Now that the Dobbs decision has shifted the abortion debate to the state-by-state battle, both the pro-life and pro-choice movements have galvanized for this new arena. Pro-life states moved quickly to pass state-level abortion bans (at least thirteen states have done so already), while pro-abortion forces have endeavored to solidify or even expand abortion access in their states.

However, one pro-choice politician is not content to merely ensure that babies can be legally dismembered in his state. California Governor Gavin Newsom has openly invited residents of pro-life states to travel to California to have the dirty deed done—and used Scripture to prove he’s right.

California had already been preparing for the downfall of Roe several months before it finally fell. But now, in the post-Roe world, Newsom and his colleagues have been working tirelessly to ensure that their state is a “sanctuary” for abortion—fighting with money, legislation, and inter-state collaboration.

• Not only did the state dedicate $200 million toward increasing abortion access, but also prohibited insurance companies from charging co-pays, essentially making abortions free.

• Having already passed a dozen bills to increase abortion access, the state is now gunning for an amendment to the California constitution that would cement unlimited abortion access into the state constitution itself.

• The state has also joined with its Pacific neighbors Oregon and Washington in a “Multi-State Commitment to Reproductive Freedom,” proclaiming their joint resolve to “defend access to reproductive healthcare, including abortion and contraceptives.”

However, securing his state as a safe space for slaughter was apparently just Newsom’s first step. Last month, he used $100,000 from his re-election campaign fund to set up billboards in seven pro-life states—Indiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Ohio, Texas, South Carolina, and South Dakota. These billboards chastised the stance of these “anti-freedom” states, with statements like “Texas doesn’t own your body. You do.” They also reassured residents that “California is ready to help,” inviting them to visit the state’s new abortion access website abortion.ca.gov, which provides information on how to find and pay for an abortion in California as well as warnings about the “fake clinics” known as crisis pregnancy centers.

It’s eyebrow-raising enough, why Newsom’s re-election campaign—for the California governorship—is erecting signs in South Carolina. But what’s especially stunning is the message he chose to put on the Mississippi version of his propaganda. “Need an abortion? California is ready to help. Learn more at abortion.ca.gov,” announces the advertisement, in big white and yellow all-caps. This is plastered above a message in smaller italics: “‘Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no greater commandment than these.’ -Mark 12:31.” Apparently, Newsom thinks that by proliferating abortion, he’s obeying the commandments of God.

No doubt aimed at the conservative Bible-belt culture in Mississippi, Governor Newsom’s reference to Scripture has garnered a visceral reaction from the Christian community.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, expressed her shock at Newsom’s appropriation of Scripture toward such evil ends: “This makes me sick . . . Simply no words for how twisted this is.”

California Pastor John MacArthur (Grace Community Church) issued an open letter to the governor, criticizing his “reprehensible act of gross blasphemy, quoting the very words of Jesus from Mark 12:31 as if you could somehow twist His meaning and arrogate His name in favor of butchering unborn infants.” As MacArthur characterized it, “You used the name and the words of Christ to promote the credo of Molech (Leviticus 20:1–5). It would be hard to imagine a greater sacrilege.”

Fellow California pastor Don Adam (Mid-Cities Baptist Church) concurred, expressing his fear for Governor Newsom—”that he would take the Holy Scripture completely out of context and use it to make people feel good that they can be a ‘neighbor’ to women who want an abortion.” As Adam sees it, “It’s dangerous for him, but also for women who are in crisis mode. When they see the Bible quoted, they may think that this is OK.”

And California Family Council president Jonathan Keller put his thoughts this way: “The idea that you would actually use the words of Jesus as a justification and enticement that abortion is a way of loving your neighbor . . . honestly, it’s something that I don’t think you could be more blasphemous if you were trying.”

The Left usually hates the Word of God, because the Word of God usually refutes their agenda and exposes their motives. This is why the Left has been on a century-long campaign to remove the Bible and biblical teaching from both the public square and private life. However, when the Left can find a way to twist the Word of God to support their agenda, they somehow become fine with playing the Bible-card. It seems that “separation of church and state” magically just doesn’t apply—that is, if the state is butchering the Word of God to justify butchering those made in His image.  

In a May 12 appearance before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, Xavier Becerra, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), repeatedly denied U.S. law banned partial birth abortions. The problem? U.S. law does ban partial birth abortions and Becerra himself even voted against the law.

U.S. Code § 1531 which prohibits partial-birth abortions is the result of Congressional passage of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The Act, “Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit any physician or other individual from knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion, except when necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.

At the hearing, U.S. Representative Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) asked Becerra if he believed partial-birth abortions were illegal to which the HHS Secretary replied, “We will continue to make sure we follow the law. Again, with due respect, there is no medical term like partial-birth abortion and so I would probably have to ask you what you mean by that to describe what is allowed by the law. But Roe v. Wade is very clear, settled precedent and a woman has a right to make decisions about her reproductive health and we will make sure we enforce the law and protect those rights.”

The law defines “a ‘partial-birth abortion’ as an abortion in which the person performing the abortion: (1) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the mother’s body, or, in the case of a breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the mother’s body; and (2) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus.”

Next, Bilirakis asked Becerra if he agreed with the law banning partial-birth abortions.

Becerra responded, “Again, as I said there is no law that deals specifically with the term partial-birth abortion. We have clear precedent in the law on the rights that women have to reproductive health care.”

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List), decried Becerra’s duplicity in a media release. She stated, “During his confirmation hearings, Xavier Becerra dodged questions about his stance on partial-birth abortion – when an unborn child is partially delivered and then killed – deflecting with repeated claims that he would ‘follow the law’ as head of HHS. Now the top health official in America, Becerra outright denies the existence of a law banning partial-birth abortion since 2003.”

“Becerra can hardly plead ignorance on this topic,” the head of the national pro-life group pointed out. “As a freshman congressman, he voted against the ban. This shameless lie is standard for the most radical pro-abortion administration in history. It should not be hard to recognize that partially delivering a baby and then suctioning his or her brain is not only illegal, but utterly inhumane.”

The questioning Dannenfelser referred to came from U.S. Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) regarding the vote Becerra cast while a Democrat representative from California, prior to serving as the state’s attorney general.

Romney asked Becerra, “Most people agree that partial-birth abortion is awful. You voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion. Why?”

To which Becerra indirectly replied, “I understand that people have different deeply held beliefs on this issue and I respect that. As Attorney General my job has been to follow the law and make sure that others are following the law. … I understand that we may not always agree on where to go, but I think we can find some common ground on these issues because everyone wants to make sure that if you have an opportunity, you’re gonna have a healthy life.”

According to Dannenfelser, a related Act is being blocked by Democrats in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate. In April, U.S. Representative Kat Cammack (R-FL) filed a discharge petition demanding a vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 619). However, if 218 representatives sign the discharge petition, it would force a vote in the Democrat-controlled House.

“The bill would ensure that babies born alive during failed abortions receive the same medical care that would be afforded a premature infant born at the same age,” she noted.

Based on the response from the left, you would think that the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court would virtually guarantee the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Why, then, are some conservative and pro-life groups opposing his confirmation?

On the positive side, many pro-life leaders reacted enthusiastically to the nomination of Justice Kavanaugh, including Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the highly-respected Susan B. Anthony List.

She said, “President Trump has made another outstanding choice in nominating Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, keeping his promise to nominate only originalist judges to the Court.”

In her opinion, Kavanaugh was “an experienced, principled jurist,” who has a “strong record of protecting life and constitutional rights.”

Many others were enthusiastic as well, including conservative think tanks and long-term pro-life leaders.

On the negative side, Jane Coaston wrote an article for Vox.com explaining, “Why social conservatives are disappointed that Trump picked Brett Kavanaugh.”

She pointed to a number of top leaders in the conservative and pro-life movement who had reservations about Kavanaugh or who called for outright opposition.

Upon hearing of President Trump’s nomination of Kavanaugh, the National Review’s David French wrote, “I’ll defend [Kavanaugh] vigorously from unfair critiques tomorrow, but tonight I join many conservatives in a slight sigh of regret. There was a better choice.”

Tim Wildmon, President of the highly influential American Family Association, wrote, “AFA has opposed the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S Supreme Court for some very valid reasons. We are deeply concerned about how he might ultimately rule on issues related to abortion and religious liberty. For these reasons, we consider this nomination to represent a four-star appointment when it could have been five-star.”

Other groups, like Columbia [South Carolina] Christians for Life sent out e-blasts with titles like, “ROE VS. WADE protector Kavanaugh: Another red flag for Jesuit-educated, Jesuit school director, BRETT KAVANAUGH.” (This was sent out August 30.)

Another pro-life activist sent out links to this video, with this warning: “President Trump broke his campaign promise to pro-lifers when he nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Ricardo Davis of Georgia Right to Life calls Kavanaugh’s pro-abortion position ‘morally reprehensible’ and urges pro-lifers and conservatives to demand Kavanaugh’s withdrawal and for Trump to replace him with a real pro-life nominee such as Amy Coney Barrett.”

How can we make sense of this?

On the one hand, there is agreement that someone like Justice Amy Coney Barrett, if appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, would definitely vote to overturn Roe v. Wade should the opportunity present itself. The downside is that many believe that in today’s climate, despite the Republican majority, she would not have been confirmed.

Others have suggested that it’s unlikely that there will be a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade as much as an incremental challenge. What if something like the Fetal Heartbeat Bill became law and was challenged up to the U.S. Supreme Court? How would Kavanaugh vote on that?

The real answer is that we simply do not know what a U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh would do.

According to Thomas Jipping, Deputy Director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and a Senior Legal Fellow, Kavanaugh’s “record meets the Schumer standard of a judge who does not predictably rule for a particular side. That is because Kavanaugh is the kind of judge who follows the law rather than his personal views.”

What, then, are we to make of the varied and passionate responses to Justice Kavanaugh? Does the left have reason to fear? Does the right have reason to rue a missed opportunity?

Here are a few things that seem clear.

First, we can be almost certain that Justice Kavanaugh will be a far better friend of the U.S. Constitution and of conservative values than any judge a President Hillary Clinton would have appointed. That is a very big positive.

Second, we who are pro-life do well not to put our ultimate trust in a man (Kavanaugh) or an institution (the U.S. Supreme Court) to change the direction of our nation. (This is not to deny the importance of both the man and the institution. It is simply to bring perspective.)

Third, it is possible that Kavanaugh himself cannot guarantee how he will rule if confirmed. There have been surprises in every direction from various appointees in the past, and even the best vetting process cannot guarantee the future.

Obviously, I hope that the leftist opposition to Kavanaugh is correct and that, should the opportunity arise, he would vote for life and for family and for our essential liberties.

But there may be a reason for the concern of some on the right, in which case we should be praying for Kavanaugh and the rest of the members of the Court that God would direct their hearts.

Scripture teaches that, “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He will.” Surely He can turn the hearts of U.S. Supreme Court justices as well.

More importantly, He can turn the hearts of a nation. That is the greater goal when it comes to cultivating a culture of life, and it must always remain the foremost goal for all of us who love life. As powerful as the Supreme Court has become, it alone cannot transform hearts.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com

The U.S. House of Representatives has scheduled an October 3rd vote on H.R. 36, a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks up until the time of birth. The U.S. House passed a similar bill in 2015. During the debate on the bill, Congressman Sean Duffy (R-WI) gave one of the most impassioned speeches for protecting the lives of innocent pre-born children.

“This is not a debate about abortion or even non-abortion, pro-life or pro-abortion,” Duffy said. “Those who are even pro-abortion agree that these tactics are unacceptable. They have no place in our society, and that federal tax dollars should actually go to fund an institution that harvests baby body parts for sale is absolutely asinine.”

“What do we stand for in this institution if we do not stand-up for the most defenseless and voiceless among us?” concluded Duffy.

According to Lifenews:

During the hearing on the last bill, former abortion practitioner Anthony Levatino told members of the committee the gruesome details of his former abortion practice and how he became pro-life following the tragic automobile accident of his child.

Another bombshell dropped during the hearing came from Dr. Maureen Condic, who is Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine. She testified that the unborn child is capable of reacting to pain as early as 8-10 weeks. This is when most abortions in America take place.

Sadly, when it was brought to a vote in the Senate (where the Democrats then held a majority) it was defeated via filibuster.

U.S. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy hosted a press conference yesterday providing details of when the House will vote on the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 36). McCarthy was joined by pro life U.S. Representatives Diane Black (TN-06), Trent Franks (AZ-08), Vicky Hartzler (MO-04), and and other pro-life leaders such as Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser.

The family of Micah Pickering was also present at the press conference, according to Lifenews. Micah Pickering is a miracle baby who survived after being born prematurely at 20 weeks. Today, Micah is a happy, healthy five year old.

SBA List Marjorie Dannenfelser stated the faces like Micah help bring this issue to life in many people’s minds.

“Micah really is the real face of this issue,” she urged. “Because it’s really easy to talk about it, the abortion issue, in abstract theoretical terms. But when you really have come across … and see a young man running around full of energy and love, you realize this is not any other political issue.”

U.S. Representative Trent Franks made similar references to Micah, according to Lifenews. “When Micah stands there,” he said, “you can’t ignore him. He’s as real as it gets.”

In a post press conference interview with MRC Culture Associate Culture Editor, Katie Yoder, Representative Franks also stated:

“I understand that mothers are in a great challenge in these circumstances and my heart is so deeply with them, but there’s nothing liberating about taking the life of a child. It doesn’t liberate the mother. It only puts her in a deeper heartache in the long run.

I’m convinced that if America will look at this as it is, and say ‘Okay, what’s the real question here? Does this thing kill a baby or not?’ If it doesn’t, then okay, it’s no big deal,” he concluded. “But if it really does kill a little helpless human baby, and it’s done that 60 million times now, isn’t it about time we changed direction?”

Representative Franks introduced the legislation back in January, and also proposed legislation in July in an effort to try to save the now deceased Charlie Gard.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to your U.S. Representatives to ask him/her to support H.R. 36, the 20-week abortion ban, also known as the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.”  The U.S. House is scheduled to vote on the bill on Tuesday, October 3rd.

It is inexcusable, in the light the pain these babies feel and the broad public support for such bans, that such a federal ban does not already exist.

IFI depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Many individuals may directly associate the phrase “pro-life” with being pro-birth or opposed to abortion. While of course both of these statements are true, what many people perhaps fail to fully grasp is that being pro-birth is only a part of being pro-life. The truth is that pro-life is pro-woman, pro-adoption, pro-child, and pro-family. But proponents of the legal killing of an infant while it is in its mother’s womb always ignore the many facets of what it means to be pro life. Instead they try to paint those who are pro life as extremists who are against the empowerment of women and families.

The truth is that abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women and opposition to abortion has historically been a feminist issue. Many of the most capable and vigorous proponents of the pro-life message are strong women.

Miss North Dakota, Mary Christianson reminded us back in March that pro life is not anti-woman. “Not only do we support our women but we support our women who are unborn and can’t speak for themselves,” Christianson said. Pro-life is pro-woman, says Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life. “We know that a message many people hear in our country is that in order to be ‘pro-woman,’ you have to be pro-choice. I would offer that nothing could be further from the truth,” she told Cosmopolitan.com. “I see that as rhetoric and I see that as false. Life is empowering for women. A woman’s capacity to have children is an incredible thing, not something to be ashamed of. It doesn’t mean that I am defined by that, but it doesn’t mean I’m going to pretend it’s not part of me. It’s an incredible gift.”

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, echoed this sentiment, writing in an op-ed for Newsbusters:

Clearly, the public visibility of strong women who oppose abortion on demand is causing a big change.

Protecting our unborn children from abortion is not an attack on women. Women know this because women are the ones who understand what it is to nurture, shelter and grow an infant in our own bodies.

Pro-life is also pro-adoption, as Vice President Mike Pence explained during the Vice Presidential debates. “If you’re going to be pro-life you should be pro-adoption,” he said, hinting that adoption needs to have a bigger part in the abortion debate. A woman experiencing an unplanned pregnancy may feel tremendous pressure and may feel completely unequipped to handle the responsibilities of parenting a child. She may feel her only option is to abort her preborn child — but it isn’t. Adoption is a beautiful, lifesaving option, and mothers experiencing unplanned pregnancies have the right to information about how adoption works. Pro life individuals recognize the importance truly informing women of the healthy options that are available to them – instead of pushing abortion on women who already feel frightened and helpless.

Pro-life is also pro-child. Abortion is an atrocious embodiment of violence against the lives of the most innocent among us. “If we don’t treat the weakest members of society with the respect that we have for ourselves, how is that justice?” asks Lila Rose, President of Live Action. “How is that equality? How is that upholding human rights?”

Pro-life is pro-family. It has been said that the things most important in life are the things closest to home, and Confucius stated, “The strength of a nation derives in the integrity of the home.” Nothing hits closer to home than family, and individual lives are what constitutes a family. Pope Francis has famously said, “The right to life is the first among human rights.” By protecting the lives of the preborn, we protect the institution of the family, thereby promoting a healthy, nurturing society.

Every life has value because every person endowed by their Creator with life is created in the image of God. Being pro-life means that every life deserves to be respected regardless of circumstances because human life is created with an inherent sanctity and dignity. Being pro-life is more than just pro-birth; it’s pro-woman, pro-adoption, pro-child, and pro-family.

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

Please join the conversation! Visit us on social media and…

Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives will hold a vote on or around the anniversary of the murder conviction of late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell on a marquee bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy because unborn children feel intense pain in abortions. This is the second time Republicans have planned a vote on the major pro-life bill — and this vote is expected to take place this week, possibly Wednesday, the anniversary of Gosnell’s conviction.

U.S. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a pro-life California Congressman, confirmed the vote to the Weekly Standard.

“Life is precious and we must do everything we can to fight for it and protect it,” said McCarthy, a California Republican. “Our commitment for the House to consider this important legislation has been steadfast and I am proud of the work of our members to prepare this bill for House consideration next week.”

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to your U.S. Representative asking them to support H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

You can also call the Capitol Switchboard to ask to be connected to your U.S. Representative’s office at (202) 224-3121.

In January, Congresswoman Renee Ellmers led the charge to sabotage the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act — a move that ultimately forced Republicans to pull the bill from the House floor — because she disagreed with a requirement in the bill that rape be reported to a law enforcement agency before an abortion is performed for rape.

Republican leaders in the U.S. House had planned to hold a monumental vote on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade in January on the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, legislation that bans abortions after 20 weeks based in part on the compelling scientific evidence showing unborn babies feel intense pain at that point, if not earlier.

However, several Republicans who have pro-life voting records and voted for the bill the last time around, publicly led by Rep. Renee Ellmers, sabotaged the bill by objecting to the provision allowing abortions in cases of rape or incest only if the rape were reported to law enforcement. Ellmers and the lawmakers who worked with her, threatened to vote against the bill or kill it by siding with Democrats to kill it. Although Ellmers publicly indicated she would vote for the bill, privately she painted another picture and she and other members forced House Republican leaders to pull the bill and rework the language.

After months of wrangling over language, with Ellmers and some other members of Congress siding with her for language that was a more expansive rape exception, House Republicans have finalized the language of the bill in a way that has the support of Ellmers and her colleagues, the backing of pro-life groups and in a manner that should result in a strong pro-life vote that paves the way for Senate consideration.

According to pro-life sources who spoke with LifeNews, the rape exception language will be airtight by requiring some sort of documented medical treatment or counseling 48 hours prior to the abortion (so hopefully the mother has a further chance to weigh abortion alternatives). In addition, such treatment or counseling must be provided by physicians or counselors that are outside of the abortion industry. In cases of rape or incest of a minor, the abuse must first be reported to either social service or law enforcement.

As pro-life sources have informed LifeNews, other new provisions of the bill that strengthen in include a born-alive infant protection requirement that requires a second doctor be present and prepared to provide  care to the child if he or she is born alive and that the child must receive the same level of care as would any other premature infant. The baby must then be transported and admitted to a hospital.  The woman is also empowered with a right to sue if the law is not followed, and is provided with an informed consent form that notifies her of the age of her baby and the requirements under the law.

Abortionists are explicitly required to follow state mandatory reporting laws and state parental involvement laws.  Finally, abortionists are required to report any late abortions done under the exceptions to the Center for Disease Control and such data will be compiled into an annual public report to ensure accountability.

Top pro-life advocates are strongly supporting the final version of the bill up for a vote next week, according to the Weekly Standard. Two major pro-life groups have already signed off on the revised bill.

“We will have even stronger support than we did in the last Congress,” said Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey, a leading pro-life advocate in the House. “It will be good to have a truly unified pro-life conference.”

National Right to Life Committee president Carol Tobias worked closely with Republican leadership staff members and met Thursday with McCarthy. “I felt very comfortable working with leadership staff,” said Tobias. “We were working as allies.”

“We are thankful to our pro-life allies on the Hill, including House GOP leadership and the Congressional Pro-Life Women’s Caucus, who have tirelessly worked to bring this bill to a vote,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List. “This process has yielded a strong bill which we expect to pass next week with enthusiastic bipartisan support.”

Sponsoring Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona says the bill has the potential to save thousands of babies from abortion.

In a statement, Franks told LifeNews: “More than 18,000 ‘very late term’ abortions are performed every year on perfectly healthy unborn babies in America. These are innocent and defenseless children who can not only feel pain, but who can survive outside of the womb in most cases, and who are torturously killed without even basic anesthesia.   Many of them cry and scream as they die, but because it is amniotic fluid going over their vocal cords instead of air, we don’t hear them.”

Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee says several states have already passed the bill.

“The Franks-Blackburn bill is based on the NRLC model legislation that has been enacted in 10 states, and it reflects a policy that is broadly supported in national public opinion polls.  In the new Congress, every member of the House and Senate will go on record on whether to permit the continued killing of pain-capable unborn children, in the sixth month and later,” he told LifeNews.

A national poll by The Polling Company found that, after being informed that there is scientific evidence that unborn children are capable of feeling pain at least by 20 weeks, 64% would support a law banning abortion after 20 weeks, unless the mother’s life was in danger.   Only 30% said they would oppose such a law.

A November 2014 poll from Quinnipiac found that 60 percent of Americans support legislation limiting abortions after 20 weeks, including 56 percent of Independents and 46 percent of Democrats.

During the hearing on the 20-week ban when the U.S. House approved it previously, former abortion practitioner Anthony Levatino told members of the committee the gruesome details of his former abortion practice and how he became pro-life following the tragic automobile accident of his child.

Another bombshell dropped during the hearing came from Dr. Maureen Condic, who is Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine. She testified that the unborn child is capable of reacting to pain as early as 8-10 weeks. This is when most abortions in America take place.

The bill relies on the science of fetal pain to establish a Constitutional reason for Congress to ban abortions late in pregnancy. The science behind the concept of fetal pain is fully established and Dr. Steven Zielinski, an internal medicine physician from Oregon, is one of the leading researchers into it. He first published reports in the 1980s to validate research showing evidence for it.

He has testified before Congress that an unborn child could feel pain at “eight-and-a-half weeks and possibly earlier” and that a baby before birth “under the right circumstances, is capable of crying.”

He and his colleagues Dr. Vincent J. Collins and Thomas J. Marzen were the top researchers to point to fetal pain decades ago. Collins, before his death, was Professor of Anesthesiology at Northwestern University and the University of Illinois and author of Principles of Anesthesiology, one of the leading medical texts on the control of pain.

“The functioning neurological structures necessary to suffer pain are developed early in a child’s development in the womb,” they wrote.

“Functioning neurological structures necessary for pain sensation are in place as early as 8 weeks, but certainly by 13 1/2 weeks of gestation. Sensory nerves, including nociceptors, reach the skin of the fetus before the 9th week of gestation. The first detectable brain activity occurs in the thalamus between the 8th and 10th weeks. The movement of electrical impulses through the neural fibers and spinal column takes place between 8 and 9 weeks gestation. By 13 1/2 weeks, the entire sensory nervous system functions as a whole in all parts of the body,” they continued.

With Zielinski and his colleagues the first to provide the scientific basis for the concept of fetal pain, Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand has provided further research to substantiate their work.

One leading expert in the field of fetal pain, Dr. Kanwaljeet S. Anand at the University of Tennessee, stated in his expert report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice, “It is my opinion that the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by term newborns or older children.”

“The neural pathways are present for pain to be experienced quite early by unborn babies,” explains Steven Calvin, M.D., perinatologist, chair of the Program in Human Rights Medicine, University of Minnesota, where he teaches obstetrics.

