REBECCA KIESSLING is an internationally renowned speaker and pro-life advocate, and she's coming to Wisconsin!Pro-Life WI
In addition to being the featured speaker at our 2016 LIVING COURAGE AWARDS DINNER in Appleton on April 6, Rebecca Kiessling will also be our guest at an EVENING WITH REBECCA KIESSLING on April 5 in Brookfield! Save the date for these special dinner events.
MADISON — Pope Francis wrote in his recent encyclical, Laudato Si, that showing genuine care and concern for the vulnerable includes protecting the most vulnerable – human embryos. In the Wisconsin State Assembly, time is ticking on a bill lawmakers say will do just that.continue at The Compass
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection bill (SB 179) would prohibit all Wisconsin abortions at or beyond the 20-week gestation mark, making an exception only for medical emergencies. It passed the State Senate June 9 and moved on to the State Assembly, but Catholic and pro-life groups statewide are divided over the bill.
The bill’s argument is based on medical evidence that shows an unborn child’s pain receptors are present no later than 16 weeks after fertilization, with nerves that link the receptors to the brain no later than 20 weeks gestation.
The bill also calls for the pregnant woman to be informed, orally and in writing, of the unborn child’s age and numerical odds of survival, as well as “written materials on the availability of perinatal hospice.”
The debate for pro-life groups, however, lies not in the bill’s intent to shield the unborn child from pain but rather in its medical emergency language. While some stand behind SB 179 as currently written, others are asking for a removal of the medical emergency language before they will offer their full support.
continue at JSMadison — Amid a lengthy and wrenching debate, the Wisconsin Senate passed a Republican-backed bill Tuesday to ban abortions after 20 weeks from fertilization.
The bill is moving quickly toward becoming law but would be struck down by a federal trial court if a lawsuit against the measure is eventually brought, legal experts said.
Only the U.S. Supreme Court could uphold the measure, which carries no exemptions for rape, incest or the health of the mother, the constitutional law experts said.
Wisconsin pro-life state legislator have introduced a pro-life bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks based on the scientific research showing unborn babies feel substantial pain in abortions. Governor Scott Walker, who will be seeking the Republican nomination for president, has pledged to sign it into law.continue at LifeNews
“I believe we have a duty and a moral obligation to protect these children from the horrific procedures used to snuff out their lives. The barbaric and painful mutilation of little children is something that no humane and compassionate society should tolerate,” Rep. Jesse Kremer, R-Kewaskum, said in a statement about his bill.
He added: “Simply put, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act will preserve and protect Wisconsin’s innocent, unborn babies who can feel pain. The call to preserve precious, human life transcends party lines. Thus, I hope to see bi-partisan support for this vital measure to protect Wisconsin’s unborn from needless pain and suffering.”
MADISON - State Republican legislators on Thursday circulated legislation for co-sponsorship that prohibits abortion at or beyond 20 weeks based on the preborn child’s capacity to feel pain at that gestational age. The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (LRB 0401/1) includes an exception to the prohibition for a “medical emergency,” as broadly defined in Wisconsin Statutes.continue at Pro-Life Wisconsin
“Pro-Life Wisconsin supports banning abortion based on the preborn child’s ability to feel pain, but it is utter hypocrisy for proponents of the bill to decry the horror of dismembering a child through a dilation and evacuation abortion and then carve out an exception for babies whose mother’s lives may be endangered, as if those babies somehow don’t feel pain,” said Matt Sande, Pro-Life Wisconsin Legislative Director. “We urge legislators to refrain from co-sponsoring this bill until the medical emergency exception is fully removed.”
There are no situations where abortion, defined as the direct and intentional killing of an unborn child, is medically necessary to save the life of the mother. Over 900 pro-life doctors and medical researchers have signed the Dublin Declaration, a document stating that abortion is never medically necessary to save a mother's life. Even abortionists agree that abortion is not necessary to save a woman's life. Former abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who himself performed over 30,000 abortions, said “if women with heart and liver transplants can be carried successfully through pregnancy, we can no longer conceive of any medical condition which would legitimize abortion. In short, we have slowly evolved to an unshakable posture of no exceptions…[W]orkable, morally acceptable legislation proscribing abortion can have no exceptions written into it – not even medical ones.” (Bernadell Technical Bulletin, April 1991)
As pro-lifers, it only makes sense that we want our lawmakers to introduce and pass pro-life legislation. But when that legislation is deeply flawed and actually undermining some of the core principles we are fighting for, there is a serious problem.continue at ProLifeWI
Sadly, the 20-week abortion ban (H.R. 36) being voted on by the House of Representatives tomorrow, January 22, is just such a flawed bill. Pro-life lawyer Gualberto Garcia Jones gives 4 big reasons why this bill needs some serious modifications.
1. The bill is a prime example of pro-life legislation that makes pro-lifers complicit with the crime of abortion.
The operative section of the bill is titled “requirements for abortion.” In that section, the bill lays out the procedures that have to be followed in order to legally murder a child in the womb.
To illustrate the moral recklessness involved in this bill, imagine if we substituted abortion with the morally equivalent crime of infanticide. No matter how bad the status quo were, can you imagine advocating a bill that contained a section entitled “requirements for infanticide”?
What do Americans really think about abortion? The results may surprise you. Check this graph out. twitter.com/CatholicPulse/…
— Catholic Pulse (@CatholicPulse) October 25, 2012
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Tommy Thompson said Monday he supported a woman's right to abortion in cases of rape.JS
Thompson made his statement in response to comments from U.S. Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) on rape and abortion.
Akin, who is running for U.S. Senate in Missouri, told a local television there that in cases of "legitimate" rape, women's bodies have some way to prevent pregnancies and lessen the need for abortion.
Akin has not explained what he meant by that remark, apologizing later for "misspeaking." But doctors have reacted by unequivocally stating that Akin is wrong and that rape is as likely to lead to pregnancy as consensual sex.
And get this, did you know that one of the leaders of Planned Parenthood agreed with the body shut down during rape theory? I didn't get the name, but Rush was interviewing someone from Feminists for Life. I don't usually listen but I caught it in the car on my lunch break. She gave the name of a Planned Parenthood leader who supported the same theory.The argument was most recently – and perhaps most fully – articulated by National Right to Life president John Wilke in a 1999 essay titled “Rape Pregnancies Are Rare.” Wilke made a pretty similar case to Akin: That the “physical trauma” of rape has a way of preventing pregnancy.“To get and stay pregnant a woman’s body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones,” Wilke wrote. “There’s no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy.”
The U.S. House of Representatives recently rejected Pre-Natal Non-Discrimination Act (PRENDA), a bill to prohibit gendercide, or abortions based upon gender and which disproportionately targets females. Buttressed with undercover videos by Live Action showing Planned Parenthood staff assisting women who only want to abort if they are carrying a girl, supporters of PRENDA quickly impugn the President and the Democrats for failing to stop the abortion of little girls simply because they are girls, an almost poetic response to the recent accusations of right-to-life groups waging a “War on Women.”continue at Ethika Politika
The firestorm of indignation has right-to-lifers charging abortion-supporters with hypocrisy, claiming to champion women’s rights while refusing to protect unborn women from a death sentence they were handed simply for being female. However, the actions of Planned Parenthood and abortion supporters are completely logical and consistent, while it is the right-to-life groups’ efforts that defy its principles. Once again, the right-to-life movement’s shrewdest marketing attempts send the wrong message: taking a movement that is based on the principles of human rights and glossing over this truth for modest gains in public opinion—and it backfires.
