partial birth abortion

"This Is What We're Trying To Expose And End"

The image below and this note is from our friends LiveAction.org:

This is the reality that we are trying to expose and end.

Please consider sharing this graphic to raise awareness of what abortion actually does to small humans. Education is the key to changing hearts and minds.

While the abortion industry, its lobby, its activists and apologist politicians perversely try to sanitize abortion as "women's health" or "choice" or "contraception" or, worse still, opposition to abortion as some type of "war on women" when the only casualties are the injured and maimed women and the dead women and children from abortions — first-trimester, late-term and botched — is Orwellian beyond what the great man himself could've imagined.

While we strive for new laws and more enlightened court decisions, they will not come until the culture changes. That will happen only as more people learn the truth and accept the challenge to create a culture of life. As macabre as it may sound, we have more and more opportunities to spread the truth in the digital age because the pro-abortion side — the culture of death — can't help itself. By nature, evil is an in-your-face force. It will be its own undoing. The question is how long will that take? The more we engage the public with material like this, the sooner that glorious day will come.

Photo: This is the reality that we are trying to expose and end.</p><br /><br /><br />
<p>Please consider sharing this graphic to raise awareness of what abortion actually does to small humans. Education is the key to changing hearts and minds.

Living by their own words kills the unborn. But here you have it. Far from being considered extreme, abortion on demand is taken for granted as mainstream among the Left.

It's Pretty Ugly

Imagine any business that had multiple cases of taxpayer fraud, Medicaid abuse, a history of health and safety violations, including violations of standard practices that put people at risk. Such a business, you would think, would be investigated by the mainstream media and be inviting left wing regulations to the point of nearly closing it down. But there are exceptions to every rule, and for the left, Planned Parenthood is the exception.

The general public's perception of Planned Parenthood is that of a caring non-profit that offers important health care to women. Polling indicates that a majority of Americans are unaware that Planned Parenthood does abortions, and they certainly aren't aware that abortion makes up one-third of their corporate income. They also aren't aware of the cases of Medicaid fraud that have taken place at Planned Parenthood facilities across the country.

Our friends at Alliance Defending Freedom are doing all they can to expose Planned Parenthood for what it is — a profit hungry corporation that puts children and women at risk. To expose Planned Parenthood, ADF has created www.itsprettyugly.org, a website that shows the kind of materials Planned Parenthood promotes to our children (warning, some are offensive), a list of current and past lawsuits against Planned Parenthood, and ways that you can help show your friends and neighbors exactly what Planned Parenthood is — a $1.5 billion corporation that hides its true agenda from the public and does all it can to separate parents from their children.

I hope you'll go to www.itsprettyugly.org and learn more about the real Planned Parenthood.

This organization has fought against every common sense bill in Virginia, from banning the gruesome procedure of partial birth abortion to parental involvement with their children to abortion center health and safety standards. They are never held accountable by the mainstream media when it comes to their rhetoric and they are spending millions in Virginia on elections this year alone (including underwriting the website of Democrat gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe). It has had success simply because too many people don't really know its true agenda. It's time to uncover the truth.

McAuliffe Opposes Abortion Center Safety Measures Supported By Gosnell's Lawyer!

Hand it to Terry McAuliffe. He won't back down. Not to the abortion industry. Not even to the point of being more pro-abortion than convicted baby murder Kermit Gosnell's lawyer. Even former President Bill Clinton, of whom McAuliffe is one of the biggest of FOBs (Friends of Bill) wants abortion "Safe, legal and rare." But McAuliffe has drawn a stark contrast between himself and a super majority of Virginians and Americans at large — even those who support abortion, but recognize the abomination it has become in abortion centers, such as the "Houses of Horrors" run by Gosnell and others. Last week, the Susan B. Anthony List released a statement describing the extreme position McAuliffe has taken on abortion center safety standards and how even Jack McMahon, the defense attorney for the recently convicted Gosnell, who said his client suffered from the "baby factor," supports oversight of abortion centers and certain restrictions on their procedures. Here is the entire news release:

Terry McAuliffe Opposes Abortion Clinic Regulations Supported by Gosnell Attorney

Jack McMahon Says He Supports Increased Regulation of Clinics, Late-Term Abortion Limit

WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week Jack McMahon, defense attorney for convicted murderer and late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell, told FOX News' Megyn Kelly that he supports increased regulation of abortion clinics as well as a ban on abortion past 16-17 weeks in order to forestall crimes like those Gosnell committed. In light of McMahon's statements, Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) President Marjorie Dannenfelser blasted Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe's opposition to increased health and safety standards for the Commonwealth's abortion facilities.

