Wednesday, June 21, 2017

South Carolina, Eugenic Abortion, and the Ugly Side of Pro-Life Politics, by Sarah Connors

South Carolina, Eugenic Abortion, and the Ugly Side of Pro-Life Politics

Last month, South Carolina's legislature passed and the Governor signed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,  banning late-term abortions beginning at 20 weeks post-fertilization (or 22 weeks LMP) on the basis that unborn children experience pain and that the State has "a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of unborn children from the stage at which substantial medical evidence indicates that they are capable of feeling pain."

The legislature even explained that children with fetal anomalies experience pain:  "Substantial evidence indicates that children born missing the bulk of the cerebral cortex, those with hydranencephaly, nevertheless experience pain."  Hydranencephaly is often labelled as a "fatal fetal abnormality" or "incompatible with life."  However, the legislature inexplicably included an exception to the late-term abortion ban in the case of "fetal anomaly," which the legislation defines as: "in reasonable medical judgment, the unborn child has a profound and irremediable congenital or chromosomal anomaly that, with or without the provision of life-preserving treatment, would be incompatible with sustaining life after birth."

There's no further definition of "incompatible with sustaining life after birth."  So how long would the child's predicted lifespan have to be in order to be protected?  For hydranencephaly, the oldest documented person still living is 33 years old.  So if you can live till 33 with a disorder, it's okay to kill you while you suffer pain?  Why is pain even relevant?  Those with congenital analgesia are incapable of feeling pain, but don't they have a right to life?  And what if the doctors were wrong in their diagnoses?  The statute has a reporting requirement, but no mention of autopsies to determine whether the child actually had any disorder, and no cause of action is created legislatively to permit parents to sue doctors who were wrong.  Therefore, the doctors' have no disincentive to push for an abortion.

But the passage of this law was hailed as a win for the pro-life movement.  Pro-life organizations couldn't start tossing the confetti in the air fast enough. 

Except that this isn't a pro-life law.  It's a pro-choice law with restrictions. When you write a late-term abortion law with exceptions, you are writing a law giving your blessing for late-term abortion under certain circumstances -- in essence stating there are acceptable reasons for killing babies late in pregnancy.

As I worked my way through the quagmire of comment threads on major pro-life sites and their social media pages, I contributed a few comments of my own, mainly explaining that this law was discriminatory because it failed to protect the most vulnerable.  My opinion was wholeheartedly, and sometimes vehemently, opposed by people who claimed to be pro-life.

I pointed out the reality that most late-term abortions are done to end the life of a child with fetal anomalies, so an exception for fetal anomalies would make this bill essentially useless.  I was refuted multiple times with cut-and-paste info from Wikipedia, which referenced a very flawed study done in 1987 (there was an addendum which stated the study was reexamined in 2013 and the results were similar, but the parameters were the same, so this study had just as many issues, which I will address later in this post.)

Pro-lifers are using biased research studies to bolster their arguments explaining why it's acceptable to allow certain babies to be aborted. 

We have some huge problems within the pro-life movement, and it's killing babies!

Politics has fooled people into believing that exceptions are necessary to pass pro-life laws.
Pro-life organizations and "superstar" activists have fooled people into believing you can still be pro-life and support a woman's right to choose in certain circumstances, for the sake of political expediency.

Wikipedia has fooled people into believing most women choose late-term abortion for financial and social reasons.

All of these claims are false.


There have been a number of significant pieces of state-level legislation which contain no exceptions for late-term abortions (please see footnote if you haven't already).

Alabama, Michigan, Indiana, and Wyoming are just a few states which do not have exceptions in their late-term abortion laws. (Note, link is a pro-choice resource because Americans United For Life which tracks pro-life legislation has made the decision not to track exceptions within abortion legislation.)  South Carolina did not have a fetal anomaly exception in it's Partial Birth Abortion ban.

It is simply not true that pro-life persons cannot pass late-term abortion laws without exceptions: even New York, which has some of the most permissive abortion laws in the US, does not have exception clauses in its late-term abortion cut-off (although their cut-off is a bit later than the SC bill, at 24 weeks).

This lie has been perpetuated for too long, and it's time we push back.

We don't need exceptions in abortion limitations to push them through the legislative process.

When we've come to a point where the most pro-choice state in the US recognizes the right-to-life of a late-term unborn child, yet conservative pro-life legislators in conservative states cannot persuade other politicians to support late-term abortion prohibitions without exceptions this is a problem..... we need to find new, more persuasive legislators.

