Kristi Burton Brown

Think forced abortion doesn’t happen in America? Think again.

Kristi Burton Brown
By Kristi Burton Brown
Image

Oct. 28, 2013 (LiveActionNews.org) - Many well-kept secrets are difficult to believe, once revealed. And most Americans would assert that forced abortion does not take place in our nation. Unfortunately, the only true part of that statement is that our laws do not force abortion (unlike China’s One Child Policy). However, many women across our nation are indeed faced with forced abortion.

It’s a reality and a well-kept secret for too many women. Girls are returned to their rapists and to situations of incest because their violators force them to get abortions, and abortion clinics allow it. Boyfriends, husbands, and parents threaten harm and homelessness unless a woman consents to abortion. Abortion doctors force abortions on women even after the women change their minds.

When these stories make the news, Americans feel revolting disgust. But what are we doing to stop forced abortion in our culture? How are we giving women and girls the help they need to resist forced abortion?

Take, for example, that often deliciously hilarious site, Yahoo! Answers. But for all the silly questions posed and all the out-of-place answers given, there are also true cries for help that can be found.

One woman wrote:

My boyfriend and I have been together for nearly two years and I love him so much. Even though we are just “friends” right now we still talk and have that connection. Well, I found out I was pregnant by him… again. I ended my first pregnancy with an abortion but I just can’t go through that again. His mind is made up, he doesn’t want the baby. He told me that I am getting an abortion. To be honest, we are too young to be parents and I’m not quite ready either. His little comments like “You’re not having this baby if I have anything to do with it” kind of scare me. I am willing to have this baby and give it up for adoption to a loving family since we are young. Can he make me get an abortion since he is the father? …

I based the first abortion on my parents and our lifestyle. My mom always tried to portray the “perfect family” image. I did not want to humiliate my dad either, but having an abortion was a difficult decision for me. I am still an emotional wreck for terminating the life of a would be beautiful, intelligent baby.

Another young woman explained her situation:

im 15 weeks pregnant and I want to keep my baby no doubt about it! im 18 years old…Although I got pregnant and im so happy about it so is the father of my baby hes willing to give his arm and leg for this baby and his family is really supportive and willing to help when we need. I knew I was pregnant since I was 6 weeks since then i’ve been to all my prenatal appointments on time I heard my baby’s heartbeat for the first time at 8 weeks and was given an ab scan to determine my baby’s real age. the doctor says my pregnancy is right on track and my baby is developing on time if not faster then expected it moves from time to time and i already received it’s insurance card and my first official sonogram is next week. I am in love with my baby…however my moms side of the family is really strict and my mother likes to throw a lot in my face about money and how she gives me everything and she over reacts to the slightest thing so i kept my pregnancy from her till now and she told me she doesn’t believe in abortion but she is pushing me to get an abortion she scheduled my appointment for tomorrow at 8 and everything i want her to realize that this is my life and i want to live it and i did this to my self i want to be there for my kid i want her to realize she has to let go of me and not baby me anymore she told me if i abort my baby shell support me for as long as i want but i know my mom that’s not the case i want to prove to her i am an adult and i will give my life for my kid but she wont hear it the same way shes trying to be a mother and look out for me im being a mother and looking out for my kid but idk how to tell her this please someone who’s been through this help me out i really don’t want to give my baby up and i don’t want her to hate me either how can i please both sides and also can she force me into an abortion against my will?

There is so much sadness in both of these situations. One of the worst things is that women – especially young women – are in danger of believing that they can be forced to get an abortion by their boyfriends or parents. Thankfully, in both of these Yahoo! threads, multiple people assured these women that no one could force them to get an abortion. One answerer directed the first woman to pregnancy resource centers.

It’s important for pro-lifers to be involved in stopping forced abortion in our own nation. We should get on sites like Yahoo! Answers and direct struggling women to places – like pregnancy resource centers and legal organizations like ADF and Texas Center for Defense of Life – that can provide them with the help they need. We should let them know that they usually can pursue restraining orders against parents or boyfriends or husbands who are trying to force abortion. They can – and often should – pursue legal action.

Of course, women who may be victims of forced abortions aren’t always on Yahoo! Answers. Some have no idea where to go for help. So we need to continue to spread the message everywhere that abortion cannot be forced. We need to let women know that if they are taken to a clinic against their will, they can tell the nurses, the counselors, the doctors – anyone and everyone – that they do not want the abortion and that they are being forced. We need to let them know that they can talk to people standing outside abortion clinics, tell them they do not want an abortion, and ask for help.

Women who do not want an abortion should never be forced to get one. And they must be told that they are not required to submit to anyone who is trying to force an abortion on them. Spread the news that pregnancy centers and legal organizations help women and girls in these situations. And if you are a volunteer at a pregnancy center, an attorney, a pro-life person who stands outside a clinic – or anyone else in a position of opportunity – watch for these women and tell them what their rights really are.

**For a great guide on how to use Yahoo! Answers to share pro-life truth and offer resources to women in need, check out this article by Live Action’s Lucy LeFever.

***To read more about hidden forced abortion in America, read the 21-page report here.

Reprinted with permission from LiveActionNews.org


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

,

Arguments don’t have genitals

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren

“As soon as he grows his own uterus, he can have an opinion.”

That was a comment left on The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada’s Facebook page by a woman who presumably opposes men speaking out against misogyny, domestic abuse, rape culture, and female genital mutilation as well. Apparently, you see, male genitals disqualify people from speaking out on various human rights issues deemed by women who define themselves by their uteruses while protesting angrily against being defined by their uteruses as “women’s issues.”

Which abortion isn’t, by the way. It’s a human rights issue.

To break it down really simply for our confused “feminist” friends: Human beings have human rights. Human rights begin when the human being begins, or we are simply choosing some random and arbitrary point at which human beings get their human rights. If we do not grant human rights to all human beings, inevitably some sub-set of human beings gets denied protection by another group with conflicting interests. In this case, of course, it is the abortion crowd, who want to be able to kill pre-born children in the womb whenever they want, for any reason they want.

Science tells us when human life begins. Pro-abortion dogma is at worst a cynical manoeuvre to sacrifice the lives of pre-born human beings for self-interest, and at best an outdated view that collapsed feebly under the weight of new discoveries in science and embryology. But the abortion cabal wants to preserve their bloody status quo at all costs, and so they make ludicrous claims about needing a uterus to qualify for a discussion on science and human rights.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

In fact, feminists love it when men speak up on abortion, as long as we’re reading from their script, which is why the carnivorous feminists have such a support system among the Deadbeat Dads for Dead Babies set and the No Strings Attached Club.

Male abortion activists have even begun to complain about “forced fatherhood,” a new cultural injustice in which they are expected to bear some responsibility for fathering children with women they didn’t love enough to want to father children with, but did appreciate enough to use for sex. Casual fluid swaps, they whine, should not result in custody hearings.

This is not to mention a genuine social tragedy that has men forcing or pressuring women to have abortions or abandoning them when they discover that the woman is, indeed, pregnant.

Or the fact that abortion has assisted pimps, rapists, and misogynists in continuing the crimes of sex trafficking, sexual abuse, and sex-selection abortion.

And coming against these disgusting trends are thousands of men in the pro-life movement who believe that shared humanity means shared responsibility, and that when the weak and vulnerable are robbed of their rights, we have to stand up and speak out.

We are not at all convinced by the feminist argument that people should think with their reproductive organs or genitals. We think that the number of people currently doing that has perhaps contributed to the problems we face. And we refuse to be told that protecting the human rights of all human beings is “none of our business” and “outside of our interests.”

Arguments don’t have genitals, feminists. It’s a stupid argument trying to protect a bloody ideology.

Reprinted with permission from CCBR.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Rachel Daly

,

Gvmt strikes UK Catholic school admission policy that prefers Mass attendees

Rachel Daly
By Rachel Daly

St. Joseph's Catholic Primary School in Epsom, England, was ordered to change its admissions policy after it was ruled discriminatory by the nation's Office of Schools Adjudicator, according to Your Local Guardian. St. Joseph's reportedly had been granting preferred acceptance to students whose families attended Mass at the affiliated church.

St. Joseph’s School is for students from age 4 to 11 and describes itself as “enjoy[ing] a high level of academic success.” The school furthermore places high priority on its Catholic identity, affirming on its homepage that “We place prayer and worship at the center of everything we do.”

The school states in its current admissions policy that it was "set up primarily to serve the Catholic community in St Joseph’s Parish" and that when the applicant pool exceeds 60 students, its criteria for prioritizing students includes "the strength of evidence of practice of the faith as demonstrated by the level of the family's Mass attendance on Sundays." 

Opponents of this policy reportedly argue that since donations are asked for at Mass, it could allow donation amounts to influence acceptance, and that forcing non-accepted local students to seek education elsewhere imposes a financial burden upon their families. 

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

As Your Local Guardian reports, the adjudicators dismissed claims that donation amounts were affecting school acceptance, given that it is impossible to track donations. Nonetheless, the adjudicators maintained that "discrimination ... potentially arises from requiring attendance at the church rather than residency in the parish."

The Office of Schools Adjudicators, according to its website, is appointed by the United Kingdom’s Secretary of State of Education, to perform such functions as mediating disputes over school acceptances. The Office's ruling on St. Joseph's will require the school to release a revised admissions policy, which is expected in the next few days.

Reprinted with permission from the Cardinal Newman Society.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Carolyn Moynihan

African women at risk of HIV, hostages to birth control

Carolyn Moynihan
By Carolyn Moynihan

Which should be the priority for a health organisation: preventing an incurable disease, or preventing a natural function that might have adverse physical consequences?

Preventing the disease, you would think. But the World Health Organisation would rather expose African women to HIV-AIDS than withdraw its support from a suspect method of birth control, arguing that childbirth is also risky in Africa. Riskier, apparently, than the said contraceptive. And at least one of WHO’s major partners agrees.

This is one of the stories you will not have read in coverage of the International AIDS Conference held in Melbourne last week, despite the fact that WHO made an announcement about it during the conference and the findings of a highly relevant study were presented there.

The story is this: there is increasing evidence that the method of contraception preferred by family planning organisations working in Africa (and elsewhere) facilitates the transmission of HIV. The method is the progesterone injection in the form of either DMPA (Depo Provera, the most common) or NET-En (Noristerat).

Millions of women in sub-Saharan Africa receive the injection every three months. The method overcomes problems of access. It can be given by nurses or health workers. A wife need not bother her husband for any special consideration; the teenage girl need not remember to take a pill.

But for 30 years evidence has been accumulating that, for all its “effectiveness” in controlling the number of births, the jab may also be very effective in increasing the number of people with HIV.

Three years ago at another AIDS conference in Rome, researchers who had analysed data from a number of previous studies delivered the disturbing news that injectables at least doubled the risk of infection with HIV for women and their male partners.

That study had its weaknesses but one of the experts present in Rome, Charles Morrison of FHI 360 (formerly Family Health International, a family planning organisation that also works in AIDS prevention), considered it a “good study” and subsequently led another meta-analysis that addressed some of the issues with previous research.

Last week at the Melbourne conference he presented the results. His team had re-analysed raw data on the contraceptive use of more than 37,000 women in 18 prospective observational studies. Of these women, 28 percent reported using DMPA, 8 percent NET-En, 19 percent a combined oral contraceptive pill, and 43 percent no form of hormonal contraception. A total of 1830 women had acquired HIV while in a study.

The analysis showed that both injectables raised the risk of infection by 50 percent:

Compared to non-users [of any hormonal contraceptive], women using DMPA had an elevated risk of infection (hazard ratio 1.56, 95% CI 1.31-1.86), as did women using NET-En (1.51, 95% CI 1.21-1.90). There was no increased risk for women using oral contraceptives.

Similarly, comparing women using injections with those using oral contraceptives, there was an elevated risk associated with DMPA (1.43, 95% CI 1.23-1.67) and NET-En (1.30, 95% CI 0.99-1.71).

Morrison also noted:

The results were consistent in several subgroup and sensitivity analyses. However, when only studies which were judged to be methodologically more reliable were included, the increased risk appeared smaller.

Morrison acknowledged that observational studies such as the FHI analysis depended on have their limitations. He is looking for funding to conduct a randomised controlled study – something that, after 30 years of suspicions and evidence, still has not been done.

So what is his advice to the birth control industry? Stop using this stuff in regions with a high prevalence of HIV until we are sure that we are not feeding an epidemic?

No.

One reason is that FHI is at least as interested in contraception as it is in HIV prevention. Though its website reflects a broad range of development activities, its core business is integrating birth control programmes with HIV prevention. The WHO – one of its partners -- describes the US based, 83 percent US government funded non-profit as “a global health and development organization working on family planning, reproductive health and HIV/AIDS.”

Another reason is that FHI 360 has a vital stake in precisely the kind of contraceptives that are under suspicion. Its annual report refers to:

Our trailblazing work in contraceptive research and development continues, as we develop and introduce high-quality and affordable long-acting contraceptives for women in low-income countries. Research is under way to develop a new biodegradable contraceptive implant that would eliminate the need for removal services. We are also working with partners to develop an injectable contraceptive that would last for up to six months. Currently available injectables require reinjections monthly or quarterly, which can be challenging where health services are limited.

That project is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and USAID.

So Morrison did not argue in Melbourne for restrictions on the use of injectables, and neither did the WHO, whose representative at the conference outlined the UN body’s new guidelines on contraception and HIV. Mary Lyn Gaffield said a review of studies up to – but not including Morrison’s – did not warrant a change to WHO’s policy that DMPA and NET-En should be available, without restriction, in areas of high HIV prevalence.

The most WHO will advise is that women should be informed of the risk:

“Women at high risk of HIV infection should be informed that progestogen-only injectables may or may not increase their risk of HIV acquisition. Women and couples at high risk of HIV acquisition considering progestogen-only injectables should also be informed about and have access to HIV preventive measures, including male and female condoms.”

Condoms? How do they defend such cynicism? By equating the risk of HIV with the risks of motherhood – complications of pregnancy or childbirth, maternal death and the effect on infants... And yet motherhood remains risky precisely because 90 percent of the world’s effort is going into contraception!

Seven years ago a meeting of technical experts convened by WHO to study the injectables-HIV link showed the reproductive health establishment worried about that issue, to be sure, but also concerned that funding was flowing disproportionately to HIV-AIDS programmes, setting back the cause of birth control. The integration of family planning and HIV prevention spearheaded by FHI 360 looks like they have found an answer to that problem.

Whether African women are any better off is very doubtful. They remain pawns in a game that is, above all, about controlling their fertility. They and their partners are encouraged to take risks with their health, if not their lives, while researchers scout for funds to do the definitive study.

FHI had an income of $674 million last year, most of it from the US government. Couldn’t it give Charles Morrison the money to do his research today?

Reprinted with permission from Mercatornet.com.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook