This spring the journal Economic Inquiry published a study by Joseph Sabia and Daniel Reese which found very solid evidence that pro-life parental involvement laws reduce the suicide rate for teen females. This peer-reviewed study is both methodologically rigorous and well done. Analyzing state-level suicide data from 1987 to 2003 and holding constant both state-level trends and a range of economic and demographic factors, it finds that parental involvement laws reduce the suicide rate for teen females anywhere from 11 to 21 percent. The authors argue that this is because parental involvement laws reduce the incidence of stressful life events. These include unprotected sexual intercourse, STDs, pregnancies, and abortions…

Overall, this study contributes to a growing body of peer-reviewed research which documents the positive public-health impact of pro-life parental-involvement laws. There exist at least 16 peer-reviewed studies which find that parental involvement laws result in statistically significant reductions in the in-state abortion rate for minors. Obviously some minors circumvent these laws by obtaining abortions in states without such laws. However, every study that tracks both in-state and out-of-state abortions finds that the in-state decline significantly exceeds the out-of-state increase.

Additionally, a 2003 study in the Journal of Health Economics by Phillip Levine found that parental-involvement laws reduce the pregnancy rate of 15- to 17-year-olds by 4 to 9 percent. A 2008 study in the Journal of Law Economics and Organization by Jonathan Klick and Thomas Stratmann shows that parental involvement laws reduce gonorrhea rates anywhere from 12 to 20 percent for females under 20…

Earlier this month the House Judiciary Committee approved the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA). This act would strengthen the over 30 state-level pro-life parental-involvement laws currently in place by making it illegal for a non-parent to circumvent these laws by taking a minor girl across state lines for an abortion. The House Leadership should schedule a vote on this piece of legislation. Parental-involvement laws have always polled well with the general public. More important, there is plenty of good evidence that CIANA will not only prevent abortions, but also will protect the health of teen girls.

You can read the full article here.

Yesterday, a state trial court judge overturned an Oklahoma law intended to ensure the safe use of abortion-inducing drugs, such as RU-486.  The law, enacted in 2011 and based upon an AUL model, simply required that abortion providers administer the drugs in the manner approved by the FDA.

The state’s interest in enacting such a law was clear: Since RU-486 was approved in 2000, thousands of women have faced complications, many life-threatening.  Both the FDA and the drug manufacturer have acknowledged the substantial risk of complications following use.  Fourteen women have died.  Eight of those women died of a severe bacterial infection that would not otherwise harm healthy women.  All eight of those women were instructed to use the drugs in a manner that directly contravened the approved FDA protocol.

On the other hand, no women have died from bacterial infection after using RU-486 in the manner approved by the FDA.

With that in mind, Oklahoma adopted a law aimed at ensuring that RU-486 and other abortion-inducing drugs are administered only in the way approved by the FDA.  Rather than allowing providers to hand out dangerous drugs and send women home to self-administer away from physician oversight and beyond the gestational limit approved by the FDA, the law required that physicians examine women before administering the drugs and instructed that the drugs be administered in a clinical setting within the gestational limit approved by the FDA.

Of course, the law was immediately challenged by abortion providers (backed by the Center for Reproductive Rights), whose main interest is not protecting women’s health but making a profit.  After all, sending women home with the drugs and providing them past the gestational limit allows abortion providers to sell more of the dangerous drugs each day.

You can read the full report here.

Does the mother have the right to kill her child simply because the child is alive and residing within her? Is abortion a right? Who determines what our rights are?

Is this title anti-feminist? No. The original feminists, like Susan B. Anthony, were against abortion – and, so are today’s true feminists.

Although I rarely use that term because of its pro-choice connotation, I’m certainly a feminist. And, I know I’m not alone.

I think a large majority of Americans are feminists, too. We believe that women should have equal access to educational and political opportunities, equal pay, not be treated in sexually demeaning ways, and have the same chance as men to obtain employment, loans, housing etc. We believe women should have the same rights as men.

But, the definition of the word “rights” is where I disagree with those 1960s and 1970s feminists.

