Monthly Archives: April 2013

Who’s in a “Movement” and Who’s in an ELITE?

Were Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton (1973) the result of a broad groundswell of ‘the mass of women revolting against patriarchal enslavement of their bodies’?

Or did a tiny, well funded, highly connected elite target a weakness—fissures introduced into the foundation of family life by the Sexual Revolution itself—to induce women to turn against their own life-giving nature?

TimeMagTime Mag Tries to Skew History in Posing the Question “Has The Fight For Abortion Rights Been Lost?

Contradicted by Commonsense Experience – Time Mag’s 40th Anniversary Roe v. Wade Article

“…a rebellion within the abortion-rights cause–pitting feminists in their 20s and 30s against pro-choice power brokers who were in their 20s and 30s when Roe was decided–threatens to tear it in two. …[T]he pro-choice movement [is described] in terms neatly fitting the core premises of the “resource mobilization” perspective. Groups supporting legal abortion are characterized by paid functionaries, formal bureaucracies, and philanthropic funding. “Its relative lack of usable social infrastructures compared with the pro-life movement leads it to depend far more heavily upon modern mobilization technologies in order to aggregate people and resources.” – James R. Kelly, “Seeking a Sociologically Correct Name For Abortion Opponents”, 1994

“Many young activists are bypassing the legacy feminist organizations that have historically protected access to abortion, weakening the pro-choice establishment at the very moment it needs to coalesce around new strategies to combat pro-life gains and connect with the public.

“As memories of women dying from illegal pre-Roe abortions become more distant, the pro-choice cause is in crisis. In 1973, female lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights said Roe v. Wade was ‘a tribute to the coordinated efforts of women’s organizations, women lawyers and all women throughout this country.’ Writing a new playbook for the pro-choice cause–one that ensures that Roe is not overturned and that access to abortion is preserved and even expanded–would require the same kind of coordination. If abortion-rights activists don’t come together to adapt to shifting public opinion on the issue of reproductive rights, abortion access in America will almost certainly continue to erode.”

Read more…

RU-486 Wrap Up

When chemical abortion was first coming out, we tried to speculate what the overall effect would be. Now LifeSiteNews is featuring a comprehensive analysis from National Right to Life, of the causes and effects of RU-486.

One of the upshots is, that women victimized by chemical abortion are in one way, actually more traumatized, because they more immediately see the direct results of their action without abortion professionals present to provide disinformation and misinterpret their prognosis.

Therefore, as predicted at the time RU-486 was first rolled-out, there is a great, unmet need for follow-up for women who have undergone this trauma.

5 reasons behind the abortion industry’s push for chemical abortions

Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D, National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund, Director of Education & Research

Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D, National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund, Director of Education & Research

by Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D, National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund, Director of Education & Research

April 11, 2013 (National Right to Life News) – When RU-486, the abortion pill, was approved for sale in America in September of 2000, this two-drug chemical abortion technique didn’t simply appear out of the blue. It was the result of the years of planning, research, and market analysis by the abortion industry, the culmination of a long term strategy put in place decades earlier. Today, that strategy is playing out in clinics all across America and around the world.

So what was it the abortion industry saw? And what did they hope to accomplish by adding chemical abortifacients to their already deadly arsenal? Here are five reasons behind the abortion industry’s push of the abortion pill and an indication of how far they’ve gotten in fulfilling their awful aims:

Reason 1. The Need for an Abortion Makeover

Read more…

Forty Years After Roe: Have the Tables Finally Turned? (New Oxford Review

Throughout this passing winter season there lingers in the air a certain triumphalism on the part of progressives whose presidential candidate stomped all over both his Republican opponent and advocates of traditional marriage and the sanctity of life. It isn’t a stretch to say that President Barack Obama smacked around the U.S. Catholic bishops and suffered no negative ramifications — on the contrary, he was rewarded. Since the President’s campaign focused inordinately on abortion and contraception, you’d think the purveyors of these would be resting on their laurels. After all, if ever Planned Parenthood could open its own office in the White House, it’d be now. Read more…