The answer to the "late-term abortion dilemma" is not to continue compromising, it's to make it clear we will not elect representatives who do not take a firm stand against abortion, no matter what the circumstances.

When politicians say, "we won't get support without compromise", who do you think they are compromising with? Pro-choice legislators?

Generally speaking, pro-choice legislators will vote against virtually any pro-life law. They don't care what the parameters of the proposed legislation are.

We aren't compromising with them.

When politicians and activists talk about compromise, they are talking about compromise within the pro-life contingent. It's pro-life legislators they are having to make exceptions for, pro-life representatives who are debating the merits of these laws and their proposed exceptions.

And they're arguing the content of pro-life laws based on your potential vote. They don't want to lose you -- their pro-life constituents --  as voters.

It's time to stop this nonsense once and for all. The state has a compelling interest in protecting all of its citizens. Science has proven the humanity of the fetus at all stages of development. Unborn children are citizens, and deserving of the same protections as everyone else. There is no reason for pro-life legislators to hold out on fetal anomaly (or rape or incest) exceptions, unless their constituents have informed them of their opposition to exceptions.

The ball is in our court -- your court.

Don't blame officials you've elected for not being capable of compromise. They're only doing what you are asking them to do.

You have the power to end exceptions in laws limiting late-term abortions.

Other states have done it.

Liberal, pro-choice controlled states have done it.

You need to do it.


Pro-life organizations are wrong. Pro-life means you protect all life, without compromise.

Just because someone is a "leader" in the field doesn't mean they're right -- and oftentimes, when people become leaders they become more enamored of the politics of a movement than the
cause they're fighting for.

There are many pro-life celebrities who are more celebrity than pro-life.

As I said before, pro-life laws without exceptions can be passed. And more specifically, late term pro-life laws without exceptions can pass.

Polls show that the majority of Americans, even those who identify as pro-choice, believe there should be limitations to late-term abortions.

Go back and read that last sentence again.

Why do pro-life organizations keep pushing the idea that laws without exceptions are inevitable?

You can't claim to believe all life is equally valuable, but it's ok to kill any certain demographic for expediency 's sake.

Not only is this incredibly biased against the targeted demographic, but it gives ammunition to the pro-choice crowd. Our views regarding the humanity of a pre-born child are seen as inconsistent or emotion-based.

If our morals teach us the value of each life, and science speaks to the fact that a fetus really is a human at all stages of development, how can we codify legislation which states that it's acceptable to kill even one fetus for the benefit of the other?

This is simply a matter of viewing one person as having more value than another. Of telling one group of people: "you are not worth fighting for, because somehow you are less-than".

We are essentially saying that the right of a "typical" fetus to be carried to term overrides the right of a "defective" fetus to be carried to term.

How is this pro-life again?

This would he an equivalent argument:

"All slaves except females who have small hands will be freed. Plantation owners really wanted small-handed females to remain in bondage, because they are docile workers who follow direction well. We feared that if we didn't agree to this demand, we would lose freedom for all the males and the remaining females who have average sized hands. Sometime in the future, when the political climate is favorable to us, we will secure complete emancipation for all slaves. Until then it will be considered divisive to bring up freedom for the small-handed slaves who remain in bondage."


This Wikipedia entry on late-term abortion was repeatedly cut and pasted into comments under my arguments against this legislation.

This was a very concerning sign. We are relying on arguments which:

A) are being taken from Wikipedia, which anyone can contribute to. I could write that purple sharks like to have abortions, and it would stay until someone noticed it and took it down. Wikipedia is not a valid source of information.

B) come from pro-choice sources

C) are shared in such a way that the article itself omits relevant facts regarding how the study was conducted.

I'll explain in detail here:

The Guttmacher institute was once the research arm of Planned Parenthood. See: (1) and (2)

Most statistical information about abortion comes from them.


It's not because they are the best authority with the most intelligent researchers. It's simply because they are in the business of abortions. They have access to women immediately following a procedure, and they have the ability to request follow-ups from willing patients.

Their studies are mostly composed of women who receive abortion services at their clinics.

The problem with this is that women who terminate pregnancies for fetal anomalies generally don't go to abortion clinics. If they do use a clinic it's generally one which specializes in late-term abortions, and many of these are not affiliated with Planned Parenthood. Most go to an out-patient surgical center where their personal physician performs a D&C, or they induce pre-viability at a hospital.

The sample used for the study didn't include information from any OB/GYN offices.

It didn't include information from any hospitals. It included extremely limited information from non-Planned Parenthood clinics.

It also included women well under the 20 week mark.

In essence it didn't focus on information from women who received a diagnosis at 20 weeks, which is when most problems are found, nor did it include information from medical professionals more likely to be treating a woman whose baby was diagnosed with fetal anomalies.

The study should be titled: "Reasons a woman has a late-term abortion, excluding most fetal anomaly cases". The study isn't a study at all -- it's an exit-survey from an abortion clinic, proscribed by the parameters in which its administered: there is a very small control sample, and the control sample they have consists only of women coming from abortion clinics.

Suffice to say: if pro-choice activists didn't believe that women were primarily seeking termination of pregnancy after 19 weeks for fetal anomaly, why do they consistently use fetal anomaly as an argument against late-term abortion at virtually every turn?

They know women generally terminate late due to fetal anomalies. It's just us pro-life persons who refuse to acknowledge reality.

We are addicted to exceptions. It's a habit we need to break -- and we need to go cold turkey. There is no valid reason for laws which contain discriminatory exceptions.

We need to make the next step, and actually be the pro-life activists we are claiming to be.

It's time to let your legislators know you no longer want exceptions in your laws

Footnote: Regarding "Health of the Mother Exceptions", pro-life groups have become more savvy regarding the usage of this clause to allow virtually any abortion, and have narrowed the language in state-level bills considerably to protect pre-born children.

This, from Colorado Right to Life, explains how a life of the mother clause could, and often is, written to protect both mother and child. Occasionally there is a real concern for both mother and child -- who have an equal right to life. We do not believe "health of the mother" clauses are a discriminatory exception, under the parameters of most pro-life legislation written today, because they contain measures to help save the life of the child involved.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Dear Instructor, I am wondering how you can justify murder in cases of rape and incest, by Christina Scarborough, homeschool student

Lisa Scarborough decided to home school her 8th grade daughter after experiencing the public school classroom to be hostile toward their pro-life, conservative views. However, when 13 year old Christina was taking an online Civics course through a Christian home school program, she was shocked to hear her teacher justifying abortion in cases of rape and immediately alerted her mother, who then contacted me for resources to provide to this instructor, and for a strategy to resolve the situation favorably.

Since they live in my area, we had the opportunity to meet in person when I spoke in her hometown a week later. Here is her letter to her instructor, along with his response -- a great outcome as you can see, which is why the teacher's identity and the program are not disclosed. Christina's courage and determination demonstrate that young people are not merely relegated to the future of the pro-life movement -- they are an indispensible part of the cause for the protection of preborn children now! As a further note, when she contacted the administrator of this program, she learned that this administrator was himself conceived in rape, and he was extremely appreciative of not only her diligence, but her care and concern for those like him.
-- Rebecca Kiessling, President of Save The 1

Dear Instructor,

I would like to start off by thanking you for teaching civics in an exciting manner, which helped me to digest the information with enthusiasm.  I liked the fact that you were willing to change the way that you presented the material to adjust to the different learning styles that students had.  That kind of flexibility is appreciated and helped me to hone in on the material that you presented.

However, I am extremely concerned with something you said on Tuesday, when you were speaking on how “America is not as great as we think it is”.  You were telling us that one of the reasons is because America permits abortion.  You went on to say, “We definitely messed this up and there are some countries who have not, for example: Poland has a ban on abortion except in cases of rape, incest, imminent death of the mother, if the fetus is unviable. Poland has got this right and America has got this wrong.”

I was shocked to hear that you believe that abortion is right in cases of rape, incest, and if the fetus is unviable.  I was under the impression that you were conservative and that you were strongly pro-life.  I was also under the impression that your organization had the same conservative, Christian beliefs; however, your statement portrayed just the opposite.

Murder is murder no matter how it happens or where it takes place.  Why is it any different if the murder takes place inside or outside of the womb?  In the womb the baby still has human DNA which means that it could only be a human and could never, no matter what age, be a blob of cells or tissue.

