• Skip to main content

March for Life

  • National March
    • 2026 March for Life
    • 2026 Speakers
    • “Life is a Gift”
    • Hotel & Travel Information
    • Events
    • Sponsorships
    • 2025 March for Life
      • 2025 Theme
      • 2025 Speakers
      • 2025 Livestream
      • 2025 March Highlights
  • State Marches
    • Find Your State
    • Alaska
    • Arizona
    • California
    • Colorado
    • Connecticut
    • Georgia
    • Indiana
    • Iowa
    • Kansas
    • Kentucky
    • Maryland
    • Michigan
    • Montana
    • New Hampshire
    • New Jersey
    • North Dakota
    • Ohio
    • Oklahoma
    • Oregon
    • Pennsylvania
    • Virginia
  • Pregnancy Help Donation Drive
  • News
    • BLOG
    • PRESS RELEASES
    • IN THE NEWS
  • Education
    • Post-Roe America
    • Dobbs SCOTUS Case
  • About us
    • MISSION
    • Our Team
    • Our President
    • Impact
    • FAQs
    • Jobs
    • Internships
    • CONTACT US
  • Store
  • TAKE ACTION
  • DONATE

11 Days of Life: Abortion Proponents Avoid Chinese Take Outs

January 10, 2014 By Scott Zipperle Leave a Comment

11 Days of Life: Abortion Proponents Avoid Chinese Take Outs

A recent story in an unlikely place, the Washington Post, highlights a number of problems with the pro-abortion movement worldwide.  The most blatant of course is how most advocates for abortion ignore places like China where U.S. taxpayers are subsidizing forced abortions and sterilizations.  Even when stories come out of how this policy is mostly affecting the poor in China who cannot afford the steep fines (7.49 million yuan (HK$ 9.59 million) in one case for simply having three children, two over the China legal limit).

 

See what else you can find in these excerpts of the Post article:

 

BEIJING — When her mind is clear, Gong Qifeng can recall how she begged for mercy. Several people pinned her head, arms, knees and ankles to a hospital bed before driving a syringe of labor-inducing drugs into her stomach.

 

She was seven months pregnant with what would have been her second boy. The drugs caused her to have a stillborn baby after 35 hours of excruciating pain. She was forced to have the abortion by officials in China’s southern province of Hunan in the name of complying with national limits on family size.

 

“It was the pain of my lifetime, worse than the pain of delivering a child. You cannot describe it,” Gong, 25, said in a recent interview in Beijing. “And it has become a mental pain. I feel like a walking corpse.”

 

Since the abortion more than two years ago, Gong has been diagnosed with schizophrenia. She traveled with her husband to the capital to demand help paying for her treatment, but she ended up being hauled away in her pajamas by police, a detention recorded on video by The Associated Press.

 

Forced abortions are considered an acceptable way of enforcing China’s population limits, but they are banned when the woman is more than five months pregnant. Yet no one has been held accountable for Gong’s late-term abortion, and other women in similar cases also struggle to get justice and compensation. . . .

 

Although China in November announced an easing of its “one-child” policy to allow more couples to have a second child, the overall system remains in place and local governments are still required to keep to population quotas. The new policy would not have applied to Gong because it allows couples to have a second child only if both the mother and father have no siblings.

 

“The system has not changed at all,” said Liang Zhongtang, a demographer at Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences. “It still forbids you from having more children than permitted by the government, so the game — and forced later-term abortions — are unavoidable if you want to have children the government does not allow.” . . .

 

Wu said his wife was different after the abortion. She easily burst into tears, picked fights with him, punched at him and their son and refused contact with others. In May 2013, about 18 months after the abortion, a doctor diagnosed her with schizophrenia, he said.

 

The majority of the article shows the tremendous, and at times arbitrary, results of China’s “birth control” policy – though nowhere in the article does it go into the U.S. involvement or that china in some ways is merely fulfilling Margaret Sanger, the “mother” of legal abortion in the United States, dream. 

 

Two other points of interest stand out from the above excerpts though.  One is the obvious psychological damage Gong Qifeng’s abortion had on her.  While some of that might be dismissed by the violence surrounding her abortion, numerous studies have found that women even under “optimal” surroundings suffer psychological trauma and/or aftereffects following an abortion, for, in truth, every abortion is violent. 

