Abortion

Posted by admin on March 5th, 2010 and filed under abortion | 25 Comments »

Angie the Anti-Theist talking briefly about my decision to have an abortion, recorded during the actual process of my at-home medical abortion-by-pill. (You can read more on this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RU486 )

To follow things in real time or read my hatemail after the fact, go through the Twitter hashtag #livetweetingabortion or follow me @antitheistangie

You can read more about my decision and experience on my blog at http://angietheantitheist.blogspot.com

Read the real-life positive abortion stories of hundreds of other women at http://www.imnotsorry.net and http://www.45millionvoices.org/index.html

UPDATE: You can follow media on this from various sources, below.

Why I’m Having an Abortion: The Friendly Atheist http://bit.ly/aqFlzL

Choices: Angie the Anti-Theist http://bit.ly/9q6r0t

The Mark (audio interview) http://bit.ly/9GWpyj

The Frisky http://bit.ly/9jD2Je

Brief Update: Angie the Anti-Theist http://bit.ly/aknyu6

Salon http://bit.ly/bzxRza

ABC News http://bit.ly/d8PZIK

Media Circus: Angie the Anti-Theist http://bit.ly/9OW9Bv

Duration : 0:2:36

Read the rest of this entry »

Abortion: Responding to Questions

Posted by admin on March 5th, 2010 and filed under abortions | 25 Comments »

Responses to questions posed by a YouTuber called RoevsWade.

Links to the reports by the Guttmacher Institute to which I refer in the video:

“An Overview of Abortion in the United States”

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/presskits/2005/06/28/abortionoverview.html

“Reasons U.S. Woman Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives”

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

By the way, the bit from the Toad the Wet Sprocket song “Good Intentions” at the top of the video pertains to Marc Hauser’s research on how human beings make moral judgments, which I briefly mention in the video. It doesn’t really pertain to the topic of abortion. So let’s just say it sounds good even though it’s unrelated to the main topic. ;-)

Honors for This Video:
#37 – Top Rated (Today) – People & Blogs
#43 – Most Discussed (Today) – People & Blogs

Duration : 0:9:59

Read the rest of this entry »

Bush Signs Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 News / Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video

Posted by admin on February 19th, 2010 and filed under abortion laws | 25 Comments »

Description: George Bush Signs Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 Date: 11/5/2003 Length: 11.85 minutes Political Video Link: http://www.politicalvideo.org/node/1031Original Link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031105-1.html
This item is part of the collection: blip.tv
Creative Commons license: Public Domain. The Congress finds and declares the following: A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion — an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child’s body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child’s skull with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child’s brains out before completing deliveryof the dead infant — is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited. The partial birth abortion has been performed legally in the United States for years. It is neither a “rare” procedure, nor is it done only for babies who are severely deformed or dying. It is, essentially, a variant of the even more common and equally gruesome Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) procedure. In 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell presented his paper on this procedure at a Risk Management Seminar of the National Abortion Federation. He personally claims to have done over 700 himself (Interview with Dr. Martin Haskell, AMA News, 1993), and points out that some 80% are “purely elective.” In a personal conversation with Fr. Frank Pavone, Dr. Haskell explained that “elective” does not mean that the woman chooses the procedure because of a medical necessity, but rather chooses it because she wants an abortion. He admitted to Fr. Frank that there does not seem to be any medical reason for this procedure. There are in fact absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother (Dr. Pamela Smith, Senate Hearing Record, p.82: Partial Birth Abortion Ban Medical Testimony). In April of 2000, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Stenberg vs. Carhart decision, which was handed down in June, 2000. The Court struck down a Nebraska statute which had banned partial-birth abortion. Nebraska, as well as over two dozen other states, had banned this procedure, but the Court said the procedure should remain legal. One of the reasons given was that any proposed ban must allow the procedure “for the health of the mother.” Fr. Pavone was present at the Supreme Court both for the oral arguments and on the day the decision was issued. At a press conference on the Court steps, Father asked the lead attorney from the pro-abortion side whether any evidence presented to the Court had identified even a single medical circumstance in which this procedure was the only way to preserve the mother’s health. Of course, none could be cited, and the reason is that none exist. The Court argued, furthermore, that a “health reason” for the Partial-birth abortion procedure was present if, in the judgment of the physician, it was safer than alternative procedures. One of the problems with this line of argument is that one can identify many circumstances in which it is safer for the mother to deliver the child normally than to have a partial-birth abortion. Normal delivery excludes the dangers that arise from inverting the position of the child, and from inserting surgical instruments into the birth canal. Why not argue, therefore, that “live-birth abortion” should be legal as a safer alternative to partial-birth abortion. People like Jill Stanek have exposed this practice, in which children marked for abortion are born alive and then killed. This is exactly where the logic of partial-birth abortion leads. On November 5, 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Pro-abortion forces, not having the support of the American public, challenged the law in court. Federal Courts in the 2nd, 8th, and 9th Circuits ruled the ban unconstitutional. Now, the Supreme Court has agreed to consider the case, and is reviewing the decisions of the 8th and 9th Circuit courts. Oral arguments were heard on Wednesday, November 8, 2006. On April 18, 2007 the Supreme Court announced its decision to uphold the ban on partial-birth abortion.

