My name is Maggie DeWitte and I am the Executive Director of Iowans for LIFE and the spokesman for the Coalition of Pro-Life Leaders. I am speaking to you this morning in support for HSB 41.
Thank you for bringing this amendment forward and so quickly in the session, which shows your true commitment to the protection of Iowans.
I believe the people of Iowa and NOT unelected judges of the State Supreme Court should decide how Iowa regulates abortion. These radical judges took the rights away from ALL Iowans and thereby preventing commonsense protections for women and children. What these judges did was even more extreme than Roe v. Wade. And Iowa isn’t alone in trying to pass an amendment to the constitution; four other states (Alabama, West Virginia, Tennessee, Rhode Island) have restored legislative authority. Iowa needs to follow the example of these states and put creating law back into your hands: our elected legislators.
This amendment will simply restore our state constitution back to what it was; it will not prohibit abortion, but rather allow our elected representatives and the people of Iowa to make decisions regarding the health, safety and well-being of its citizens. Because without the Protect Life Amendment, there is no protection for women and unborn children from abortion, abortion even up to the point of birth.
This is an amendment that should have bipartisan support; regardless of your party affiliation, no legislator would be in favor of the judicial branch taking away what we elected you to do- create law. It’s time to take back the rights of the legislature and the rights of ‘We the People,’ by passing this amendment. Thank you.
We just received this notice from Jeanne Mancini, President of the March for Life:
The protection of all of those who participate in the annual March, as well as the many law enforcement personnel and others who work tirelessly each year to ensure a safe and peaceful event, is a top priority of the March for Life. In light of the fact that we are in the midst of a pandemic which may be peaking, and in view of the heightened pressures that law enforcement officers and others are currently facing in and around the Capitol, this year’s March for Life will look different.
The annual rally will take place virtually and we are asking all participants to stay home and to join the March virtually. We will invite a small group of pro-life leaders from across the country to march in Washington, DC this year. These leaders will represent pro-life Americans everywhere who, each in their own unique ways, work to make abortion unthinkable and build a culture where every human life is valued and protected.
We are profoundly grateful for the countless women, men, and families who sacrifice to come out in such great numbers each year as a witness for life – and we look forward to being together in person next year. As for this year’s march, we look forward to being with you virtually.
For more information, visit our website for answers to some frequently asked questions.
REGISTER HERE FOR VIRTUAL MARCH FOR LIFE COVERAGE
By RSVPing using the button above, you will receive links to access our March for Life livestreams directly to your inbox on the morning of January 29th. Please be sure to share this email with anyone who you think might also be interested in participating!
Dear Iowans for LIFE Supporter:
You have an opportunity RIGHT NOW to help save mothers and babies from abortion extremism in Iowa!
This coming week, the Iowa House of Representatives will be convening a subcommittee to advance the Protect Life Amendment. The amendment allows We the People to put a stop to radical, unelected judges’ efforts to expand abortion to the day of a baby’s birth and even make YOU pay for it.
And that’s where you come in. The subcommittee is accepting public comments on the issue.
Please join us in protecting life by submitting YOUR public comment here.
In your comment, we’d encourage you to:
- Thank our legislators for making the Protect Life Amendment a priority this session.
- Thank them for working hard to give We the People a voice when judges abuse their power to try to rewrite our Constitution.
- Thank them for working hard to protect mothers and children from efforts to expand abortion, even to the day of a baby’s birth, and even making Iowans pay for it.
- Urge them to pass the best possible Protect Life Amendment, because that little child in her mother’s womb, she’s a baby.
You can be sure Planned Parenthood and other abortion extremists will be flooding the subcommittee with radical, pro-abortion comments. We can’t let our legislators hear only the voices of death – they need to hear voices of life. Iowa’s mothers and children urgently need YOU to speak up for them, to defend them, against Planned Parenthood’s extremism.
Please take just a few moments to submit your comment today.
In addition, because of COVID precautions, the Iowa House will be making the subcommittee process public electronically. Right now, the meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, Jan. 19, at 9:00 a.m. You can watch the subcommittee at the following link, or through the teleconference number below:
Watch virtual meeting on WebEx
Or Call: 1-408-418-9388
Access code: 1461483295
At the virtual meetings, you will not be able to make comment, but you can comment through the submission form linked above. Please take a few minutes to submit your comment and join us in defending life!
For Life,
Maggie DeWitte
Executive Director
Last year, Iowans for LIFE mailed President Trump a letter in conjunction with the Iowa Coalition of Pro-Life Leaders opposing mail order abortion pills (RU-486).
Here was our letter:
July 16th, 2020
The President of the United States
THE WHITE HOUSE
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
The Iowa Coalition of Pro-Life leaders needs your immediate assistance. A pilot project called TelAbortion was recently launched in Iowa, along with a dozen other states, which allows Iowa women to obtain abortion pills via the mail.
We are concerned that this program poses grave risk to Iowa women and especially teen girls.
RU-486 (mifepristone and misoprostol) is a dangerous medication that kills unborn children in the womb and harms women both physically and emotionally. The idea that girls and women across Iowa could receive this dangerous drug through the mail without ever seeing a physician in person causes grave concern among Iowa parents and grandparents and religious and pro-life leaders. We are especially concerned that school-aged teen girls could obtain these abortion pills without a parent’s knowledge.
The Food and Drug Administration hasn’t allowed RU-486 to be distributed via the mail in the past. The side effects are profound, according to their website. However, the FDA under the guidance of the previous administration made an exception, allowing the New York based Gynuity Health Projects to initiate a study. This study has now reached Iowa.
Iowa had enjoyed a two decade decline in human abortion, until the advent of chemical abortions. The uptick we are now experiencing will only increase with the availability of mail order abortions.
You have been the most pro-life president in history. You recognize that humanity is a scientific fact at the instant of fertilization.
Mr. President, can you ask the FDA to withdraw support from this reckless study? It is unconscionable that any woman could take this deadly medication without seeing a physician in person.
Respectfully,
Maggie DeWitte, Chairperson
THE IOWA COALITION of PRO-LIFE LEADERS
The Trump administration opposed mail order abortion pills
On August 26th last year, the Trump administration appealed a decision made by a federal judge that allowed abortion facilities to mail drugs to women, even without ever seeing a doctor.
A U.S. District Judge, Theodore Chuang of Maryland, had caved to a lawsuit filed by pro-abortion groups that demanded that the dangerous drug be allowed to be mailed, despite U.S. Food and Drug Administration safety rules to the contrary.
The abortion groups argued that the relaxing of safety protocols was necessary to protect women from possible exposure to COVID-19 in abortion clinics.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump Administration, 6-3 in Food and Drug Administration v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (FDA v. ACOG).
You can read more about the decision at LifeNews.
Does this impact the Iowa situation where mail order abortion pills are permissible under a test program? Check back later this week for an update. Be sure to subscribe to our blog so you don’t miss out.
[subscribe2]
We live in volatile times. The new Congress splits down the middle with 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans. Since the Vice President breaks ties, the party of abortion has the power to radically change our country.
President-elect Joe Biden has been clear of his intent to undo pro-life executive-branch policies enacted by outgoing president, Donald Trump. A few examples:
- Under Trump, providers of Title X can’t tell patients how they can access abortion services. Under Biden, that will change back to Obama policies.
- Trump supports the Hyde Amendment, which prevents taxpayer money from being used to pay for abortions. Biden has vowed to end it.
- Trump stopped the use of taxpayer dollars to fund overseas abortions. Biden plans to start up the practice again.
- Trump reduced taxpayer dollars going to Planned Parenthood.
- Trump canceled a contract for Taxpayer-funded experimentation using body parts of aborted babies.
- Trump became the first sitting president to address the annual March for Life a year ago.
Biden will most likely reverse all of these policies.
Taxpayer-funded abortions
Even more, incoming members of the abortion party call for taxpayer-funded abortion for all nine months of pregnancy and ‘pre-clearance’ by the attorney general on pro-life legislation passed at the state level, an obstacle that will surely halt the pro-life movement in its tracks.
All of this is bad news for the pro-life movement, but it’s not the worst of it. Democrats are focused on making changes in our process of governance via the new Congress to give them a permanent majority in the Congress and perennial control of the White House.
Process changes
Notably, Democratic legislators are pushing Chuck Schumer to scrap the filibuster, which would allow the Senate to make sweeping changes in process with a simple majority voter (rather than 60), with VP Kamala Harris casting the deciding vote.
Notably, they call for statehood for Washington DC, a district of which 76% of registered voters are Democrats compared to just 6% Republican. DC statehood would give the abortion party a permanent two extra Senate seats and one additional representative in the House of Representatives.
Notably, they credibly threaten to pack the Supreme Court with activist judges of the ilk who gave us Roe v Wade.
A one-party nation
According to Issues & Insights, the endgame for the activist wing of the abortion party is to turn the U.S. into a one-party country, along the lines of California where Democrats have controlled the legislature for half a century.
Iowans for LIFE is a non-partisan organization. Sadly, one political party is solidly pro-abortion. The changes in process advocated by Democrats threaten to block the good work at the state level, where pro-lifers have made tremendous gains in the past decade.
Pro-life gains
In our recent election, Republicans came into the election controlling both houses of 28 state legislatures. But the November elections showed their numbers increased to 32 states now controlled by the pro-life party, the most ever by Republicans.
Iowa Republicans increased their advantage in the Iowa House from 53 to 47 to 59 to 41, as they picked up six seats, while maintaining their whopping 32 – 18 advantage in the Senate.
Suddenly, the possibility of passing a Protect Life Amendment is back on the table. Iowans for LIFE will be at the forefront of this movement.
The abortion party pursues topdown policies that stifle state rights. The pro-life party counters with sensible bottom-up legislation supported by a majority of voters. The new Congress threatens this good work.
[Be sure to subscribe to this blog. It’s not too late to make a tax-deductible donation to IFL’s pro-life outreach. Thank-you.]
[subscribe2]
The man was a monster even Isis could appreciate, but for the fact that he was a Jew.
King Herod the Great was the Roman client king of Judea at the time Christ was born. Jewish prophesy stated that a new king, a Messiah, would be born in Bethlehem, threatening the reign of Herod.
When Herod was told that the time had come, that his rival had been born, Herod sent his soldiers to Bethlehem to kill all boys under the age of two. This day, known as The Day of the Holy Innocents, is commemorated in the Catholic Church today.
It is recounted in Matthew 2:16-18:
Ruben”s painting of the “Massacre of the Innocents”
16 Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the magi. 17 Then what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled:
18 “A voice was heard in Ramah,
Weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children;
And she refused to be comforted,
Because they were no more.”
The event was dramatically portrayed by the great Peter Ustinov as Herod in Franco Zeffirelli’s 1977 mini series, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Watch the clip above to get a sense of the horror of the Massacre of the Innocents.
The massacre continues today in the guise of human abortion.
The number of innocents slaughtered in our country today makes Herod’s atrocity seem like child’s play, except for one thing: the value of a human soul is beyond calculation.
The death of a single innocent is a tragedy.
[The pandemic impacted Iowans for LIFE’s fundraising activities in 2020. Please support our pro-life educational outreach with your donation today. Thank-you.]
The COVID-19 vaccine has been politicized, praised, and pilloried by disparate groups from both sides of the political aisle. This dissonance has fostered vaccine skepticism in many pockets of the country.
Candidate Kamala Harris told a national television audience:
“I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability” of a vaccine.
Former Representative, Katie Hill tweeted out:
“I’m a big fan of vaccines but DAMN I’m skeptical of one that‘s supposed to have been developed, tested, produced, and distributed in 6 months — right in time for the re-election of our very own dictator.”
Iowans for LIFE conducted a survey that revealed a great amount of vaccine skepticism from pro-life Iowans.
We live in an age of skepticism. Iowans for LIFE exists to protect human life by informing, educating, and inspiring society to value the sanctity of human life from its conception to natural death. This blog addresses recurring vaccine concerns and questions voiced by our supporters.
Was the vaccine rushed at the expense of safety and efficacy?
Many people who responded to our survey shared Ms. Hill’s concerns about the record-breaking speed with which the first two vaccines were developed. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) assures Americans that no corners were cut:
The vaccines being considered for approval “are being held to the same rigorous safety and efficacy standards as all other vaccines in the United States.”
Even more, the FDA stated:
“the pre-licensure safety database for preventive vaccines for infectious diseases typically consists of at least 3,000 study participants vaccinated with the dosing regimen intended for licensure.”
Pfizer’s trial used 44,000 participants, far exceeding FDA standards. They monitored post-inoculation reactions and reported:
“a favorable safety profile, with no specific safety concerns identified that would preclude issuance of an [emergency authorization].”
The vaccine uses new mRNA technology. Does this alter our DNA?
Dr. Dan Culver of the Cleveland Clinic says no, that mRNA:
“cannot change your genetic makeup. The time that this RNA survives in the cells is relatively brief in the span of hours. What you are really doing is sticking a recipe card into the cell making protein for a few hours.”
So how is this different from ordinary vaccines? The CDC explains:
“To trigger an immune response, many vaccines put a weakened or inactivated germ into our bodies. Not mRNA vaccines…
COVID-19 mRNA vaccines give instructions for our cells to make a harmless piece of what is called the “spike protein.” The spike protein is found on the surface of the virus that causes COVID-19.
COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are given in the upper arm muscle. Once the instructions (mRNA) are inside the muscle cells, the cells use them to make the protein piece. After the protein piece is made, the cell breaks down the instructions and gets rid of them.”
What happens next?
“Next, the cell displays the protein piece on its surface. Our immune systems recognize that the protein doesn’t belong there and begin building an immune response and making antibodies, like what happens in natural infection against COVID-19.
At the end of the process, our bodies have learned how to protect against future infection. The benefit of mRNA vaccines, like all vaccines, is those vaccinated gain this protection without ever having to risk the serious consequences of getting sick with COVID-19.”
Many people responding to IFL’s survey voiced concerns over the use of an abortion-derived cell line used in lab testing by the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Although these cells are not used in the actual development, production, and manufacturing of these two vaccines, conscientious pro-lifers are concerned that they may be colluding with evil should they take the vaccine.
This raises new questions.
Was actual fetal tissue used in testing the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines?
No. Dr. Tara Sander Lee, a senior fellow at the Charlotte Lozier Institute and director of its life-sciences program, explains that
“a fetal cell line is not the same as fetal tissue.”
It is believed that the cell line used originated from kidney cells from a 1973 abortion in the Netherlands. Recent tests don’t use the actual cells, since cells used for research were “multiplied into many cells of the same kind.” Dr. Lee said that Pfizer and Moderna haven’t trafficked in babies’ body parts as did Planned Parenthood. Nonetheless, the abortion connection exists.
Is anyone pressing pharmaceutical companies to cease the use of abortion-derived cell lines in the testing of vaccines?
Yes. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued the following statement on December 14th:
“It is because of this respect for the human person that the USCCB, in collaboration with other organizations working to protect human life, has been engaged in a campaign advocating for the development of a vaccine for COVID-19 that has no link to abortion.
For example, in April 2020, four USCCB bishops, the Chairman of the Committee on Doctrine, the Chairman of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, the Chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health Care Issues, along with representatives of twenty other organizations, wrote to the Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration asking it to help ensure “that Americans will have access to vaccines that are free from any connection to abortion.” The signatories pointed out that there is no need to use morally compromised cell lines to produce a COVID-19 vaccine, or any vaccine. Other cell lines or processes that do not involve cells from abortions are available and are regularly being used to produce other vaccines.
While some pharmaceutical companies have been working on a vaccine for COVID-19 without using morally compromised cell lines at all, others have been using such cell lines in either the design and development phase or the production phase or in both. Still others have been making use of a morally compromised cell line only for a confirmatory test of the vaccine’s efficacy. This leads many people who are concerned for the sanctity of human life to ask if it is ethical to accept any of the vaccines that have some connection to abortion.”
What is Iowans for LIFE doing to end the testing of abortion-derived cell lines?
IFL will be mailing a letter to each of the eight major pharmaceutical companies in the days to come asking them to cease the use of these cell lines in testing. We will encourage fellow members of the Iowa Coalition of Pro-Life Leaders to do the same.
Ultimately, is it ethical for conscientious pro-lifers to receive this vaccine?
It comes down to each person’s own conscience. The USCCB says yes, it is ethical, in light of the gravity of the pandemic:
“In view of the gravity of the current pandemic and the lack of availability of alternative vaccines, the reasons to accept the new COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna are sufficiently serious to justify their use, despite their remote connection to morally compromised cell lines.
In addition, receiving the COVID-19 vaccine ought to be understood as an act of charity toward the other members of our community.
In this way, being vaccinated safely against COVID-19 should be considered an act of love of our neighbor and part of our moral responsibility for the common good.”
IFL understands vaccine skepticism. We hope this blogpost addresses your concerns.
[COVID-19 has cut into Iowans for LIFE’s fundraising events this year. We need your help to continue our pro-life educational outreach. Support our efforts with your donation today. Thank-you.]
[subscribe2]
Will you take a COVID-19 vaccine? Yes? No? Undecided? This is the question we asked of Iowans for LIFE supporters via email and Facebook. Here are the results of our COVID-19 vaccine survey:
YES 22%
NO 68%
UNDECIDED 10%
The ‘no’ responses were forceful, typically in all caps and/or exclamation points. Dissent fell into three categories:
Ethical considerations
Many survey responders refuse to take a vaccine that used abortion-derived cell lines in testing, such as Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines, and especially if they are used in production, as in the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca products. Here are some comments we received:
“The vaccines were made with a fetal cell line. Regardless of how far removed this vaccine is from the cells it has the “original sin” of fetal cell use.”
“No- look at the ingredients. Not putting aborted baby tissue in my body.”
“I definitely won’t be taking a vaccine I know was manufactured with aborted fetal cells.”
“I will not receive any vaccine that uses embryonic stem cells in any part of the production process.”
“Emphatic NO. In the words of Bishop Strickland, I will not use the life of another to save my own.”
“NO! And no good, faithful Christian should. The only way we will EVER stop the continued use of aborted fetal products in research is to say No to All of their products, especially ones that have skipped steps of the safety process and for a disease that is no deadlier than a bad influenza year. There should be No reason to get this and to inherently support the companies who continue to use and desecrate the lives of children sacrificed for abortion is appalling and needs to stop.”
“No. As a rule there must be good reason for injecting chemicals into one’s body, and I don’t think a vaccine is necessary for a virus with a more than 99% survivability rate. And even taking the specter of a vaccine tainted with the cells of aborted children out of the equation – a deal breaker – I find the circumstances surrounding the development and promotion of the vaccine to be suspect.”
As you can see, some of the concerns expressed above begin with ethical considerations, but also touch on a second reason these people refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine:
Reliability concerns
Many responders believe the process to develop a vaccine was rushed, and that side effects are not fully known:
“No. I want to see more data on effectiveness and side effects, peer-reviewed and not from the vaccine manufacturers. How can we give this to our children and elderly without more data. This is why I will not be giving the vaccination to my kids. So far from what I have seen I would rather take my chances with a 99% recovery rate.”
“No, absolutely not. I am young and healthy and am breastfeeding. It’s completely untested as far as long term side effects. It’s also a completely new type of vaccine (mRNA) that has never been used before. It’s only been through 2 months of clinical trials. And the CDC also says this won’t make masks go away.”
“This means vaccinated people who carry the virus might still be infectious to others. Moderna’s chief medical officer Tal Zaks made that point clear in an interview, saying that the data can’t yet prove that a vaccine will stop individuals from spreading the disease.”
“Both Pfizer and Moderna are based on genetic altering deliverance. We have no idea the results of such vaccines. A major question to ask…why would someone who has had Covid 19 need a vaccine? Why would a vaccine provide more immunity than having had the disease? “
“My sister-in-law had to be vaccinated for the Army and received a bad batch which left her with multiple health issues and now 100% disabled.”
“We refuse to be a guinea pig for this drug.”
“Considering the rapid rate at which the vaccines have been developed I prefer to wait to be vaccinated until I see what side effects may appear. At the age of 69 I am considered elderly, but I also have MS and am concerned about how the vaccine may affect me in that regard.” Not to mention, the responders have the option of opting for the services like companion care in Sumner to take care of them for some time, but why would they want to take the risk of having any side effects in the first place?
“We’ve never had a mRNA vaccine (DNA altering!), and certainly not a rushed one with hardly any study on side effects, let alone long-term effects. There are far too many specialists voicing concern over female sterilization.”
“The testing samples are very low. Besides very vulnerable people, with 99% plus recovery, it may be a solution in search of a problem.”
Finally, vaccine detractors question if there is even a need for such a vaccine:
Necessity
Here are some typical comments we received:
“I will never take a vaccine for a malady with a 99%+ survival rate.”
“No!!! And I will not be giving the vaccination to my kids. I would rather take my chances with a 99% recovery rate, then having another person in my family get vaccine injured (which is a life sentence).”
“I am a healthy person so I would not put an unknown, unethical substance in my body when I have a 99.95% of recovery if contracted corona.”
“No. As a rule there must be good reason for injecting chemicals into one’s body, and I don’t think a vaccine is necessary for a virus with a more than 99% survivability rate.”
Reasons to take the vaccine
Keep in mind that the audience Iowans for LIFE canvassed was comprised of pro-life supporters, 22% of whom said they would take the vaccine. These and similar surveys (many of which could be implemented using tools from Qualtrics) provide not just the opinion swing on matters as sensitive as acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine, they can be a channel to understand what the responders feel and why they feel that way. Here were some of their reasons:
“Our Archbishop Jackel put out a memo assuring us Catholics that we could take the shot in good conscience so my answer is “yes”. I will take the shot when it becomes available for those of us who are elderly when it gets to be our turn. However, if I do test positive and survive, I will count on immunity and will not take any vaccine.”
“Yes, I plan to take the vaccine as long as its manufacture complies with the teachings of the Catholic Church.”
“Yes, I will be receiving the vaccine, from either Pfizer or Moderna. Our Bishop, the USCCB and the NCBC all tell me it’s allowed under our Catholic beliefs.”
“I will take either the Pfizer or the Moderna vaccine. I will not take the AstraZeneca or the Johnson & Johnson vaccine if alternatives are available; if no alternatives are available, I will probably take them.”
“Yes if possible I’d be first in line, I am still recuperating from this horrible disease in almost a month, you don’t want this.”
“Yes, without hesitation…..I don’t want that virus and it is my responsibility to protect others too. It is safe!”
In all, Iowans for LIFE heard from 289 pro-life leaning respondents.
[Be sure to subscribe to our blog. Be sure to donate to help us expand our pro-life educational outreach.]
[subscribe2]
Students for LIfe’s Kristan Hawkins
Let’s say the COVID-19 vaccine had these side effects:
- Cramping and vaginal bleeding should be expected.
- Sometimes the bleeding is so heavy that surgery may be necessary.
- Nausea, weakness, fever, chills, vomiting, headaches, diarrhea, and dizziness are common the first two days after getting the vaccine.
- Adverse consequences include hospitalization and blood transfusions to address excessive bleeding.
- Physicians report that hysterectomies following complications from taking the COVID-19 vaccine have occurred.
- Women have even died from it.
IF this vaccine, which has so dominated the news in recent months, had side effects like these, do you think the FDA would be rushing to approve it and subject women to it?
Of course, we’re NOT actually talking about the COVID vaccine, are we? We’re talking about RU-486, ‘the abortion pill’.
The side effects listed above are cited by Students for Life’s Kristan Hawkins in a December 12th essay published by Real Clear Politics. She reports that California’s Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, calls for the expansion and deregulation of this dangerous abortion inducing drug.
Becerra has convinced 21 additional state attorneys general, including Iowa’s Tom Miller, to:
“join him in pressuring the Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration to drop health and safety standards for the pills.”
Hawkins continues:
“As the Biden administration has now nominated Becerra to head HHS, it’s seems clear that the current advice of medical professionals at the FDA will be ignored and that common-sense health and safety standards known as a REMS (risk evaluation and mitigation strategy) to reduce the death and injury rate of women undergoing abortions are now at risk.”
RU-486 is poison for women and the babies they carry in their wombs. The new HHS Secretary is driven to politicize the poison and expand its tentacles to more at-risk women, including Iowa women.
How bad is it? As Hawkins reports, one woman described her experience like this:
“I wish they told me these pills wouldn’t end the baby’s life. It came out in a sack, with all the limbs and eyes … heart still beating. If I knew that would be the outcome, I would’ve never done it.”
Abby Johnson characterized it like this:
“My bathroom looked like a crime scene.”
This is what we can look forward to from the incoming administration.
Tomorrow, Iowans for LIFE will reveal the results of our survey asking people if they’ll take the new COVID-19 vaccine, which is just beginning to be rolled out.
[Support IFL’s pro-life educational outreach. Make a donation today. Thank-you.]
[This is the third in a series of profiles on pivotal figures in the abortion debate. Be sure to read our previous profiles on Margaret Sanger and Larry Lader.]
Linda Couri wants those who attend her presentation to see the face of a Planned Parenthood counselor and understand compassion drew her to work for the organization. Couri is an LCSW, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker. She is bright, serious and thoughtful. Her work as a volunteer and then counselor for Planned Parenthood ultimately ended with her decision to reject abortion and leave the organization, but she believes her experience can help others understand the commitment and loyalty of millions to the pro-choice cause.
Couri describes what initially led to a position within the Planned Parenthood organization. As a college student at Drake University, she relied on their clinic for basic screenings and tests, and by her account the staff created a supportive and affirming environment. She respected them for educating young people on reproductive and sexual issues and advocating for women.
A community of shared mission
As an employee, Couri describes a workplace of dedicated colleagues and a community of shared experience and mission. She recalls her coworkers, her fellow “worker bees,” as some of the kindest people she has ever known. Like most of her peers, they were “idealistic, motivated and ready to change the world.” She worked with women willing to forgo better employment simply for the chance to be part of what they considered a vital cause.
To further explain the profile of many of the clinic employees, she offers insight into her own. Couri describes herself as possessing a “liberal” temperament. In her words, by simple definition, she prefers “compassion to standards.” Building on that profile, she recalls as a young woman being “absolutely baffled by the statement ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions.'” In her worldview, intention ruled as the measure of virtue and actions taken, and in a world without objective truth, “what I willed and intended to be good, was good.” Her assessment of religious, pro-life people, although she had been raised “marginally Catholic,” was unsparing- “dull, unforgiving and anti-intellectual.”
Personal and professional
The community of shared experience Couri described at Planned Parenthood had two components, one personal and one professional. The first, the personal, was her past decision to undergo an abortion, an experience she said she shared with other women who worked for the pro-choice cause.
Couri was in graduate school and in a relationship with a new boyfriend when she discovered she was pregnant. She initially resolved to keep the baby as the responsible course, but then recalls the moment when, after a few weeks of unrelenting anxiety, she realized, “I can have an abortion.” She recounts “it was such a wave of psychological relief it verged on feeling right.” It would be anonymous and immediate. The power of a relatively simple procedure to lift the burden and end the crisis was overwhelming. It allowed her to “switch off the voice that was asking ‘what about the baby’?”
With the support of a close friend and her boyfriend she had the abortion, and by her account was “fine.” “And fine for the 11 years that followed. So fine I was a volunteer and eventually counselor at Planned Parenthood.”
A decision to leave
It was events over the course of her professional time as counselor at Planned Parenthood that affirmed her appreciation for her clinic community but ultimately led to her decision to leave. She describes three that were the most consequential, creating what she describes as the “dissonance” that increasingly become a feature of her professional life.
Couri describes the vivid memory of a 16 year-old girl, frantic with news of a positive pregnancy test, who she had been called to counsel. Couri carefully stepped through the options, ending with what she considered the best for the circumstance, abortion. As she concluded her discussion with the girl, “she surprised me as she reached out and touched my arm and asked, ‘can you please just tell me if I’m killing my baby’?” Couri was aware of her ethical and professional responsibility, she and had no doubt the procedure ended a human life, but chose to present it as “you are terminating the products of conception.” The description eased the concerns of the girl enough to proceed with the abortion. Following the exchange, Couri was disturbed and reached out to a supervisor. Together, they discussed the incident, and acknowledged abortion was a “necessary evil, a reasonable sacrifice to protect the lives and interests of women.”
Next, a long-time clinic worker of 20 years-“a really nice, lovely woman,” came to her following an abortion procedure, tearfully apologizing for her reaction while confessing her distress at “‘seeing a little hand’ in the collection of tissue.” They consoled each other but affirmed their commitment, “resolving that what they did was right and good.”
‘What have I done?’
Finally, one day she noticed an unread stack of journals left in the recovery room for women to record their abortion experience. No one had collected them so she gathered them up thinking they could potentially be a resource for future doctoral research. Although women reported relief at undergoing the procedure, Couri was completely unprepared ‘‘for the crazy, scrawling writing, the ‘oh my god what have I done?’ of many others.” She went to the manager and they discussed the problem at length, the manager even suggesting there could be funding for post-abortive care, but Couri found the likelihood of making those contacts next to impossible.
Reconnecting with her faith
In the years since her time at Planned Parenthood Linda Couri has reconnected with her religious faith and found the courage to face down the unyielding dissonance she experienced in her personal life as a result of her abortion. Her description of moving from pro-choice to pro-life is as thoughtful as her description of her time as a dedicated employee of Planned Parenthood, and just as insightful. She describes many challenges, from admitting the pain of her abortion to overcoming the challenge of finding new friends and associates as she faced the rejection of those she once admired. As an academic and accomplished professional, gaining the humility to accept that what she previously believed and counseled was wrong, and an assault on those she hoped to serve, was a great personal challenge. She credits her participation in the Project Rachel program for eventually finding the peace and restoration she sought.
Couri closes her presentation by returning, for emphasis, to what she knows and has lived-that “pro-choice is an identity, an ideology” as well as culture and community of shared experience. And the movement “is made up of millions . . . like myself, who have made the choice for abortion” or participate in facilitating it, all deeply invested in the cause as a consequence.
Linda Couri asks us again to remember it was compassion that initially drew her to Planned Parenthood. It is her hope that as compassion is a virtue common to both sides of the debate, it may be a starting point for discussions that can gain ground with our pro-choice sisters and brothers.
[Did you enjoy this profile? You can help us continue to create pro-life content with your donation. Don’t forget to subscribe to our blog today.]
[subscribe2]