Desperate Planned Parenthood: “If we are defunded, America’s emergency rooms will be overrun.”

It was only last week that Live Action exposed embattled Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards’ false claim that the organization provides mammograms for women. Now this week, Tait Sye, a  spokesman for Planned Parenthood, made this outrageously wild assertion to Community Television of Southern California:

“If we are defunded, America’s emergency rooms will be overrun.”

OK, I’ll bite. Why exactly will emergency rooms be overrun?

Planned Parenthood doesn’t provide emergency room services. And who goes to an emergency room to get an abortion, STD test, birth control, or Pap smear? This wouldn’t be another false claim by Planned Parenthood, would it?

If people did go elsewhere it would likely be to the approximately 7,000 federally funded health centers in the United States that provide more comprehensive care than Planned Parenthood offers.

Let’s examine the Pence Amendment, the bill that would defund Planned Parenthood. As Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., wrote on National Review Online, “Despite efforts to suggest otherwise, the Pence Amendment does not reduce funding for cancer screenings or eliminate one dime of funding for other important health services to women; the money that does not go to Planned Parenthood as a result of the Pence Amendment will go to other organizations that provide these services. If the Pence Amendment becomes law, thousands of women’s health centers, clinics, and hospitals will still provide assistance to low-income families and women. The Pence Amendment would simply deny any and all federal funding to Planned Parenthood.”

And Planned Parenthood will do and say nearly anything to keep those tax dollars coming. I wonder what they’ll think up next week?

  • Canadian

    Kudos to LiveAction for being forthright and straight up with the facts.

    • BeautifulMother

      I agree! Yeah for Live action for being straight up with the facts!

  • FinalEcho

    Ah the sweet smell of desperation. . .

  • ok_go

    That's insane, ER's won't be "overrun." what's she talking about.

    though guess i have gone to ERs in the past for emergency contraception and std testing in periods when i haven't had health insurance and needed to get these things immediately — every time i've tried to visit one of the federal health centers i've had a huge waiting period and had to actually travel quite a long way which isn't always possible since i dont have a car and i work 7 days a week.

    probably the spokesperson is also talking about the women who will try to self-inflict abortions on themselves and dont' do it properly ending up in the ER too.

    • livewell8

      "probably the spokesperson is also talking about the women who will try to self-inflict abortions on themselves and dont' do it properly ending up in the ER too. "
      — What does that have to do with defunding Planned Parenthood? In the long-run Planned Parenthood will be less powerful to lobby against law the protect the unborn child or require informed consent, parental notification for minor abortions, so more abortion restrictions may equal more women self-aborting but have you seen much self-abortion in states the restrict abortion compared to those that don't?

      • ok_go

        in my personal experience, yeah, actually. in my work at women's shelters, i have seen that women who don't have access to abortion because of financial reasons tend to try lots of things to abort themselves. usually it doesn't work. they try herbs and other 'home remedy' type things in my experience. keep in mind these are low income and low education women.

    • BeautifulMother

      You think? OK_go wrote: "probably the spokesperson is also talking about the women who will try to self-inflict abortions on themselves and dont' do it properly ending up in the ER too." OK_go, you also wrote: " i have gone to ERs in the past for emergency contraception and std testing in periods when i haven't had health insurance" Hmm… So, OK_go, you've gone to the ER for "emergency contraception" and "emergency std" testing? Since when is it EVER "an emergency" to have "contraception" that you can't buy at a local gas station? Since when is it EVER "an emergency" demanding that you go to an ER room (at what cost?) when, in this day and age you can go into ANY college campus, and get. products that will do the job at NO cost. Anyway, and since when it is EVER a need to go to an ER room in order to get CONTRACEPTION (against conception products), and/or to get "STD" testing? My goodness! Haven't you ever heard of waiting? Or Chasity? Or… Or… Or, simply respecting? Wow! You've gone to the Emergency Room in a Hosptial asking for "Emergency Contraception" when you haven't had, "Health Insurance?" Again, who paid for this? Medical?

      • ok_go

        sorry if i was unclear? i meant in my time working at a women's shelter i've accompanied them to the ER to get emergency contraception and std tests after they've been raped, or after they've had unprotected sex that they weren't able to give consent for because they were mentally handicapped. we went to the ER in these cases b/c the women had no health insurance for a regular doctor and we were too far away from any other clinic or facility and couldn't afford to travel to one.

    • BeautifulMother

      Anyway, like I began to say, ANY college campus, no questions asked, will provide you all sorts of STUFF to go home with. In all flavors, in fact! (Yuck!) That is, if you must! You've gone to the ER room (you "guess") for "Emergency contraception" and "Std testings" in "periods when you haven't had health insurance…" So, who paid for the Emergency Room visit when you went if you didn't have Health Insurance, or, if you couldn't pay cash? It's not cheap to go to the Emergency Room, you know.

      • ok_go

        the shelter i worked at was many, many miles away from any college campus……..yes, it's definitely not cheap to go to an ER. however it was the only option in these cases and so we were forced to go there. the women simply went into debt and will probably be paying it off for years and years. welcome to the reality of millions of poor americans.

    • BeautifulMother

      You think? OK_go wrote: "probably the spokesperson is also talking about the women who will try to self-inflict abortions on themselves and dont' do it properly ending up in the ER too." OK_go, you also wrote: " i have gone to ERs in the past for emergency contraception and std testing in periods when i haven't had health insurance" Hmm… So, OK_go, you've gone to the ER for "emergency contraception" and "emergency std" testing? Since when is it EVER "an emergency" to have "contraception" that you can't buy at a local gas station? ?

      • ok_go

        i wonder if you could possibly condense your thoughts into one or two posts, rather than a dozen separate posts? it might help the conversation flow more clearly.

    • BeautifulMother

      OK_go wrote: "probably the spokesperson is also talking about the women who will try to self-inflict abortions on themselves and dont' do it properly ending up in the ER too." Hmm… You think? Actually, the "Planned Parenthood" spokesperson (not unlike the "Planned Parenthood" spokesperson who made up the story about Planned Parenthood providing Mammograms, and that women would be deprived of Mammograms if Planned Parenthood or other organizations who provide abortions was not allowed Title 10 Money..) is making up a story! In fact, "Planned Parenthood" is trying to come with SOMETHING that will 'sound good" to the public in their all out public relations attack against the Facts.

    • BeautifulMother

      OK_go, you write that the "Planned Parenthood" spokesperson is "probably" also talking about women who will try to self-inflict abortions on themselves… Oh, really? You think? Hmm… The main thing is, is that we need to recognize that these little babies are real persons. Abortions are not kind to women and children and other living things. Women deserve better than abortion. OK_go…. IAs I read your posting, and see your responses, as it appears, you are looking more and more like you are on pay roll of Planned Parenthood. So, what ever! Why are you so strongly pro-abort? Are you pro-abort?

      • ok_go

        what are you talking about??? i've said over and over in my posts that i'm prolife and i'm seriously offended that you think otherwise. is it because i think that it's vital that we think critically about issues rather than simply yelling and screaming about how abortion is murder? is it i'm a democrat and most prolifers are republicans? please show some respect.

    • BeautifulMother

      Ok_ go wrote: "in my personal experience, yeah, actually. in my work at women's shelters, i have seen that women who don't have access to abortion because of financial reasons tend to try lots of things to abort themselves. usually it doesn't work. they try herbs and other 'home remedy' type things in my experience. keep in mind these are low income and low education women. " Hmm… In your work at Women's shelters, you have seen women who don't have access to abortions try to abort themselves? Wait! Who do you say these women that you claim to have witnessed aborting, aborting? "Themselves?" Wait! Per your witness, they are giving aim to aborting their baby's! What does "Aborting a baby mean?" Aborting a baby means, according to your witness, that these women in these shelters (that you have alledged to have witnessed), are giving attempt to END the life of their baby!

      • ok_go

        i'm very sorry but i have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here. are you asking me a question? i'd love to answer if i can but i can't figure out what you're trying to communicate here.

  • ok_go

    guys is anyone else concerned about what's going on in indiana ?http://www.indystar.com/article/20110330/NEWS05/103300352/1008/news05

    they just passed a law making most abortions illegal after 20 weeks (most laws make it illegal after 24 weeks, when the unborn baby is viable). which is of course great news.

    but i'm concerned because they're making it the law that doctors have to give women false information which is that abortion causes breast cancer. it seems like it's not helping our cause to be advocating the spread of false information like this.

    i'm also concerned because the bill makes it illegal to abort even after you have found out that the baby has anencephaly (no brain). babies with no brain don't survive labor, and you find out about the diagnoses after 20 weeks. it seems to me like it's only humane to allow women whose babies have no brains and who won't survive a single second outside the body to have abortions.

    does anyone else have thoughts on this?

    • BeautifulMother

      @OK-go ~It's a "no-brainer." There is no need to abort a baby without a brain. "OK-go," you write, that "it's only humane to allow women whose babies have no brains and who won't survive a single second outside the body to have abortions." Why not allow the baby to have life inside it's mother's womb even if it won't survive "a single second" outside the Mother's womb? A mother doesn't need to abort her baby because he or she isn't perfect. Greater Love hath no man than this…

      • ok_go

        i dunno, it seems like a really cruel thing to make a woman who knows she's never going to be able to hold her child bear it for 9 months inside her body, and then give birth to it knowing that the act of giving birth is going to actively kill it. i know that i definitely wouldn't be able to mentally cope with 9 months of knowing the child inside me had no brain and was going to die as soon as my contractions started. particularly if it's a woman who is right at the end of her fertility period and only has a few months left to get pregnant anyway before she starts menopause. isn't it better to let her have a chance at actually having a child that will live in the world.

        • BeautifulMother

          @OK_go… Hmm… OK_go you write: "it seems like a really cruel thing to make a woman who knows she's never going to be able to hold her child bear it for 9 months inside her body, and then give birth to it knowing that the act of giving birth is going to actively kill it." Hmm… First of all this case is indeed a VERY rare case, IF it is even possible to be "without a brain." I'm not a medical doctor, but it seems like there would be at least SOME brain functioning in an infant if it's heart is beating…

        • BeautifulMother

          @OK_go… And, There are many people in the vast sea of Humanity that have a common belief and even recognizition, of "Karma" and "Reincarnation" and/or the "prior lives"… The Conservative Baptist Christians believe that Jesus really meant what he said when he said, when after his cousin, John, who was as a Prophet of old, crying in the Wilderness, was so ruthlesslessly and cruely beheaded, "For all who have ears to hear… John the Baptist is, Elijah come again!"
          .

        • BeautifulMother

          !@OK_go… what I am trying to point out, in Mercy's name, is that this little person is a person, even if he or she has a severe physical or mental handicap!

        • BeautifulMother

          @OK_go… (As the story goes) Jesus was asked, "Who did sin, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?" Jesus answered, that neither the man when he was in his Mother's Womb did sin (sin in the womb, or sin before the womb?)… nor did his parents sin (i.e. it wasn't their bad karma?)… but, rather, Jesus answer came that the Man was born blind that he should witness (be a witness) unto the Truth. …

        • BeautifulMother

          Anyway, with regards to the contractions killing a delicate baby… A baby could be delivered C-Section… And, with regards to a woman who only has "a few months left' to "get pregnant" before she starts menopause… well, personally, I think you are forgetting God and God's will and God's love and wisdom in this picture. And besides, there are stories of women conceiving AFTER menopause, yes, by miracle. And, anyway, why have "the karma" of having aborted your little one? Karma? Hmm… Anyway, better to err on the side of Life. Better to err on the side of Love, I think…. (Loving Kindness..)

          • ok_go

            I'm not “forgetting God and God's will”. God doesn't exist in my world. It's not helpful to this particular discussion to bring God in.

          • BeautifulMother

            OK-go… "God doesn't exist" in your world? So, what is your definition of God? What is your concept of "God" that doesn't "exist" in your world? You write that it's not helpful to this particular discussion to bring "God" in. So, what is it about "God" or the concept of "God" that you don't believe in? By the grace of God, my knowledge of who is God and what is God, and what is, and who is in and of the Body of God (on Earth as in Heaven) is all encompassing. In fact, this is who I AM! So, you write, that you are not "forgetting God and God's will." OK… And, then, you write, that "God doesn't exist in your world." OK… So, what is your world? What is your concept of "God" (or God not) that you don't believe in?

          • ok_go

            um… ok. you started bringing in god as if that was a reason that we can base lawmaking on. i disagree since there is no such thing as god in my mind. it's a piece of fiction. do you really want me to talk more about my religious beliefs? i think it's probably just going to offend you, and besides this forum isn't really the place for it.

          • BeautifulMother

            OK_go. The Life and Love of God (in real life) IS part of the WHOLE equation of WHO is that little child that the Mother "with child" is carrying. Our Founding Fathers had a very common understanding of "Nature's God" and, of GOD in general. The Concept and knoweldge of God (God who is God), and God's Holy Spirit, was not a foreign object, agent, or element. in America, and, by the grace of God, it isn't.

          • ok_go

            the founding fathers made a point of separating god from lawmaking. you're incorrect.

          • BeautifulMother

            Actually, "OK_Go" I am correct to say that the Founding Fathers Did not EXCLUDE GOD and the CONCEPT OF GOD, and considerations of the Will of God, and the Hand of Divine Providence in their undertaking. God's Justice and God's Mercy and the WISDOM of the AGES, is reflected in our U.S. Constitution. In fact, the Founding Fathers were men of Deep Faith, and Practice of the same. Sure, they were mortal men, but still, they recognized the HAND of God, and were INSPIRED… "Touched." However, what the Founding Fathers (and Mothers–the Sons and Daughters of Liberty) also did, in Mercy's name, was to provide that we would not be GOVERNED "CATHOLIC" or "GOVERNED" by an ISLAMIC STATE OR LAW. We don't have to be Catholic, and we don't have to belong to the Lutheran Faith, or be BAPTIST or ANGLICAN or Episcopalian or even JEWISH, in order to be "ONE NATION UNDER GOD." GOD IS SO MUCH BIGGER AND BETTER THAN "ALL THESE THINGS" –God was not SEPARATED OUT from LAW, codified in our U.S. Constitition. Our Law was intended to reflect the LAW OF a JUST AND LOVING GOD.

          • ok_go

            Look. I have a right to my own personal beliefs. I have a right not to be harassed by other people who are really bothered by my beliefs, since my beliefs are 100% harmless to everyone who's not me. All I'm saying is that I would like to have a conversation about how we can protect life in every way possible, including the life of the mother, without invoking religious rhetoric or using god as a reason to behave a certain way.

          • BeautifulMother

            The Founding Father's Recognized A CREATOR that wasn't of the limited mind of man. And, Yes, we, as a NATION has CHRIST TEACHING, even the LAW OF THE PROPHETS SUCH AS SAMUEL THE PROPHET, as our FOUNDATION STONE, and OR GUIDE, or RULE. THE GOLDEN RULE… OK_go, you are misled, and misleading, to say that 'the founding fathers" "made a point" of REMOVING GOD from the Heart and COURE of OUR NATION, OUR U.S. CONSTITUTION, and LAW. God is integrial. God is so much MORE than what mortal minds can fathom. And, if you don't have any idea about WHO GOD IS, and WHAT GOD is, and that GOD is, I'm sorry for your lack of Knowledge. I'm sorry for your lack of the EDUCATION OF THE HEART concerning matters of life and breath… and the breath of God, and the Hand of God, via FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE, and LOVE. Anyway, I'm not asking you to change your thought.

          • ok_go

            Please don't tell me you feel sorry for me. I'm more than happy with my beliefs. And I would venture to say that I am not suffering from any kind of “limitation of thought.” I've not only explored many types of religions thoroughly and deeply, I've actually led religious services. You can't tell me that my thought is limited because I've researched, thought about and carefully considered the facts and simply come to a different conclusion from you.That's actually quite offensive to me. Would you appreciate me telling you that I feel sorry for you that you believe so deeply in something that's actually not true? Somehow I doubt it.

          • BeautifulMother

            @OK-Go. It's unfortunate that you haven't come to know the LOVE of GOD, and the reality of GOD, even in small measure, by name, or by concept, or by flame… God's arm is not short. (God is Beyond book learning.) Even Marx believed in God, it's just that he HATED GOD. The BREATH OF GOD IS REAL! The Life of God is Real! God is Real! And Life is REAL! And, GOD IS LIFE! God is ALIVE AND WELL! And, His Hand ACTS within the LAW, even as that is the will of God! And, "the will of God is good!" (And, sweet and wonderful!" ) Like Karma, though some may beg to differ, God is, whether or not you personally "believe" in Him, or want to admit to the Spark of Life that Beats Your Heart is more than just "electronics" boring! (I.e. mechanism man.) Even so, God also LOVES truth. And, Truth is Part of Him. The Sweet thing is, is that you can discover WHO He is, and WHAT HE (HE/SHE) is, in your quest for TRUTH! Living Truth and Living LOVE. Even so, thanks for aiming to understand WHAT IS LIFE, and WHO LIS LIFE, AND WHO ARE YOU, AND WHO IS THAT BABY IN THE WOMB, AND WHO IS, AND WHAT IS, THE MOTHER AND CHILD… ETC~ God Lives in You, whether or not you realize it. Your Heart Beats because of God, and the Presence of God with you, even if you don't "BELIEVE" or understand, "IT" "IT"–in this case, being God. Anyway, "A rose by any other name smells just as SWEET" and same too with God! God is God is God by any other name. And, the FOUNDING FATHERS did NOT SEPARATE GOD OUT FROM THEIR THOUGHT, or, as you write, "Law making." The Presence of God, and the Acknolwedgement of THE ALMIGHTY, even the HAND OF GOD, even NATURES GOD is very self evident in our U.S. Constitution… and, it's roots. (And, please excuse, my FRENCH!) Re: Liberty and Law and LOVE! Re: Life! (SMILE!)

          • ok_go

            What is the point of this post? You're not going to change my mind by repeating “god is real god is real” blah blah blah. God is real in your own little imagination. I think that's great for you that you think that. But I don't understand the point of you telling me god is real even though I know that's a lie. My question for truth? I've completed my quest for truth. Who are you to tell me I haven't arrived at The Truth? How do you get off saying that your views are more valid than mine??

          • BeautifulMother

            OK_go when you write that there is no such thing as "god" in your "mind" and that "it's a piece of fiction" ("It's" meaning what?) (???) It seems like you believe that if something or someone isn't in your mind, "it" doesn't exist? (If that someone or that something isn't in your mind, is it of your belief that that someone or that "something" doesn't exist?) I'm not offended by your religious or, "non-religious" beliefs. Personally, I think such things as "religious" belief or non belief, are VERY revelent to the discussion of life and death. Babies, in my book, babies aren't "mechanism man." Babies hearts and heart beat, are more than, "just a pump" mechanical. And, their tender hearts aren't just tender in the physical octave.

          • BeautifulMother

            OK_go? Re: "God doesn't exist" in your world. (As you claim.) OK… So, what is your concept of God that doesn't exist in your world? Who is it or what is it that beats your heart? What is it that beats your heart? Do you believe that your heart is "just a pump" and no more? Do you only believe in "mechanism man"–and that your heart is only a mechanical pump, and no more? What is the different between you and a robot then? And, who created the robot? Please share more! I'm curious!

          • ok_go

            ok i don't think this is really the forum for it so i apologize to other readers…. but to answer your Qs”what is your concept of God that doesn't exist in your world?”i have read the bible and the quran and other religious texts. i have taken divinity classes. i understand your concept of god academically. but in my personal life there is no concept of god.”Who is it or what is it that beats your heart?”the electrical system of my heart beats my heart.” Do you believe that your heart is “just a pump” and no more?”Yes.”Do you only believe in “mechanism man”–and that your heart is only a mechanical pump, and no more?”Yes.”What is the different between you and a robot then?”Not a whole lot. Robots are probably smarter.”And, who created the robot?”Scientists.Please share more! I'm curious!

          • BeautifulMother

            OK_go. Thanks for giving attempt to share your concept of "God." Thanks for giving attempt to share your concept of "God" that, for what ever reason, you have determined, doesn't exist in your world. OK_go, I encourage you to ASK "God" that you don't believe in, for tangible evidence that "He" doesn't exist. (SMILE!) Does, or doesnt!

          • BeautifulMother

            OK_go, you wrote: " but in my personal life there is no concept of god." OK_go. I encourage you to look into MORE than the CONCEPT of God. I encourage you to rather, look into GOD. (God, personally!) Ask God to introduce Himself to you, and see what happens! A.W. Tozer wrote: "What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us."

          • ok_go

            thanks for your encouragement. i would also encourage you to look into atheism.

          • BeautifulMother

            OK_go. (SMILE!) I've been around PLENTY of Athiests! I've been around PLENTY of Secular Humanists, and Materialists devoid of any concept about God. And, I've heard many of their theories And, it's so sad! I came to the conclusion that the reason that someone could POSSIBLY be an Athiest, is that they didn't spend time in the High Sierra's Wilderness as a child, as I did. "Book Knowledge" about God isn't where it's at. A good talk can be found on the Shasta Abbey Web site on "Hearing the Dharma in Everything." The Monk describes a beautiful story, an Early American classic tale, on "The Devil and Danile Webster." <a href="http://www.shastaabbey.org” target=”_blank”>www.shastaabbey.org The lecture is from August 1st, 2010 and can be listened to as a Free download. "Here Oh, God, I have found thee in the Heart, in the Smile of a Friend!" is one of my favorite "Mantras" of all times.

          • ok_go

            i've spent plenty of time in the sierra wilderness. i also went to church every sunday for 8 years and attended synagogue every saturday for 5 years (i was a paid employee of the church and helped to lead discussions and services). the more that i learn about the fictional concept of god, the more i talk to religious people, the more my beliefs are reinforced that god is a piece of fiction and a character in a book that doesn't exist outside the pages of the bible.

          • BeautifulMother

            OK_Go… "The more you talk to religious people?" Well, OK_Go, I suggest you spend some times with the Monks at the Shasta Abbey. The Monks of the Shasta Abbey are of the Order of Buddhist Contemplatives. (Again, see, http://www.shastaabby.org) And, you, and they, don't even need to "TALK." (SMILE!) Actions speak louder than words. Maybe you would like to know something about my personal belief, that, in my 20's, I discovered some of my Buddhist Monks Friends (In Washington D.C. and in Hollywood) were more "Christian" than many of my Christian friends and family at the time. (myself included.) In fact, one of my senior monk friends had a very sweet sense of humor. In fact, both of my Monk friends did. (Even as, all of my Monk friends do…) The one Monk in Hollywood from (from a Foreign Nation here as a Missionary ) said unto me, with a twinkle of myrth, 'I'm more Christian than you because I've read the Bible in full, and you havent." In fact, he had read it twice! (SMILE!)

          • ok_go

            Why are you telling me what to do? Why is it impossible for you to accept that I'm 100% happy with my beliefs and the Truth that I know is real? Why does it bother you so much what I believe inside the privacy of my own mind?????? Get away from the inside of my head. It's private and it has absolutely nothing to do with you. Stop telling me to do various things. Stop telling me to open my mind. Stop telling me that I'm not done with my 'quest for truth.” You're being extraordinarily offensive right now.

          • BeautifulMother

            Even so, OK_go, I don't say that my Buddhist Monk friends are the same as Christian Monks, or that they are CHRISTIAN by the common understanding of the WORD, "CHRISTIAN." They aren't Catholic, and they Aren't "Protestant" …and, they certainly Arn't Islamic! Even so, they are PRO-LIFE! And, even so, they are PRO-KINDNESS! And, they, like me, like, you (I think) are in agreement that Abortion, especially any kind of abortion of the Wholly Innoscent, of the little innosent babies, is very, very sad and tragic. In fact, Buddhist have a princple they go by… It's a basic Precept of their teaching. "NO KILLING." Abortion's goal is to kill a child. It's child abuse of the worse kind.

          • ok_go

            Right. This is why I don't understand why you're so fixated on religion. If I came to the conclusion that abortion is evil WITHOUT religion, then what is so problematic about the fact that I am not religious?

        • BeautifulMother

          @Ok-Go… As far as you not being able to "mentally cope" with the knowledge that a child inside of you was going to die as soon as your contractions started… It seems like it would also be very, very difficult to "mentally cope" with a child that was diagnosed with Cancer or something like that… A child and a parent, or any loved one. Anyway, in all good will and good will intent, I am sure you would find a way to "mentally cope" with your 1 year old or 2 year old or 3 year old being diagnosed with a fatal disease, and, I am sure you would not want to kill him or her upon such a diagnosis

          • ok_go

            Another reason that it's not a good idea to restrict abortions after 20 weeks unless in the case of threat to the life of the mother is that there is no clear line between “threat” and “serious but not a 100% threat” to her life.For instance, making this law means that if a 22 weeks pregnant mother has a very serious uterine infection that is not responding to antibiotics, doctors can ONLY perform an abortion after her kidneys shut down completely, not before. They have to ascertain a “direct” risk to the life of the mother, meaning they have to wait until her kidneys stop functioning. In other words, the woman will probably be struggling with health problems for the rest of her life rather than not at all, simply because the law forced doctors to wait a few extra hours to perform the abortion.

          • livewell8

            How would you write the law to protect the life of all parties?

          • ok_go

            i don't know :( that's why i'm struggling with this example and asking for your guys views

          • BeautifulMother

            Many women struggle with Mental Health Problems after an abortion is "preformed." I have a friend who was born at 22 weeks gestation! She was born on Valentines Day about 19 years ago. And, she is so very, very sweet! She was a "premie." A Mother "with Child" can be "delivered "of her child… when the baby is 22 weeks of age, and both the Mother and the Child can live! My friend was born just under 3 pounds, albeit! So, OK_go, are you saying that it's GOOD to ALLOW abortions after 20 weeks gestation up until BIRTH (in Partial Birth Abortions)… and to NOT HAVE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON ABORTION because of a Mother's Health? Is that what you are saying?

          • ok_go

            no. this is not what i'm saying at all. i'm asking for people's viewpoints on a really complicated and difficult situation. how can we figure out a way to make laws that protect the lives of the unborn but also don't put mothers in unnecessary harm's way? i'm prolife but very uncomfortable with the black-and-white sort of perspective that i'm seeing with a lot of the prolife projects. while of course we want to save the lives of the unborn, we also can't forget about the mothers. we have to protect the emotional and physical wellbeing of mothers, or else they won't be fit to be good mothers. and as your username suggests, mothers are crucially important people in our society.for instance, if we make a law where a woman's life has to be in direct risk in order to perform an abortion, there are certain cases where this will require that we wait too long to abort the baby, such that the mother is going to suffer permanent physical damage, like the one i've outlined about the infection that's going to shut down her kidneys unless an abortion is performed. the mom's life isn't in direct danger until her kidneys shut down. but waiting until her kidneys shut down to perform the abortion is going to leave her with lasting damage. does that make sense?

          • BeautifulMother

            @OK_Go You write that you are "very uncomfortable" with the "black-and-white" sort of "persepctive" Hmm… You know, it's really, really hard for me to believe that you are really "pro-life" as you claim, when you write in support of"aborting the baby" so often. You also seem to be very not pro-life when, in one sentence you refer to abortion three times… , "if we make a law where a woman's life has to be in direct risk in order to preform an abortion… will require that we wait too long to abort the baby… unless an abortion is preformed." "preform an abortion, abort the baby, abortion is preformed." Anyway, I agree with you that mother's are, as you write, "crucially important people" — Even so, so are the babies "crucially important people" –that are worthly of our love and concern. If the life of the baby can be saved via a C-Section, this is the FAR better course to be run than killing the baby…

      • ok_go

        also i'm confused since when people have no brain, doctors declare them dead. why is it different for a fetus.

        • MoonChild02

          Anencephaly doesn't mean that a baby has no brain. Anencephaly means that the brain stem hasn't closed all the way. There's a difference. If there were no brain, there would be no life, and the body would see that an cause a miscarriage. That's a spontaneous abortion, a naturally occurring abortion, not an induced abortion, which is unnatural and the purposeful taking of a human life. The procedure used for that is called a D&C, which is also used in induced abortion, but in this case is to keep the mother from infection, not to take the life of an innocent.

          • ok_go

            Thanks. so what are your thoughts in this case? anencephaly is a 100% of the time death sentence for the baby. it's going to die as soon as the mother goes into labor. should she be allowed to abort it, given that it's certainly going to die instantly upon birth if not before? and does the situation change in a case where the mother is almost near the end of her fertile age and desperately wants to have a kid, and the extra 5-6 months of waiting to give birth to a stillborn baby will basically eliminate her chances?

          • MoonChild02

            I'm not so sure that women know when they are going to start menopause. My mother sure didn't. There's no set date for it or anything like that.

            As to the baby dying, those with anencephaly don't die right away all the time. And sometimes those who are diagnosed with anencephaly don't actually have it, because doctors screw up. It's part of being human. Therefore, there's always a chance, even if it's small, that the baby will be okay.

            Besides, the women do get to hold their babies. The doctors and nurses don't take the baby away until the family is ready. Sometimes the family is even able to arrange a funeral and burial for the child. Every human on this planet makes a difference to someone. These children make an impact coming into the world, and leave a big mark on those who love them.

            I suggest you read the stories at Be Not Afraid, which talk about such things: http://www.benotafraid.net/

          • ok_go

            It sounds like your mother wasn't trying to get pregnant at the time she was starting menopause. Women who are trying to get pregnant and are seeking help from fertility clinics know exactly how many eggs they have left. They don't have a date as to when they'll start menopause but they have an excellent idea. And the simple fact is that if you're past a certain age, each passing month is absolutely vital in terms of raising the risk that you won't get pregnant and raising the risk that your baby will have serious medical problems. These are facts.”those with anencephaly don't die right away” — can you point me to some sources? everything i've read says they die as soon as they're born.”sometimes those who are diagnosed with anencephaly don't actually have it, because doctors screw up.”we can't base law on the idea that doctors sometimes screw up. what if we say that doctors sometimes screw up in C-sections, killing the woman? anti-life people could use that argument as a way to say that any pregnancy puts the mother's life at risk, therefore all women should have the power to abort. you can't use this kind of logic.”These children make an impact coming into the world, and leave a big mark on those who love them. “if a mother wants to go through with a pregnancy and have a few minutes of holding her baby as it dies in her arms, that is perfectly okay with me. but i think it's inhumane to FORCE a woman to do this. personally i know that if i had to carry a baby that i desperately wanted to have in my body for 9 months knowing that the act of giving birth to it was going to kill it, i wouldn't be able to live with myself. women in these tragic situations should be able to choose how to deal with the situation in a way that's going to not give them permanent lasting psychological damage. in my case, it would be much easier to deal with that situation by having the doctor kill my baby, rather than having my own body kill my own baby. and in cases where time is of the essence, forcing women to bear children that will die immediately is stopping them from possibly having more children who they will raise to be wonderful health adults.

    • livewell8

      "i'm concerned because they're making it the law that doctors have to give women false information which is that abortion causes breast cancer"

      The research is unsettled so stating it as fact is probably going too far. I think saying that it is a possible risk may be more accurate as there are multiple studies that have found a link while others haven't.

      There is mixed research. Here is one studying saying there is a link:

      Dr. Vahit Ozmen and his colleagues at the Istanbul Medical Faculty at Istanbul University and Magee-Women’s hospital in Pittsburgh conducted the new retrospective study.

      They published their findings in the April 2009 issue of the World Journal of Surgical Oncology and examined women who, between January 2000 and December 2006, were admitted to clinics of Istanbul Medical Faculty for examination.

      The researchers said that their findings showed abortion was "significantly associated with increased breast cancer risk." http://www.lifenews.com/2009/07/28/int-1278/

      The National Cancer Institute gained a reputation for putting politics over science when it did everything possible to deny dissenting opinion during a meeting to establish whether or not a link exists between abortion and breast cancer.

      Now, the main NCI acivist who got the agency to deny the abortion-breast cancer link has co-authored a study admitting the abortion-breast cancer link is true, calling it a "known risk factor." http://www.lifenews.com/2009/01/01/nat-5850/

      Abortion 'triples breast cancer risk': Fourth study finds terminations linked to disease http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1288955

      That said, I think more study in this are is needed to confirm or deny a link and legislation should tread lightly until this is established.

      • BeautifulMother

        Great reply, livewell8!!! Thank you for your reply! And, thank you for the links! Re: "The Researchers said that their findings showed abortion was "significantly associated with increased breast cancer risk." Etc! I agree! "That said… legislation should tread lightly until this is established." Even so, the fact is, for "Planned Parenthood" to say that the Emergency rooms would be over run if "Planned Parenthood" has it's Title 10 money taken away from it, isn't established by a long shot! In fact, in my estimation, it's absolutely false! (It's a false statement!)

      • ok_go

        yeah i agree it's disturbing to me that they're rushing to make it the law to give women unsubstantiated medical information. in this case, even the pro-life supporters of the bill are against this part of it…. and yet somehow it's still happening.particularly when the risk of breast cancer from using underarm antiperspirant is far, far greater than the risk from abortion. but we don't require drugstore workers to tell women about those risks. in fact we don't even require that the risks be printed on the deoderant stick.

        • BeautifulMother

          OK_go… of the law, you write: " …in this case, even the pro-life supporters of the bill are against this part of ." That is a general statement. Not all people who are for KINDNESS, and LOVE towards the Wholly Innoscent and Wholly Innoscence in the womb are "against" that part of the bill. Some, perhaps, but, not all.

          • ok_go

            actually this is not a “general statement,” this is a specific statement about the actual real specific people who proposed the particular bill i'm talking about. and i'm not talking about innocence or fetuses here i'm talking about breast cancer and policy.

        • BeautifulMother

          OK-Go… You write: "it's disturbing to me that they're rushing to make it the law to give women unsubstantiated medical information." So, you aren't distrubed when "Planned Parenthood" gives FAR WORSE than "Unsbustantiated medical information" to minor women, and aids and abets international underage sex trafficers and sexual predators? So, you aren't disturbed when "Planned Parenthood" workers claim that,, that which makes a women to be defined as being "with child" is not a baby, until it's born? etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,? "Re: Your comment… "It disturbing to me…" (that they) "give women unsubstantiated medical information." Planned Parenthood and others of like kind are not a viable canidate to recieve Title 10 Money! Planned Parenthood must be stripped of it's Title 10 money.

          • Adrrya

            BeautifulMother, I think the distrurbing part ok_go's talking about is that this would be a law, and that doctors would be required to give women information that could very well be false. If this information was proved to be completely true, it would be great to tell women that. But it is disturbing to make it a law, when it could purposefully deceive women. And just because PP may deceive women, it does not mean other people should stoop down to their level and try to deceive women.

          • ok_go

            i AM disturbed when planned parenthood does all those things. where did i say that i wasn't?because i'm disturbed when planned parenthood gives out false information, i'm also very disturbed that indiana has made it the law to give women false information. it's not really that complicated.

        • BeautifulMother

          As long as "Planned Parenthood" is in the business of aiding and abetting criminals, underage sex trafficers, aiding and abetting sexual predators, and preforming abortions against women and children and other living things, it is clearly evident, that they as an organization is CORRUPT TO THE CORE, and are NOT good cannidates to receive Title 10 money to help woman' and children's health!

    • BeautifulMother

      Livewell8 wrote:

      They published their findings in the April 2009 issue of the World Journal of Surgical Oncology and examined women who, between January 2000 and December 2006, were admitted to clinics of Istanbul Medical Faculty for examination.

      The researchers said that their findings showed abortion was "significantly associated with increased breast cancer risk." http://www.lifenews.com/2009/07/28/int-1278/

      The National Cancer Institute gained a reputation for putting politics over science when it did everything possible to deny dissenting opinion during a meeting to establish whether or not a link exists between abortion and breast cancer.

      Now, the main NCI acivist who got the agency to deny the abortion-breast cancer link has co-authored a study admitting the abortion-breast cancer link is true, calling it a "known risk factor." http://www.lifenews.com/2009/01/01/nat-5850/

      Abortion 'triples breast cancer risk': Fourth study finds terminations linked to disease http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1288955….

  • BeautifulMother

    Who knows what kind of "flame" or heart fire, or love, or purpose a baby who have a severe physical condition might have? I had a friend who was told by her Doctor that her baby would be still born. She was advised to abort her baby, but, courageously, she didn't. Though her baby lived only 11 weeks, and though very heart wrenching, it was also the most precious 11 weeks of her baby and her baby's big sister and her whole family's life. We believe my friends baby is in heaven. My friend is so very, very grateful she chose life, even if the face of so difficult a circumstance as to be told her baby would not survive outside of the womb (or, survive birth)–..

  • BeautifulMother

    Planned Parenthood is built on a house of lies. They can't defend themselves with the truth, because there is no truth in them. Abortion in and of itself is a lie. "Planned Parenthood" as we see in the undercover video stings of Live Action, are not what their name makes them out to be. They are not interested in a woman's "reproductive" health, or a Woman' heath. See http://www.liveaction.org (smile!) They should not be entitled to Title 10 money. It's not a matter of 'improper training" it's a matter of fact, that, "Planned Parenthood" and it's representatives are frauds. Mammograms? Ha! Emergency rooms over flooded if Planned Parenthood is defunded? Ha! Mercy!

  • BeautifulMother

    See "Unplanned" by Abbey Johnson. “Despite efforts to suggest otherwise, the Pence Amendment does not reduce funding for cancer screenings or eliminate one dime of funding for other important health services to women; the money that does not go to Planned Parenthood as a result of the Pence Amendment will go to other organizations that provide these services. If the Pence Amendment becomes law, thousands of women’s health centers, clinics, and hospitals will still provide assistance to low-income families and women. The Pence Amendment would simply deny any and all federal funding to Planned Parenthoo

  • BeautifulMother

    Live Action wrote: "Planned Parenthood doesn’t provide emergency room services. And who goes to an emergency room to get an abortion, STD test, birth control, or Pap smear? This wouldn’t be another false claim by Planned Parenthood, would it?" In reply, I say, yes, it would be another false and misleading claim by Planned Parenthood. Yes, another lie. Yes, another argument that doesn't hold water. Now, if people were "organized" by the BO Jr' and company of "Community Organizers" (communist aggitators) to flood the Emergency rooms to get STD testing, birth control or Pap smears, by some orchestrated Anarchy, then, that is another story. Anyway, the same money that goes to Planned Parenthood for Pap Smears and STD testing for the youth or others on a shoe string budget, could go to another medical group or organization. In any event, Planned Parenthood's president was caught in a bald faced lie when she said that her organization provided Mammograms. It seems like deception is a common practice with Planned Parenthood. Again, Planned Parenthood is built upon a lie. And, it's founder wasn't very kind.

  • blessedlife

    I have seen the argument before that abortions increase the cause of breast cancer- does anyone have any research proving or denying such claims? Just want to be educated on that point…Thanks!

    • ok_go

      i agree if anyone has other research…

      from what i've read the world health organization says no ; http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs240/e

      although i know that the more years you spend pregnant, the less likely you are to have breast cancer, so in that sense i guess abortion raises the risk in that it adds to the amount of time in your life that you aren't pregnant. but it's no more risky than just staying abstinent/never being pregnant is risky.

      • livewell8

        There is mixed research. Here is one studying saying there is a link:

        Dr. Vahit Ozmen and his colleagues at the Istanbul Medical Faculty at Istanbul University and Magee-Women’s hospital in Pittsburgh conducted the new retrospective study.

        They published their findings in the April 2009 issue of the World Journal of Surgical Oncology and examined women who, between January 2000 and December 2006, were admitted to clinics of Istanbul Medical Faculty for examination.

        The researchers said that their findings showed abortion was "significantly associated with increased breast cancer risk." http://www.lifenews.com/2009/07/28/int-1278/

        The National Cancer Institute gained a reputation for putting politics over science when it did everything possible to deny dissenting opinion during a meeting to establish whether or not a link exists between abortion and breast cancer.

        Now, the main NCI acivist who got the agency to deny the abortion-breast cancer link has co-authored a study admitting the abortion-breast cancer link is true, calling it a "known risk factor." http://www.lifenews.com/2009/01/01/nat-5850/

        Abortion 'triples breast cancer risk': Fourth study finds terminations linked to disease http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1288955

        That said, I think more study in this are is needed to confirm or deny a link.

      • BeautifulMother

        OK_Go? "No more risky than just staying abstinent/never being pregnant is risky?" Hmm… Actually, it's a lot LESS RISKY to be abstinent than having abortions! Abstinence isn't risky behavior! Abstinence doesn't contribute to Breast Cancer! OK_go. You write that "…I guess abortion raises the risk in that it adds to the amount of time in your life that you aren't pregnat." Ha! Oh, Really? Abortion rasies the risk of getting breast cancer because it, (as you write) "adds to the amount of time" in a womans life that she isn't "pregnant?" What kind of statement is that! My goodness!

        • Adrrya

          I really think you are reading too far into what ok_go is saying. Ok_go is simply saying that being pregnant does lower the risk of breast cancer, and therefore not being pregnant through abortion will raise that risk. Now I am not agreeing or disagreeing with ok_go's statement, but I think you are trying to make a big deal out of something that shouldn't be.

          • BeautifulMother

            Adrrya, "OK-go" wrote: "although i know that the more years you spend pregnant, the less likely you are to have breast cancer, so in that sense i guess abortion raises the risk in that it adds to the amount of time in your life that you aren't pregnant. but it's no more risky than just staying abstinent/never being pregnant is risky." And, Adrrya, you wrote: "…you are reading too far into what ok_go is saying. Ok_go is simply saying that being pregnant does lower the risk of breast cancer, and therefore not being pregnant through abortion will raise that risk." OK, Adrrya… I read that OK_go is saying that "abortion" is , "no more risky than being abstinent."

          • BeautifulMother

            OK_go writes "i know that the more years you spend pregnant, the less likely you are to have breast cancer." This is how I read what OK_go is saying. She is saying that she knows that the more years a women spends being pregnant, the less likely that same women is to have breast cancer. OK… So, Is this what the studies say? Anyway, what EXACTLY does this law in Idaho say? The fact is, there are studies that demonstrate clearly that Abortions increase the chance of breast cancer in women. Aborting your baby DOES increase the risk of BREAST CANCER, but, not all those who have had abortions (or use questionable methods of "birth control") contract Breast Cancer. Smoking Cigarettes increase the risk of getting Lung Cancer, but not all people who smoke get cancer. Abstinence does not lead to an increased chance of breast cancer.

          • Adrrya

            There have been studies to suggest pregnancy, and especially breastfeeding can reduce the likelihood of having breast cancer. I don't see anything wrong with Ok_go referencing that. Anyways, I was just commenting on your "What kind of statement is that! My goodness!" as I really didn't think it was a shocking statement.

          • BeautifulMother

            OK_go gave aim to clarify her statement. She wrote: "… of course it's less risky to be abstinent to have an abortion." This is good. The fact is, ABSTINENCE is not a factor in increased chances of Breast Cancer. I'm glad she clarified her statement.

          • BeautifulMother

            OK_go had written: "although i know that the more years you spend pregnant, the less likely you are to have breast cancer, so in that sense i guess abortion raises the risk in that it adds to the amount of time in your life that you aren't pregnant. but it's no more risky than just staying abstinent/never being pregnant is risky." Adrrya, OK_go wrote that "never being preganant is risky." She wrote that abortion is, "no more risky than just staying abstinent." This is a FALSE statement. In good will effort, OK_go wrote to cover up her fallacious statement, her error in thought: "sorry if this was unclear. of course it's less risky to be abstinent to have an abortion. i'm talking ONLY about the example of breast cancer." What does she mean by "I'm talking ONLY about the example of breast cancer." Still, her statement isn't clear. Even so, I'm OK_go, was able to see her error in purporting that, "abortion is", "no more risky than staying abstinent." Abortion increases the risk of breast cancer in a woman because the woman's body is by Nature, is preparing to Mother… When you abort the baby, you also abort that which is the Mother. (Mother to the baby.) And, this is not the same as Abstinence! The practice of Abstinence does not lead to an increased chance of Breast Cancer. The satanic ritual of Abortion, does. See the book, Marx and Satanism by the late Richard Wurmbrant, to get a better understanding of what I mean by the "Satanic Rite" or "Satanic Ritual" of Abortion.

          • BeautifulMother

            On the Topic of Breast Milk, Mother's Milk, and, the purpose of Mammory Glands… Abortion is not a Woman's right, nor is it a Christian Rite. A Christian Rite is Holy Communion. A Christian Life, even COMMUNION with OUR LORD, is like the communion of Mother and Child, sharing in the body and the blood of life! (In Love and For Love and by Love!) (As you most likely know, Mothers Milk is derrived from the Mother's blood. Mother's Milk is the Blood of the Mother' Transformed by the MIRACLE of the Mammory Glands. And, it's a Gift of God! You can word it how ever you like. As for me, I can't take "GOD' out of it. Mother's Milk offered via the Mother's Breast for her baby, is part of God's Divine Plan Fulfilled! Nothing complicated! Yes, it's science. But, it's also Miracle! It's Gift! It's the Miracle of Life! It's a Gift of God!

          • BeautifulMother

            Mother's Milk is not robotic! Mother's Milk is a Miracle of God! It makes sense to me that Abortion is NOT good for the body of Mother! It makes sense to me that Abortion would NOT be good for a Woman's Mammory Glands, or, Breasts. Again, Abstinence does not lead to an increased chance of breast cancer. Abortion, does.

        • ok_go

          sorry if this was unclear. of course it's less risky to be abstinent to have an abortion. i'm talking ONLY about the example of breast cancer.

    • BeautifulMother

      Livewell8 wrote:

      They published their findings in the April 2009 issue of the World Journal of Surgical Oncology and examined women who, between January 2000 and December 2006, were admitted to clinics of Istanbul Medical Faculty for examination.

      The researchers said that their findings showed abortion was "significantly associated with increased breast cancer risk." http://www.lifenews.com/2009/07/28/int-1278/

      The National Cancer Institute gained a reputation for putting politics over science when it did everything possible to deny dissenting opinion during a meeting to establish whether or not a link exists between abortion and breast cancer.

      Now, the main NCI acivist who got the agency to deny the abortion-breast cancer link has co-authored a study admitting the abortion-breast cancer link is true, calling it a "known risk factor." http://www.lifenews.com/2009/01/01/nat-5850/

      Abortion 'triples breast cancer risk': Fourth study finds terminations linked to disease http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1288955….

  • BeautifulMother

    And, OK_go, the diagnosis, if such a condition is possible, would most likely not be disgnosed in the first three months. So, we are only talking 6 months… But, even so, you see, the person who is a little person in gestation inside his or her Mother's womb, is actually a Life Stream… Some might say, "Soul." Others might say, "Person" (or "Pure-Son" Pure/sun, an extention of God's Heart. Part of the body of God. Christ in that Little Child, lives… )

  • BeautifulMother

    OK-go, wrote: "in my personal experience, yeah, actually. in my work at women's shelters, i have seen that women who don't have access to abortion because of financial reasons tend to try lots of things to abort themselves. usually it doesn't work. they try herbs and other 'home remedy' type things in my experience. keep in mind these are low income and low education women. " OK_go, you write: "Keep in mind these are low income and low education women." So, what does that have to do with it? OK_go, are you a pro-abort? It sounds like you are a Pro-Abort. In fact, is sounds like you are are a voice for "Margarate Sanger, the founder of "Planned Parenthood." Once again, you write: "Keep in Mind these are low income and low education women."

    • Adrrya

      You know, you should really stop making assumptions about ok_go. Are you trying to drive away someone who is pro life? Discussion and debate on this forum are completely okay and even welcome, but making continuous blatant assumptions about someone is not a way to reach people, nor is it helpful in an educated discussion.

  • BeautifulMother

    Dr. Vahit Ozmen and his colleagues at the Istanbul Medical Faculty at Istanbul University and Magee-Women’s hospital in Pittsburgh conducted the new retrospective study.

    They published their findings in the April 2009 issue of the World Journal of Surgical Oncology and examined women who, between January 2000 and December 2006, were admitted to clinics of Istanbul Medical Faculty for examination.

    The researchers said that their findings showed abortion was "significantly associated with increased breast cancer risk." http://www.lifenews.com/2009/07/28/int-1278/

    • ok_go

      are you telling me that you're going to trust one doctor in Istanbul over the World Health Organization, and dozens of other major worldwide medical organizations?

      Even most pro-life people agree that abortion doesn't cause breast cancer. it's dangerous to our side if we're trying to spread lies.

  • ok_go

    it's very nice that you think that. it seems that you are comforted somehow by the thought that god happens to me even if i don't believe it. unfortunately i don't care, and i think god is fictional. it's completely fine for us to disagree, as long as you don't try to base legislature that affects me on your personal beliefs that i don't share.

  • MoonChild02

    What do they mean, "If we are defunded, America's emergency rooms will be overrun"? You don't go to an emergency room for their non-abortive services, and using an emergency room to get these services would be a whole lot more expensive instead of going to a local free clinic. If they are talking about abortion, I thought that their government funding didn't allow them to use said funding for that purpose? Are they finally admitting to the fact that it does free up funds for abortion?

    • ok_go

      you go to an ER for things like UTIs and kidney infections. but clinics like planned parenthood can often see you more quickly and prescribe the antibiotics that will clear up your infection and stop the pain almost immediately. many women have recurring UTIs and this is a frequent problem for them. (as in every few weeks or months this happens). that's a lot of ER visits.

  • BeautifulMother

    “Despite efforts to suggest otherwise, the Pence Amendment does not reduce funding for cancer screenings or eliminate one dime of funding for other important health services to women; the money that does not go to Planned Parenthood as a result of the Pence Amendment will go to other organizations that provide these services. If the Pence Amendment becomes law, thousands of women’s health centers, clinics, and hospitals will still provide assistance to low-income families and women. The Pence Amendment would simply deny any and all federal funding to Planned Parenthood.”

  • BeautifulMother

    In reply to "OK_Go" "Indiana has made it the law to give women FALSE information?" What is the false information? I'm glad to hear that it "disturbs" you, when "Planned Parenthood" provides false and misleading statements to their "clients." I'm glad to hear that it "disturbs" you, when "Planned Parenthood" aids and abets international sex slave rings, and protects sexual predators against young girls. Etc, etc, etc… I'm glad to hear that you are "pro-life." Even so, as much as you are "pro-life" it also seems by your writing, that you are FOR ABORTION after 20 weeks gestation. (Your Mother with the failing Kidney example….) It seems like BOTH the Mother and the Baby can be saved. If in the process of trying to save BOTH the Mother and the Baby, the baby dies, at least the baby wasn't PURPOSELY "KILLED" as in the case of Abortion.

    • ok_go

      The false information is that abortion leads to higher risk of breast cancer. It doesn't.

  • BeautifulMother

    In reply to "OK_Go" I write: You write that you are very disturbed that Indiana has made it "the law to give women false information." SO, what is the false information that Indiana by LAW is now required to give women who are seeking abortion?

    • ok_go

      The false information is that abortion leads to higher risk of breast cancer. It doesn't.

  • dantonsealy

    If just one abortion is performed on an underage sex slave than Planned Parenthood ought to be defunded. Imagine if it were your 13 or 14 year-old daughter. This does not take into account what God's feelings on the matter are. Abortion is murder, plain and simple.

  • BeautifulMother

    Look, OK_go, you don't even know my 'religious beliefs." I've shared with you about God, but I haven't shared with you my "religious beliefs."Nor have I shared with you my "religious practice" or "practices" if any. I'm not disallowing you to "Not believe" in God. Like I said, even Marx believed in God, it's just that he hated him. You write that, "just like unicorns are fignments of imagionation, so is god." OK_go, if you want to live in that fantasy, of misconception about God, that's up to you. However, as for me, my experience with God is not derrived from WHAT I have read in texts or heard other people "like me" or like any one, have "shared" or, "talked about." It's not hard for me to understand that you are claiming ATHIEST. So, "what ever!" I've heard it before. Anyway, you are not correct to say that the FOUNDING FATHERS SEPARATED GOD OUT, and REMOVED GOD and the CONCEPT OF GOD from the HEART, even the HEART and CORE and CORE ESSENCE of OUR U.S. CONSTITUTION, OUR NATIONS FOUNDATION STONE… (How ever you worded that. And, How ever that is.) Re: LAW.

    • ok_go

      what does marx have to do with anything?? We aren't a marxist country. Americans hate marx. What are you talking about?

  • ok_go

    "the fact is, it's safer to have babies, than it is to have abortions"

    well, i'm sorry but that's simply not true, either. death rates are higher for women in labor and much higher for c sections than abortions.

    that's not to say that women shouldn't be forced to undergo that risk in order to save the life of the unborn. the life of the unborn is FAR more important than the woman's right to life. she's already lived for 20 or 30 years. the unborn hasn't lived at all!!!! we should be forcing women to make the least bit of sacrificie — force them to take that extra risk for the sake of saving a life!!!!!!!!!!!

    • livewell8

      In the long run abortion raises mothers risk for future pregnancies. Look at Ireland, no abortion and the lowest material death rate in the world according to the WHO.

      • ok_go

        I'm glad you bring up Ireland. Ireland is not directly comparable to the USA because Ireland has socialized, universal health care. In particular, all maternity services are provided 100% free of charge, and all medical services to children up to the age of 6 months are completely free. If this were the case in the US, not only would abortion rates surely go down (pregnancy itself is extraordinarily expensive — mine cost over $8000 and I had no complications at all) but maternal death rates would probably go down as well.

        • livewell8

          Maybe not directly comparable to the US but comparable to all the other nations with socialized health care and abortion and higher maternal death rates.

    • BeautifulMother

      Ok_go. you wrote:: "death rates are higher for women in labor and much higher for c sections than abortions.

      In reply I write, Hmm… You think? Livewelll8 writes, "Look at Ireland, no abortion and the lowest maternal death rate in the world!" According to the stats from Ireland, OK_go' statement that "death rates" are higher for women in labor and much higher for C sectinos than abortions" is NOT true!

    • BeautifulMother

      OK_go, you wrote: that's not to say that women shouldn't be forced to undergo that risk in order to save the life of the unborn. the life of the unborn is FAR more important than the woman's right to life. she's already lived for 20 or 30 years. the unborn hasn't lived at all!!!! we should be forcing women to make the least bit of sacrificie — force them to take that extra risk for the sake of saving a life!!!!!!!!!!!

      What? Wait! I thought you were for the freedom of the woman! In earlier posts you stated that a woman should NOT be forced to give birth to a child she or he doesn't "want" or, can't "mentally cope with." Here you write, ". the life of the unborn is FAR more important than the woman's right to life. she's already lived for 20 or 30 years. the unborn hasn't lived at all!!!! we should be forcing women to make the least bit of sacrificie — force them to take that extra risk for the sake of saving a life!!!!!!!!!!!"

      Wow! …"

    • BeautifulMother

      OK_go. What a turn around. In an early post you said just the opposite. Or, maybe you are being sarcastic here. Are you serious that "the life of the unborn is FAR more important than the women's right to life" because "she's already lived" and the "Unborn" hasn't lived at all?" Wow! This isn't consistent with her earlier posts. And, it sounds rather extreme to say, "We should be FORCING women to take the extra rise for the saving of a life."
      Hmm… Forcing? Why are you saying that a woman's right to life is LESS important becaise she has already lived "20 to 30" years, as you write? Wow! Again, both the life of the Mother and the Child are best to be saved. And, again, these cases in which the MOTHER may loose her life if she is delivered of a LIVING CHILD… is not the NORM. Again, As LIvewell8 writes, "Look at Ireland, no abortion and the lowest maternal death rate in the world