"Weeks of graphic testimony detailing the horrors and conditions inside Kermit Gosnell's Philadelphia abortion clinic was enough to sway even Gosnell's own attorney,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “If McMahon can agree that women going into abortion facilities must be treated with basic dignity and respect, why can't Terry McAuliffe? Virginia women are increasingly disturbed that a politician who seeks to represent women would oppose such elementary efforts to protect our health and safety.

“Kermit Gosnell isn't alone. More than 80 violations were discovered inside Virginia abortion facilities last year. Unsafe, unsanitary conditions — not to mention barbaric abortion practices — continue to be exposed nationwide. Shame on McAuliffe for refusing to join the General Assembly and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli in standing up for Virginia women. Women deserve better than his extreme abortion ideology.”

Last month, McAuliffe's campaign was asked by the Washington Post to confirm or deny that he supports “a platform of abortion on-demand at any time, for any reason, paid for by Virginia taxpayers,” including “sex-selective abortion, late-term abortion, partial-birth abortion, and abortions on teenage girls without parental consent — all paid for by Virginia taxpayers.” McAuliffe spokesman Josh Schwerin declined to comment to the Post.

The SBA List has compiled an ever-expanding fact sheet on abortion industry negligence and brutality toward women and children occurring nationwide.

Terry McAuliffe: Too extreme for Bill Clinton; too extreme even for convicted killer Kermit Gosnell's attorney!

President Obama And Abortion: Not One Restriction

The following article was written by John McCormack at The Weekly Standard Blog:

At the end of the vice presidential debate Thursday night, Joe Biden and Paul Ryan lobbed charges of extremism at one another on the issue of abortion. "The Democratic party used to say they want [abortion] to be safe, legal, and rare," Ryan said. "Now they support it without restriction and with taxpayer funding, taxpayer funding in Obamacare, taxpayer funding with foreign aid. The vice president himself went to China and said that he sympathized or wouldn’t second-guess their one-child policy of forced abortions and sterilizations. That, to me, is pretty extreme."

Biden shot back, saying that Ryan has "argued that, in the case of rape or incest, it was still — it would be a crime to engage in having an abortion. I just fundamentally disagree with my friend." Debate moderator Martha Raddatz followed up with Ryan, asking if pro-choice Americans should be "worried" about Romney, but she didn't follow up with Biden.

In the spin room following the debate, I asked top Obama officials, as well as Planned Parenthood chief Cecille Richards, if Obama's position on abortion is as extreme as what Ryan claimed. The Obama campaign denied the president favored abortion without restriction, but top Obama officials Jim Messina, Stephanie Cutter, and David Axelrod could not name a single restriction the president supports.

TWS: Mr Messina, the issue of abortion came up tonight with both sides trying to paint the other as extremist. Can you say, are there any restrictions that the president supports at any stage of pregnancy on the issue of abortion?

MESSINA: Look, we have been absolute[ly] clear. I think as you saw an absolute difference between the president and Romney on this. Romney’s position has been on four different sides. But I take him at his word that he says he will be happy to sign a bill outlawing all abortions in the United States of America. That’s not our position that’s not where the American public is. And I think it’s going to be a very difficult position for them to defend in the battleground states. Swing women voters in places like Colorado and Virginia looked at that exchange tonight that you talked about and said we cannot support this guy.

TWS: So the president doesn’t support any restrictions on abortion?

MESSINA: Look, we’ve been very clear. You know our position on abortion.

