Abortion Leads to Infanticide, and Euthanasia.

The horrors of infanticide, euthanasia and medical rationing all stem from the disregard for human life shown by abortion. We as a society decided that some human lives could be ended legally by execution for no crime (or perhaps that most grievous crime of being unwanted). At this point the lives of all human beings were weighed against a perceived value. A price tag was put on life, a price tag based largely on how convenient it is to save your life and at what cost in time and treasure. We went from understanding that the sanctity of human life should be protected at all times to deciding whether either our own life or the life of someone else is worth living based on an illusion that we are reducing their pain, and by a reality that tells us that living too long makes us a burden on our families and on society.

This is clearly admitted by Peter Singer in his work Practical Ethics (Cambridge 1993):

“…we will have confirmed the suspicion of supporters of the sanctity of human life that once abortion is accepted, euthanasia lurks around the next comer - and for them, euthanasia is an unequivocal evil. It has, they point out, been rejected by doctors since the fifth century B.C., when physicians first took the Oath of Hippocrates and swore 'to give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel'. Moreover, they argue, the Nazi extermination programme is a recent and terrible example of what can happen once we give the state the power to [kill] innocent human beings.

I do not deny that if one accepts abortion on the grounds provided in Chapter 6, the case for killing other human beings, in certain circumstances, is strong. As I shall try to show in this chapter, however, this is not something to be regarded with horror, and the use of the Nazi analogy is utterly misleading. On the contrary, once we abandon those doctrines about the sanctity of human life that - as we saw in Chapter 4 - collapse as soon as they are questioned, it is the refusal to accept killing that, in some cases, is horrific (emphasis mine).”

Singer has repudiated the greatest cultural norm that was once extolled by our society: valuing the sanctity of every human life. Mr. Singer and others like him have replaced the sanctity of human life with the sanctity of death.

Death is the answer and for Singer and others a way to make the world better because their twisted Utilitarian philosophy is stuck in the mentality of Brave New World where pleasure is the ultimate good. “In modern bioethics, nothing is, in itself, either valuable or inviolable, except utility.” (Professor John Keown the Rose Kennedy Professor of Christian Ethics at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics as quoted by Wesley Smith in his book Culture of Death.)

The utility principle is a bizarre philosophical principle that uses the supposed common good to take away the right to life of a human being by imagining the good (measured solely in pleasure). This dangerous and dehumanizing philosophy has found a foothold in American society where these dangerous policies not only threaten the lives of unborn children, but all human beings. At any moment a life can be determined to be too expensive to be worth saving. Peter Singer is wrong, the refusal to kill people is the right thing to do.

Telling the disabled and elderly that society does not value them stems from the lack of value that has been given to the lives of unborn children. Once we start to weigh the value of human life against other considerations we have already lost because we are trying to measure the immeasurable value of a human life against something incomparable to it.

Do We Care More about Dolphins than Humans?

Photo Credit: Brock Schmeling

Photo Credit: Brock Schmeling

If we were talking about dolphins the evidence would be clear and convincing. A mother dolphin in distress would be and doing something that could put the life of her calf in danger you can be sure that no one would advocate for having an abortion to make her life easier. 

Dolphin abortion would spark outrage among segments of the population that readily accept human abortion.  No one would question that dolphin abortion is killing an unborn dolphin, because everyone knows that is true. 

If a mother dolphin that was attempting to end her calf’s life we would recognize something was wrong and do what we could to help both mother and calf’s life. We recognize in the animal kingdom that ending the life of the child is not the best solution for the parents.

 Why would we kill the baby of such a majestic animal? The same question is true for humans. We may be smarter than dolphins, but when a mother is in a crisis situation caused by a pregnancy at an inopportune time we need to recognize that the right answer is the same as it would be for an animal in need. Let us help the mother and the child both get to a situation were both lives can thrive. 

This is why the pro-life movement provides Crisis Pregnancy Centers and Maternity Homes to offer mothers real solutions that recognizes the fact that two lives are present. As a movement we understand that ending the life of the child, does nothing to help the mother. We work hard to provide real answers that protect both lives. If something would be a right for a dolphin, it should also be a right for human beings as well.

The Feast of the Annunciation and Good Friday

March 25 is the traditional day for celebrating The Feast of the Annunciation, the most pro-life celebration of the Christian calendar. The day that celebrates God becoming man and dwelling among us, not as an adult like Adam, but as the rest of humanity he was conceived as a one celled being who is both fully God and fully man. It is the story of Mary saying yes to both God and life. Jesus summed it up in these words: ““I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.” (John 10:10-11)

The Western Church also commemorates Good Friday today. When Jesus was crucified his death fulfills and completes his purpose for his coming to us on the Annunciation. “It is Finished” (John 19:30) he says from the cross, but it all started with Jesus coming to us as a single celled human being, him becoming Incarnate man.

Today as you reflect on his death on the Cross also take a moment to think about the Annunciation and about how Jesus came to us not only as a little child, but as the smallest of human beings, a one celled child.

Doritos Commercial

NARAL formerly the National Abortion Rights Action League was outraged over an ad that is shown “humanizing [human] fetuses” however irony impaired as they are, they failed to see that this same tweet referred to the parents of the child as “mom” and “dad” which also humanizes the child.

The advertisement for Doritos shows an ultrasound occurring, and while the mother and ultrasound technician look at the baby on the screen with wonder, the father casually eats Doritos. This annoys his wife. As he is eating the father notices that the baby on the screen is trying to grab the chip, his wife is annoyed a bit more when the father tests to see if the baby will follow the chip and after the baby follows the chip and kicks her mother, the mother grabs the chip and throws it across the room, at which point the baby lunges towards the chip and presumably is born.

This tweet criticizes humanizing the child, while simultaneously humanizing the child by admitting that the actors in the commercial are her mother and father.  If a child possesses both a human mother and a human father, she is a human being and it is appropriate to humanize her. Once it is admitted that parents are parents the humanity of the baby is on full display. A mother is not a mother, nor a father a father if there is no child.

Normally the press team at NARAL and their ally Planned Parenthood (the nation’s largest abortion conglomerate) hide parenthood at all costs. Oftentimes they use statements like the one from NARAL President Ilyse Hogue “I wasn’t ready to be a parent, I wasn’t with the person I wanted to be with for the rest of my life, we weren’t financially secure, we both had dreams that we wanted to go on and achieve.” Statements that indicate that there is still a choice on whether or not you will be a parent.

She said that she was not ready to be a mother, yet she already was a mother. Abortion does not solve anything; it is sold with broken promises and lies that tell mothers and fathers that they are not yet mothers and fathers and they have the choice to pretend that this lie is the truth. 

Link to video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugn_qmQ0NFo

A Gubernatorial Question

Baby feet.jpeg

When Doug Burgum announced his bid for Governor he said in a radio interview that he was going to “pivot from the intractable” issues like the value of human life. To his credit Burgum no longer refers to life issues as intractable he now gives them a higher place. Now he calls abortion a “theological question, not a governor [sic] question”.

Then he answered this question; apparently believing himself a great theologian, he declared that he would have vetoed both a measure that protected unborn children capable of feeling pain, and a measure that would have protected unborn children with a heartbeat.

Burgum also questioned the right of men to ask questions about the destruction of innocent human life “I would look forward to being interviewed at some point during this campaign by a woman on this topic.” How can Burgum answer a question asked by a woman about this issue, he isn’t after all, either a woman or a theologian which are apparently his requirements for someone talking about the violence of abortion.

No matter what Mr. Burgum says, when a new human life begins is not a theological question. It is a settled scientific matter coupled with a basic ethical question: Does human life have value? Human life begins at the moment of fertilization according to embryology.  Every biologist knows this. The ethical question remains: do all human lives have value?

You do not have to be either a woman or a theologian to answer this question. Either human lives are valuable because of their humanity or they are not. If they are not, then why should the lives of human adults be legally protected?

North Dakota Right to Life Issues a Statement on the U.S. Supreme Court Ruling

North Dakota Right to Life Issues a Statement on the U.S. Supreme Court Ruling

Bismarck, ND - Today the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request to consider North Dakota’s ban on abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat.

In 2013 the North Dakota legislature, with bi-partisan support, passed HB 1456 that would prohibit abortions, except to save the life of the mother or another unborn child, after the point when an unborn child has a detectable heartbeat. That is generally around 6 weeks after conception. When he signed that bill into law, Governor Dalrymple said in part: “Although the likelihood of this measure surviving a court challenge remains in question, this bill is nevertheless a legitimate attempt by a state legislature to discover the boundaries of Roe v. Wade.”

It is disappointing that the United States Supreme Court has once again failed to recognize the human rights of unborn children. Having a heartbeat is a universal sign of life, and all human beings with heartbeats should have legal protection. This is especially disconcerting on the anniversary of the mistakes of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.  We must continue to work diligently for the day when the most basic of human rights, the right to life, is extended to all human being regardless of age, stage of development, or degree of dependency.

Human rights cannot exist without extending the most basic right, the right to life, to all human beings.

North Dakota Right to Life is dedicated to protecting the lives of every human life from fertilization to natural death. For more information, please contact: office@NDRL.org or (701) 258-3811 or www.NDRL.org.

Burgum's Enlightened View on Abortion is not North Dakota's View

Doug Burgum recently entered the race for the gubernatorial nomination in North Dakota. When I asked him if all North Dakotans had a right to life, he said that he wasn't going to comment on controversial issues at this point in the campaign, and he was sick of having to answer this question so many times already.

Burgum stuck to his game plan of "pivot[ing] away from the intractable" issue of life.

This is a weak position and disingenuous as well. The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead has reported in multiple stories that Burgum is pro-abortion-choice.

Burgum "has been unfairly characterized as a 'RINO' (Republican in name only) because of his enlightened and inclusive positions on social issues—positions that will not be embraced anytime soon by the North Dakota Republican Party," a Forum editorial declared.

But if Republicans support positions that are neither enlightened nor inclusive, it would be not only fair but indeed the highest praise to say Burgum is a Republican in name only.

What is meant by "enlightened and inclusive"? Abortion on demand to end the life of babies with heartbeats, brainwaves and the ability to feel pain and react to painful stimuli. What is meant by enlightened and inclusive actually is barbaric and exclusive.I found it very interesting how Burgum mentioned the importance of bringing in young families to the state, yet he failed to denounce the industry that ends the lives of a kindergarten class every week in North Dakota. We already have these young families. We need to do more to support them and provide them alternatives to the violence and death of abortion.

For both the Forum and Burgum's knowledge, North Dakota deserves better than the destructive violence of abortion. Abortion is brutal and exclusive, not enlightened or inclusive.

Brock Schmeling

Mandan, N.D.

Schmeling is executive director of North Dakota Right to Life.

ND Planned Parenthood has Reach One Teach One -- Don't Kid Yourself

Planned Parenthood could care less about educating your child about healthy sex. They have one thing on their agenda and that is abortion.

National Right to Life reports:


With the recent release of the Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota (PPMNS) 2014 annual report, it is important for Minnesotans to know that abortion is the one area where it is growing its business. A Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) fact sheet comparing services provided by PPMNS in 2013 and 2014 shows that abortion was the organization’s only significant growth area in 2014.

“The latest PPMNS annual report demonstrates what MCCL has been saying for years—that Planned Parenthood’s focus is abortion, not health care,” said MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach. “Fewer and fewer women are resorting to Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services. But greater numbers of women are being pressured to abort their unborn babies at Planned Parenthood.”

The annual reports list eight services; among them, six saw declines in 2014 over 2013. For example, contraception units distributed were down 13 percent, and family planning visits fell 8 percent. PPMNS also saw a decline in its total number of patients (down 4 percent to 65,332) and total patient services (down 10 percent, or 62,040 fewer) in 2014.

Abortion was the exception among services, increasing fully 10 percent in 2014. A total of 5,500 unborn children were aborted at Planned Parenthood that year, according to its report. PPMNS expanded its abortion business by 10 percent in a year when the number of abortions in the state rose just 2.2 percent. PPMNS now commands more than 49 percent of the state’s abortion business, and it increases its market share every year.

Revenue rose significantly in 2014. PPMNS ended the year with total assets up 8 percent to $64.5 million and investment income quadrupled to $1.7 million. Even patient service fees increased 6 percent to $26.7 million. Despite diminished numbers of clients and services, 2014 was a very good year for PPMNS.

“Fewer patients and fewer services, more abortions and more revenue—that is the story of Planned Parenthood in Minnesota,” Fischbach added. “Planned Parenthood is focused on dominating the profitable abortion industry, not on providing health care for women.”


Call Congressman Kevin Cramer - Vote to Override President Obama's Veto

On Tuesday, January 26th, members of the U.S. House of Representatives will cast a key vote for the future of the unborn. They will vote on whether to override President Obama's veto of H.R. 3762, the "pro-life budget reconciliation bill."

This bill contains a provision that would cut off most federal funds to Planned Parenthood for one year -- about $400 million. In addition, the bill would repeal many major parts of the Obamacare law, including the program that provides taxpayer subsidies to about 1,000 health plans that pay for elective abortions.

Although we know that Congressman Kevin Cramer is battling for life – please call and support this vote anyway.

Call: (202) 225-2611

(please call between 9am & 5pm)

Talking Points:

1) The House of Representatives will vote on Tuesday, January 26 on whether to override President Obama's veto of the "pro-life budget reconciliation bill," H.R. 3762.

2) I strongly urge the representative to vote to override the veto.

3) The bill would block nearly 90 percent of the federal funds that go to Planned Parenthood -- about $400 million. It would also repeal major components of Obamacare, including the program that provides taxpayer subsidies to about 1,000 health plans that pay for elective abortion.

Congress Votes to Defund Planned Parenthood. President Obama Will Veto

Thank you to Congressman Kevin Cramer who voted on Wednesday to defund Planned Parenthood's abortion empire by redirecting tax dollars to ethical health providers who neither promote nor perform abortions. 

According to their 2013-2014 annual report, Planned Parenthood affiliates performed 327,166 abortions representing more than 30% of the estimated 1.058 million abortions performed annually in the United States.

This number equates to an unborn baby being killed every 96 seconds inside a Planned Parenthood facility!

Planned Parenthood's revenues for 2013-2014 exceeded $1.3 billion. They report that 41% of their income came in the form of "Government Health Services Grants and Reimbursements."

Clearly Planned Parenthood does not need or deserve our hard-earned tax dollars.  

Our Congressional Leaders have been listening and too, said enough.

Perhaps only those who closely follow Congress will realize the full importance of yesterday's vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on the Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act (H.R. 3762). But it is a very important victory.  

The bill would block, for one year, most of the federal funding that Planned Parenthood receives. It also repeals several of Obamacare's anti-life provisions.

What is so important about this win is that it is the first time a bill that defunds Planned Parenthood and an Obamacare repeal measure will actually get to the president's desk.

President Obama has promised to veto it. But that's not the end of the story.

Pro-lifers made their voices heard through their elected officials with their support for this bill, and we have demonstrated that we actually can get a funding cut and a repeal enacted into law when the next president takes office.

If that new president is pro-life.

House Speaker Paul Ryan has announced that a vote to override the president's veto will occur the week of January 25, symbolically around the anniversary of the tragic Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. And while it will be an uphill battle to get the required 2/3rds needed to override, we will be doing everything that can be done between now and then to convince members of Congress to support this important pro-life bill and make it law.

Let's do this... It is time.

FirstChoice Clinic: Largest Baby Shower

FirstChoice Clinic: Largest Baby Shower

January is a BIG month for the FirstChoice Clinic's Family Boutique across the state! This is the month they restock the shelves for the families participating in the "Earn While You Learn Program", an educational program through which moms and dads are taught skills to help them become better parents.

This year they are especially in need of diapers and gift cards but will accept any new baby items such as:

·         Baby wipes

·         Newborn sleepers

·         Newborn onesies

·         Baby wash

·         Baby lotion

·         Baby bath towels


The North Dakota Right to Life Office will be a drop off location for the Bismarck Downtown:

North Dakota Right to Life

418 E Rosser Ave Suite 100 (Downtown Professional Building)

Bismarck, ND 58504

Contact: office@NDRL.org or (701) 258-3811.


Mail a gift card or order an item from www.smile.amazon.com/ch/36-3326034:

North Dakota Right to Life

PO Box 551

Bismarck, ND 58502


Every expectant and new mother deserves to be surrounded by loving support, no matter her circumstances. This is especially true if the pregnancy is unplanned. FirstChoice Clinic, a non-profit FREE pregnancy resource clinic exists for just this reason: to provide unconditional support to those facing unplanned pregnancy. Through medical care, education, and practical support, FirstChoice Clinic empowers young women and men to make informed, healthy choices for themselves and their children.


North Dakota Right to Life is dedicated to protecting the lives of every human life from fertilization to natural death. For more information please contact: office@NDRL.org or (701) 258-3811 or www.NDRL.org



Other Drop off Locations across the State:



·         Hornbachers (all stores in Fargo and Morehead)


Devils Lake

·         Leevers Foods (North and South locations)

·         St. Joseph’s Church

·         Bethel EFree Church

·         St. Peter’s Church

·         River of Life Church



·         Tinee and Trendee

·         Bismarck Baptist Church

·         Holy Cross Lutheran Church

·         Messiah Lutheran Church

·         Spirit of Life Catholic Church

·         St. Mary’s Catholic Church

·         Bethel Lutheran Church

·         Charity Lutheran Church

·         Century Baptist Church

·         GracePoint Church

·         St. Mary’s Church (Hague, ND)

·         NDRL Office


Questions? Call FirstChoice Clinic 701.751.4575 OR jennifer@firstchoiceclinic.com.

Does Senator Heidi Heitkamp have "Women's Best Interests" in mind when voting for Planned Parenthood?

Guest blog post by NDRL Chairman John Trandem: 

Throughout Senator Heidi Heitkamp’s time in public life, she has consistently taken the lead on issues important to women.  That is why I am so confused about her recent votes against expanding women’s healthcare coverage throughout the state.

With the recent controversy over Planned Parenthood, bills have been introduced in Congress that would ensure, despite the controversy, that federal funds remain available for women’s health.  In fact, these funds would not only continue to flow, but thousands of new organizations would have access to the money to help provide services to women.

There are no Planned Parenthood facilities in North Dakota, so currently only those who are able to travel into bordering states have the ability to access these services.  The new legislation would allow 16 federally-qualified community health centers throughout North Dakota to receive federal support to provide care, which represents a dramatic expansion in opportunities for women to access vital services.

That brings me to why I am so confused.  Heidi Heitkamp says the issue is about access to women’s health services, but her vote means less access for North Dakota women.

Is it really about health care, or is it about ensuring that the number one abortion provider in the country continues to receive hundreds of millions of our tax dollars?

Senator Heitkamp’s three votes against increased access for women in North Dakota should tell us the true story.

Pro-life H.R. 3762 passes Senate

H.R. 3762, a historic piece of legislation, just passed the US Senate after passing the US House earlier this year. H.R. 3762 would send 89% of the federal funds the abortion giant Planned Parenthood receives to federally qualified community health centers. Thankfully Senator Hoeven voted in favor of this bill. Unfortunately, Senator Heitkamp voted against this important piece of legislation.

President Obama has threatened to veto the Bill which shows the importance of electing a pro-life President and retaining pro-life majorities in both Chambers of Congress.

Teens for Life in North Dakota is Born

In a virtual state meeting via Google Hangout, Wahpeton teenager Mary Benton was elected by peers as the new President of North Dakota Right to Life – Teens for Life. Elizabeth Anderson, of Fargo was elected as the Vice-President and Jane Johnson of Hebron as the Treasurer. Dickinson teen Katerina Jankowski was not present during the “Hangout” meeting, but accepted the position as Secretary.

Teens for Life is the official youth outreach program of National Right to Life geared specifically toward teens. The pro-life movement is the humanitarian movement of their time, and, as young people, teenagers can play an important role in it.

 “Abortion is an issue that teens are continually exposed to, and who better to educate teenagers on the life issues than other teenagers?” NDRL Executive Director Brock Schmeling noted. “In this day and age when organizations like Planned Parenthood are in our schools teaching sex education, students are not hearing the truth about abortion, so who will tell them the truth?”

President Mary Benton says, “It is our privilege and honor as pro-life teens to speak the truth to our peers.”

“We are ‘the abortion generation,’ but we are fighting back,” says Jane Johnson. “We are fighting for those who have gone before us, whom we will never have a chance to meet, and we are working to ensure that there is hope for the future of children.”

North Dakota Teens for Life are in motion with plans for their first Teen Life Leaders Camp in August at Triangle Y Camp in Garrison.

North Dakota Right to Life is dedicated to protecting the lives of every human life from fertilization to natural death. For more information please contact: office@NDRL.org or (701) 258-3811 or www.NDRL.org. 

Does a multi-million dollar company need a fundraiser? Especially when they receive taxpayer support?

Guest blogger Michael Wilde (Fargo)

What if I told you there’s a CEO who makes well over $500,000 annually, and the business managed by that same person reported more than $1 billion in revenue, and (after paying all expenses for operations, services, staffing, and advertising) that company had a one-year income “surplus” of over $127 million (that’s $127,000,000)? Would you think that business needs your help? Would you be surprised if that business claimed to be nonprofit? What if you heard that same business received over half a billion dollars in funding from your tax dollars?

These are the facts self-reported by the multi-million-dollar business we know as Planned Parenthood. Look for yourself at their most recent annual report available on their own webpage.

In a Forum article from Wednesday, Nov. 25, we heard about a fundraising event that will be hosted by this same business. The business that takes over half a billion dollars of our tax money, and then stuffs almost 25 percent of that money into a mattress at the end of each fiscal year. That same company is hosting an event here in Fargo at which the average asking price for a meal donation is $360, and they hope to serve 200 people. That works out to a potential single-night income of $72,000 or more this company is trying to take from the hands of the hardworking and generous people of North Dakota.

Regardless of your opinion on Planned Parenthood, the math and fiscal philosophy of this big business just doesn’t add up.

Meanwhile, a front-page article indicates the great work just $20,000 is doing to help the homeless in our community. If you search your heart, who would you rather help? Thirty-three homeless families, or a multi-million-dollar company?

Sending the wrong message

By Virginia Dolajak, President, Bismarck-Mandan Right to Life

I grew up in the '60s and had a hard time with Gloria Steinem's message then and I still do now. (Symposium, Tribune 11-5-15). I am so sorry to read several Bismarck State College employees had to fly all the way to New York to interview her. You would think with all this modern technology there would be an easier way to do that.

They discussed among other things how Roe vs Wade effected women's lives. I wonder if they discussed all the babies (about 55 million) whose lives were lost through abortion since 1973? Don't they deserve a voice too? The article ends with a solution to lowering the number of abortions: sex education and birth control! What a wrong decision. That is what got us into trouble in the first place.

Sex ed in schools has been around for more than 20 years. The only way to diminish the numbers is to have intact families and teach abstinence 100 percent. The heartaches, depression, alcoholism, drug abuse, etc. many of these girls go through after their abortion would also be lessened.

Just recently, Cecil Richards, now the head of Planned Parenthood, told in an interview that she and her husband decided to abort their fourth child, because three children were enough. It seems like if enough well-known people come out and tell us they have had an abortion it will lessen the tragedy. It certainly does not. Abortion is not health care or the answer. Adoption is a wonderful option.

Is There a Debate on When Life Begins?

Pro-abortion-choice[1] writer Anne Krapu dismisses Dr. Ward Kischer’s claim, cited in my previous article that there is no debate on when human life begins within the field of human embryology.  As a point of reference, Dr. Kisher is Professor Emeritus of Human Embryology at Arizona State University. Ms. Krapu sarcastically wrote: “The debate is over, which is why it has been sucking the air out of national politics for years. Hmmm.”

Pro-abortion writer Mary Elizabeth Williams however seems to agree with Dr. Kisher in her article, So what if abortion ends life?:

I believe that life starts at conception. And it's never stopped me from being pro-choice.

When we try to act like a pregnancy doesn’t involve human life, we wind up drawing stupid semantic lines in the sand: first trimester abortion vs. second trimester vs. late term, dancing around the issue trying to decide if there’s a single magic moment when a fetus becomes a person. Are you human only when you’re born? Only when you’re viable outside of the womb? Are you less of a human life when you look like a tadpole than when you can suck on your thumb?

And I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.

Princeton ethicist Peter Singer likewise supports abortion while admitting that human beings are killed in abortion: “I do not deny that if one accepts abortion on the grounds provided in Chapter 6 [of his book Practical Ethics], the case for killing other human beings, in certain circumstances, is strong.” Mr. Singer actually goes further supporting infanticide if their parent's desire (until the child is two years of age). Two other philosophers Giubilini and Minerva also justify a concept they call after-birth abortion. This concept is so far out there that the pro-abortion publication Slate thinks it is crazy. All of these individuals know that they are supporting killing human beings.

Furthermore most abortionists know that they are ending human life as well. At a recent NARAL Pro-Choice America Conference there are tapes of abortionists speaking of the luxury pro-abortion-choice activists who can claim that abortion does not end a human life.

From National Right to Life Committee website

From National Right to Life Committee website

I don’t like saying I’m dismembering a fetus.

Ignoring the fetus is a luxury of activists and advocates... The women know what's in there. They're not stupid... I actually think we should be less about denying the reality of those images and more about acknowledging that, yeah, that's quite a truth. So, given that we actually see the fetus the same way, and given that we might actually both agree that there's violence in here, ask me why I come to work every day... Let's just give them all the violence, it's a person, It’s killing. Let's just give them all that...

Abortion kills a human being. Abortists know this, scientists know this, and pro-lifers know this. Embryologically speaking the question is answered.

To say otherwise is anti-science.

[1] The term pro-abortion-choice is used instead of pro-choice, to add clarity because the pro-life movement is for most choices so long as the choice does not end a human life.

Buying Gun Does Not End Human Life

In her recent article linked here, North Dakota blogger Anne Krapu explains her outrage that abortion facilities are required to disclose certain information about abortion procedures. She muses about what the reaction would be if gun shops were legally required to give out similar information to their customers before they could sell a gun. We will return to this comparison later in the article.

Abortion providers in North Dakota are required to provide mothers with scientifically accurate information on the development of the child (if it were inaccurate the Supreme Court would throw it out as unconstitutional). So let us examine these “ridiculous” statements:

North Dakota law defines abortion as terminating the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being.                                      

The State of North Dakota requires that, at least 24 hours before your abortion, we offer you the opportunity to receive and view an active ultrasound of your pregnancy, including, if possible, hearing auscultation of the fetal heart tone at this facility or another facility.

Ms. Krapu is upset that the North Dakota Department of Health has a publication providing mothers with choices other than abortion. She laments: “‘Are you kidding me? I know my rights and I know what is best for my family and me. This is ridiculous!’ (Additionally, enter string of obscenities I can’t print.)”

We know this first statement about abortion is true: “Every human embryologist in the world knows that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization. It is not belief. It is scientific fact.”[1] It is not a controversial statement that human life begins at fertilization, until abortion enters the picture.

Image Courtesy of LifeNews.com

Image Courtesy of LifeNews.com

A mother being given 24 hours to reflect before making a decision that ends a human life seems like a very small concession when we consider that the choice is literally one of life or death. The ultrasound requirement is even less onerous. It is standard practice in abortion facilities to conduct an ultrasound to determine the age of the unborn child to know which abortion technique is the most efficient way of ending the child’s life. Ultrasounds also provide mothers with information relevant to her choice, an actual unbiased image of the child as she/he is. If you are pro-abortion choice, you should support mothers having the choice to view the ultrasound of her baby. She can look at it if she chooses. 

Furthermore buying a gun does not kill a human being, while procuring an abortion does. The false dichotomy: support mothers or support children, must end. 