I am wondering how you can justify murder in cases of rape and incest.  How can you murder innocent babies because of the crime of their father?  For instance, if my father murdered someone and was sentenced to the death penalty, would I also be sentenced and pay the ultimate price?  No, of course not.  This is exactly what happens every day in America in cases of rape and incest.  The baby is brutally ripped from the mother and killed in the process while 99% of the so called “fathers” escape the punishment of the crime. The death penalty for rape is considered unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment. Yet, you condone the death penalty for an innocent baby based on his father’s rape?  The Word of God says, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall the children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin"- Deuteronomy 24:16. God also said, "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son… the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself" - Ezekiel 18:20. There are numerous other verses about shedding innocent blood. It’s something God hates. (See Proverbs 6:16-17).  Exodus 23:7 says "...Never sentence an innocent or blameless person to death, for I never declare a guilty person to be innocent.” So, because of these scriptures, and more, I am very confused about why you would condone the killing of the innocent for the guilty.

If you permit abortion for incest, do you realize how many clinics cover up the crime and cruelly send the victim home to be re-abused by her incestuous relative?  Far too many. These kinds of situations bring them repeat business.  The Bible can attest to this when it says, “For the love of money is the root of all evil”.  Have you thought about how abortion could be empowering an offender because they can just kill the evidence? That’s repulsive!

Are you trying to be kind to the woman? Because the kindest thing you could do for her is not make her live with the horrendous crime of murdering her own child. This is creating another innocent victim and killing a unique individual with his or her own DNA. Someone made in the image of God.  Adoption is a loving and Christian option, which literally brings psychological healing to a victim of rape or incest. It prevents a victim from becoming a victim again of a procedure that that leaves her in the mental torment of a guilty conscience and can have horrible physical consequences too.

Throughout the scriptures we see example after example of how God cares for and loves the little children.  He takes it very seriously when someone harms one of his little ones.  One example of this is portrayed in Exodus 21:22-25.  It states, “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.  And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”  Yet, in America each day 3,300 horrendous abortions take place.  He clearly conveyed his love for children in Matthew 19:14.  Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them...”  Abortion is exterminating the next generations who have a unique purpose and plan on their lives(according to Jeremiah 29:11).

Then I realized that you also said Poland had it right because they allow abortion until a fetus (which is Latin for “young one”) is viable. This, Sir, is an even bigger problem! Sometimes babies are not considered viable until a woman is around 6 months pregnant. Are you serious? If it’s OK to brutally dismember a baby who is 5 months gestation or burn it with saline, why is is it any different take suction out a baby’s brain just prior to birth? And why stop there? Shouldn’t we be able to kill a newborn? After all, it’s “unviable” without someone to feed it, and care for it. It’s still entirely incapable of making it on it’s own. The dictionary definition for viable is: (of a fetus or unborn child) able to live after birth. What makes a child viable? Someone who cares for it! What makes a 2 or 3 year old child viable? The exact same thing! I believe you have created a seriously slippery slope, Sir!  Worst of all, you have done it to the hearts and minds of youth who were counting on you to teach them right from wrong!  These same students are the next voters who will ultimately be deciding if this atrocity continues throughout America in the next generations.

I would like to be a teacher when I grow up. I don’t take it lightly that the Bible says, “Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because we who teach will be judged more strictly -James 3:1. With all due respect, Sir, I suggest you don’t take this lightly either.

Most Sincerely,
Christina Scarborough

P.S Please read the article below.


Hello Christina,

Thank you very much for emailing me with your concerns!

I am gratified to hear that you share my passion to protect unborn children in their mothers’ wombs. I wish that more Americans felt as strongly as you do about this incredibly important topic.

Please allow me to clarify my comments some: I am strongly, unabashedly, and unequivocally pro-life. I believe that life begins in the womb and ends at natural death, and that only God has the authority to exert any influence on this process, for He is the Creator and Sustainer of all things.

My comments in class regarding Poland were meant more as a relative comparison, rather than as an absolute endorsement of Polish legislation. While I do believe that Poland’s laws protect more babies on the balance than American laws do (given our liberalization of abortion), I wish very strongly that Poland’s laws were stricter. Because any life taken away is a moral tragedy, I wish they had stronger regulations upon abortion in the cases of rape, incest, endangered life of the mother, and inviability of the fetus.

I wished to praise the Polish government’s resilience against the progressive agenda to legalize abortion-on-demand, which is why my comments were very positive. Pragmatically speaking, I would support any small measure to curtail the practice of abortion in minute ways; on the whole, I would see the abominable practice of abortion burned and discarded on the ash heap of history. That, and not any point of compromise in the middle, is my prayer.

