Dave Andrusko

Why is Cuomo expanding abortion in the state with the highest abortion rate? One word: presidency

Dave Andrusko
Image

Why would a governor of a state that NARAL already gives an A- to; that has no parental consent law, no 24 hour waiting period for abortions, and publicly funds abortions for women who receive public assistance; that is cursed with a major metropolis in which in some zip codes the abortion rate has reached a ghastly 60% among African-Americans possibly believe there is a “need” for more abortions including more late abortions?

For the same reason New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is rolling his radical abortion proposal in among a ten point “Women’s Equality Agenda” and pretends the proposal would merely “codify current abortion protections should the U.S. Supreme Court strike down the Roe v. Wade decision that made abortion legal.”

As Lori Kehoe with New York State Right to Life told WCBS 880′s Marla Diamond, “There’s no other way to think about this other than that this is all about the governor’s run for president.” He is not only being told but no doubt already believes that there is electoral gold to be mined by being the most pro-abortion Democratic presidential candidate in a field that will be awash with pro-abortion candidates.

Cuomo made official yesterday what he has been teasing about since his fiery, vein-popping State of the State message in January. The same “Women’s Equality Agenda” that includes provisions against human trafficking will include a provision that obliterates what few limitations on abortion exist in the Gotham state. This by the way at a time of Kermit Gosnell and stories popping up all over the country of what happens when abortion is mass marketed.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Republicans and a few Democrats in the Senate have previously expressed disapproval or at least sentiments that could be read that way. But all that counts is what happens in the 16 days before the current legislative session concludes.

The theory is that New York is so “pro-choice” that if Cuomo markets the provision in the right verbiage, politicians will fall prostrate at his feet. Erica Orden of the Wall Street reports, “A Cuomo administration official said the bill’s language was crafted to create ‘a real litmus test on Roe v. Wade for members of both parties, making it impossible to vote against for anyone who wants to say they support a woman’s right to choose.’”

Or, as Cuomo has said, “There is a simplicity and a clarity to the ‘choice’ language,” adding, “You’re pro-choice or you’re not pro-choice.” That 70-80% of the American public draws lines in the sand that Cuomo gleefully would erase makes no difference to the son of former pro-abortion New York Gov. Mario Cuomo. In other words, there is a difference between being “pro-choice” in the abstract and accepting abortions long after unborn babies can feel pain or have reached viability.

Numerous reports mirrored the language of Newsday’s lead: “Flanked by leaders of numerous women’s groups…”

Indeed, as Kirsten Smith, spokeswoman for New Yorkers for Life, told the Daily Gazette: “It is fitting that the Governor unveils his abortion expansion language today, on the day that Planned Parenthood has organized buses to come to come to Albany to support his agenda. One need only follow the money to see that Planned Parenthood’s abortion industry would be the beneficiary of any expansion of late-term abortion in New York… New Yorkers do not benefit. They would be forced to pay more taxpayer dollars for abortion, and they will be compelled to support abortion even if it is contrary to their convictions.”

For more, see, “A Trojan Horse— a beautifully gift-wrapped package of death and destruction.”

If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. Reprinted with permission from National Right to Life News

Truth. Delivered daily.

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

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement

In-utero laser surgery saves unborn twins

Dave Andrusko
Dave Andrusko
Image

A tip of the hat to ABC 13 News which broadcasts in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia and especially to reporter Lucy Bustamente for her terrific story about Ella and Anna Springer. The twins were born February 21 at 32 weeks and are doing fine.

However, no one could be sure there would be a happy outcome when Crystal Springer, then 22 weeks pregnant, learned that her babies had a condition known as twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome.

TTTS is rare and potentially lethal, and occurs only in identical twins. In TTTS one sibling, called the recipient, takes too much blood from the other–the “donor twin”–who can suffer stunted growth as a result, or die.

More specifically, “The shared placenta contains abnormal blood vessels, which connect the umbilical cords and circulations of the twins,” according to the Twin to Twin Transfusion Foundation. “The common placenta may also be shared unequally by the twins, and one twin may have a share too small to provide the necessary nutrients to grow normally or even survive.”