Duration : 0:11:50

Read the rest of this entry »

Partial-Birth Abortion – Obama Debate Comments / Partial Birth Abortion Ban Video

Posted by admin on February 19th, 2010 and filed under abortions | 25 Comments »

Obama Partial Birth Abortion / His Televised Debate Comments

Images and text courtesy of National Right to Life. Video clip courtesy of MSNBC. Published by rosaryfilms of Secret of the Rosary Films. The pictures in the video are not fiction. The partial birth abortion is not a rare procedure. It is, essentially, a variant of the even more common and equally gruesome Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) procedure. There are in fact absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother (Dr. Pamela Smith, Senate Hearing Record, p.82: Partial Birth Abortion Ban Medical Testimony). People like Jill Stanek have exposed a practice, in which children marked for abortion are born alive and then killed. This is exactly where the logic of partial-birth abortion leads. On November 5, 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. On April 18, 2007 the Supreme Court announced its decision to uphold the ban on partial-birth abortion. The procedure in question is properly called “partial-birth abortion” because, as even secular sources acknowledge, it requires the doctor to deliver the unborn child partially from the uterus, feet first, leaving the baby’s head inside the womb. The doctor then uses scissors and a hollow needle to empty the skull of its contents. The unborn baby’s head then collapses and the doctor removes the dead baby entirely from the mother’s body. Given the nature of the procedure, the congressmen who drafted legislation to prohibit it, the “Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 1995″, defined the procedure as follows: “an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery”. The doctors who perform this barbaric act and those who seek to justify it attempt to hide its nature by describing it euphemistically as “intact dilation and evacuation/extraction” or as “intrauterine cranial decompression. “Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth” (PHACT), a group of more than 300 medical specialists organized to counter the misinformation provided by the abortion industry of the United States, pointed out: “Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect the health of a woman or to protect her future fertility; in fact, the procedure can pose grave dangers to the woman”. Many people argue that the anesthetics used in the process kill the baby, so death to the child is painless. However the American Society of Anesthesiologists testified to Congress that this is simply not true. On July 11, 1995, American Medical News (AMA’s official journal) submitted the transcript of a tape-recorded interview with abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell to the House Judiciary Committee in which he admitted: “…the majority of fetuses aborted this way (partial birth abortion) are alive until the end of the procedure.” As disturbing as this sounds, these are the facts. In this country medical doctors are partially delivering babies and then killing them. These babies are inches from being born. Many could be born and placed directly in the loving arms of childless couples for adoption. Instead, they are cruelly killed.

Duration : 0:3:32

Read the rest of this entry »

Obama & Abortion / The Freedom of Choice Act / His Intentions Revealed / Pro-Life Video

Posted by admin on February 16th, 2010 and filed under abortion laws | 25 Comments »

