Daniel McConchie

Anti-life media manufactures hysteria

Daniel McConchie

In the last two weeks, the prospect of significant pro-life gains in state legislatures this year has seemed to throw those in the hard-left wing of the media into a tizzy. A number of stories have come out with blatant inaccuracies and overwrought hyperbole.

Their current target? AUL’s model bill entitled The Pregnant Woman’s Protection Act.

This groundbreaking model legislation seeks to ensure that a pregnant woman and her unborn child are protected from criminal violence and that her decision to carry her child to term is respected.  Specifically, the model legislation was drafted in direct response to the well-documented and growing problem of pregnancy-related violence against women.

As detailed in the legislative findings section of the “Pregnant Woman’s Protection Act,” evidence has shown that violence and abuse are often higher during pregnancy than during any other period in a woman’s lifetime.  For example, according to the March of Dimes, one in six pregnant women have been abused by a partner.  A 1998 household survey determined that pregnant women are 60.6 percent more likely to be beaten than women who are not pregnant.

In fact, a pregnant woman is more likely to be a victim of homicide than to die of any other cause.  And case after case has demonstrated that husbands or boyfriends are often the perpetrators of pregnancy-associated violence and that this violence is often directed at the unborn child or intended to end or jeopardize the pregnancy.

AUL’s “Pregnant Woman’s Protection Act” expressly provides that a pregnant woman may use force to protect her unborn child when she reasonably believes that unlawful force is threatening her unborn child and that her use of force is immediately necessary to protect her unborn child. The language explicitly limits the permitted use of force to a pregnant woman and does not expand it to third parties.  Thus, under the express terms of AUL’s carefully crafted and narrow language, the “Pregnant Woman’s Protection Act” could not be used to justify criminal violence against abortion providers or anyone else.

Current articles from Mother Jones and the Huffington Post try to distort this support for pregnant women in an attempt to derail similar legislation in the states. This is a shame. Thousands of pregnant women are assaulted or killed each year and deserve the explicit right to defend their unborn children from harm. It is time they stopped confusing their pro-choice rhetoric with their anti-life ideology.

Truth. Delivered daily.

Get FREE pro-life, pro-family news delivered straight to your inbox. 

Select Your Edition:

Share this article


Planned Parenthood says its services are necessary in Oklahoma: the numbers show otherwise

Daniel McConchie
Daniel McConchie

Co-authored with Veronika Johannsen

A local Planned Parenthood facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma is set to close its doors beginning February 1, 2013 after losing funding for the Women, Infants, and Children Program (WIC) at the beginning of this year. This marks a new front in the defunding battle as Planned Parenthood continues to be on the defensive regarding many of the various services it bills to the government.

The Oklahoma State Department of Health chose not to renew its contract with the organization in September 2012, citing a low-case-load and higher cost of patient participation. This decision is justifiable, especially considering the several cases of alleged Medicaid fraud, including a suit filed against Planned Parenthood of the Heartland in Iowa, which is Oklahoma’s affiliate. "This is a renewal period, and the agency has taken the option not to renew based on the needs of the Health Department, the contractor's performance and funding availability," according to a statement the department released.

WIC is a Federal grant program of the Food and Nutrition Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture which annually receives specified funding amounts from Congress. The program provides food-vouchers for supplemental nutrition assistance to income-eligible women who are pregnant (including six weeks after pregnancy), breastfeeding (up to child’s 1st birthday), and non-breastfeeding postpartum women (up to six months after pregnancy) as well as infants up to their 1st birthday and children under the age of 5. Few Planned Parenthood centers are currently known to participate in the program.

In response to the decision by the Oklahoma Department of Health, the President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Jill June wrote in an official statement: “Without any justification, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland (PPHeartland) received notification that the Oklahoma State Department of Health is eliminating funding for the Women Infant and Children (WIC) program from three Planned Parenthood health centers in Tulsa.” June decried the decision as being politically motivated. “Politics should never interfere with a woman’s access to health services – or food for her children.”

Further investigation of this fantasized “war on women’s healthcare” shows June’s claim that Oklahoma’s decision was purely political proves to be untrue. June exaggerates the accessibility of Planned Parenthood in the Oklahoma community by insinuating that women and their children across the state will be denied basic healthcare and supplemental nutrition.  Consider that of the eleven Planned Parenthood clinics located throughout the state, only three of them provided WIC services. These three clinics are all centralized in Tulsa County – not in various counties throughout the state, thus limiting accessibility to those who live in other counties. Terry Bryce, the state’s WIC services director responded, “Their performance does not tie into politics for me.”

Of the 199,171 individuals who obtained WIC benefits in the county, two-thirds of them went to Tulsa County Health Departments which has ten different locations to serve the public. Additionally, women in need have the option of obtaining WIC services from four other independent clinics located throughout the county. Less than one-fifth of current WIC clients receive services at Planned Parenthood and most likely have easy access one of the other 14 locations in the area:

Tulsa is the only place in the state where Planned Parenthood currently provides WIC services. While the statement by Planned Parenthood encourages residents to believe Planned Parenthood is a major asset to the community by providing WIC services to women and children, in reality they only account for a mere 2.94% of the total state of Oklahoma – and were strictly limited to one county. Bryce also said that the decision would offset another round of cuts by saving the state $154,000.

Planned Parenthood is often known for attempting to convince the public that without them, women would be without access to basic health care and necessities for themselves and their families. After taking a closer look however, it is evident that this Planned Parenthood “service” to the state of Oklahoma is miniscule at best, and the loss of their status as a WIC provider is unlikely to negatively impact those dependent upon the Federal program. These Planned Parenthood’s WIC services are more expensive for the state and the county has a broad infrastructure to easily handle the clients that Planned Parenthood currently services. There is little reason to continue giving Planned Parenthood the people’s money simply because they exist.

Activists in other states who discover Planned Parenthood providing WIC services should investigate to see if there are similar conditions to that of Oklahoma. There is no reason for taxpayers to be subsidizing the abortion giant, especially in cases where there are a significant number of entities providing services to women and when Planned Parenthood’s redundant provision of services is at a higher cost.

Daniel McConchie is Vice President of Government Affairs for Americans United for Life. Veronika Johannsen is government affairs intern.

Share this article


New Republican Party platform strongly pro-life

Daniel McConchie
Daniel McConchie

Over the last two days I had the privilege of working once again on the pro-life provisions of the Republican Party Platform in the meeting they hold once every four years. And once again the Committee approved a new party platform that strongly defends the sanctity of human life. A key provision in the document is a call for a Human Life Amendment to the US Constitution, a provision that has been in place since 1976, just three years after Roe v. Wade. 

And, in an historic first pioneered by myself and Kellie Fiedorek of AUL Action, the document now includes information about the negative impact of abortion on women, a provision that was approved unanimously by the delegates. Introduced by Illinois Delegate Sharee Langenstein, the mother of six daughters, for the first time the fact that abortion is bad for women is included in the section on health:

“Through Obamacare, the Obama Administration has promoted the notion that abortion is healthcare.  We, however, affirm the dignity of women by protecting the sanctity of human life.  Numerous studies have shown that abortion endangers the health and well-being of women and we stand firmly against it.”

Some of the other key provisions included in this year’s document are:

“Republican leadership has led the effort to prohibit the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion, and permitted States to extend health care coverage to children before birth.”

“We urge Congress to strengthen the Born Alive Infant Protection Act by exacting appropriate civil and criminal penalties to health care providers who fail to provide treatment and care to an infant who survives an abortion, including early induction delivery where the death of the infant is intended.”

“We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for abortion or contraception.”

“We also salute the many States that have passed laws for informed consent, mandatory waiting periods prior to an abortion, and health-protective clinic regulations.”

“We seek to protect young girls from exploitation through a parental consent requirement; and we affirm our moral obligation to assist rather than penalize, women challenged by an unplanned pregnancy.”

“We salute those who provide them with counseling and adoption alternatives and empower them to choose life, and we take comfort in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican initiatives.”

“We support the ability of all organizations to provide, purchase, or enroll in health coverage consistent with their religious, moral, or ethical convictions without discrimination or penalty.”

These kinds of party platform planks represent the ideals people hold and describes their motivations for future public policy that the Party will pursue. In this case, we have yet again an unambiguous declaration that the Republican Party will work to defend human life in the law.

Share this article


Another state (13th) opt-outs of abortion in Obamacare

Daniel McConchie
Daniel McConchie

This week the federal government moved ahead with regulations that will require everyone in the soon-to-be-established state exchanges who are in an insurance plan that includes elective abortion coverage to pay a separate monthly premium from their own pockets to fund abortion. However, at the same time, South Dakota became the thirteenth state to stand up and say no.

Governor Dennis Daugaard has signed into law HB 1185, a bill sponsored by state representative Jon Hansen and drafted from an AUL model bill on the subject. So far Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas,  Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia have all opted-out of having abortion covered in their federally-mandated insurance plans.

And South Dakota won’t be the last. At least seven other states have bills pending on this question right now while other states are looking to include such a provision as an amendment to the bill that establishes the state exchanges.

This is yet another proof that Americans are not interested in subsidizing abortion with their own money.

Share this article


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook