Our Prenatal Protection Act in action

What happens in Michigan when a pregnant woman is assaulted? Recently Michigan’s prenatal protection laws came in handy in making sure a criminal spent more time behind bars.

Samuel Demetrious Ambrose was convicted and sentenced to four years in prison for some pretty heinous actions:

Allegan County Circuit Court Judge Kevin W. Cronin sentenced Ambrose to a minimum of four years in prison for the May 2014 assault and witness intimidation. His sentence was lengthened because the judge counted the woman’s unborn child as a second victim.

"I can’t remember when I've been so appalled at a defendant's behavior of what – what cruelty, what total disregard for human life and decency there was in this particular incident," Cronin said at sentencing. He compared the assault to water-boarding. 

The trial court ruled that Ambrose harmed two victims, classifying the mother's unborn child as a victim. Ambrose challenged the terms of his sentence; his lawyer argued that the unborn child should not be counted as a second victim because the child is not a "person."

On October 26 the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the child can be considered a victim, because Michigan's law clearly refers to "victims," not "persons," and based on our state's Prenatal Protection Act, the Legislature clearly intended unborn children to be counted as potential victims of a crime. Ambrose's enhanced sentence of 32 to 48 months in prison for felonious assault will stand.

Michigan updated protections for unborn children by passing the Prenatal Protection Act in 1999. Previously the child had to be born alive and then die in order to be counted as a victim of a crime committed while the child was in the womb. The born-alive rule was necessary as a matter of evidence before the advent of ultrasound, because the only way to know a child in the womb was alive at any point (and harmed by the criminal action) was the mother reporting her experience of the baby moving. Thanks to modern medicine, documenting the life of the child in the womb is easy and undeniable.

A dose of reality: the abortion industry’s sanitized language of death

Remember Deborah Nucatola? Planned Parenthood’s top doctor who explained how to crush a baby’s body in order to harvest more intact body parts? Though she was spirited away from the public eye when the Center for Medical Progress video investigation broke, she remains busy at work.

Nucatola co-authored a study in the current October 2016 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology. Her study examined the most efficient way to kill unborn children in a late-term abortion.

When you watch the Center for Medical Progress videos, you’ll see Nucatola and others often discussing “didge,” or “didging;” the practice of using the drug Digoxin before an abortion. While invented to treat heart conditions, in massive doses Digoxin causes a heart attack. Those looking to buy and sell the body parts of aborted babies did not want a “didged” baby; they needed the baby’s organs as fresh and pure as possible for experimentation or implantation into rodents.

Nucatola's study compared the results from injecting Digoxin directly into the baby to just injecting it into the amniotic fluid. The terms in the study are “intra-fetal” injections to achieve “fetal asystole” before performing a “dilation and evacuation.” What do those terms mean? A needle is inserted through the woman’s belly and into the baby’s body and the lethal drug is administered to give the baby a fatal heart attack. The baby is then examined to determine if the desired outcome was completed. A “failure," as the study calls it, is the baby surviving the lethal dose, only to die later through bleeding to death or shock as her arms and legs are literally torn off of her body in a dismemberment abortion.

20 week baby

Nucatola’s study coolly concluded that injecting the drug directly into the baby led to fewer “failures” than injecting it into the amniotic fluid for the baby to inhale. The “sample size” of the study was 270 babies between 20 and 24 weeks of pregnancy.

Why give a baby a massive heart attack before dismembering her? One of the worst outcomes for an abortionist is a born-alive baby. Abortionists are legally required to treat babies who survive abortions the same as any other baby, but because of lax abortion clinic regulations they often are not equipped to provide proper life-saving care. The goal of the abortion is after all not to end the pregnancy, but to end the baby’s life, even if it’s past the point of viability.

The way this study is written you would never know it is talking about giving viable babies fatal heart attacks. A medical journal dedicated to the arts of welcoming life into this world should be no place to calmly discuss the most efficient ways of disposing of “unwanted” lives.

Deborah Nucatola is not alone. When the topic of late-term abortion comes up in a political context, euphemisms and medical terms are deployed by politicians to distract people from the reality of abortion. In a few days we'll all be voting on a candidate, Hillary Clinton, who firmly supports late-term abortions, even during the process of birth.

Prolifers can cut through the fog and hold the abortion industry and their political allies accountable simply by asking them to plainly describe what they support. History has shown that people are more likely to support injustices when they can rely on euphemisms to pretend to the public and even their own consciences they aren't engaging in an injustice.

You never know when that honesty might change the mind of even the most hardened abortion supporter.

October 25 teleseminar update on the election

Join us on Tuesday, October 25, at 11 a.m. for a teleseminar update on the election. Joining us are special guests Mercedes Schlapp and Joseph Cella.

Mercedes Viana Schlapp is a columnist for The Washington Times and FOX News Contributor. She is the former Director of Specialty Media for President George W. Bush in the White House. A first generation Cuban-American and raised in Miami, Florida, she is fluent in Spanish and also provides political commentary for Univision, Telemundo, CNN en Español and national Spanish radio. Inspired by her father, who was held as a political prisoner in Fidel Castro’s Cuba in the 1960s, Mercy discovered her passion for politics at a young age. As co-founder of Cove Strategies, Mercy develops and implements media strategy for corporate and non-profit organizations.

Joseph Cella is the Catholic liaison for the Trump/Pence campaign and a member of the campaign's Catholic Advisory Group. As the principal of his consulting firm, The Pontifex Group, he draws from his extensive experience on Capitol Hill, the campaign trail, founding and leading non-profit organizations, and serving as an advisor to elected officials and business leaders. In 2005 he co-founded the Catholic advocacy organization Fidelis, which operates CatholicVote.org. He also founded and serves on the board of the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast. In his professional and personal capacities, he has worked behind the scenes helping Christian communities around the world enduring religious persecution. He also serves a strategist with Corallo Media Strategies in Virginia. He holds a degree from Hillsdale College, and he and his wife Kristen have six children and live on a small farm in Michigan.

The teleseminar will last 30-40 minutes. It’s open to all prolife people, feel free to share this information with your Michigan friends and family members.

There are two ways you can listen in:
Use your phone and call (425) 440-5100; PIN Code: 662744#
Or, listen online: http://iTeleseminar.com/90739308

We are looking forward to connecting with you on Tuesday, Oct. 25, at 11:00 a.m!

Our new radio ad debuts today

Today our new radio ad is debuting across the state. "War on the Unborn" compares the human cost of abortion to those of America's major wars utilizing simple tools: BBs and a metal can.

These simple tools will leave you with a experience you will never forget.

The ad is entirely based off of Peter Heck's YouTube video, "The Sound of Abortion." To hear the ad and share it with others via e-mail or social media, simply watch Heck's video on YouTube. Click play, close your eyes, and listen to the sound of abortion:

Clinton lies about support for abortion in the debate

In the third presidential debate a question about abortion was finally brought up. Hillary Clinton reiterated her total support for the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy. Donald Trump said he would appoint prolife justices to the U.S. Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

A question was asked about Clinton’s support for the brutal partial-birth abortion (PBA) procedure. Clinton said she supports the procedure because of “women’s health.”

There is no legitimate health reason to perform PBAs. PBA takes three days to complete. If a woman is facing an imminent health crisis, a procedure that takes three days to complete is irresponsible.

 PBA involves delivering a child until only the head is left in the birth canal. The abortionist then stabs the child in the head using scissors with a curved blade. The scissors are opened, creating a hole in the baby’s skull wide enough to insert a suction catheter to suck out her brains. What health benefit is there to stabbing the baby in the head rather than completing the delivery?

Partial-birth abortion is not about women’s health, it’s about making a dead baby.

Clinton lied in two ways about the issue. Trump correctly pointed out that Clinton supports abortions up to the ninth month, even the final day of birth. Trump could have gone farther and correctly explained she supports abortion during the birth process! Clinton responded: “That is not what happens in these cases.” Aborting a baby during birth is obviously what happens in a partial-birth abortion. The name is as self-explanatory as it gets.

Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton also allows abortion through all nine months of pregnancy. Clinton earlier said she strongly supports these decisions. She tried to hide behind the “health exception,” but as the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Doe v. Bolton the same day they handed down Roe v. Wade, “health” means anything: social, psychological, financial. Anything impacts “health” according the court, so “health” means any reason a woman can think of.

Abortion up until the moment of birth, for any reason is the law of the land.

If Clinton appoints one more pro-abortion justice to the Supreme Court, it is likely the Court will reaffirm and expand Roe v. Wade, potentially throwing out the ruling in 2007 upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, bringing that gruesome barbarity back to America, and people could be forced to pay for them with their tax dollars.

Court rules California can force pregnancy centers to advertise abortion clinics

Today the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delivered an early birthday present to Planned Parenthood in time for their 100th birthday Sunday.

The Court denied a request for an injunction from NIFLA and other prolife pregnancy help organizations to protect their rights to free speech. The decision in NIFLA v. Harris revolves around a new California law that forces pregnancy centers to post a sign or give clients materials advertising a phone number they can call to help them receive a tax-funded abortion.

Obviously the U.S. Constitution's free speech protections were not enough to convince the 9th Circuit Court that prolife pregnancy centers should not be subject to compelled speech. The lead attorney in the case representing the pregnancy help organizations was Matt Bowman from Alliance Defending Freedom. In an article by LifeNews.com, Bowman said:

"It’s bad enough if the government tells you what you can't say, but a law that tells you what you must say—under threat of severe punishment—is even more unjust and dangerous. In this case, political allies of abortionists are seeking to punish pro-life pregnancy centers, which offer real hope and help to women. Forcing these centers to promote abortion and recite the government's preferred views is a clear violation of their constitutionally protected First Amendment freedoms. That’s why other courts around the country have halted these kinds of measures and why we will be discussing the possibility of appeal with our clients."

The issue of the case was that the 9th Circuit Court argued that the abortion advertising is "viewpoint neutral" because it forces abortion clinics to advertise their own services as well. This is wrong; a viewpoint neutral law should require the abortion clinics to advertise contact information for prolife pregnancy centers.

Imagine California mandating a law requiring liquor distributors and Alcoholic's Anonymous to hand out a list of the nearest liquor stores because the state believes consuming liquor has modest health benefits. The liquor distributor already does that because they believe in selling alcohol: it's their purpose of existence. The sole purpose of AA however is to encourage certain people not to purchase and consume alcohol. A law forcing them to contradict their mission while advancing the mission and financial interests of liquor distributors isn't neutral in any sense of the word!

The decision is no surprise. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has a history of highly ideological and even mistaken rulings, making it the most commonly reversed court in America by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The law itself is no surprise either, given California's long hostility to prolife people. They recently passed a law making it a crime to do undercover journalism at Planned Parenthood offices. Kamala Harris, California's attorney general and the other party of this pregnancy center case, is at Planned Parenthood's beck and call. Harris authorized a raid on the home of David Daleiden, the citizen journalist who uncovered Planned Parenthood's trafficking of body parts of aborted babies, and stole his footage. California forces taxpayers to pay for abortions, has refused to report any statistics on abortion in the state, recently passed a law to allow nurses to perform surgical abortions; the list goes on and on.

The important question prolife people should be asking themselves is how might a U.S. Supreme Court rule on this case in the coming years? Will pregnancy centers in Michigan be forced to advertise abortion clinics? Will the U.S. Supreme Court more closely resemble California and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals than the opinion of most Americans?

Second presidential debate and abortion still not discussed in-depth

Again abortion was not brought up during the second presidential debate on Sunday night. There wasn’t a single question asked about this human rights issue that affects millions of lives every year. Abortion hangs like a dark cloud over every judicial appointment.

It did get incidentally brought up when a debate attendee asked about the Supreme Court justices each candidate would nominate. Hillary Clinton promised to nominate justices who would stick with Roe v. Wade and uphold abortion through all nine months of pregnancy. She mentioned that Donald Trump would like to reverse Roe v. Wade and this would take our country backwards. Donald Trump said he wants to nominate judges from the same mold as the late Justice Antonin Scalia: judges who would respect the Constitution.

The word "abortion" was not mentioned at all during the town hall-style debate. Since this is an issue that many Americans have strong thoughts and feelings about, it should get discussed at some point during the debates so that the American people can see the wide contrast between Trump and Clinton's positions.

We'll do the job the moderators didn't and give you some more details on the candidate's positions from their own past statements, click here for Donald Trump's record on life, and click here for Hillary Clinton's.

VP Debate: Pence stands for life while Kaine gives implausible excuses for being pro-choice

During the Vice-Presidential debate last night, Indiana Governor Mike Pence and U.S. Senator from Virginia Tim Kaine were asked to discuss a time they struggled balancing their personal faith and a public policy position.

Senator Kaine first talked about upholding the death penalty even though it wasn’t something that he agreed with. He said that those of faith can’t impose their views on everyone else in society. This is his justification for saying he is personally against abortion, but along with Hillary Clinton he is okay with partial-birth abortion, taxpayer-funding of abortion, etc.

Governor Pence then proceeded to explain why he is so passionate about the sanctity of human life:

"But for me, I would tell you that for me the sanctity of life proceeds out of the belief that -- that ancient principle that -- where God says before you were formed in the womb, I knew you, and so for my first time in public life, I sought to stand with great compassion for the sanctity of life. But what I can't understand is with Hillary Clinton and now Senator Kaine at her side is to support a practice like partial-birth abortion. I mean, to hold to the view -- and I know Senator Kaine, you hold pro-life views personally -- but the very idea that a child that is almost born into the world could still have their life taken from them is just anathema to me. And I cannot -- I can't conscience about -- about a party that supports that. Or that -- I know you've historically opposed taxpayer funding of abortion. But Hillary Clinton wants to -- wants to repeal the longstanding provision in the law where we said we wouldn't use taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. So for me, my faith informs my life. I try and spend a little time on my knees every day. But it all for me begins with cherishing the dignity, the worth, the value of every human life." 

Kaine then responded with more talk about not imposing values on people:

"But we really feel like you should live fully and with enthusiasm the commands of your faith. But it is not the role of the public servant to mandate that for everybody else. So let's talk about abortion and choice. Let's talk about them. We support Roe v. Wade. We support the constitutional right of American women to consult their own conscience, their own supportive partner, their own minister, but then make their own decision about pregnancy. That's something we trust American women to do that." 

Kaine says multiple times that government leaders shouldn’t push their religion on the people. There are two big problems with those comments.

First, Kaine has no problem pushing his new-found beliefs about abortion on people. He openly supports forcing people to pay for abortions directly through their tax dollars. He supports a candidate who does not believe health care providers should be able to conscientiously object to abortion. He has spoken often about how his religion informs his beliefs on a range of other issues, laws and regulations. Why is abortion the only issue that should be different?

Second, abortion isn’t just a religious issue. Abortion is a moral issue, a scientific issue, and most importantly a basic human rights issue. Protecting human life is the first duty of government.

Pence and Kaine proceeded to argue about what Trump said in regards to punishing women for having an abortion. Pence said that a Trump-Pence administration would only support prolife laws that historically have always put penalties on abortionists. In response, Kaine quoted from a scripture passage, Matthew 15:18, to disagree: “From the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks.”

Kaine’s choice of that verse is very sad. When Senator Kaine glosses over the fact that his running mate thinks it should be legal to stab a partially-born baby in the head and suck her brains out, is that from the fullness of his heart?

Senator Kaine: you can’t be both prolife and pro-choice. Either every human being has an inalienable right to life and any violation of that right is a grave injustice, or unborn children in the womb have zero human value and therefore should have no legal protections.

Kaine asked Pence multiple times why he doesn’t trust women to make this choice for themselves. Why don’t we allow people to choose to take an innocent human life? We don't because no person has the right to take away the rights of another person. Human life undeniably begins at fertilization and the unborn child is a member of our human family.

Pence said it quite succinctly, “a society can be judged by how it deals with its most vulnerable, the aged, the infirm, the disabled, and the unborn. I believe it with all my heart.”