 

Secondly China, a near abortion utopia, actually bans late term abortions.  Here in the United States we are just starting the legislative debate if such human life should be protected – in fact we are one of the most liberal countries when it comes to killing the unborn.  The U.S. is one of only four nations permitting abortion for any reason after viability.  In fact most nations prohibit abortion after 14 weeks of gestation. However, the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Canada do not.

 

So I stand corrected it is not only China that is a “near abortion utopia” – the United States is on the precipice of being one, despite having a pro-life majority among its populace.  It is long overdue that our legislative and government policies, and the politicians who write and enforce those policies, stand up for the human dignity of all human beings, regardless of age.  It is not only the will of the people but the right thing to do.

Filed Under: Blog

January 9, 2014 By Scott Zipperle Leave a Comment

Summary of today’s hearing on No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

From a friend on the Hill:

 

Pro-life Groups:

 

Today, the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice held a hearing on H.R. 7, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.”  This legislation would make the Hyde amendment permanent and government-wide and would stop funding abortion insurance coverage in the “Affordable Care Act” (P.L. 111-148).

 

The subcommittee heard testimony in support of H.R. 7 from:

Helen Alvaré, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law (video, written testimony)

Richard Doerflinger, Associate Director, Secretariat of Pro-life Activities, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (video, written testimony)

And testimony in opposition to H.R. 7 from :

Susan Wood, Associate Professor of Health Policy and of Environmental & Occupational Health, Department of Health Policy, George Washington University (written testimony)

 

Members and staff may also be interested in the following video excerpts from the hearing:

Opening Statement by Subcommittee Chairman Trent Franks (R-AZ)

Opening Statement by Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH)

Opening Statement by Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)

Questions by Chairman Trent Franks (R-Z)

Filed Under: Blog

January 9, 2014 By Scott Zipperle Leave a Comment

12 Days of Life: Get Taxpayers Out of the Abortion Business!

This morning there is a hearing on H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.   While abortion itself is a divisive issue (with a majority of Americans being pro-life), most people agree that taxpayers should not be forced to pay for it.  A CNN poll from April 11, 2011 found that 61% of Americans oppose using public funds for abortion and a Quinnipiac University poll from January 2010 found that 67% of Americans opposed funding abortion.   Here is our primer on the legislation.  Please call your Member of Congress to support H.R. 7 and call for a vote soon on the legislation.

 

Get American Taxpayers Out of the Abortion Industry!

 

H.R. 7, The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act was introduced by Pro-life Caucus Co-Chairs Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Dan Lipinski (D-IL) and would establish a government-wide permanent prohibition on funding for elective abortion and insurance coverage that includes elective abortion.  It would also close abortion-funding loopholes created by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), prohibit tax-preferred status for abortion through health savings accounts (and other similar arrangements) and itemized deductions.

 

No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act would not affect either the ability of an individual to pay for an abortion (or for abortion coverage) through private funds, or the ability of an entity to provide separate abortion coverage.  H.R. 7 does not affect funding for family planning services.

 

At the end of Title I of the U.S. Code, the legislation would add the Hyde Amendment that now covers programs funded through the Labor/Health and Human Services appropriations bill, the Act also would make permanent such laws as the Helms Amendment (no funds for abortion as a method of family planning overseas) and the Smith Amendment (no funds for health plans covering elective abortions for federal employees).

 

Statistics bolster the argument that direct federal funding for abortion increases the number of abortions performed.

 

  • In 1993, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the Federal Government would pay for as many as 675,000 abortions annually were the Hyde Amendment and other measures not in place to prevent taxpayer funding of abortion in government supported programs.

 

  • According to a 2007 Guttmacher report, the Hyde Amendment ban on federal funding for abortion has prevented between “18-35%” of women from having an abortion. In other words, unrestricted federal funding for abortion will increase the number of women obtaining an abortion by an average of 25%.

 

  • Researchers at the Charlotte Lozier Institute found that Obamacare will lead to 71,000 to 115,000 more publically funded abortions per year.

 

Regardless of one’s views on protecting life in the womb a large majority of Americans agree taxpayers should not be paying for abortions. 

 

Abortion, plain and simple, is the taking of an innocent life and is opposed by a large majority of Americans.  H.R. 7 gets the federal government out of directly funding the abortion industry and should be passed immediately.

Filed Under: Blog

January 8, 2014 By Scott Zipperle Leave a Comment

13 Days of Life: Fighting Back in the War on Women

More and more each day there is growing evidence that there is a war on women, and abortion is the key weapon of choice.  This study out of England lends a new angle:

 

Study Suggests Link Between Domestic Violence, Abortions

Researchers say 25 percent of women having abortions worldwide were victims of partner violence

January 7, 2014

 

TUESDAY, Jan. 7, 2014 (HealthDay News) — A new review of existing research suggests a possible link between domestic violence and abortions.

 

Led by Susan Bewley of Kings College London in the United Kingdom, the review was based on the findings of 74 studies that looked at domestic violence — physical, sexual or emotional/psychological — among women who have had abortions.

 

The studies estimate that worldwide, between 2 percent and 30 percent of women having an abortion were victims of domestic violence within the previous year, and 14 percent to 40 percent had been victims at some point in their lives.

 

Overall, the researchers estimated that 25 percent of women having an abortion had been victims of domestic violence.

 

The study showed an association between domestic violence and abortion, but did not prove a cause-and-effect link.

 

“Intimate-partner violence is associated with pregnancy termination,” the researchers said. “Novel public health approaches are required to address violence against women and repeat termination. Termination services provide an opportune health-based setting in which to design and test interventions at the individual level.”

 

The study appears in this week’s issue of the journal PLoS Medicine.

 

Back in the colonies Americans United for Life is starting a new project in hopes of fighting back against this War on Women and the Planned Parenthood-type militants against motherhood.  Their initiative is called the “Women’s Protection Project” and it couldn’t be more timely.  Here is a brief description:

As we begin preparations for the 2014 state legislative sessions, Americans United for Life (AUL), the legal architect of the pro-life movement, has launched the Women’s Protection Project to highlight abortion’s negative impact on women and to recommend specific legislative solutions to the growing concerns regarding the health risks to women from abortion                                 

To learn more about the Women’s Protection Project and the legislation that it is composed of please visit AUL’s website here. 

Filed Under: Blog

January 7, 2014 By Scott Zipperle Leave a Comment

14 Days of Life: Stem Cell Research That Is Striking the Right Cord

Today the Wall Street Journal focuses on an ethical form of stem cell research that deserves more attention – cord blood.  The blood within a newborn baby’s umbilical cord contains young stem cells that can renew themselves and become specialized. These cord blood stem cells have been proven in treatment to help replace damaged blood cells with healthy ones and strengthen immune systems. Cord blood banking is the process of collecting and storing these stem cells for potential medical use.   To date, over 30,000 transplants have been performed using these amazing healing cells. 

 

The Journal has more:

 

Scientists are studying whether cord blood or cord tissues can treat certain autoimmune disorders such as Type 1 diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis, as well as congenital heart disease and cerebral palsy. Experts caution that more studies are needed to prove whether cord blood is safe and effective for these uses, but some see initial signs of hope.

 

“The early data look very promising that this could be a useful new source of cells that could benefit a larger number of people,” said John Wagner, a professor of pediatrics and director of the blood and marrow transplant program at the University of Minnesota. . . .

 

Cord blood can be collected with no risk to the mother or child and can be frozen and stored for many years. . . .”It’s a disposable item that Mother Nature provides us with,” said William Shearer, a professor of pediatrics and immunology at Baylor College of Medicine. “It’s a renewable source. It’s free and why not use it?” . . . Cord blood doesn’t need to be as exact a match as bone marrow, making it easier for unrelated donors and recipients.

 

The list of diseases and maladies the article states that cord blood can possibly treat seems never ending.  Type 1 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, congenital heart disease, leukemia, sickle cell anemia, cerebral palsy as well as being used to help cancer patients recover from radiation treatments. 

 

To learn more about stem cell research that saves lives without taking lives visit StemCellResearchFacts.org.  On the site you can also here the stories like the following of people who have been treated:

 

Chloe- treated for cerebral palsy

 

 

Joe Jr., – treated for sickle cell anemia

 

 

Mary Lou- treated for leukemia

 

H/T The bare lipped bandit

Filed Under: Blog

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 155
  • Page 156
  • Page 157
  • Page 158
  • Page 159
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 185
  • Go to Next Page »
#WHYWEMARCH
| Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | ©2026 March For Life
DESIGNED BY FUZATI