Posted on 07/27/2008 10:18:59 AM PDT by wagglebee
Concerned Women for America (CWA) applauds South Dakota for taking a stand to protect the unborn. The 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals recently ruled that South Dakota’s informed consent law may now be enforced. This law requires physicians to tell women who are seeking abortions that “the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living being.” Physicians are also required to provide a description of all the medical risks of the procedure, including depression and increased risk of suicide.
CWA President Wendy Wright says, “Women want and need to know that abortion kills a baby. Abortionists in South Dakota testified that they refuse to give this information, even when asked by patients. That’s why this law is needed, to ensure that women receive the facts before choosing a procedure that will alter their life and end their child’s.”
Linda Schauer, State Director for CWA of South Dakota, says, “H.B.1166 has been in the courts since the middle of 2005 when the district court placed an injunction on it. I wonder how many women since then would have decided against an abortion had they been given the information that the abortion would terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.”
The Aberdeen News reported that while the informed consent law was passed in 2005, it was not enforced due to the injunction filed against it by a South Dakota district judge. The injunction was issued after Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law and the presiding judge believed that they had a good chance of winning their case. In a recent article, WorldNetDaily reported that “Planned Parenthood moved for the preliminary injunction against the law, arguing it would ‘violate physicians’ free speech rights by compelling them to deliver the State’s ideological message.’” The Appellate Court lifted the injunction after deciding that Planned Parenthood had not provided enough evidence to support its claim and was unlikely to win the case. South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long stated, “The bottom line is if the state Legislature orders a professional to tell the truth, that’s not a violation of the First Amendment.”
While several news sources covered this story, Linda was disappointed with the overall lack of media attention in South Dakota surrounding this significant victory for the unborn. “I wonder if the media would have been more interested if this had been a victory for Planned Parenthood instead of for women and children,” she said.
Excellent observation!
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
geese, Luise.
__________________________________________
The media doesn't want to remind women that pro-aborters advocate the termination of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.
So, the babe in the womb is a "whole, separate, unique, living being." You could say the same thing about a preborn horse. Or a cow. Or a chicken.
However, if they are a human being and a PERSON [and they most certainly are], regulating abortion this way is a travesty. The Constitution explicitly protects the lives of ALL innocent PERSONS.
Less Democrats = More Babies
I don’t know what that means.
Persons are persons.
My belief is that the Constitution has ALWAYS protected the unborn:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"Posterity" means succeeding generations (i.e. those not yet born) and LIFE is certainly the foremost of the "blessings of liberty" that the Founding Fathers fought to secure.
Absolutely. And even Blackmun, the author of horrendous Roe vs. Wade decision, admitted that if a child in the womb was a PERSON, they are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. It’s right in the text of the decision itself.
There is no longer any scientific doubt that a child in the womb is a human person, with unique DNA.
Those who continue to support abortion do so with no grounding in fact for their phony arguments.
They are the destroyers not only of tens of millions of helpless chidren, they are the destoyers of our form of government and the very basis of our liberty.
I submit that those who admit that an unborn child is a person, but still support abortion “rights” in any form, are WORSE than Blackmun.
To bad the MainSTream Republicans .... like Hannity and Rush will not talk about abortion. In fact its not even mentioned on Hannity’s list of things to do for the repubs.
I agree.
Amen.
This is good news.
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
It means Democrats support abortions and by getting them out of the majority, more babies will be born.
Considering the fact that John McCain isn’t pro-life in any way that matters, and that seven of the nine sitting “justices” of the SCOTUS were put there by Republicans, I just don’t believe such claptrap anymore.
Exactly the same number of babies will be killed whether the Democrats or McCain “Republicans” are in power.
Count Barackula: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Count Barackula and the Soviet Anthem
Oh, and didn't he have a problem with the US National Anthem? Something about his hand not able to touch his heart? He Who Must Not be Named has no normal heart.
Why do I sometimes call Dum-bama COUNT BARACKULA? His goal is for legalized murder of infants AFTER THEY ARE BORN!
I've given this problem a lot of thought. They do defend pro-life sometimes in subtle ways. But it is an incredibly painful topic. There is a monumental energy level that could be tapped into [I offer a suggestion below], but talk radio hasn't yet learned how to harness the power of raw lightning yet [or pro-life callers]. We are talking about matters of life and death. Imagine having a phone bank. And every loved one whose family member is murdered EACH DAY gives you a phone call. It would ultimately drive you nuts.
When they toss out a bold statement on abortion— our outspoken minority [we have a RIGHT in every sense to be outspoken on this]— and which most in talk radio happen to agree with— is tempted to jump on with emotional rants / preachings / etc. that are irritating to other listeners who have learned all their lives to ‘live with it’.
I'm able to compartmentalize— as are many FReepers. We care deeply about abortion. Most of us try to restrain ourselves from ranting publicly. But people who don't go to forums jump on that phone and burn up the lines with their rage with such fervor that it doesn't change anyone's mind.
If only we could educate our fellow pro-lifers to compartmentalize, to detach themselves enough to make unique points, then their calls would make for good radio.
As for another oblique solution— those in talk radio could try accepting no more than two calls a day that are pro-life [and perhaps two pro-choice calls]. Or maybe just three calls one day out of the week. They could announce when that quota has been filled and threaten to ban any phone numbers from calling again [for one or two months or even longer] if they break the ‘caller rules’. The ‘abortion call rules’ could even be explained by computer message before they reach the screener.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.