TWS: No. I asked, can you say what it is?

MESSINA: Look, don’t put words in my mouth. I’ve been very clear about our position. And that’s what it is.

TWS: Can you name one restriction?

Messina ended the exchange and moved on to another question.

Stephanie Cutter also said Obama supports some restrictions on abortion, but wouldn't say what they were:

TWS: Are there any restrictions he supports at any stage of pregnancy? Or there's no restrictions whatsover? Is that the president's position?

CUTTER: No, that’s not his position.

TWS: Then can you name one restriction that he supports on abortion?

CUTTER: He has several votes on this. We can get them to you.

David Axelrod similarly ducked questions. So I turned to Cecille Richards, the head of Planned Parenthood. "There already are restrictions on the books," she told me. But does the president support any of them? Richards said she didn't know. "I haven’t spoken to him about those," she replied.

In 2003, Barack Obama was asked if he was "all situations including the late term thing?" He answered in the affirmative.

The record doesn't appear to show that the president has ever supported any restriction on abortion. He opposes the Hyde amendment, which means he favors taxpayer funding of abortion. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion. And he opposed parental consent laws. We'll let you know if the Obama team is able to come up with any evidence showing that Obama's position is anything short of taxpayer-funded abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy.

Common Ground On Abortion?

Last week, Gallup released some very encouraging polling numbers regarding abortion regulations. Since the poll didn't relate to homosexual activity or signal growing support of abortion, the national news media decided you didn't need to know. We did. The poll, conducted in July and released last week, shows that even self-identified "pro-choice" Americans are more likely to support laws prohibiting abortion after the first trimester except for the most extreme circumstances. A majority polled also stated that abortion should be illegal in all or most circumstances. Support was overwhelming for laws such as parental consent, informed consent and bans on partial birth abortion, all of which we have successfully passed in Virginia.

It seems that the extreme abortion industry, led by Planned Parenthood and NARAL, have seen that they are rapidly losing ground in the area of public opinion. Rants on NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia's blog chastise the General Assembly for passing the most reasonable and widely supported abortion measures, such as parental consent and informed consent. As public opinion continues to move toward life, the pro-abortion rhetoric gets more desperate — and peculiar. In Arizona, for example, Planned Parenthood argued against a requirement that abortions be performed by a licensed doctor, calling it an "undue burden." Luckily, the state appeals court last week unanimously rejected its argument. (See another Planned Parenthood deception, here, at LiveAction.org. You won't believe the new low road it's taken.)

Clearly outside the mainstream, these organizations continue to advocate abortion on demand throughout pregnancy with no restrictions and no oversight — and support forcing you to pay for it. Except for a very few, such thinking is clearly beyond the values most Virginians share and explains why pro-abortion candidates that take these extreme positions are fewer and fewer in number.

We understand that, as with polling on homosexual behavior and marriage, opinions on abortion often are confused and conflicting. One isolated media poll does not the truth make. For example, within a few days earlier this summer two separate polls came to opposite conclusions on the issue of same-sex marriage. Regardless of the polling, all that really matters is that the 31 times the issue has been put to a vote, traditional marriage has won. Plus, Virginians continue to send pro-marriage legislators to Richmond.

The same holds true for the issue of abortion. Virginians have been sending more and more pro-life legislators to Richmond in recent elections, indicating that the abortion polling numbers may be on to something. As we've said for years, more and more Americans — and Virginians — are becoming pro-life every day. The results are the passage of reasonable, common sense measures, such as abortion center safety regulations. Consequently, we look forward to having more pro-life advocates in the General Assembly this coming January.

NARAL To Rescue Rick Boucher In VA-9?