Instead let us show both mother and child love by supporting non-violent options (If you doubt that abortion is violent look at this medical illustration of a D&E dismemberment abortion). Helping her with parenting classes, lodging, baby supplies, adoption information, etc. If you are looking for a place to do this, please volunteer at the 7 pregnancy centers and 2 maternity homes right here in North Dakota. These organizations have the sole purpose of assisting mothers (and when relevant fathers) before and after the child's birth.

[1] Dr. Ward Kischer, Human Embryologist, University of Arizona. ClinicQuotes.com

So When Is A Baby A Baby?

By John Trandem, NDRL Chairman of the Board

The recent release of undercover videos, featuring Planned Parenthood in their own words, has breathed new life into the debate over the equal protection of human life.  The agenda and actions of those who perform abortions have been exposed, as has their proclivity to violate federal law to line their pockets.

Much has been made of the “heavily edited” videos (available in entirety), despite the two independent forensic investigations, one of which was initiated and paid for by Planned Parenthood, which both concluded that there was no manipulation or deceptive editing.  These facts have not stopped the claims of “doctored” videos evidenced by Cecile Richards’ Congressional testimony.

The claim rings particularly hollow when few critics even attempt to identify the proper context for such statements as, “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”  by Planned Parenthood’s Deb Nucatola while describing altering the abortion procedure to attain better specimens, which is illegal.  Nucatola also stated, “I think for affiliates, at the end of the day, they’re a nonprofit, they just don’t want to — they want to break even. And if they can do a little better than break even, and do so in a way that seems reasonable, they’re happy to do that”  As a small-business owner, that is exactly what I strive to do.  It’s called profit, and is also, in the previous scenario, illegal.

These are just two from a multitude of incriminating statements for which nobody, despite their claims of improper context and manipulation, has effectively undone.  I suppose it is hard to make the case that a person meant the exact opposite of what they said.

The question of defunding Planned Parenthood has been met with cries that this will deny women access to care.  The legislation passed in Congress addresses that concern by redirecting the funds now going to Planned Parenthood to other federally qualified community health centers, which results in a dramatic expansion of opportunities for low-income women to access care.  Nationally, access would increase from 665 Planned Parenthood locations to up to 13,540 Community Health Centers.  In North Dakota alone, women would have as many as 71 options rather than their current zero Planned Parenthood locations.  Why did we wait to find out that the Wal-Mart of abortion is actively engaging in criminal activity to offer this expansion of services to women?  It should have been done long ago.

So when is a baby, a baby?  Biologists have identified these traits with certainty; a post-conception being is alive and growing, contains human DNA, is an independent organism (not part of the mother’s body), and is classified as a homo sapien.  Even Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Savita Ginde affirms this standard in the unsolicited and rhetoric-eviscerating proclamation, “It’s a baby!” while sifting through fetal remains.

To take the science of the matter a step further, look at the scientific continuum of human life.  The only logical dividing lines, between which no other lines of distinction exist, are conception and death; these are the sole delineations before which the being in question is significantly different than after.  This is not a religious standard, rather the only standard which satisfies the necessity of distinctive lines.  One may choose to apply alternative non-distinctive lines such as birth or viability, but these do not satisfy the evidentiary necessity of distinctive lines by any other standard than “what I think”.   Unfortunately, science, logic, and reason are often rendered irrelevant when they threaten to come between us and something we desperately want.

This brings us to the larger debate at hand.  The answer as to whether or not it is appropriate to intentionally terminate a pregnancy lies in the question of whether or not it results in the loss of an innocent human life; a life which deserves the same protection as every other life.  We often hear those on the pro-choice side echoing the oft-repeated refrain, “we want abortion to be safe and rare”.  Well, any procedure which defines success by the death of one of the two patients is inherently unsafe, and if nothing is lost in the performance of an abortion, why would one want it to be rare?  That very statement seems to imply that there exists the recognition that something valuable IS lost.

Reproductive rights are one thing, but after reproduction occurs, the point at which, absent intentional action to terminate or natural death, a baby has begun to grow, the question is no longer one of a woman’s reproductive rights (which have already been exercised), rather one which must also consider the rights of the wholly separate being.  What considerations outweigh the right of an innocent human to his or her life?