amendment] is an anachronism. Our country progressed beyond the issue of whether or not to allow birth control a long time ago. Yet here we are in 2012, and the Republican Party suddenly wants to turn back the clock and take away contraception from women. Make no mistake: that’s what this debate is about.”

Mr. President, if this amendment passes, it would ban contraception coverage for any woman in America whose boss has a personal objection to it. This measure would force women to surrender control of their own health decisions to their bosses.”

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, some 20 million American women could be cut off from health services by this proposal..." — Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) speaking on the Senate floor about the Blunt Amendment, Feb. 29, 2012

Senate Blocks Blunt Amendment

"...Here’s a memorable quote from Sen. Barbara Boxer, a vehement opponent of the Blunt amendment:

[The Blunt Amendment] not only says that any insurer or any employer for any reason could stop women from getting access to contraception, it could also stop all of our families from getting access to essential health care services.

The Blunt amendment hinders access to essential health care services? On the contrary – if conscience-protection laws are not passed and the HHS mandate is, then there are going to be lots of people who sacrifice medical coverage rather than fund practices they believe to be immoral. Many hospitals will close, and the many patients dependent on those hospitals will be without care. All these people will no longer have access to medical care. This is because they were not guaranteed the freedom to choose what medical care they would cover..."

The Blunt Amendment -- Unintended Consequences

"...In other words, any employer could claim any moral or religious position and ignore standing law, not just relative to health care or insurance, but on any issue. All the hypotheticals we've seen regarding coverage of birth control or other reproductive care, blood transfusions, vaccinations, diabetic care for those who "eat too much," etc., these don't begin to scratch the surface. An employer could claim exemption from any law such as OSHA/workplace safety laws, minimum wage, or any other, on the basis of their claimed religious or moral beliefs. Corporations will be able to rape the Earth with no constraints, claiming that "man is to have dominion over the Earth."

But let's take that another step farther. After all, why stop at employers? If the Blunt Amendment or some iteration of it passes, it gives free rein to ANYONE to ignore the law based on claimed beliefs. If I don't believe in paying taxes, I won't need to. If my neighbor believes the Bible says having multiple wives or keeping slaves is allowed and right, they can.

There is NOTHING out of bounds if the Blunt Amendment is passed..." The Daily Kos


by on Mar. 5, 2012 at 10:17 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-2):
by Diane - Group Owner on Mar. 9, 2012 at 9:10 AM


by New Member on Mar. 9, 2012 at 2:49 PM


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)