While women should have the same rights as men, equality doesn’t mean that women should have government-funded, unrestricted access to abortion on-demand, in all nine months of pregnancy.

Pregnancy is not a curse. Being pregnant does not make me a less valuable human being than my husband. While having a career and being a mother can be challenging, I have never looked at my children as barriers. In fact, they have made me a better woman. I view the ability to become pregnant an advantage of being a woman, something that men should envy.

Do I believe women have too many rights? Absolutely not. But, if you believe abortion is right, then yes I do, because it’s not a right that is ours to be had.

No one has the right to take the life of another innocent being simply because of his or her age, abilities, level of dependency, or location.

You can read the full article here.

I agree with the content above 100%.  I think there is a problem with using that as  a title.  Many pro-lifers will agree with what she is saying, but unfortunately, a title like that will turn off many pro-choicers.  If the goal is to persuade pro-choicers we need to be aware that they are already aware of our differences and the majority of time will not come to listen, but instead ready to argue.  There is already the stereotype that we are anti-women, so we need to find a common ground, a statement that will make them believe we are worth listening too and then work our way towards something that will make them think and challenge them.

A senior ambulance paramedic has told a coronial inquest, a Hunter woman who died after an abortion was in severe anaphylactic shock when he began treating her.

29-year-old Helen Grainger died at Newcastle’s John Hunter Hospital in April 2007.

You can read the full story here.

Unfortunately, in Australia, which is a fairly well developed country, numerous women have died from abortion.  LifeNews.com reports the following:

Australia is no stranger to abortions that take the lives of women who get them.

In March, the first woman in Australia died from a lethal infection contracted after using the deadly RU 486 abortion drug. The abortion pill has killed more than a dozen women worldwide and potential dozes of women across the globe, according to its European manufacturer.

You can go here for more details.

Planned Parenthood in Texas, is making just that claim, that they should receive government funds because facilities their do not perform abortions.  You can read this report from CitizenLink for more details.  The problem with supporting one Planned Parenthood that doesn’t perform abortion is that there is no guarantee that money will not funneled to Planned Parenthood’s corporate headquarters which will then use that money to support the abortion agenda.

At first glance it is easy to be sympathetic towards Planned Parenthood and assume that supporting the clinics who don’t perform abortion is ok.  It is never good to take things only on the surface level.  In the quest for liberty and life for the pre-born Planned Parenthood is on its heels.  They do not relent in sparing the life of the pre-born, so we should not step back in standing up for the pre-born.

in opposition to a Missouri bill that would ban sex-selection abortions, a Planned Parenthood lobbyist recently testified that the organization “condemns” sex-selection abortions. However, when a legislator asked her to answer whether Planned Parenthood would refuse to perform such abortions if asked by a patient, she dodged the question with political rhetoric. Three times she refused to answer the question, even when asked directly to give a “yes or no” response. Americans United for Life was there, testifying against the discrimination against women inherent in sex-selection abortions.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Leslie Kantor and Dr. Carolyn Westhoff penned an article in which they, too, claimed the abortion chain “condemns” sex selection. However, their article also tellingly admits, “That doesn’t mean we always agree with the decisions made by people who seek our help.” Thus, it appears that in Planned Parenthood-speak, “condemnation” of sex selection does not include “will not participate” in the abortion.

As reported by the Huffington Post, “None of [Planned Parenthood‘s] clinics will deny a woman an abortion based on her reasons for wanting one, except in those states that explicitly prohibit sex-selection abortion.”

It seems fairly clear, despite Planned Parenthood’s claimed “condemnation” of sex selection, it is a willing participant in sex-selection abortions unless it becomes illegal.

You can read the full article here.

The eldest of four siblings, he has seen two brothers and a sister surpass him in size, and acquire cars and college educations. He, however, with an underdeveloped entitlement mentality, has been equable about life’s sometimes careless allocation of equity. Perhaps this is partly because, given the nature of Down syndrome, neither he nor his parents have any tormenting sense of what might have been. Down syndrome did not alter the trajectory of his life; Jon was Jon from conception on.

You can read the full article here.