Friday, November 30, 2012

ALL Pro-Life Today: Women Have Become Instruments of Sorrow

Pro-Life Today Header
Friday, November 30, 2012
Women Have Become Instruments of Sorrow
By Judie Brown
Little girls used to dream of the day when they would meet a man, fall in love, get married, and have children of their own. They would live their lives with a man who cherished them, loved them, and honored them. And this was reality for countless women----in the past. Today's reality is far askew of this and it makes this desire seem almost like a fairy tale. What has happened to our society to effect this change? Today's commentary examines the reasons.

[ Click here to


Media misleads on reasons behind abortion decline
National Review Online
Last week, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) released abortion statistics for calendar year 2009. The news was good for pro-lifers as the CDC statistics indicate the number of abortions decreased by approximately 5 percent between 2008 and 2009. Overall, the abortion rate has been declining fairly steadily since the early 1990s, but has leveled off somewhat during the current decade. Furthermore, some research indicates that the incidence of abortion increases when the economy slows down. As such, this reported decline in the abortion rate was somewhat unexpected. Unsurprisingly, most of the mainstream-media coverage of the abortion decline was quick to credit contraception use. The Associated Press story on the abortion decline cited two professors and a Guttmacher Institute analyst. They each credited contraception use, even though they were unable to provide any actual evidence of increased contraception use in 2009. Perhaps unsurprisingly, no one representing a pro-life group was quoted or cited in the article.

Does abortion reduce welfare costs?
HLI Worldwatch
Supporters of the Culture of Death tend to lack foresight, and do not seem to possess even a rudimentary understanding of human nature. These defects inevitably lead to many cases of the "law of unintended consequences." . . . [One] example of this lack of foresight is the claim that, when the State pays for a poor woman's abortion, it saves a lot of money by avoiding the costs of a delivery and another child added to the welfare system. In fact, this is one of the most persuasive arguments offered by pro-abortionists in support of Medicaid funding of abortion.

An ethics debate over embryos on the cheap
Los Angeles Times
Dr. Ernest Zeringue was looking for a niche in the cutthroat industry of fertility treatments. He seized on price, a huge obstacle for many patients, and in late 2010 began advertising a deal at his Davis, Calif., clinic unheard of anywhere else: Pregnancy for $9,800 or your money back. That's about half the price for in vitro fertilization at many other clinics, which do not include money-back guarantees. Typically, insurance coverage is limited and patients pay again and again until they give birth----or give up. Zeringue sharply cuts costs by creating a single batch of embryos from one egg donor and one sperm donor, then divvying it up among several patients. The clinic, not the customer, controls the embryos, typically making babies for three or four patients while paying just once for the donors and the laboratory work.