They say you can judge one's character by the company he or she keeps. Not surprisingly, Virginia 9th District U.S. Representative Rick Boucher is keeping company with the nefarious, abortion-at-all-costs liberal pressure group NARAL, which works hand-in-hand with the equally devious Planned Parenthood. Not one satisfied only to guarantee so-called "abortion choice," NARAL works to make partial-birth abortion — a procedure that kills a baby near full term and able to live outside the womb — legal. Now it's come to light that NARAL is throwing in with Rep. Boucher's re-election campaign.   Mr. Boucher tries to position himself as a moderate despite his voting record (he received a 25 percent rating on the FRC scorecard and a 22 percent rating on economic issues from the Club For Growth), and the status as one of one of Barack Obama's favorite members of the House. Not calling off NARAL and the extremism it propels won't help counter that way-left-of-center record he's accumulated, nor his out-of-touch persona developed in 28years of holding office in Washington. (Did you hear about his car purchase with campaign funds?)  

Recent polls show Rep. Boucher's opponent, House of Delegates Majority Leader Morgan Griffith, who is pro-life, closing fast, which may be a sign as to why NARAL has joined the fight on Mr. Boucher's behalf. That's usually a sign, anyway: when the cover of an ally is blown, or when he or she is in desperate straights, the radical group figures it has nothing to lose and comes riding in hard and fast. The voters of Virginia's 9th Congressional district must decide how much it has to lose by having a representative from NARAL as their congressman.

Lindsey "Call Me Billy" Graham Invokes Jesus To Vote To Confirm Kagan

It's bad enough when Nancy Pelosi bungles the Gospel into an incomprehensible defense of her disingenuous and destructive public policy and legislative pursuits. Anything to rationalize the righteousness of ramming through unconstitutional laws against the will of the people. But when U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) (see LifeNews.com) invokes Jesus' Golden Rule on the Senate floorto excuse his incomprehensible decision to vote to confirm Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, he not only ignores his constituents (see NewsMax.com), he shirks his responsibility to the U.S. Constitution by granting someone who doesn't believe in it as written the power to redefine America (see TheRightScoop.com). The irony of invoking Jesus to put on the Supreme Court someone who believes in partial birth abortion and who, by virtue of that position, will have a huge say in determining the legality of that infanticidal practice, is abominable. But listen closely. In untwisting his verbal pretzel, Senator Graham is really saying that we must treat Barack Obama as he would treat us. If that's true, then surely there was no reason to vote to confirm Ms. Kagan.

His bumbling foray into non-germane, nonsensical and impromptu theology is appalling and confounding. By contrast, his South Carolina colleague, Senator Jim Demint, voted against her confirmation (Miami Herald). The blowback from this, another in a long line of disappointments from the senator, is that a primary challenge in 2014 now is more likely, according to the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza at The Fix Blog. By the way, both of Virginia's senators, Jim Webb and Mark Warner, predictably, voted to confirm her.

Here's the video, but CSNNews.com has much more:

Senator cum preacher Lindsey "Call Me Billy" Graham on the Senate floor explaining how Jesus inspired him to vote to confirm Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court despite her disregard for constitutional principles.

Great Eye For The Constitution

As we've been researching the legislative voting records of Bob McDonnell and Creigh Deeds in preparation for media interviews, we came across something rather interesting. In 1998, then Delegate Deeds voted in favor of HB 1154, a ban on partial birth abortion. That law eventually was struck down by the courts as being unconstitutional. Then, in 2003, Senator Deeds voted against SB 1205 and HB 1541, also bans on partial birth abortion. That law was recently upheld by the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

So, as a legislator, Deeds voted for a bill that was found unconstitutional and against a bill that was found constitutional. Great legal analysis by a current member of the Senate Courts of Justice Committee and someone who, should he be elected governor, will be tasked with analyzing the constitutionality of hundreds of bills that land on his desk.

40 And 50 Year-Old Deeds

Not surprisingly, in all the fuss over "the thesis" is the complete inattention given to Democrat gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds' flip flops on social issues. He's says he's not for abortion, but calls opposition to partial-birth abortion "extreme;" he was against "special rights" for homosexuals (his words in his own campaign ad), and now says anything but special rights for homosexuals is somehow discriminatory; and he voted for the Marriage Amendment twice in the General Assembly to place it before the voters, but now wants it repealed. We're waiting for the Mainstream Media to pin him down on this and/or for the senator to come clean on his own. After all, to paraphrase Senator Deeds himself, he didn't write these things when he was 34 — he wrote them, spoke them and voted them in his 40s and 50s.

Virginia News Stand: August 16, 2009

Annotations & Elucidations The Sunday Times

I had all sorts of wit and wisdom to make your Sunday evening or Monday morning a true pleasure, but I was derailed. Hey, you got two gems prior to this! So, let me point out some of the links of interest below. First, scroll down to the National News section, where two Virginians get a national spotlight, including Senator Ken Cuccinelli (R-37, Fairfax). The Republican nominee for attorney general is highlighted in Human Events.

Meanwhile, the statewide press chronicles Democrat gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds' leftist pandering on abortion "rights" and tax increases, all while his campaign is undergoing a major shakeup (according to the Washington Post). But don't miss our friend Jim Hoeft's analysis at Bearing Drift of Deeds' and the Virginia Democrat Party's attack on Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell. Apparently the Democrats have no problem with the barbaric infanticide that is partial birth abortion.

News:

Gubernatorial candidate McDonnell pitches his views to police (The Daily Press)

Deeds presses pro-choice argument (Norfolk Virginian-Pilot)

Deeds dodges call for taxes for roads (Washington Times)

Deeds would sign tax-increase bill (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

Shake-up or Not, Deeds Campaign is Changing (Washington Post Virginia Politics Blog

Assembly candidates focus on economy (Charlottesville Daily Progress

Fewer Va. schools meet federal math, reading standard (Richmond Times-Dispatch

N.Va. Students Improve, But Schools Fall Short (Washington Post

E-mails from public overload Congress Web site (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

National News:

Cuccinelli's AG Bid Solidifies Virginia Conservatives (Human Events)

Allen Tries to Shake Off the 'Macaca' Shadow (Washington Post)

School prayer charges stir protests (Washington Times)

Analysis:

DPVA supports partial birth abortion? (BearingDrift.com)

Virginia News Stand: August 11, 2009

Annotations & Elucidations The Answer Is . . . Abortion!

If Virginia's gubernatorial campaign was modeled after the game show Jeopardy!, where the answers are the clues and the questions are the answers, Democrat candidate Creigh Deeds' response to the word "abortion" would be, "What is the winning campaign issue?" It may be, but not the way he's going after it. First, he's the one way out of touch. As a well -publicized poll showed earlier this year, a majority of Americans now consider themselves pro-life. But a super majority of Americans always have been against partial-birth abortion and for parental consent. So, who's the extremist here?

But what makes this a particularly odd move by Deeds is that he has simply proclaimed it! That is, out of nowhere, he has flat out declared this is the issue of the campaign. As if he declares the ground rules. Okay, maybe he does. So at the first and only debate, thus far, with Republican Bob McDonnell, Deeds said the "social" issues wouldn't be a big part of his campaign. Talk about decisive leadership!

Still, it remains funny that Deeds thinks he can make up the rules of the campaign (being far down in the polls does not dictate a position of strength); that he blurts it out of nowhere; that he contradicts himself; and, after all that, picks a losing issue.

Enjoy your briefing today from the News Stand. We are pleased to start off with video from WTVR/CBS6 in Richmond, which interviewed our very own Chris Freund about the Deeds gambit.

Video:

*Deeds goes after McDonnell on abortion (2:34) (WTVR-TV/WTVR.com)

  

The Family Foundation's Vice President-Policy and Communications Chris Freund is interviewed by Richmond CBS affiliate WTVR-TV/6.

News:

Economy, abortion rights focus of gubernatorial race (Richmond Times-Dispatch

Deeds picks off political scab: abortion rights (Roanoke Times

Deeds targets abortion issue (Washington Times)

Deeds Throws Abortion Gauntlet (Washington Post)

Commentary:

Desperate Deeds (Ramesh Ponnuru/Right Matters Washington Post Blog)

Statement From The Virginia Society For Human Life On The 4th Circuit’s Upholding Of Virginia’s Partial Birth Abortion Ban

OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF THE VIRGINIA SOCIETY FOR HUMAN LIFE ON THE RULING BY THE 4TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UPHOLDING VIRGINIA'S LAW BANNING PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION

The Virginia Society for Human Life applauds the decision of the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals today which upheld by a vote of 6 to 5 Virginia's Partial Birth Infanticide Ban. This vital piece of pro-life legislation protects the lives of unborn children from the gruesome procedure known as "partial birth abortion." During such an abortion a living late term unborn baby is partially removed from his/her mother's womb and the skull is punctured allowing the baby's brains to be sucked out.

The procedure also puts the baby's mother at grave risk of future complications both physical and psychological. It is a clear victory for the lives of babies and their mothers in Virginia that the Court has upheld this reasonable and important law.

"There is no doubt that the Virginia's Partial Birth Abortion Infanticide Ban will save the lives of hundreds of Virginia babies from this horrible and violent procedure. The mothers of these children deserve medical care that respect and protect their lives as well, rather then subject them to the dangers of abortion. Partial birth abortion is a deadly act that the people of Virginia have rightly rejected through the General Assembly and the Court was correct to uphold this important law," said Olivia Gans, president of the Virginia Society for Human Life.

VSHL is very grateful for the leadership of the office Attorney General of Virginia, in particular Mr. Bob McDonnell for successfully guiding this issue through the courts during his term of office.

Mark Warner Gets Extra Credit

U.S. Senator Mark Warner likes to position himself as the consummate middle man — not one, says he of himself, of either extreme. We're not so sure of that. After all, the man couldn't bring himself to sign the partial birth abortion law when he was governor. The General Assembly, with broad bipartisan support, overrode him on it. Supporting the extreme brutality of partial birth abortion isn't exactly a middle of the road position.  However, Virginia's new junior senator did show some good policy sense as well a bit of bravery in bucking the majority of his party on March 10. He was one of only two Democrats who voted to keep Washington, D.C.'s school choice law from expiring (see the Club For Growth here). We applaud him for that. (West Virginia's Robert Byrd was the other Democrat and Connecticut's independent, Joe Lieberman, who caucuses with the Democrats, also voted to extend the law.) Nevertheless, the amendment failed. Unless something changes, D.C. school children, who have vastly improved their test scores and other measurements of success over the last several years because of the school choice law, will revert to the old, monopolistic, failed public school paradigm — Go to school where you're told young man and young lady!

Of course, modern American liberalism claims to be for change, moving forward, progress, and not returning to the "old, backward ways" that conservatism supposedly represents. But educational choice and the competition it fosters among schools is change from the old ways; it has moved D.C. students forward in their educational development; and, accordingly, they have made progress in their lives. Allowing school choice to die in D.C. is a return to the old ways of the ineffective, inefficient education monopoly — unless, of course, you are extremely wealthy and can afford the suburban D.C. prep schools. So, which philosophy represents the little guy?

Everyone agrees education is one of the pillars in leading a productive life. Yet some in Congress apparently don't want disadvantaged students to get that leg up, despite the popularity of school choice among D.C.'s parents, politicians and students.

President Obama campaigned in favor of school choice while sending his children to elite private schools. It remains to be seen whether he will try to rectify this sad turn of legislative events. His endeavors to exert government control over currently free enterprises is not a good omen for fostering competition in government run schools. However, at least Mark Warner understood. Although we may disagree with him on many other issues, at least on this one, he deserves extra credit.

Family Foundation's 2009 Legislative Agenda: Funding Abortion, Planned Parenthood

In the past three budget years, you have sent nearly $200,000 to the nation's largest private abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, which, by the way, makes millions of dollars nationally. Between 2006 and 2007 you paid for more than 300 elective abortions (not involving rape or incest).

Federal law requires Virginia pay for low-income abortions in cases of rape and incest. The Commonwealth, however, has decided to go beyond the requirement and fund "elective" abortions as well — hundreds of them. This taxpayer support of elective abortion is unnecessary and must end.

