NRL News

Pro-abortionists looking for a silver lining in the cloud of state pro-life legislation

by | Apr 18, 2017

By Dave Andrusko

When the tide is against you–in this case the “you” being the Abortion Industry and its media apologists–you look for any port in a storm. So when Mother Jones magazine writes about “The State of Reproductive Health Legislation in 2017 Is Not Exactly What You Would Expect,” you are curious what justifies the subhead–“A little good news in an otherwise bleak landscape.”

First, the basis for P.R. Lockhart’s story. It is a new study from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute titled, “Laws Affecting Reproductive Health and Rights: State Policy Trends in the First Quarter of 2017.” The “little good news” is that of the “provisions related to reproductive health”

431 would restrict access to abortion services and 405 are proactive measures seeking to expand access to other sexual and reproductive health services. Although the number of abortion restrictions introduced is about on par with past years, the number of proactive measures grew from 221 in 2015 and 353 in 2016, reflecting growing interest among both advocates and policymakers.

This is largely a reflection of the abortion industry understanding that Obamacare will be repealed and replaced and that the pipeline from the federal treasury to their coffers could be severely crimped. President Trump has already signed a law that restores the option to states, if they choose, to direct Title X funds to county health departments, community health centers, or other types of providers, in preference to organizations engaged in objectionable activities, such as Planned Parenthood.

Then there is the other “little good news”–the slight diminution of pro-life measures introduced. But Lockhart is honest enough to speculate (via Elizabeth Nash, the state issues manager for the Guttmacher Institute ) that perhaps pro-lifers have run out of initiatives. We haven’t, but to her credit she doesn’t fall back on some phony baloney notion that there is a waning of interest.

Numbers ebb and flow for a host of reasons, including whether a legislature is even in session, how long the session is going to be, whether it’s an election year, etc. And, of course, Guttmacher is only talking about the first three months of 2017.

Finally check this paragraph out:

As a result of this reduced activity, Nash says, “we have been seeing less in the way of trends” when looking at the types of abortion restrictions introduced in 2017. There are still some commonalities among the various restrictions introduced in the states, particularly concerning “abortion bans” that prohibit abortions being sought for certain reasons—such as a genetic anomaly or the sex of the fetus—or after a specific point in the pregnancy.

A much more accurate way of stating the same development is that pro-lifers are also looking at other ways to protect abortion-minded women and their unborn babies. Thus in addition to the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, bans on dismemberment abortions, and improving informed consent laws, there are such measures as requiring abortionists to tell women who are undergoing chemical abortions (which involved two drugs) that if they change their mind after taking the first drug, they can increase the chances their babies will survive by taking large dosages of progesterone to counter the impact of the first drug.

Or, as is the case in Arizona, passing a law that requires abortion clinics that perform late abortions to have “certain lifesaving equipment on hand” if the baby is born alive, and to use all available means and medical skills to save an abortion survivor. Lockhart writes “that some critics have challenged for possibly prolonging the pain of nonviable fetuses.”

Think about that. A child who may survive the abortion is already pain-capable. But that hasn’t stopped the abortionist from aborting her in the first place. Suddenly, they are concerned about “prolonging the pain of nonviable fetuses”?!

Pro-lifers continue to whittle away at the abortion “liberty,” in the process providing women with alternatives and saving later-term babies from a hideous abortion death. That’s a whole lot of good news.

Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, go directly to and/or follow me on Twitter at Please send your comments to

Categories: post-abortion