Dr. Colleen A. Malloy, Assistant Professor, Division of Neonatology at Northwestern University in her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in May 2012 said, “[w]hen we speak of infants at 22 weeks LMP [Note: this is 20 weeks post fertilization], for example, we no longer have to rely solely on inferences or ultrasound imagery, because such premature patients are kicking, moving, reacting, and developing right before our eyes in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.”

“In today’s medical arena, we resuscitate patients at this age and are able to witness their ex-utero growth and development. Medical advancement and technology have enabled us to improve our ability to care for these infants…In fact, standard of care for neonatal intensive care units requires attention to and treatment of neonatal pain,” Dr. Malloy testified. She continued, “[t]hus, the difference between fetal and neonatal pain is simply the locale in which the pain occurs. The receiver’s experience of the pain is the same. I could never imagine subjecting my tiny patients to horrific procedures such as those that involve limb detachment or cardiac injection.”

This article was originally posted at the LifeNews.com website.

On March for Life, Eve of State of the Union, Pro-Life Leader Calls for Grassroots to Seize Momentum in 112th Congress

WASHINGTON, Jan. 24, 2011 /Christian Newswire/ — Today, in her first annual State of the Unborn video address, Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser called the 38th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision a unique opportunity for pro-life America. The address, available at www.sba-list.org/stateoftheunborn, coincides with the annual March for Life in Washington, DC.

“It’s not just a movement anymore. All the polls show this is pro-life America now,” Dannenfelser said. “It’s time for us to flex the muscle that we just flexed in this election and do everything we can in this Congress to protect human lives… I invite you to go to our website, www.StopAbortionFunding.com, and, if you’re not marching today, please take a moment to pray and act. Then, tomorrow night, watch that State of the Union message. See if the president decides to follow up on his promise [that tax dollars not be used to fund abortion in health care] because right now is the moment, a moment in time which we have not seen since 1973, where we have the momentum. We have the power. We have all the ability to save children’s lives by stopping the funding of their deaths. When he gives his State of the Union message, it should certainly include how he has or has not lived up to that promise.”

Dannenfelser’s address comes on the heels of the introduction of three bills aiming to end taxpayer funding of abortion – the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” sponsored by the Co-Chairs of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Dan Lipinski (D-IL), the “Protect Life Act,” sponsored by pro-life champion Rep. Joe Pitts (PA-16), Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, and the “Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act,” sponsored by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN).

The “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” creates a government-wide statutory prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion. The bill also codifies the Hyde amendment which ensures that no federal funds pay for abortion under the Labor Health and Human Services Appropriations Bill along with several other pro-life riders that currently have to be considered every year. The “Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act” ensures that tax dollars are not sent to abortion providers under Title X family planning grants. The “Protect Life Act” amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to ensure that no federal funds pay for elective abortion, prevents any federal agency from mandating abortion and protects the conscience of healthcare workers.

More than 40,000 pro-life activists have signed the SBA List’s Stop Abortion Funding petition lobbying to end taxpayer funding of abortion and abortion providers.

Dannenfelser will be available for comment on-site during the annual March for Life on Monday, January 24. Contact Kerry Brown at 703-470-1926 if you would like to speak with her.

The Susan B. Anthony List spent $11 million during the 2010 midterm election cycle. Overall, the SBA List was involved in 90 races including 62 wins and 28 losses. Successes included: defeating 15 of 20 so-called “pro-life” Democrats who voted for abortion funding in the health care reform bill; increasing the number of pro-life women in the House by 70 percent; filling the void of pro-life women in the U.S. Senate and increasing the number of pro-life women governors from one to four.

For further information, please contact Kerry Brown at (703) 470-1926

Introduce IFI to your friends, church or civic group

Serve as a contact person by receiving information from IFI and distributing it to others or posting it on bulletin boards. You can keep current by signing up for IFI E-Alerts and IFI E-Newsletters and be registering and checking in on our Take Action center.

Host a gathering of friends for a private evening with the IFI team.

Staff members are available to speak at your church or group function about IFI’s work at the Illinois Capitol, with parents working against liberal indoctrination at their public schools, and a variety of other issues including marriage, fatherhood, and current family policy initiatives.