Obama & Abortion / The So-Called Freedom of Choice Act Video. All text, images and video clips from Fair Use or the public domain. A year ago today, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) stood before Planned Parenthood (PP) and vowed that his first priority as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). According to NARAL Pro-Choice America, FOCA would “codify Roe v. Wade into law and guarantee a woman’s right to choose in all 50 states.” On April 7, 2007, when Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) introduced the Act in Congress, they knew that it was far more than a government “guarantee” of abortion. If enacted, FOCA would obliterate hundreds of state laws that protect women, parents, children, and health care workers, while forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for millions of abortions. It would overturn commonsense laws like parental notification, conscience protections, abortion waiting periods, informed consent, and regulations for women’s health. In essence, FOCA would tilt the table for abortion. Obama’s support of FOCA hits particularly close to home among African-Americans, whose women and children have been preyed upon for decades by the eugenically minded Planned Parenthood. This connection has been pointed out again to the NAACP, who held their 99th annual conference with a sizeable pro-life presence. Together with Dr. Alveda King, niece of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., black leaders from across the country demonstrated at the convention where both presidential candidates spoke. The pro-life coalition is part of the growing movement of African-Americans who understand the “biggest struggle for civil rights today is for the rights of the unborn.” While the NAACP national leadership and Sen. Obama stubbornly champion the abortion industry, groups like Planned Parenthood are profiting from the disproportionate number of black pregnancies that end inside their walls. Given the devastating effect of abortion on one in every two black pregnancies, shouldn’t the NAACP be leading the charge against it? The promoters of the FOCA sometimes claim that its purpose is to “codify Roe v. Wade,” the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand. But the key binding provisions of the bill would go further than Roe, invalidating all of the major types of pro-life laws that have been upheld by the Supreme Court in the decades since Roe. “The claim that the bill would ‘codify Roe’ is just a marketing gimmick by the proponents,” explained Johnson. “The sponsors hope that journalists and legislators will lazily accept that vague shorthand phrase — but it is very misleading. The references to Roe in the bill are in non-binding, discursive clauses. The heart of the bill is a ban that would nullify all of the major types of pro-life laws that the Supreme Court has said are permissible under Roe v. Wade, including the ban on partial-birth abortions and bans on government funding of abortion.” The bill flatly invalidates any “statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action” of any federal, state, or local government or governmental official (or any person acting under government authority) that would “deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose” abortion, or that would “discriminate against the exercise of the right . . . in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.” This no-restriction policy would establish, in Senator Boxer’s words, “the absolute right to choose” prior to fetal “viability.” The no-restriction policy would also apply after “viability” to any abortion sought on grounds of “health.”

Duration : 0:3:1

Read the rest of this entry »

4D Ultrasound – Pre-born Baby At 16 Weeks – Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video PSA

Posted by admin on February 3rd, 2010 and filed under abortion laws | 16 Comments »

4D Ultrasound – Pre-born Baby At 16 Weeks – Pro-Life Video. Courtesy of http://www.focusonthefamily.com/. 4D Ultrasounds Challenge Abortion Laws. The latest 4D ultrasounds that can give video-like images of the pre-born baby will change the views on the time when the fetus can be considered a person. Dr Kristin Savell, of the University of Sydney, Australia, says that people would be more willing to change current regulations on late-term abortions. The 4D scan gives a strong visual imagery giving a video-quality view of the foetus in real time. With this scientific improvement, one can see the small features like eyes and lips that can be distinguished for a person without any medical education. The new technology would become the best argument to prove the personhood of the foetus at earlier stages of development. Traditional 2D images were mostly readable by doctors while more advanced 3D images could produce still but more life-like images. The 4D images will have even greater impact on the public to change their views on abortions and that would challenge the laws on abortion. Using 4D imaging technology we are now better able to study fetal behavior and characteristics. By Day 15, the fetus begins developing neurons in the brain and spinal column. At 22 days, the heart cells begin to beat. Up to the age of 8 weeks, the fetus subsists on the yolk sac, which then shrivels away as the fetus begins to rely on his mother for continued nourishment. Reflexive movement meant to strengthen and exercise his body begins at just nine weeks of development. By four months, the nervous system is up and running, and his bones begin to harden. His hands develop before his feet, probably because they are keeping up with the development of the rest of his senses: taste, hearing, etc. By four months, the fetus squirms when prodded. At just 11 weeks gestational development, the fetus exercises the sucking reflex he will need to feed at birth, and develops left or right-handedness at this time – not in childhood, as originally thought. Experts agree that there is no difference between the 33-week old fetus and the newborn child. In fact, “birth could be a relatively insignificant event in developmental terms.” Sentience in the womb is well demonstrated by the development of the twin bond between identical twins, who, sharing the same amniotic sac, continually interact with each other in the womb while they explore themselves and their environment. Their intimate bond and familiarity with each other can be observed from birth. By four months, the fetus is aware of his environment, especially sounds, since hearing is the first sense to develop. He is especially sensitive to his mother’s voice, and can recognize music – he has memory.