Likely, those numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. The Commonwealth of Virginia hasn't exactly been forthcoming with information regarding how much taxpayer money is going to Planned Parenthood and to fund abortions, requiring multiple Freedom of Information Act requests from The Family Foundation and legislators. The real numbers are yet to be determined.

But whatever the case, taxpayer funding of these entities must stop!

For several years, The Family Foundation and our many pro-family partners, have worked to put an end to taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood in Virginia. In 2008, we came ever so close and, for the first time, had budget language pass both the House and Senate that would have done just that, only to see the language left out of the final budget. We will work once again in 2009 to eliminate this funding.

Planned Parenthood, a national political behemoth, had an income in its last fiscal year of more than $1 billion. Incredibly, nearly one-third of that income comes from you, the American taxpayer. In its last annual report Planned Parenthood reported more than $330 million in government — i.e., taxpayer — grants.

What is this money used for?

Planned Parenthood is the largest private provider of abortion in the United States, performing more than one quarter of all abortions, or nearly 300,000 in 2006. As the national abortion rate has gradually declined in recent years, Planned Parenthood's abortion number continues to increase by double digits.

It is an organization that works everyday to end abstinence education in our schools and to replace it with their own agenda, a so-called comprehensive sex education program that results in more kids engaging in risky behaviors, more sexually transmitted diseases among our teenagers, more teenage pregnancy and, yes, more abortions — from which it profits.

It is an organization that supports the barbarity of partial birth abortion. It is an organization that fears beyond imagination the thought that a woman contemplating an abortion might have the opportunity to view an ultrasound of her unborn child.

It is an organization that does not need a "bailout" from the taxpayers (which is what we've provided it all these years).

As lawmakers face a $4 billion spending surplus and complain about not being able to balance the budget, they can start with the unnecessary taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood and elective abortions. The Family Foundation will support budget amendments this year that do just that.

More On Life From Nat Hentoff

As we posted last week, liberal and pro-life columnist Nat Hentoff wrote an insightful column about liberal politicians' pro-abortion views. That column ("Democrats and abortion") is very well worth the read (click here). This week, he's followed up with another brilliant piece ("Abortion wars crescendo")  which we cannot  recommend highly enough for you to read as well (click here). In it, Hentoff highlights some astounding — and very unfortunate — shifts in the Democrats' national platform. In a telling sign of just how far left those who controlled the levers of power at its convention are, the party even eliminated the Bill Clinton abortion platform plank of "safe, legal and rare." (Wonder if Hillary would've left that in?)

It also is "strongly and unequivocally" supportive of Roe v. Wade and opposes  any attempts to "weaken or undermine it." (Which shows more than a sad policy position. It shows weakness and hypocrisy at best, and ignorance at worst. Most liberals think an overturn of Roe would ban abortions. It would not. It would return the decisions to the states. If the country is so supportive of abortion on demand, what are pro-aborts afraid of? A little democracy? Why so afraid of a little voting here and there?)

Here are some other jaw droppers from Hentoff: 

» Barack Obama is a co-sponsor of the "Freedom of Choice Act" that would make partial-birth abortion legal, contrary to a Supreme Court decision. (Why is it okay for pro-aborts to try to change a Supreme Court decision, but not for pro-lifers?)

» For you libertarians who don't think abortion is an issue, Obama is leading the way repeal the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion. (Joe Biden also supports taxpayer funding of abortion despite what he said to Tom Brokow per his September 7 Meet The Press interview. Click here for the record. In fact, Hentoff notes from The Nation, that Biden has a perfect 100 percent rating from Planned Parenthood.)

» Obama voted in the Illinois Senate to block a bill requiring the notification of at least one parent of a minor from another state seeking an abortion in Illinois.

» The well know fact, by now, that Obama voted to deny life-saving treatment to babies born despite surviving an abortion.

» Hentoff cites from an August 24 Washington Times editorial, "Planned Parenthood Targets Blacks," (read here) that one-third of all its abortions in 2007 were performed on blacks and a majority of its facilities are in minority neighborhoods.

