Youthful pro lifers are relentlessly transforming Iowa 7


By Tom Quiner

The pro life movement is young

The pro life movement is young

“Abortions drop 30% in Iowa in 5-year span.”

This was yesterday’s headline in the Des Moines Register. They were reporting on the Iowa Board of Medicine’s upcoming hearing on the use of webcam abortions in Iowa.

This headline confirms Quiner’s Diner premise that the youthful pro life generation is beating the aging Marxist-feminist human abortion crowd. [Read “A quiet tidal wave of hope.] That’s the story: young Iowa women are increasingly rejecting Planned Parenthoods seductive advocacy of human abortion.

The Register, though, gave the story a different spin with their sub-headline:

“The numbers dipped from 6,649 in ’07 to 4,648 in ’12 despite a system that provides pills for the procedure” [my emphasis].

They wanted to send a loud and clear message to the Iowa Board of Medicine that, ‘see, webcam human abortions aren’t really so bad, since the quantity of human abortions is declining. See, maybe webcam abortions even have something to do with it!’

Their spin was stopped in its tracks with two front page photos in today’s paper taken by the Register’s Andrea Melendez.

The pro lifers are young women.

The Marxist-feminists who lead the human abortion movement are aging

The Marxist-feminists who lead the human abortion movement are aging

The human abortion advocates aren’t.

An observer at yesterday’s three hour marathon hearing said,” I believe the hearing was pretty well balanced and gave both sides an opportunity to present their version of what is right or wrong about the proposed ruling.”

Another said, “”An exhausting day. Thanks to everyone who provided comments in favor of the petition. We may have struggled a bit – but PP crumbled for sure. God help us.”

A Planned Parenthood doctor was grilled by a Board member on the qualifications of the PP staffers who performed vaginal ultrasounds on patients before commencing a chemical abortion. He refused to answer.

Sue Thayer, the former manager of PP’s Storm Lake clinic, said PP personnel are woefully undertrained:

“If you are breathing, you can do this. It helps if you’ve run a joystick on a video game, because it’s a lot like moving it around to get the right picture.”

However, a retired Des Moines obstetrician, Dr. William Burke, told the Board that they each needed to jettison their belief system, the very ethical foundation of their lives:

“I’m going to ask you to please make your decision not on your personal prejudice and not on your religious beliefs, and not on political pressure, whether it’s subtle or not so subtle,” he said. “But make it based on the evidence.”

Reality check: The previous Board that ruled on this subject in 2010 were entirely appointed by a liberal Democrat.

Today’s Board has been entirely appointed by Republican Governor, Terry Branstad.

The Iowa Board of Medicine's hearing on Webcam Human Abortions

The Iowa Board of Medicine’s hearing on Webcam Human Abortions

We are living in an age of power politics. 2010’s liberal BOM jettisoned evidence in a heartbeat to expand the reach of abortion via a practice that has been banned in many states. Even more, Democrats in the Iowa Senate blocked the appointment of a pro life Catholic woman to the Board by dishonestly smearing her reputation (which Quiner’s Diner called them on).

Governor Branstad responded by quickly replacing her with Monsignor Frank Bognanno. So, Dr. Burke is asking Msgr. Bognanno to abandon his belief system and embrace Planned Parenthood’s.

No, It’s not going to happen. The human abortion crowd calls on the public square to embrace their religion at the same time they tell the pro life crowd that they can’t impose their morality on others.

Odds are that the BOM will ban Webcam Human Abortions. Odds are that Planned Parenthood will sue. At that point, the outcome is a roll of the dice.

In the meantime, abortions are on the decline as the energized, youthful, Pro Life Generation transforms Iowa with their message of Life.

7 comments

  1. Increased access to/use of contraception does not lead to a decrease in abortion. Contraception and abortion are inseparable, in that the former leads to the latter, due both to contraception’s failure rate and direct abortions caused by chemical contraception. They are also completely interlocked through the increased objectification of women and sex via the casual and recreational approach to sexual relations that contraception and abortion perpetuate. Regarding the statement, “It’s always good news to hear that necessity for this procedure is declining,”: “Necessity” for “this procedure” is non-existent.

    • ““Necessity” for “this procedure” is non-existent.”
      Well if you look at Catholic countries where abortion is illegal, you might have pause for thought. A good example is Argentina, where around half a million illegal abortions per year are performed, around 80,000 women are hospitalised because the procedure is carried out in non-sanitary conditions by non-medical individuals, and around 400 women die each year. You might judge their need to be non-existent but I guess you’re not living their lives, where they are making clearly desperate choices.

      “Increased access to/use of contraception does not lead to a decrease in abortion.” I agree with you. Impartial and non-judgemental education for both sexes about respect, choices and options needs to go hand in hand with access to contraception. Please read about countries that have proven this to be the case, like Switzerland:
      http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_news/The_secret_of_Switzerland_s_low_abortion_rate.html?cid=33585760

      • So half a million illegal abortions per year are performed and 400 die? Actually, that would 500,400 die. You forgot the death of the unborn child.

        I am pro-choice, in that I believe that every woman should have the right to choose whether she does or does not have sexual relations. Once that choice has been made, like all choices in life, sometimes there are unforeseen consequences, i.e., the woman could become pregnant. At that point her “choices” should include having the child and raising it as her own, or having the child and putting it up for adoption. The “choice” of “terminating the pregnancy”, aka killing the child, should not be a choice that is available, as it deprives that child of life without due process.

  2. violetwisp, please provide documentation to support how many couples use contraception in Iowa, and if that rate has increased over the same time period. It’s nearly impossible to accurately report said statistic, because it is dependent on users’ own reporting. If we are speaking purely of anecdotal “evidence”, the advances in technology over the last five years have allowed undeniable evidence of human life in the womb.The correlation seems pretty clear, doesn’t it?

  3. It’s always good news to hear that necessity for this procedure is declining, and it’s obviously not a coincidence that the drop has occurred at the same time as a large-scale free contraceptive program in Iowa. Education plus access to contraception = drop in abortion rate. Let’s go with the evidence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s