NRL News

As we roll into 2019, NRLC and its 50 state affiliates welcome the new legislative session

by | Jan 22, 2019

By Ingrid Duran, Director, NRLC Department of State Legislation

Right before New Year’s, right on cue, two pro-abortion articles appeared announcing that, indeed, the sky is falling. Chicken Little had nothing on Catherine Pearson (“4 Devious Ways States Chipped Away At Abortion Rights In 2018”) and the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times (“States needs to stop passing flagrantly unconstitutional antiabortion laws”).

It’s revealing how deadly afraid they are of the protective laws NRLC’s State Legislation Department has been actively pursuing through our 50 state affiliates. But we shouldn’t be surprised at their response.

Whether it’s a law requiring parental involvement in their minor daughter’s life or death decision; or a law protecting unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from the agony of abortion; or any of a dozen other protective laws, the tiresome mantra remains the same.

By definition, as noted above, these laws must be “devious,” “flagrantly unconstitutional, ” or worse. And, of course, pro-lifers stand accused of using “gruesome imprecise language,” as if there was a polite way to honestly describe dismembering a tiny human being.

Let’s take a look at what states were actively engaged in during the 2018 state legislative session.

Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act

Kentucky and Ohio became the 9th and 10th states, respectively, to pass NRLC’s #1priority bill, The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act. Under this law, abortionists cannot end the lives of living unborn babies by dismembering them piece by bloody piece.

Ms. Pearson article in The Huffington Post claims that pro-life legislators “used gruesome, imprecise language to paint a safe and common method of abortion as cruel and barbaric.” What irony.

The legal language used in these laws pales in comparison to the blunt way notorious late term abortionist Leroy Carhart describes this very “common” procedure. During hearings , Carhart testified how this barbaric “procedure” is performed:

“My normal course would be to dismember that appendage and then go back and try to take the fetus out whether foot or skull first, whatever end I can get to first….Just pulling and rotation, grasping the portion that you can get hold of which would be usually somewhere up the shaft of the exposed portion of the fetus …I know that the fetus is alive during the process most of the time because I can see fetal heartbeat on the ultrasound.”

As is required in pro-abortion articles, Pearson interviewed Elizabeth Nash, senior state issues manager at the Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood’s one-time think tank. “The language is simply trying to paint the procedure as something dangerous, something terrible that no one would ever want to undergo,” she complained.

Well, yes, that is right Ms. Nash. We are responsible for lifting the veil and exposing what she and others of her ilk try so desperately to hide.

If you look at abortion textbooks, or even on the webpages of abortion facilities, they paint a distorted picture of a dismemberment abortion. Some don’t even include the baby, or a rendition of the baby, and none even hint at the gruesome manner in the way this baby’s limbs are pulled apart, then later reassembled together like a horrific jigsaw puzzle.

Then there is the highly misleading language. They sugarcoat the abortion by saying that it’s “emptying the contents of the uterus” or is using “gentle suction” to “end the pregnancy.” (“Pregnancies” are ended, never the lives of unborn babies.) All of these buzz words to downplay the atrocity that occurs when the life of a little human being is snatched away.

Why the dishonesty? Simply because if they were candid, let alone honest, about what actually happens to the baby during dismemberment abortion or a partial- birth abortion, the public might well be up in arms.

Abortion Pill reversal

Last session, Idaho became the 5th state to pass a law providing mothers with information about the possibility of abortion pill reversal. Note this law does not prevent women from getting abortions. It merely empowers them with a lifesaving possibility.

Pro-abortionists are near panic at the idea that a woman who may have made a hasty decision to abort which she now regrets, will learn she may be able to save their baby.

Of course why would they want to let mothers know about the possibility of reversing a chemical abortion? They are not in the business of hope; they are in the business of selling a death built on a lie.

What lie? That this innocent baby isn’t a life after all; the lie that dismemberment abortions aren’t barbaric; that unborn babies, no matter how far along they are in their development, can’t experience horrific pain.

Abortionists and their media enablers throw in words like “common abortion procedure” in an attempt to “normalize” the brutality that is taking place. But we will never allow that to happen.

Both Kansas and Kentucky passed a ban on “web cam abortion.” This legislation prohibits the use of telemedicine in order to prescribe a chemical abortion. Webcam abortions means abortionists can prescribe abortifacients without ever seeing a woman in person. There are now 20 states which have banned webcam abortions; the law is in effect in 17 of those states.

Nebraska passed a law that prioritized the use of Title X funds by redirecting this money to full service public health departments that do not perform abortions and away from abortion giants. Similarly, Tennessee codified into their statute a 2011 Governor’s order that also prioritized Title X funding away from facilities that perform abortion.

Ultrasound/informed consent

Tennessee enacted a law that would offer pregnant mothers a chance to see an ultrasound, if ultrasounds are already being used prior to the abortion. There are now 28 states with some type of ultrasound viewing law. Utah also amended their informed consent law to modernize how mothers receive information on abortion risks, their baby’s development, and resources on alternatives to abortion.

The abortion industry vehemently opposes any informed consent law that provides mothers with accurate information about her baby’s development, or information on alternate resources to abortion, and lately adding information about the abortion pill reversal to informed consent laws.

Why? Remember what Ms. Nash is protecting—abortion is a huge money maker for Planned Parenthood.

South Dakota also passed a law amending their informed consent law targeting inaccurate disclosures that the local abortion facility was circulating.

Arizona, Idaho, and Indiana also passed laws that amended their reporting laws to include the reporting of complications resulting from the abortion.

This is just a snapshot of last year’s legislative session, and there is still so much work to be done.

With a new legislation session just around the corner, it is not surprising that editorial boards and articles are popping up with increased frequency on the web. Because they are scared (and they ought to be), they want to frighten the public and intimidate legislators.

Roe was built on a foundation of lies. Those same lies, and many new ones, have been used to erect a protective wall around Roe.

But commonsense protective laws that NRLC has promoted for decades is slowly chipping away at those lies. Laws like the Pain- Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, Ultrasound laws, Informed Consent laws, Parental Involvement laws, and Unborn Victims of Violence laws–among so many others.

What are these laws accomplishing? Protecting babies and their mothers, and also education the public.

And that might be the abortion industry’s fear : that the public will finally learn the truth.

That’s what our Movement has prompted since the 1960s: the truth about abortion.

As we roll into 2019, we welcome the new session and we are ready to continue to pass laws across all state legislatures that protect babies and their mothers.

Categories: Legislation