When Mrs. Springer and husband Nick, a sailor on USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, learned that Ella and Anna had TTTS, “I felt like I failed them,” Mrs. Springer told Bustamente. “I thought I did something wrong to cause this.”

But “they went right from the doctor’s office to Eastern Virginia Medical School to meet with Jena Miller, MD, a Maternal-Fetal Medicine specialist,” Bustamente explained. Dr. Miller counseled that they operate immediately because the undernourished baby could go into heart failure. Miller recommended a laser procedure–performed in the womb– to separate the blood vessels.

The December 9 operation went “perfectly,” Miller explained, but the babies weren’t out of the woods yet. “Dr. Miller knew still it was not time to celebrate,” Bustamente told her viewers. “The twins had a 40% chance of dying since the [abnormal blood] vessels could form again.”

Thankfully, they did not.

The couple wanted Dr. Miller to deliver the twins, because she had done so much for them and their children. She made it just in time to perform the C-Section on February 21. Anna was born healthy at 5 pounds, seven ounces. Ella weighed in at 4 pounds, seven ounces, and also was healthy.

The girls went home after six weeks in the Special Care Nursery at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital, and there is every reason to believe Anna and Ella will develop normally.

“The new Sentara EVMS Fetal Care Center at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital provides in-utero treatment for many fetal conditions once considered life threatening or treatable only after birth,” ABC Channel 13 News reported. “It’s the only site of care in Virginia and one of few on the East Coast to perform laser therapy for TTTS.”

And the Springers were the first beneficiaries. As Mr. Springer told Bustamente, they have twin girls “who sleep through the night and eat well.”

Reprinted with permission from National Right to Life News

Share this article

Advertisement

Wednesday begins two days of expert testimony in case of man who slipped abortifacient to girlfriend

Dave Andrusko
Dave Andrusko
Image

It seemingly came out of the blue. John Andrew Welden admitted tricking his then-girlfriend Remee Jo Lee into taking misoprostol (Cytotec)last March with the intention of causing Ms. Lee to miscarry her 6-7-week-old unborn baby. His lawyers had worked out a plea bargain so that Welden pleaded guilty to lesser charges of consumer product tampering and conspiracy to commit mail fraud as part of a plea bargain to avoid first-degree murder charges under the NRLC-inspired Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

The September agreement between prosecutors and defense attorney Todd Foster recommended a prison term of 13 years and eight months for Welden. And then….

Last month U.S. District Judge Richard A. Lazzara, clearly influenced by a court filing submitted in June by Welden’s attorney, Todd Foster, told both parties that “The Court has grave concerns with regard to whether there exists a true factual basis to support” the plea bargain parties have already signed.

Foster’s filing included an affidavit from Dr. Rebecca Allen, who teaches obstetrics and gynecology at the medical school at Brown University, who “opined that it would be ‘impossible’ for one 200 microgram dose to have caused serious bodily harm and also ‘impossible’ for anyone to definitively say that it induced Lee’s abortion,” according to Patty Ryan, reporting for the Tampa Bay Times.

Judge Lazzara delayed the sentencing and promised to take testimony from experts on the “potency” of Misoprostol—specifically whether a single 200 microgram dose could have induced Ms. Lee’s miscarriage. That is what the court will hear today and tomorrow.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Originally a federal grand jury indicted Weldon on two federal charges, one of them a murder charge made possible by the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act legislation that was instigated by NRLC and signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2004. Had Weldon been convicted on that charge, Weldon would have faced a mandatory life sentence without parole.

Weldon told Ms. Lee that his physician father said that she had an infection and he was bringing her antibiotics. After scratched identifying markings off the Cytotec pills, Welden then put the fraudulent label on the empty pill bottle and put the altered Cytotec pills inside. (Cytotec can be used to induce contractions.)

Welden “also affixed a second label to the bottle reading, ‘Amoxicillin: 125mg oral tablet,’ a common antibiotic,” according to reporter Elaine Silverstrini. Ms. Lee began feeling severe pain and cramps, The Tampa Times reported, and “On March 31 [2013], she went to Tampa General Hospital, where she was told the unborn child was dead.” Ms. Lee’s baby was estimated to be 6-7 weeks old.

