Stunning News About Abortion Clinics Reveals MAJOR Shock For US Culture, Some Are Panicking

A new report finds that abortion facilities are closing at their fastest rate since the Supreme Court mandated legalization of the practice nationwide in 1973.

Bloomberg reports that 162 clinics in the United States have closed or ceased performing abortions since 2011. Approximately one-third of these clinics were operated by Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest provider of abortions. Only 21 new facilities have opened during that time period.

“No region was exempt, though some states lost more than others,” according to Bloomberg. “Texas, which in 2013 passed sweeping clinic regulations that are under scrutiny by the Supreme Court, saw the most: at least 30. It was followed by Iowa, with 14, and Michigan, with 13. California’s loss of a dozen providers shows how availability declined, even in states led by Democrats, who tend to be friendly to abortion rights.”

Image Credit: Bloomberg Business

Image Credit: Bloomberg Business

Texas requires abortion clinics to adhere to the same health and safety standards as a hospital, as well as mandates that abortion doctors have admitting privileges to a nearby emergency room. The abortion rate has dropped 13 percent in the Lone Star State since the enactment of the new legislation.

The U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing a suit brought by abortion providers in March challenging the constitutionality of Texas’ abortion facility requirements. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld all the contested provisions of the law last June, finding it did not place an undue an burden in relation to the decision in Roe v. Wade.

Health safety requirements and other laws related to abortions, such as parental consent and waiting periods, are not the only reason abortion facilities are closing. California, which has no major restrictions on abortion, nor the same safety requirements as Texas, none-the-less saw 12 closures.

The number of abortion facilities nationwide peaked in the late 1980s at 705, according to the Guttmacher Institute. By 2011 that number had dropped to 553. Five states are down to one clinic.

“State regulations that make it too expensive or logistically impossible for facilities to remain in business drove more than a quarter of the closings. Industry consolidation, changing demographics, and declining demand were also behind the drop, along with doctor retirements and crackdowns on unfit providers,” Bloomberg reports. 

h/t: The Federalist

Watch: Planned Parenthood President Just Revealed The 1 Thing She ‘Agrees’ With Trump On

The president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, and presidential candidate Donald Trump found one thing on which they can agree: Planned Parenthood does some “very good work.”

MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell showed Richards a clip of Trump on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, when he praised Planned Parenthood for its work related to women’s health.

“I have many, many friends who are women who understand Planned Parenthood better than you or I will ever understand it,” Trump told host Chuck Todd. 

“They do some very good work, cervical cancer, lots of women’s issue — women’s health issues are taken care of,” the candidate added. “Planned Parenthood does a lot of good job — a really good job at a lot of different areas but not on abortion. So, I’m not going to fund it if it’s doing the abortion.”

Trump repeated that he would not fund Planned Parenthood, but then speculated on how much of the organization’s business is based on abortion. “Now, they say it’s 3 percent and it’s 4 percent, some people say it’s 60 percent. I don’t believe it’s 60 percent by the way, but, I think it’s probably a much lower number. But Planned Parenthood does some very good work,” he said. 

“Well, this is one thing I agree with Donald Trump on, is that Planned Parenthood does amazing work for 2 1/2 million patients every single year,” Richards said after viewing the clip.

The Planned Parenthood leader went on to explain why she would not back Trump or the other Republican candidates. “I think the disturbing thing is that Donald Trump as well as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have said if they were president, they would end women’s access to family planning, to cancer screening, to basic affordable health care as well as overturning the Affordable Care Act, which is now covering family planning and other preventive care for 55 million women. That’s what’s really at stake here.”

“Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the lobbying arm of the nation’s largest abortion provider, has endorsed Clinton. Richards has been campaigning on Clinton’s behalf,” TheBlaze reported

In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody last week ahead of the South Carolina primary, Trump stated if a bill came across his desk that defunded Planned Parenthood, he would sign it. Nonetheless, he still offered praise for the organization’s work in women’s health.

Brody followed up, “Alright but there are other groups as well not just Planned Parenthood that do that fine work.”

“That’s right, but they do a big job,” the candidate replied. “There are a lot of women taken care of by Planned Parenthood so we have to remember that but I am for defunding Planned Parenthood as long as they are involved with abortion.”

Wow: Look What Happens When You Type ‘Pro-Life’ Into This Web Browser- People Are OUTRAGED

Pro-life supporters have been sadly disappointed this week. Recent news reports show that a new Google chrome extension changes the words ‘pro-life’ to ‘anti-choice’ in the web browser.

An extension is a type of software in which you can add additional qualifiers to your browser in order to find specific types of articles. Additional features can be added or taken away. When ‘pro-life’ is typed into the search engine, articles pop up with the words ‘anti-choice’ in them.

There is a clear political divide among politicians and citizens who are in favor of the right to choose to have an abortion and those who are against it. Many on both sides take umbrage with the basic verbiage used throughout the conversation, whether it be pro-life, pro-choice, anti-choice, pro-abortion, etc.

It was an anonymous pro-choice advocate who created this new browsing tool that changes the term ‘pro-life’ to ‘anti-choice’. While the author is anonymous, the program was funded by the National Institute for Reproductive Health Action Fund.

The mission of the Institute consists of “working toward a society in which each person has the freedom to control their reproductive and sexual lives. We believe that building a strong interconnected, yet decentralized movement focused on changing policy and the public discourse on reproductive health, rights, and justice is essential to reaching our goals.” The institute is an advocate for women’s reproductive health, which includes advocating for the right to an abortion.

“We thought it was a really interesting and creative idea … we agreed with her that the language in this discussion really matters,” said Andrea Miller in a recent interview with ThinkProgress. Miller is the president of NIRH.

Miller went on to share her concern that those who identify as ‘pro-life’ are the same people who wish to restrict certain reproductive health services to women. She does not feel that the language used is a fair characterization of those policies. “The term ‘pro-life’ is inaccurate in this argument – although it is a powerful tool in the fight against women’s health rights – as it serves to demonize individuals who are pro-choice by suggesting that in their support of a woman’s right to choose what is best for her own life, they also advocate for death in some way,” she said.

A ‘pro-life’ blogger for Life News shares a different feeling. “Abortion activists are right that language is important. But by creating a tool to eliminate words that their supporters don’t like, abortion activists are exacerbating the narrow-minded thinking that they claim to be trying to end,” wrote Micaiah Bilger.

Lib College Employee Threatens Pro-Life Man With The Unthinkable- Many Want Him Fired

A staff member at Purdue University allegedly threatened to rape the family of a pro-life supporter in response to a campaign a student group ran on campus last week to raise awareness about the high abortion rate in African American community.

Last week, the Purdue Students for Life put up flyers and chalked messages around campus meant to raise awareness about the problem.

Jamie Newman, an employee for the university who works in the Visual and Performing Arts Department, commented on a blog post by the Students for Life group explaining the purpose of their campaign. “You folks are vile, racist idiots, who richly deserve all the opprobrium that will be heaped on you as a result of this unbelievably thoughtless, stupid escapade,” Newman wrote.  

He added, “And that you should have pulled this stunt at the beginning of Black History Month suggests you are either epically clueless or profoundly malicious. So, which is [it] — embarrassingly dumb or simply evil.”

Not content to vent his anger at the pro-life students on the college blog, Newman threatened rape against a pro-life supporter while commenting on a Live Action News blog post. Responding to a comment by someone named Tom, Newman wrote:

Oh, I’m sorry. So, let me make my intentions quite explicit: I did in fact offer to rape Tom’s wife/daughter/great grandmother. Free of charge, even. I’m generous that way. Here’s the number for the West Lafayette Police Department: 765-775-5500. Here’s the number for the local FBI office: 765-435-5619. Drop that dime! I could strike at any minute. *giggles* (like a girl).

Image Credit: Student for Life

Image Credit: Student for Life

In a statement obtained by Campus Reform, Purdue University said it is investigating the comments left by “jamiegnewman.”

“Obviously, a threat of rape is outside the bounds of any definition of protected speech. Due process requires that, before taking any action, we verify the alleged facts and give this staff member the chance to explain himself if he can,” Assistant Vice President for Strategic Communications Julie Rosa told Campus Reform. “Needless to say, the statements, as alleged, are reprehensible and unacceptable in the eyes of the entire Purdue community.”

The Purdue Students for Life published an open letter to the campus community on Thursday defending the overall purpose of their campaign, while also apologizing for co-oping language from the Black Lives Matter movement. Regarding the targeting of African Americans for abortion, the group wrote:

This is not a matter of political opinion — it’s simply about numbers. Abortion rates for African-Americans are up to five times higher than those of the white population. In New York City, for instance, black children are more likely to be aborted than to be born — for every 1000 births, 1180 children are aborted (source: New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene).

This happens in part because black communities are being targeted by the abortion industry and propagandized to believe that the preborn are subhuman. They are taught that abortion centers such as Planned Parenthood are the only source of reproductive healthcare, and are not offered the support they need to parent. This routine of systematic misinformation is worthy of being brought to the attention of our academic environment.

h/t: Conservative Review 

San Francisco Federal Judge Who Rules For Government Censorship Should Be Impeached

If you wonder how much damage a Presidential putz like Barack Obama can do to the nation, you have only to look at the case of Federal District Judge William H. Orrick III of the Northern District of California in San Francisco. Orrick III was a 2013 Obama appointee.

This is also the clown who ruled against investigative reporting in the case of The National Abortion Federation versus the Center for Medical Progress by issuing a preliminary injunction barring the anti-abortion group from releasing undercover videos taken at annual conferences of the National Abortion Federation.

Orrick III ruled the Center’s First Amendment interest in releasing the videos was outweighed by the National Abortion Federation’s right to privacy, security and association.

Apparently, Federal Judges appointed by Obama are now allowed to reinterpret the First Amendment to the Constitution when hallowed causes are involved.

If the Center had been, say, the New York Times publishing, say, the Pentagon Papers, then presumably Orrick III would have been more lenient in his interpretation, given the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in that case.

Fortunately for most of us, Orrick is swinging the barn door shut after most of the thoroughbreds have escaped and many of the videos are all over the internet, which leaves us with a case of ‘who do you believe? The baby killers’ trade association or your lying eyes?’

Orrick said representatives for the Center for Medical Progress had used false identification and set up a phony corporation to gain access to meetings of the National Abortion Federation. Surreptitious videos taken at the meetings violated confidentiality agreements the officials had signed to gain access to the meetings, Orrick said. Those confidentiality agreements provided for injunctive relief in the event of a breach.

Of course, selling body parts of dead babies which were custom aborted to preserve the parts do NOT qualify for injunctive relief.

Orrick also disagreed that the Center had used widely accepted investigatory journalism techniques. The group’s projects “thus far have not been pieces of journalistic integrity, but misleadingly edited videos and unfounded assertions (at least with respect to the NAF materials) of criminal misconduct.”

The problem here is that CBS News just used the same techniques to look at lawyers who would set up money laundering operations, and nobody even went to the courthouse.

In the immortal words of Chief Justice John Roberts—with whom we occasionally disagree—the job of a Judge is to call “balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.”

Judge Orrick III is definitely in there pitching—from far left field—and that, more than anything, is why he’s wrong.

Constitutional Law 101 teaches a 1971 case called New York Times Co. v. United States, a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the First Amendment. The ruling made it possible for the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship or punishment.

Ironically, the New York Times had been enjoined by a federal judge pitching for the right from publishing further excerpts of the Pentagon Papers.

The Supremes—which tilted a little left back then—said that the First Amendment means exactly what it says.

Why Orrick III is choosing to re-litigate this issue while pitching for the left is beyond me.

If Roe v. Wade is settled law, surely the First Amendment and freedom of the press is also settled law.

Yet we still have a Judge on the bench who tilts so far to the left that he is willing to simply serve as the handmaiden to the baby-killing industry.

He can rail against the anti-abortion groups all he wants, but government censorship—of anything that happens to be true or even arguable—is going so far that it should put a Federal jurist in line for impeachment.