Mississippi governor: The Left’s ‘one mission in life is to abort children’
TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI, April 26, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – The governor of Mississippi says Barack Obama and others who opposed a bill he signed this month to raise health standards at the state’s lone abortion clinic are hypocrites whose “one mission in life is to abort children.”
Governor Phil Bryant blasted “the hypocrisy of the Left,” which “says that I should have never signed” a law requiring all state abortionists to be certified OB-GYNs with admitting privileges at a local hospital. He said abortion advocates are more interested in assuring the state’s only abortion clinic, Jackson Women’s Health Organization in the state capital, stays open than they are in preserving women’s health.
“They don’t care if the mother’s life is in jeopardy, that if something goes wrong that a doctor can’t admit them to a local hospital, that he’s not even board certified,” he said.
“You would think that Barack Obama and all those on the Left that love so much to talk about women’s health care would rush to support this bill,” he said. He stated the bill assured a woman’s “life and safety to be paramount.”
“The true hypocrisy is that their one mission in life is to abort children, is to kill children in the womb,” Bryant said.
Mississippi Right to Life President Barbara Whitehead told LifeSiteNews.com it was common sense to require medical specialists to have “expertise in that field,” and to be able to send women to local hospitals in the case of botched abortions. “The doctors who actually perform the abortions are coming in from out of state, so they don’t really have a connection to the state,” Whitehead said.
She said the same logic is behind the Left’s opposition to a bill MRTL favors that would ban tele-abortions, a practice in which doctors prescribe an abortifacient drug without ever meeting their patients. “If you’re really concerned about women, you’re not going to send them in to see a doctor on a TV screen,” she said.
Gov. Bryant has said he longs for the day Mississippi is “abortion-free.”
“I clearly said I want to end abortion in Mississippi,” he said Tuesday. He previously supported the state’s Personhood amendment.
(Click “like” if you want to end abortion!
Lieutenant Governor Tate Reeves said the new law “should effectively close the only abortion clinic in Mississippi.” Felicia Brown-Williams, regional director of public policy for Planned Parenthood in Hattiesburg, said she was “sick about this” bill after it passed. The clinic’s owner, Diane Derzis, has threatened to sue if she is unable to comply with the bill, although similar laws have been upheld in other states.
The clinic is in the midst of another political battle, as Reeves is currently blocking the nomination of Dr. Carl Reddix to the State Board of Health because of his role in referring the clinic’s patients to local hospitals.
Reddix, who was nominated by former governor and one-time presidential hopeful Haley Barbour, told local media he did not perform abortions but referred the victims of other doctors to the emergency room.
“Having a doctor [on the state board] who does have a relationship with the abortion clinic does not seem to me to make a lot of sense, especially since there are problems there to begin with,” Whitehead told LifeSiteNews. Its members “have not been following all the guidelines for the abortion clinic,” she said.
“We believe that Governor Bryant will put somebody in there who will make certain that the health department will follow the laws.”
The governor made the remarks Tuesday on American Family Radio‘s “Family Radio’s Today’s Issues” with American Family Association president Tim Wildmon and Family Research Council president Tony Perkins. AFR is based in Tupelo.
A full transcript of the segment follows the video.
Gov. Bryant: You would think that Barack Obama and all those on the Left that love so much to talk about women’s health care would rush to support this bill, would just say, “Absolutely we want the strongest health care. We want admissions privileges. We want that women that is going through that abortion for her life and safety to be paramount.” Well, it should be the paramount of the child.
Even if you believe in abortion, the hypocrisy of the Left that now tried to kill this bill – that says that I should have never signed it – the true hypocrisy is that their one mission in life is to abort children, is to kill children in the womb. It doesn’t really matter. They don’t care if the mother’s life is in jeopardy, that if something goes wrong that a doctor can’t admit them to a local hospital, that he’s not even board certified. We passed that bill, and I think you’ll see other states follow. And when that happens, at least these fly-in abortionists are going to be regulated under the state laws of the Medical Procedures Act here in the state of Mississippi, as they should be across the nation.
Tony Perkins: Well the driving factor is profit for many of them.
‘Little miracles’: Mom gives birth to naturally-conceived quintuplets after refusing ‘selective reduction’
AUSTRALIA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A 26-year-old Australian mom has given birth to five healthy babies, all conceived naturally, after refusing the doctor’s advice that she must abort three of them in order to give the remaining two a better chance at life.
“After my initial ultrasound I was told I could consider the selection method to give 2 babies the best chance in life,” wrote mom Kim Tucci in a Facebook post last September.
“I watched a YouTube video on the procedure and I cried. I could never do that! Was I selfish for not giving two the chance of 100% survival? All I knew is that I already love them and that every heart beat I heard I connect with them more. For me life starts when a heart starts beating and all I know for sure is that I will do whatever it takes to bring them into this world healthy,” she wrote.
Last Thursday Kim and her husband Vaughn welcomed the five new members into their family — one boy and four girls —increasing the number of their children from 3 to 8. The babies were born at 30 weeks, 10 weeks early, due to insufficient space in Kim’s womb. They weighed on average about 2.5 pounds.
The quintuplets’ story began last March, after Kim and Vaughn had been trying for six months to conceive just one more child for their family. Due to health complications, Kim wondered if she would ever become a mother again.
After what she thought was an extra long cycle, she decided to take a pregnancy test.
“I was feeling tired and a little nauseated and thought I would take a pregnancy test just to get the ‘what if’ out of my head. To my shock and utter excitement it was positive,” she wrote on a Facebook post.
The parents got the shock of their lives when doctors confirmed in an ultrasound examination that there was not one baby, but five.
“After a long wait for the ultrasound we finally went in. The sonographer told me there were multiple gestational sacks, but she could only see a heart beat in two. I was so excited! Twins!”
“I was moved to another machine for a clearer view and had the head doctor come in and double check the findings. She started to count, one, two, three, four, five. Did i hear that correctly? Five? My legs start to shake uncontrollably and all i can do is laugh. The sonographer then told me the term for five is ‘quintuplets,’” Kim wrote.
Even though Kim began to feel stretched to the limit with all those human lives growing inside her, she chose to focus on her babies, and not herself, referring to them as “my five little miracles.”
“It's getting harder as each day passes to push through the pain, every part of my body aches and sleeping is becoming very painful. No amount of pillows are helping support my back and belly. Sometimes I get so upset that I just want to throw my hands up and give in.”
“Sometimes my pelvis becomes so stiff I can barely walk and my hips feel like they are grinding away constantly. I'm finding it hard to eat as I basically have no room left in my stomach, and the way it is positioned it's pushed all the way back with the babies leaning against it.”
“My skin on my belly is so stretched its painful and hot to touch. It literally feels like I have hives! No amount of cream helps relieve the discomfort. I have a lot of stretch marks now. Dealing with such a huge change in my body is hard.”
“Is it all worth it? Yes!!!! I will keep pushing through,” she wrote in one Facebook post days before the babies were born.
The newborns' names are Keith, Ali, Penelope, Tiffany, and Beatrix. They were born at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Subiaco, Western Australia. Mother and babies are reported to be doing well.
View CommentsClick to view or comment.
Share this article
UN rights chief tells Catholic countries to legalize abortion over Zika virus: bishops and cardinal react
GENEVA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- The United Nations, following the lead of international abortion activists, is now urging Latin American countries hit by the mosquito-borne Zika virus to lift restrictions on abortion for pregnant women who have contacted the virus and whose pre-born children may be at risk for birth defects, including having smaller than normal heads.
The UN human rights office said today that it is not enough for South American countries to urge women to postpone pregnancy without also offering them abortion as a final solution.
“How can they ask these women not to become pregnant, but not offer… the possibility to stop their pregnancies?” UN spokeswoman Cecile Pouilly told reporters.
UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein said that governments should make available contraception and abortion services.
“Laws and policies that restrict (women’s) access to these services must be urgently reviewed in line with human rights obligations in order to ensure the right to health for all in practice,” he said.
But Brazil’s bishops strongly asserted yesterday that efforts should be made to eradicate the virus, not the people who may be infected by it.
The disease is “no justification whatsoever to promote abortion,” they said in a statement, adding that it is not morally acceptable to promote abortion “in the cases of microcephaly, as, unfortunately, some groups are proposing to the Supreme Federal Court, in a total lack of respect for the gift of life.”
Honduras Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga has also come out strongly against the notion of “therapeutic abortions” as a response to the problem. Unlike Brazil where abortion is legal in the case of rape or health of the mother, abortion remains entirely illegal in Honduras.
“We should never talk about ‘therapeutic’ abortion,” the cardinal said in a homily at a February 3 Mass in Suyap. “Therapeutic abortion doesn’t exist. Therapeutic means curing, and abortion cures nothing. It takes innocent lives,” he said.
While the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an international public health emergency February 1 on account of concerns over the virus, critics have pointed out, however, that not one death as resulted from the virus. Even on WHO’s own website the virus is described in mild terms.
“It causes mild fever and rash. Other symptoms include muscle pain, joint pain, headache, pain behind the eyes and conjunctivitis. Zika virus disease is usually mild, with symptoms lasting only a few days,” the website states. “To date, there have been no reported deaths associated with Zika virus,” it added.
Critics suspect that the crisis is being manipulated to advance an anti-human agenda on the pre-born.
“Is Zika, actually, a hideous virus that threatens to spread uncontrollably across the world creating an army of disabled children with tiny heads and low IQ’s? Or might this be a willful misinterpretation of the scarce data to manipulate public opinion and legislatures?” wrote pro-life critic Mei-Li Garcia earlier this week.
“It becomes very clear that the publicity surrounding this story has a very little to do with medicine and a lot to do with a convenient crisis that is being used by those pushing for the legalization of abortion around the world,” she wrote.
View CommentsClick to view or comment.
Share this article
Hillary’s litmus test for Supreme Court picks: They must ‘preserve Roe v. Wade’
DERRY, NH, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - Hillary Clinton has a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees - several, in fact. At a Democratic event on Wednesday, Clinton unveiled her criteria in selecting a judge for the nation's highest court.
“I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests," she said.
"We’ve got to make sure to preserve Roe v. Wade, not let it be nibbled away or repealed,” she said.
That echoes her recent call to arms speech before Planned Parenthood last month, when she stated that taxpayers must fund abortion-on-demand in order to uphold the "right" of choice.
“We have to preserve marriage equality,” Clinton said, referring to last summer's Obergefell v. Hodges case, a 5-4 ruling that redefined marriage nationwide. “We have to go further to end discrimination against the LGBT community."
Her views differentiate her from the Republican front runners. Ted Cruz has called the court's marriage ruling "fundamentally illegitimate," and Donald Trump told Fox News Sunday this week that he would "be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things." Marco Rubio has said he won't "concede" the issue to the one-vote majority.
All Republican presidential hopefuls say they are pro-life and will defund Planned Parenthood.
Her husband, Bill Clinton, raised the makeup of the Supreme Court early last month in New Hampshire, saying it receives "almost no attention" as a campaign issue.
On Wednesday, Hillary said "the next president could get as many as three appointments. It’s one of the many reasons why we can’t turn the White House over to the Republicans again.”
Clinton said her judicial appointees must also reverse the Citizens United ruling on campaign finance and oppose a recent decision striking down a portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In 2013's Shelby County v. Holder, justices struck down Section 4(b) of the act, which said that certain states and jurisdictions had to obtain permission from the federal government before changing their voting laws.
At one time, most politicians frowned upon any "litmus test" for judicial nominees, emphasizing the independence of the third branch of government. "I don't believe in litmus tests," Jeb Bush told Chuck Todd last November.
But with the rise of an activist judiciary in the middle of the 20th century, constitutionalists have sought to rein in the power of the bench.