Speaking of Planned Parenthood's apparent racial profiling, Hentoff ends by citing a black leader, a prominent Democrat, who once was fiercely eloquent in his defense of life. Until he, too, ran for president. Said this man several years ago:

"Don't let the pro-choicers convince you that a fetus isn't a human being. That's how the whites dehumanized us. ... The first step was to distort the image of us as human beings in order to justify that which they wanted to do and not even feel like they had done anything wrong."

That man is the Reverend Jesse Jackson.

Virginia Catholic Conference Statement On The Fourth Circuit Panel's Ruling

Virginia Catholic Conference Executive Director Jeff Caruso issued the following statement in reaction to the 2-1 decision to strike down Virginia's partial-birth abortion ban by a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals:

I cannot imagine that protecting the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion is what our country's Founders had in mind when they crafted our Constitution over 200 years ago. Yet, somehow two judges have found a way to declare Virginia's ban on the procedure unconstitutional, and to thereby thwart  — at least for now  — the clear and common sense of our state's citizens that a child who is almost entirely born should never be the victim of this brutal practice. I certainly hope a higher court will remedy the grave harm done by the 4th Circuit panel.

The Virginia Catholic Conference represents the public-policy interests of the Commonwealth's Catholic bishops and their two dioceses. There are 633,220 registered Catholics in Virginia: 413,360 in the Diocese of Arlington and 219,860 in the Diocese of Richmond.

Breaking: Fourth Circuit Court Strikes Down Virginia's Partial Birth Abortion Ban 2-1

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Virginia's partial birth ban by 2-1 decision in Richmond Medical Center v. Herring. (Read the opinion here.) This is horrible news. Hopefully, Attorney General Bob McDonnell will appeal to the full court or to the United States Supreme Court. After all, this case was heard because of a Supreme Court ruling that upheld another partial birth abortion ban. Read our summary of the hearing in early November here, as well as more impressions we had after the oral arguments here. (On those threads are links to legal opinions and audio of oral arguments in other key pro-life cases which played a role in this hearing.)

The decision was somewhat expected given the dispositions of Judges Diana Motz and M. Blane Michael, whose questions toward Virginia Solicitor General William Thro were clearly antagonistic. Judge Paul Neimeyer, on the other hand, seemed through his questioning, inclined toward upholding the law. Accordingly, the former two judges voted to overturn the law and the latter voted to sustain it.

More to come, possibly today, definitely tomorrow.

Rehearing Babies' Deaths

The Richmond-based U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Thursday regarding Virginia’s Partial Birth Infanticide statute. The Virginia law, originally ruled unconstitutional (on a 2-1 vote) by the same three-judge panel who presided yesterday, was revisited because of an April decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Carhart. In that case, the justices ruled 5-4 in favor of upholding a certain partial birth abortion ban. (Hear those oral arguments.)

Lost in the argument regarding whether a facial or as-applied challenge was appropriate, was the gruesome details of the procedure that Virginia seeks to ban. Even more disturbing is what the Virginia law does not ban because of the woman’s constitutional right to kill her child. We learned in the argument that a Richmond abortionist believes that it is appropriate to begin to perform an abortion, accidentally deliver, and then set the child aside to die. In fact, based on the argument yesterday, this act is not just constitutionally protected, but Virginia’s partial birth infanticide ban would not make the act illegal. A child born at 19 or 20 weeks is callously laid to the side and left to die of natural causes. Virginia’s law would ban abortionists from accidentally delivering the child and then stabbing the child in the skull.

How can it be appropriate to deliver a child and let the living breathing child die a slow death because the doctor believes him to be pre-viability? With advances in technology, infants are becoming viable at earlier ages. Why shouldn’t doctors have an obligation to try and save a living, breathing child? At the end of life, we provide comfort to those who are terminally ill and do everything we can medically to ease the pain and suffering. Yet, a baby born at 19 weeks is thrown aside like garbage.   

Oh, and by the way, the General Assembly has twice rejected Family Foundation efforts to provide anesthesia to the babies who die by partial birth abortion as well as those who die of natural causes because the “procedure” didn’t go as planned.