The pro-life alternative to the Guttmacher Institute
July 5, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The abortion lobby has the Guttmacher Institute, Ibis Reproductive Health, and the California-based Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health. The pro-life movement has the Reproductive Research Audit, Dr. Jacqueline C. Harvey's attempt to fact-check the statistical claims the Left makes in while advocating the adoption of pro-abortion legislation.
The studies these well-funded think tanks churn out “are released to coincide with bills that are being pressed to overturn pro-life laws [or] pass pro-abortion laws,” she said, and often consist more of massaged statistics in service of an agenda than dispassionate analysis guided by rigid academic standards.
Harvey, who earned her Ph.D. in public administration from the University of North Texas in 2012 and serves as an adjunct scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, pours over the abortion lobby's data to check for errors, misuse of data, or “invalid” conclusions.
Harvey told LifeSiteNews.com that she enjoys wading into the heat of battle. “If there's a study out that's being used to pass a bill, that's what I focus on,” she said.
Harvey stated that reports on topics such as telemed abortions or permitting non-physicians to perform certain kinds of abortion procedures are marked by by “glaring” factual errors.
Click "like" if you want to end abortion!
For instance, a study claiming that telemed abortions reduce complications contained data showing the process actually increased the likelihood of women being injured during the procedure.
Daniel Grossman's “Changes in Service Delivery Patterns After Introduction of Telemedicine Provision of Medical Abortion in Iowa,” claimed there were 25 fewer second trimester abortions due to medical (chemical) abortion, in which a woman takes an abortion-inducing drug, often prescribed by a doctor in a remote state. The bill's proponents stated that second trimester abortions carry greater risk, so reducing their incidence would be better for women's health.
But that ignores a vital finding: “The complications are greater for medical abortion than surgical,” Harvey told LifeSiteNews. These include incomplete abortion, the aborted child not being fully expelled from the mother's womb, or even “horrible birth defects” including “missing digits [and] webbed fingers.”
“I took the complication rate of the surgical, of the medical, and of second trimester abortions,”she said. With chemical abortions becoming more widespread, women started choosing the riskier version more often, she said.
“When you ran the numbers, you found that there's an 11 percent increase in the likelihood of women suffering from complications, even taking into consideration the 25 women who did not have abortions” at a later date. “It's an increased public health risk,” Harvey said.
The bill's proponents argue that “access is worth maiming twice as many women,” she said before asking, “Or is it a money making scheme?”
In other cases, Harvey properly reframes the narrative from pro-abortion talking points to ask potentially embarrassing questions.
A recent study proclaiming the safety of 15-year-old girls taking the Plan B “emergency contraception” pill. In addition to the fact that the pill has the potential to induce an abortion, its use abroad led to increased STD rates “There's been no change in teen pregnancy rates, but there have been changes in teen STD rates,” Harvey said. This is explained in part, because “most women using [Plan B] are using it after unprotected sex. So, it's not really Plan B; it's plan A.”
Nonetheless, the pro-abortion narrative embeds itself into public discourse through help from a biased media and the financial heft the other side brings to the table.
“Guttmacher has a $14 million a year budget,” she told LifeSiteNews.com “The reason why they can do this is because pro-abortion research is a sustainable revenue center.”
“It's market research. The goal of that” research, she explained, “is to get clients.”
No one, she said, goes into the pro-life movement for the money.
“Being pro-life is not a business,” Harvey told LifeSiteNews. “We don't make anything from this, which means we don't have money to research this” the way the abortion lobby does.
One of the greatest needs is to “recruit more statisticians into the movement,” she said. Dr. Michael New of the University of Michigan at Dearborn is one intellectual so abled.
But she has recently added prominent talent to the Reproductive Research Audit's roster. She announced the addition of C-FAM.org's Rebecca G. Oas, Ph.D., and stated that Karen Malec of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer link will soon join them.
There is no alternative for combating the abortion lobby's web of statistical deceits, which it weaves “specifically to promote their legislation,” she said. She – and she hopes, soon, others like her – must double-check the underlying data so that “we can walk up to the microphone behind them” with an unvarnished grasp of the facts.
The truth, she is convinced, will win out.
‘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.
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.
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.