I will address this issue again in class tomorrow. Thank you again for your email, and please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns.

Classroom Teacher

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Thankful I Didn't Kill My Innocent Baby Conceived in Rape, by Aimee Kidd

Last Monday, I received a call from the District Attorney’s office stating they did not have enough evidence to file criminal charges of any kind against my rapist.  I literally collapsed on the floor upon hearing the news.  The wind was knocked right out of me.  That wasn’t enough, however.  The story of my rape, pregnancy, and birth of my child made a lot of local news headlines because of my demands for justice, so when the DA made the nine page memo describing why he wouldn’t pursue any criminal charges against my rapist public, the media had a field day.  Within a couple hours, my face was once again splashed all across the television and social media.

            The reaction on social media was nothing short of disgusting and devastating.  Sure, I had support from friends and family, even from strangers who have been following my story, but the nasty comments were hard to ignore. 

I read things like:
“Your credibility went out the window when we found out you had a bunch of different kids with a bunch of different fathers.”
            “You’re a known drunken whore.”
            “You are a liar.”
            “You belong in jail.”
But the worst was:
 “I feel sorry for that poor baby.  I hope the father will finally get to see his baby.”

Immediately, I began to pray.  I pleaded that God would protect my child.  In the state of Wyoming, telling your rapist “No” is not enough to prosecute a rape.  In Wyoming, being incoherent, drunk, or drugged is not enough for a rape conviction.  Further, a rapist has total access and ability to exercise his parental rights to his child conceived in rape without a conviction. In other words, it's open season on women.

My mind wandered to a dark place.  I thought about the fact that, had I just snuck out of town and had an abortion, no one would’ve ever known about the rape.  My rapist wouldn’t be able to fight for custodial or visitation rights.  No one would be calling me a liar or a whore.

I wanted to slap myself.  I sobbed and looked down at my beautiful little girl and I thanked God for her.  I am so thankful God protected her, and I didn’t kill my precious and innocent baby with an abortion.  How dare I let my mind even consider such horrible thoughts, just because of the cruelty of others.  I refocused and praised God.

Having my beautiful daughter, finding my voice, giving hope and inspiration to other women who have been victims of sexual assault, and advocating for victims' rights was worth whatever public backlash I was receiving via social media and within my community.  I was being labeled a liar and a whore.  I was being told I made the entire thing up just so a "potentially loving father" wouldn’t get to see his baby -- never mind the fact that he never sought to see her.  So despite all of my public advocacy for my rights, for rape victims and victims' rights, I learned I have a long road ahead of me with the news of the DA not being willing to file charges.

My fight is just beginning.  I am so thankful for the people who continue to support me and who continue to stand beside me.  I am proud of the choice I made to keep and parent my baby conceived in rape.  I will continue to fight tooth and nail to ensure my rapist cannot exercise parental rights to her.  With the help of social justice advocates and local legislators, I hope to achieve legislation that will actually protect babies like mine. 

If a woman is brave enough to report her rape, give birth to a child conceived in rape, and speak out against a flawed legal system, the last thing she should ever have to worry about is her rapist having access to her child.  No wonder so many women are forced into silence and feel as if they are forced to abort.  What a nightmare to be faced with the potentiality of having to co-parent with a rapist!

I am so thankful for the legislators who have reached out to me and offered support to pass a bill in the state of Wyoming which will include language to prevent rapists (even without a conviction) parental access to the child conceived in rape -- The Rape Survivor Child Custody Act.  I hope other legislators will see our laws are flawed.  Rape is almost impossible to get an arrest, let alone to convict in my state.  Loving mothers who become pregnant by rape shouldn’t be further victimized by being forced to subject their innocent children to rapists.  Our laws need to be fixed.  Rapes need to be easier to prosecute; police need to be given all the tools to investigate a rape swiftly; and children conceived in rape need protection from their mother’s rapist.

Please keep my family and my beautiful baby in your prayers.  I declare God will protect my child -- a precious blessing He bestowed upon me. 

Thank God for protecting her and loving her.  I pray He continues to do so.

BIO:  Aimee Kidd is a mother of 6, self-employed, in Casper, Wyoming, and is a pro-
life blogger for Save The 1.  Her first piece written for our blog is found here: and her second piece is found here: