Abortion doctor Cesare Santangelo claims that his standard procedure is to kill the baby by severing the umbilical cord first and then waiting on the baby to die.

Hopefully we’ll get the pregnancy out intact … I cut the umbilical cord first, wait for the baby to expire, and then we do it that way.

Despite Federal law which that requires doctors to provide life-saving medical care to any born baby that survives a failed abortion attempt, Santangelo admits on tape that he will do nothing and that the baby “will expire shortly after birth.”  If born alive:

We would not help it [survive].

Santangelo works at the Washington Surgi-Clinic in Washington, DC.  See it for yourself:

Great op-ed by Mark Crutcher (link here), commenting on the trial of Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell.

Just one of the atrocities:

One witness testified about a baby they killed that was 12-18 inches long and that Gosnell joked about one of them being big enough to walk him home.  Another testified that Gosnell also joked about a baby that was writhing as he cut its neck saying, “that’s what you call a chicken with its head cut off.”

Destroying humanity:

The answer to why these atrocities would occur is not hard to find.  First, while the pro-life movement claims that abortion takes the life of a living human being, nobody on earth knows that better than the people who work at abortion clinics.  The lofty rhetoric of “choice” may insulate those who work in the political and public relations arena, but the day-to-day reality for those who provide those “choices” is to deal with the corpses and parts of corpses they pull out of their customers’ bodies.  It is an environment that inevitably destroys the humanity of those who choose to live in it.  In fact, look up the definition of “psychopath” and you will see a textbook description of the kind of person who is mentally capable of performing abortions.

On Gosnell’s defense:

 To paraphrase their position: these babies were taken to this abortion clinic to be killed and they were killed … so what’s the problem? … What they are saying is that, if Gosnell decapitated these babies while they were still inside their mothers’ abdomens – rather than a few feet away on a stainless steel table – then nothing illegal occurred.  To put it another way, the mere fact that these children were butchered is irrelevant as long as they were butchered in the appropriate location.  The tragedy is, under existing abortion law that is a viable position.  It also defines the abyss of moral bankruptcy that our legal system – and our nation as a whole – fell into on the day that Roe vs. Wade was handed down.   (emphasis added)

What the Gosnell trial is doing:

 It is forcing the intellectually honest members of our society to ask themselves why they can be so horrified by what this guy did to these babies outside the womb, but so accepting of the fact that the same things are done to babies inside the womb every day in abortion clinics all over the country.  Either the American people are legitimately blind to the hypocrisy and irrationality of that, or they have made a conscious decision to look the other way.  If it is the latter, they have no right to be outraged when the Kermit Gosnells of this world come along and rub their noses in it.  (emphasis added)

The real defendant:

The late Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, once stated that America would be judged on how it treats those at the dawn of life, those in the twilight of life and those in the shadows of life.  If he was right, then the ultimate verdict of this trial will not be rendered by the 12 men and women who made up the jury.  Instead, it will be revealed in the way the public responds to what they’ve been shown.  Make no mistake; regardless of anything that happened or didn’t happen in that courtroom, the real defendant was the American people.  (emphasis added)

To read the whole piece click here.

Truth wins out when you support CBR.

Pro-abortion professors hate it when somebody comes along to challenge their little monopoly on campus.  They control the message for 363 days a year … but then we come along with GAP for a couple of days and ruin everything!

The effect of GAP lasts much longer than just the 2 days we are on campus.  Our huge photomurals of aborted babies will remain imprinted on the brains of students and others for years, even decades.  Once people see the truth for themselves, it is much harder for leftist professors to lie about abortion, and they know it.

Some of them were so frightened at the prospect of losing their monopoly over the terms of the abortion debate, they even compared pro-lifers to people who supported lynching Black men.  (See their letter to The Spectrum here.)  How dare those rascally pro-lifers show pictures of aborted babies and compare the practice of dehumanizing and killing preborn children because they are unwanted with the practice of dehumanizing and killing other unwanted people groups?

Lemme get this straight.  Saying we shouldn’t kill people because they are young and defenseless is like lynching Black men.   Riiiiight.

UB SFL President Christian Andzel responded

It is absolutely shameful for the paid professionals at the University at Buffalo to insinuate that anti-abortionists ‘appear to have a lot in common with those who supported lynching.’ As a student in the history department and President of the Pro-Life club on campus, not only am I ashamed and appalled that my professors twisted our message to suit their point of view, but I am offended due to their false characterization of our argument. We were citing the history of oppression and voicelessness of the victims who deserved human rights and justice.

Video of prenatal development and abortion.  Says it all.

Shows images at 7, 8, 10, 11, and 24 weeks.

We’ve won the argument but lost where it counts.  So says Meredith Hunt in the Asheville Citizen-Times, responding to the recent cover article by Time magazine.  Link to Hunt’s entire op-ed piece here.  He explains

Time magazine’s Jan. 14 cover story proclaimed, “Abortion-rights activists won an epic victory in Roe v. Wade. They’ve been losing ever since.” This statement is wrong on the only scale that matters. Forty years after Roe, prenatal children are still being aborted legally in our country.

While abortion seems entrenched into our culture, in the realm of reasoned argument, the abortion choice movement has lost the game entirely.  With the advances in observing the life of children in the womb, the work to educate university students on the true nature of abortion, and the logical arguments that demonstrate the humanity and personhood even of an embryo, abortion-choice rhetoric shows itself to be empty.  It’s strong on absurdities, non sequiturs, false history, and demonizing characterizations of pro-lifers.  If you add to our intellectual victory the network of nonprofit agencies that serve women in a crisis pregnancy and confirm the compassionate heart of pro-life ideas, the defeat of the abortion choice position is total.

The problem is, legal abortion isn’t dependent on sound jurisprudence or moral reasoning.  It never was.  “Pro-choice” efforts in those directions have been no more than gauze over the power to kill.  They’re an illusion to make the terrible seem less terrible — to comfort people so they can do what they want, and to mislead the desperate.

Link to Hunt’s piece here.

.

Disturbing article by Jasmeet Sidhu regarding the sex-selection business in America.  The article is entitled “How to Buy a Daughter.”  Globally this phenomena discriminates against girls, not boys.  For example, FAB has written about sex selection in Canada, where girls are killed by abortion for the crime of being female.  However, there is evidence to suggest that American parents who seek gender-selection assistance are more likely to destroy boys.

The procedure is described as follows:

Inside a fourth-floor office suite off a palm-tree-lined street in Encino, Calif., in an embryology lab, two men wearing maroon scrubs peer into high-tech microscopes. The men are fertilizing human eggs with sperm samples collected earlier that day. After fertilization and three days of incubation, an embryologist uses a laser to cut a hole through an embryo’s protective membrane and then picks out one of the eight cells. Fluorescent dyes allow the embryologist to see the chromosomes and determine whether the embryo is carrying the larger XX pair of chromosomes or the tinier XY. The remaining seven cells will go on to develop normally if the embryo is chosen and implanted in a client’s uterus.

Obviously, human embryos are being created and then destroyed for the crime of being the wrong sex.

Many pro-abortion advocates also oppose sex selection, because they rightly fear what this phenomena will do to society as a whole.  More on that here.  Pro-lifers share this concern, but ultimately, we oppose sex selection because it destroys human beings.  We believe each and every human life is sacred and should be protected, regardless of gender.

Pictures of abortion help voters see that being pro-life is not extremism; killing babies is extremism.

A new CNN poll finds that 52% of Americans believe abortion should be illegal in all or most circumstaces, whereas 44% want abortion legal in all or most circumstances.

We are all incredulous that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and other media organs of the pro-abortion Democrat party can still get by with marginalizing pro-lifers (52% of the American public) as being the “extremists” on abortion.  That they can do it with a straight face is beyond belief.

Link to the CNN report here.  Pay attention to Questions 10 and 11 on page 13.

Trend line is not good.  Note that the nominal pro-life position (abortion illegal in all circumstances or legal in only a few circumstances) has declined from 64% in 2006 to the 52% in the current poll.

One caveat: The pro-life questions were included in a larger poll relating to the coming elections.  This could bias the results, but I’m not sure which way.

Some pro-life outlets have presented a bit more rosy picture of this poll, reporting on another question that combined “legal under most circumstances” and “legal in a few circumstances” into a non-descript “legal under certain circumstances” category that boths sides try to claim as their own.

We send money to Washington; this is what they do with it. (Photo shows abortion at 10 weeks.)

LifeNews.com has reported that the Obama administration has sent a family planning grant of $395,000 to a Planned Parenthood abortion business in Memphis, Tennessee.  (Story here.)

In a related story, we constantly hear that we have a humougous federal deficit because the working people who create wealth in this country are too stingy and won’t send enough of their money to Washington.  That money is needed in Washington, they say, so the political class can claim to be compassionate to America’s poor people.  (They love to be compassionate with somebody else’s money.)

Anyway, as long as they take our money and give it to baby-killers, their faux compassion for America’s poor will remain unconvincing, to say the least.

The Nashville Tennessean has published an extensive series on abortion in Tennessee.  Did they get it right?  Please comment below!  Here are the links:

Abortion in Tennessee

• Title Page
• About this series

The Debate

• TN, with few restrictions, attracts out-of-state women seeking abortions
• Churches shift positions on abortion
• TN man’s fight to stop embryo donation set stage for abortion rights

The People

• 2 women, 2 clinics. 1 goal: To help
• At 40, Memphis abortion clinic gets bold with its mission
• Fort Campbell woman changed mind after husband landed job
• 17-year-old knew decision as soon as she saw baby’s heartbeat
• ‘It still hurts,’ says woman who had abortion in 1979
• ‘I think God forgives and I will be fine’
• Nashville pregnancy center helps women sort out warring emotions

The Data

• Methods of abortion
• Public records on court petitions for abortions don’t exist
• States restrict abortion like never before

Blogging for The Telegraph, Cristina Odone wrote that CBR’s Gregg Cunningham got the better of BBC’s John Humphrys in their recent interview (reported here).

Professional pro-aborts learned not to debate us a long time ago — facts and logic make them look silly and they know it — but sometimes the amateurs think besting us will be easy.  This is the mistake that Humphrys made with Cunningham, and Odone pounced on it.  She wrote, in part:

Things, however, didn’t go according to plan.  Despite John Humphrys’s grilling – Humphrys brought up a comparison Cunningham had apparently made of abortion with the Holocaust – Cunningham struck a few blows himself. Yes, he was using horrific images to raise awareness of abortion – but abortion is horrific; and William Wilberforce, in his campaign to end slavery, also used disturbing images of slavery to bring home to the British public what British colonials were doing in the West Indies.

Commenters also chimed in.  Commenter Fallada wrote:

It was plain to me that, as Christina Odone suggests, Humphrys thought Cunningham would be easy prey – easily exposed as a nutcase – but Cunningham was quietly insistent, articulate, agile and sensible. In reaction, Humphrys, it seemed to me, grew increasingly irritated and slightly hysterical.  Cunningham proved one of the most effective interviewees in dealing with Humphrys that I have heard in a very long time while Humphrys sounded partisan.

Commenter JessicaHof wrote:

I, too, wondered at the idea of showing pictures, but Cunningham’s argument about Wilberforce showing pictures of the conditions in which slaves were kept seemed compelling. Slave-owners and their lobbyists, who argued that slaves were not fully human, found that one hard to support when people saw that they were.  I thought Humphrys ended up sounding shrill and somewhat indignant. How dare someone come on the programme and say something which so defied the liberal consensus, and how dare he do so in such a manner.  I have to say that Cunningham made me think again about my own attitude, which has tended to be somewhat liberal.

Entire column (including comments) here.

I recently participated in a “Dialogue and Difference”  event at George Mason University.  This is a regular program designed to stimulate discussion on the issues of the day, sponsored by the GMU School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution.  Coming on the heals of the Sandra Fluke controversy, this event would focus on “Reproductive Rights.”

I must have done OK, because one of the attendees told GMU Students for Life President Anna Maher, “At first I thought, ‘How dare they get a man to talk about reproductive rights?’  But then I found myself agreeing with everything he said.”

After an opening statement by me and the other member of the panel, we were asked all the standard abortion questions.  It was a thoughtful crowed, not given to fits of rage.  This event has a rule against visual aids, so I was unable to show abortion video in my opening remarks.  No worries on that point, because we would be doing GAP at GMU a week later!  My opening remarks follow:

Opening Statement

Introduction.  Thank you for your interest in this topic, and for the opportunity to speak with you now and answer your questions later this hour. We often talk about being on “sides” in the ongoing debate about abortion, and we do have different perspectives. But I’d like to hope that we are all on the same side; all of us here tonight want to live justly with respect to our fellow man. We disagree about who constitutes our fellow man and who does not.

Let me start out by encouraging you never to believe anything I tell you. You can’t know if either of us has his facts straight or not, unless you check it out for yourself. You can’t know if I’ve left out important facts. My conclusions might be flawed. Even if I have plausible arguments, perhaps the other “side” has decisive ones. You must do your own research and ask hard questions of both sides.

Pro-Choice?  First, let’s talk about the word “choice.”  The debate about abortion is often framed as a debate over “choice.” Some on the other side even call us “anti-choice.” That’s very clever, because, speaking for myself, I am generally more pro-choice than most abortion advocates.

For example, I believe you should have the choice whether to use contraception or not.  My employer does not take a position on the morality of contraceptives, but I don’t know any pro-lifer who endorses legal restrictions on access to contraception, as long as it does not kill another human being. And, if you want to buy contraceptives for your neighbor, you should certainly have that right. But unlike most on the extreme left, I believe Big Government shouldn’t force you to buy contraceptives (or abortions) for your neighbors if you don’t want to.

Many on the far left believe that if you are in medical school or nursing school, you should be forced to participate in abortions as a condition of getting your medical degree. Your should have no conscience protections. How is that “pro-choice”?

Unlike many on the left, I think you should be able to choose what kind of medical insurance you buy and sell. Unlike the current Administration, I believe Big Government should not decide whether you can buy the blue pill or the red pill. (Or, for that matter, what kind of light bulb you can buy.) How is any of that “pro-choice”?

Limiting choice.  But all choices have limits. The way I learned it down on the farm, your right to swing your fist ends where somebody else’s nose begins. When your choices involve the death, harm, or risk of harm to another human being, then that is one circumstance in which Government, acting on behalf of civilized society, should step in to protect the weaker from the stronger. That’s why we have laws against murder, rape, fraud, speeding, dumping toxic waste, etc.

And if anybody can prove that the preborn child is not a living human being, but something less than human, then I’m more pro-choice than anybody here.

Who is the preborn child?  There is no justification for restricting access to abortions … and a lot of what I will say tonight will make no sense at all … if the preborn child is anything less than a living human being. If anybody can prove that the preborn child is not a living human being, then I’ll happily withdraw.

But in fact, the humanity of the preborn child is not a matter of claim. Scientists, respected medical textbooks, and even abortion advocates like Peter Singer acknowledge that an individual human life begins at conception.

Current controversy not about contraception, but about abortion and who will pay for it.  Another tactic that you should be aware of is that of talking about access to contraception, as if that were in jeopardy, when the real goal is to secure government funding for abortion. This is really about abortion, who will pay for it, and what kind of profits can be made.

Nobody, that I know of, has advanced a policy proposal that would make contraception illegal, except for those methods that are not really contraceptives at all, but are, in fact, abortifacients.

Yes, there are some whose personal religious views preclude the use of contraception. There are others who simply think it’s not a good idea to use them. Others believe it is good to use them, but are concerned about creating a society with too few children. Many cultures in Europe are literally dying.  But contraception is a matter of personal morality that is best left to the discretion of the individual citizen.  [Note: CBR takes no position on contraception because it is a theological matter, as opposed to abortion, which is a matter of social justice because it kills an innocent human being. CBR opposes the use of contraceptives that can act as abortifacients.]

Your money means windfall profits for the abortion industry.  Make no mistake. When you hear the word “contraception” in the current debate, it really means “abortion”. Contraception is already cheap and easily available in the free market, as little as $10 per month. That’s not worth a fight. The fight is over abortion. If access to government funding for “contraception” can be enshrined in law, then the abortion industry needs only to find a sympathetic judge to declare that abortion is simply another form of “contraception”, equally eligible for Government funding.

Many on the Left are simply ideologically committed to the notion that Big Government should take money from the rest of us to pay for abortions. Their motivations are political and personal. But for others, the motivation is greed. As soon as Big Government is paying for abortions, you can count on the price to increase dramatically. On my blog, I’ve shown how the passage of ObamaCare could increase Planned Parenthood’s abortion revenues from around $137 million to about $1.7 billion (with a b), and ultimately could easily reach more than 3.5 billion. The profit motive is strong, to say the least.

We have the power, so  you pay.  For decades, the Left has said, “You don’t like abortions? Don’t have one.” Clever, but now we know it was disingenuous as well, because now that they wield the power of Big Government, they say, “You don’t like abortions? No matter, you will pay for them, whether you like it or not.”

Seeing is understand.  To understand what I mean when I say the word abortion, you need to see it. I can’t show it to you now, but I would encourage you to go to www.AbortionNo.org and watch the video on the home page. That’s AbortionNo.org. AbortionNo.org. You won’t like what you see.

The University of Virginia (UVa) is under fire for killing some of them.

According to the Human Rights and Scientific Honesty Initiative (HRSHI), 309 of them were killed by UVa’s own “Health” System in 1991.  They were aborted, as were 264 the following year (source).

Denied their human rights, there were no first words, first kisses, or first loves for them.  There will be no walk down the lawn for them at graduation either.

Despite their best effort to hide the fact, UVa routinely performs abortions and lies about it.  When not spreading falsehoods, UVa is simply silent about the truth and hopes people won’t ask.

But thanks to our friends Sean Cannan, Kelsey Hazzard, and others at HRSHI, UVa is being exposed and called to account (letter of February 2011).  Most recent letter here.  Excellent radio interview here.

From HRSHI’s most recent letter to UVa, here’s my favorite quotation:

You have yourself attempted to justify these killings by citing the “legal framework” of United States Supreme Court precedent of Roe vs. Wade (1973), and the “compelling personal factors” of the mother only. You completely left out the compelling personal factors of fathers and their children alike. We feel compelled ourselves to remind you that slavery was once an institution that was acceptable within the legal framework as decided by the United States Supreme Court and state laws also, that this institution was also quite popular at UVA, and that slave traders and owners had compelling personal and financial reasons for trading or owning slaves. Throughout history, many such atrocities have been justified by those pretending that the humanity of their victims can simply be removed by decree. We are here to remind you that this is neither a scientifically accurate position, nor a sustainable medical opinion for a President of the public University of Virginia in 2012.

Help us show UVa what they are really doing.  Help us go to UVa and every other college campus to expose their abortion business.

Gregg Cunningham

CBR Executive Director Gregg Cunningham was interviewed on a BBC Radio 4 news broadcast earlier today.  The interviewer was obviously an arrogant, hard-core leftist idealogue.  To hear the interview, click here.

Gregg and CBR UK Director Andy Stephenson had been scheduled to appear on a BBC Radio 5 Live broadcast 2 hours later to debate British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) abortion providers.  Regarding the second interview, Gregg wrote supporters

… they (BPAS) apparently cancelled after listening to our first interview and the BBC pulled the plug on our second appearance.  Cowards.  This is exactly why we must make our case in the public square.  The press and our opponents are determined to suppress our message.  The newspapers write about us only when they can quote the abortion industry telling scurrilous lies about us and the radio broadcasters interview us only until they discover that they can’t embarrass us on the air.

Responding to an article by Ms. Erin McCann that appeared in The Maine Campus earlier this week, I left the following comment:

Ms. McCann’s piece actually illustrates some of the very points we make with our GAP display.

But before getting into that, I should mention that, of course, abortion is not genocide … if.  (Only two letters, but it’s a big word.)

If pre-born children are not living human beings, then abortion does not kill humans and there is no relevant similarity between abortion and genocide. But if pre-born children are living human beings — science tells us they are both alive and human — then abortion kills 1.2 million humans every year in the U.S. If not genocide, what else would we call it?

But back to Ms. McCann and her penchant to demonstrate the very behaviors we cited in the GAP display. If you examine historical episodes of genocide, you find that the perpetrators always frame their arguments in the language of choice. Stephen Douglas, when he debated Abraham Lincoln in 1858, said that the Southern states should have the right to choose whether to be slave states or free states. Individual slave owners were simply exercising their choice on whether to own slaves or not. You can almost them say, “You don’t like slavery, then don’t own one!” For those who perpetrated the Holocaust in Europe, they were simply exercising their choice to have a racially pure state.

Ms. McCann spoke of our Maine Director Leslie Sneddon as a “token.” She should realize that ad hominem attacks and name-calling are no substitutes for reasoned arguments. Yes, our staff is about half men and half women. It is unclear to me how the genders of various CBR staff and volunteers have anything at all to do with the important questions of (a) whether it is ever morally acceptable to kill human beings without justification and (b) what criteria will be used to decide which humans may be killed and which humans must be protected.

Ms. McCann is correct about one thing. She notes that, “Isn’t it interesting how the male can do whatever he pleases, but the female must live with the consequence? Only the female is left with the decision between ‘right and wrong.’” Sadly true. Reminds me of something Mark Crutcher often says, “Abortion is something done by men, to women, for the benefit of men.” So many males — I cannot use the term “men” to describe such people — want sex without responsibility. They use every trick in the book to get it. But when cancer-causing birth-control hormones are passed out, who gets to ingest those? When the worst symptoms of STDs show up, who bears that burden? When somebody gets pregnant, which one is it? It’s always the woman.

His response is often to threaten abandonment. It can be an overt threat or a thinly veiled one, such as, “It’s not my decision, it’s yours … Whatever you want to do.” In other words, “The decision … and especially the guilt that goes with it … are yours alone; I’m going to go hide somewhere until you get it taken care of.” (With testicles like that, you wonder how he could even make sperm.)

Feminist Susan B. Anthony had some words for him: “Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!”

As it turns out, “free” sex ain’t so free, and it’s the woman who most often has to pay the price. The sad irony is that every bit of it flies under the banner of “women’s rights.”

Nicole Cooley is Silent No More on the steps of the US Supreme Court. See video below.

Nicole Cooley testified about her story of rape and abortion on the steps of the US Supreme Court building at the 2012 March for Life.  Nicole is the Virginia Project Director for the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR).

A video of Nicole’s remarks is shown below.  Here is the text:

I am here today because I deeply regret the abortion I had four weeks after being raped.  There is no good reason to have an abortion.  All the logical reasons fail to keep your heart from breaking when it’s over.

If, like me, you were raped, and you think you can’t bear nine months of pregnancy, I can tell you from experience the seventeen years of regret have been worse.  I realized too late that my baby was a gift from a loving God who wanted to give me a purpose for my pain.

I want women facing this decision to know you can carry to term; you can choose the adoptive parents, and set your own terms, if you wish.  You can live without the tears, the regret, and the nights of despair – or worse.

The abortion clinic I went to provided no verbal counseling and instead gave me a handful of papers with words I couldn’t read through my tears and shaking.  The anesthesiologist told me, “It will be over soon.”  She was wrong.   The abortion was the beginning of the real nightmare for me.

I had no idea how the abortion would affect me.  The abortion made healing from the rape infinitely more difficult by compounding the trauma.  Before the abortion I cried daily.  Afterwards, I shut down emotionally.

The rape and abortion made my life a living hell.  I had nightmares beginning the night of the rape.  Countless nights, I have woken up crying.  The anguished tears I have cried are unlike any other despair I’ve ever experienced, including the death of close family members.

The rape and abortion crushed my spirit.  Abortion robbed me not only of my joy, but also the essence of who I am by making me turn against my own child.

Since the rape and abortion, it has been very difficult for me to trust men.  I am only married today because God sent me an incredibly gentle and patient man.  I have difficulty trusting doctors.  Annual exams are often stressful and painful.  The subsequent births of my sons and daughter with my husband have been very difficult because of an unnatural fear of pregnancy and childbirth.

Abortion is not the answer for rape.  It never was.  But God is the answer for the pain.  My faith in Jesus Christ has not only healed me, but given me the courage to speak out and provided a purpose to all that I have suffered.  This is why I choose to be Silent No More!

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0qtwb1e4E0