Duration : 0:0:33

Read the rest of this entry »

Suction & Curettage Abortion Illustrated / Vacuum Aspiration Abortions / Video

Posted by admin on January 18th, 2010 and filed under abortions | 16 Comments »

Suction & Curettage Abortion of a 9 Week Fetus Illustrated. Credits at the end of the video. Images from Nucleus Communications, Inc. All text from Fair Use. Suction & Curettage Abortion of a 9 Week Fetus Illustrated. The Suction Aspiration abortion procedure, also known as Vacuum Aspiration, is the most commonly used between 7 and 15 weeks from the last period. A speculum is placed in the vagina, a tenaculum is clamped to the lip of the cervix and a cannula is inserted into the uterus. The amniotic fluid, placenta and fetus are suctioned through the cannula into a collection jar. The fetus and placenta are torn apart in the process. The uterine cavity is scraped with a curette to determine whether any significant amount of tissue remains. Blood, amniotic fluid, placental tissue and fetal parts are placed in a jar. The contents of the jar are then examined to assure that all fetal parts and an adequate amount of tissue commensurate with the estimated gestational age are present. What are the risks? Side effects are common and normal, and consist of abdominal cramping, pain, nausea, sweating, and feeling faint during the procedure, cramping and pain for 2 to 3 days following the procedure, as well as bleeding for up to 2 weeks. True complications occur in approximately 1 to 2% of vacuum aspirations. Allergic reactions to anesthesia or other medications given can occur. It is vitally important that you report any over-the-counter or prescription medications as well as illegal drugs so that the anesthetics can be adjusted accordingly. Bacterial infection can occur during the procedure when surgical tools enter the uterus, while symptoms won’t occur for 2 to 3 days after the procedure. This happens most frequently when there is an underlying STD that is not diagnosed at the time of the abortion. Therefore, it is vitally important that you be tested for STDs prior to the abortion. Infection is the most common post-abortion complication. Hematometra, that is, a uterine blood clot, can occur if the uterus does not contract to expel all of the lining. There will be severe abdominal cramping and nausea if this occurs. Heavy bleeding can occur if the uterus fails to contract and may lead to a uterine blood clot, as mentioned above. Heavy bleeding may require medication, a repeat abortion, surgery, and or transfusion. A cut or torn cervix can occur when the doctor dilates the cervix, grabs the cervix with the tenaculum, or inserts the cannula into the uterus. This may lead to a weakened cervix making carrying a future child to term difficult. The uterus may be perforated during the abortion when the doctor rubs the cannula against the walls of the uterus, causing heavy abdominal bleeding and or infection. You may require surgery to repair the puncture, and rarely you may need a hysterectomy to stop the bleeding. Scarring of the uterus may occur, resulting in “Asherman’s Syndrome.” This scarring can occur as the doctor rubs the cannula against the walls of the uterus and can cause future fertility problems. An incomplete abortion, where the pregnancy has been terminated but the baby or other tissue does not get expelled, can occur in an additional 1% of cases, especially those done before 6 weeks, causing severe cramping and excessive bleeding that continues for over a week following the abortion. Emotional or psychological distress can occur after the abortion, including depression, guilt, regret, anger, and/or sleep disturbance. Suction Aspiration abortion, also called Vacuum Aspiration, is the most common abortion procedure in practice today. For the procedure to begin, the woman’s cervix must be manually dilated with a series of rods to allow for the insertion of a hollow plastic tube with a sharp cutting-tip. This tube is connected to a suction machine that is able to pull the tiny embryo or fetus apart (killing him or her in the process). The remains are sucked out of the mother and deposited into a collection canister. The placenta must then be cut away from the inner wall of the woman’s uterus before it, too, can be sucked into a collection bottle. Suction Aspiration Abortions are not generally performed before the 7th week or after the 15th.
Following conception the fertilized egg implants into the uterine lining (endometrium). The Suction Aspiration uses a straw-like instrument (cannula) that is attached with tubing to a machine that provides light suction. The cannual is inserted through the cervical opening. A light suction that last 15 seconds to 2 minutes empties the lining of the uterus where the pregnancy is implanted.

Duration : 0:1:13

Read the rest of this entry »

The fight for save abortion From danger to dignity pt.1 of 6

Posted by admin on December 29th, 2009 and filed under abortion laws | 25 Comments »

The movie combines rare archival footage with present-day interviews to weave together two parallel stories: the evolution of underground networks to help women find safe abortions outside the law and the intensive efforts of activists and legislators who broke the silence and changed the laws.

The second of three documentations on abortion. This one is from 1995. Con subtítulo español.

Duration : 0:9:54

Read the rest of this entry »

THE SILENT SCREAM Part 1 High Resolution Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video on Abortion

Posted by admin on November 25th, 2009 and filed under abortion statistics | 25 Comments »

ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM 1 / Extended, High-Resolution Version (with permission from APF). Republished with Permission from Roy Tidwell of American Portrait Films as long as the following credits are shown:

VHS/DVDs Available
American Portrait Films
Call 1-800-736-4567
www.amport.com

This has been performed as asked. This video is perfectly legal.

The Silent Scream Part 1 – Abortion as Infanticide

Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s classic video that shocked the world. He explains the procedure of a suction abortion, followed by an actual first trimester abortion as seen through ultrasound. The viewer can see the child’s pathetic attempts to escape the suction curette as her heart rate doubles, and a “silent scream” as her body is torn apart. A great tool to help people see why abortion is murder. The most important video on abortion ever made. This video changed opinion on abortion to many people. Introduction by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, host. Describes the technology of ultrasound and how, for the first time ever, we can actually see inside the womb. Dr. Nathanson further describes the ultrasound technique and shows examples of babies in the womb. Three-dimensional depiction of the developing fetus, from 4 weeks through 28 weeks. Display and usage of the abortionists’ tools, plus video of an abortionist performing a suction abortion. Dr. Nathanson discusses the abortionist who agreed to allow this abortion to be filmed with ultrasound. The abortionist was quite skilled, having performed more than 10,000 abortions. We discover that the resulting ultrasound of his abortion so appalled him that he never again performed another abortion. The clip begins with an ultrasound of the fetus (girl) who is about to be aborted. The girl is moving in the womb; displays a heartbeat of 140 per minute; and is at times sucking her thumb. As the abortionist’s suction tip begins to invade the womb, the child rears and moves violently in an attempt to avoid the instrument. Her mouth is visibly open in a “silent scream.” The child’s heart rate speeds up dramatically (to 200 beats per minute) as she senses aggression. She moves violently away in a pathetic attempt to escape the instrument. The abortionist’s suction tip begins to rip the baby’s limbs from its body, ultimately leaving only her head in the uterus (too large to be pulled from the uterus in one piece). The abortionist attempts to crush her head with his forceps, allowing it to be removed. In an effort to “dehumanize” the procedure, the abortionist and anesthesiologist refer to the baby’s head as “number 1.” The abortionist crushes “number 1″ with the forceps and removes it from the uterus. Abortion statistics are revealed, as well as who benefits from the enormously lucrative industry that has developed. Clinics are now franchised, and there is ample evidence that many are controlled by organized crime. Women are victims, too. They haven’t been told about the true nature of the unborn child or the facts about abortion procedures. Their wombs have been perforated, infected, destroyed, and sterilized. All as a result of an operation about which they they have had no true knowledge. Films like this must be made part of “informed consent.” NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) and Planned Parenthood are accused of a conspiracy of silence, of keeping women in the dark about the reality of abortion. Finally, Dr. Nathanson discusses his credentials. He is a former abortionist, having been the director of the largest clinic in the Western world.

Duration : 0:5:27

Read the rest of this entry »

The fight for save abortion From danger to dignity pt.3 of 6

Posted by admin on November 21st, 2009 and filed under abortion laws | 2 Comments »

The movie combines rare archival footage with present-day interviews to weave together two parallel stories: the evolution of underground networks to help women find safe abortions outside the law and the intensive efforts of activists and legislators who broke the silence and changed the laws.

The second of three documentations on abortion. This one is from 1995. Con subtítulo español.

Duration : 0:9:47

Read the rest of this entry »