Reprinted with permission from NRLC

Share this article

Advertisement

Skeptical panel hears arguments against portions of pro-life Texas bill

Dave Andrusko
Dave Andrusko
Image
Image
Image

A three-judge federal appeals court panel Monday heard an hour-long debate over the constitutionality of two sections of HB 2, a pro-life 2013 Texas law.

The consensus, for what it’s worth, among media accounts is that judges Jennifer Walker Elrod, Catharina Haynes, and Edith Jones were skeptical of the plaintiff’s arguments made on behalf of Planned Parenthood and a number of abortionists by Janet Crepps, a lawyer for the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel did not indicate when a decision would be rendered on U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel’s October ruling which overturned portions of HB2. Whichever way the panel rules, the case is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Plaintiffs challenged two portions of HB2. The first requires that abortionists have admitting privileges to a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic. The second addresses how chemical abortifacients are administered. The law requires the abortionist be in the same room as the woman receiving the chemical abortifacients (which is not the case with so-called ‘web-cam” abortions) and that abortionists follow the protocol approved by the FDA for the use of the two-drug “RU-486” abortion technique.

Crepps and Texas Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell sparred over the intent and the impact of the provision requiring that abortionists have admitting privileges in a local hospital.

Crepps argued that the law would force abortion clinics to close, and that the Rio Grande Valley area of Texas in particular would be without an abortionist. As a result pregnant women seeking abortions would have to drive 150 miles to have an abortion, Crepps told the panel.

Mitchell rejoined that the plaintiff’s “burden is to show that that 30-mile radius is unconstitutionally burdensome everywhere through the state.” He added, “And they have not met that burden here.”

A key question raised in court and in court filings was whether an absence of abortionists stemmed from HB2 or unrelated factors. For example, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has stated that “there is no medically sound basis for H.B. 2′s privileges requirement.”

Judge Haynes asked (according to the paraphrase of Andrea Grimes of RhRealitycheck.org) why “if ACOG’s group of thousands of OB-GYNs in Texas felt abortion was an essential procedure, more of them didn’t perform abortions themselves. If more of them didn’t sign on to perform the procedure, thereby reducing access to abortion, she said, ‘that is not a creature of HB 2′s making.’”

Crepps responded that doctors [abortionists] are afraid of violence and harassment. To which Judge Jones asked, “And what did Dr. Gosnell do?” a reference to the abortionist convicted in 2013 of three counts of first degree murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter.

Pro-abortionists say that more than a dozen abortion clinics have closed because of the law, although some (apparently four) have reopened. The obvious question is how many others will sudden ly reopen in the weeks and months to come.

In a November 22 court filing, the state of Texas argued that the new requirements promote the health and safety of women and advance the state’s “interest in protecting fetal life.”

“Although some opponents of (the law) have questioned whether the statute’s health-and-safety benefits will outweigh the costs imposed on abortion providers, the Supreme Court allows states to resolve disagreements within the medical community over the proper standards of practice.”

As NRL News Today reported, on October 28 Judge Yeakel ruled that the admitting privileges provision places an unconstitutional burden on women’s access to abortion. Three days later a 5th Circuit panel (which included two of the judges who heard oral arguments yesterday) allowed Texas to enforce the law while the state appealed Yeakel’s decision.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

In a 20-page decision, Judges Priscilla R. Owen, Jennifer Walker Elrod, and Catharina Haynes wrote, “[T]here is a substantial likelihood that the state will prevail in its argument that Planned Parenthood failed to establish an undue burden on women seeking abortions or that the hospital-admitting-privileges requirement creates a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion.” (See nrlc.cc/1iuZmDM.)

On November 28 the U.S. Supreme Court voted not to block (“stay”) the appeals court’s action allowing the law to be enforced.

HB 2 was passed in July by the Texas Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Perry. The overall bill is best known for pro-abortion state Senator Wendy Davis’s filibuster which temporarily foiled the will of the legislature and the people of Texas. Davis subsequently used the enormous media attention she received as a springboard to announce that she was running for governor.

As NRL News Today has reported, the silence of pro-abortionists was deafening on Texas’ Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. That law which prohibits aborting babies capable of feeling pain, was never challenged and went into effect in October, the same day Yeakel issued his injunction.

Reprinted with permission from NRLC

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook