Iowa Legislative 2017 Session Ends!

The Iowa Legislature has been busy this session. Now that the session has ended, it's time to summarize what has happened. Many of the bills associated with the same major issue tended to be addressed in the same week as other bills that address the same issue. Although there was some activity on the abortion bills earlier in the session, most of the activity took place in the final week of the session, which just ended. At this point, all pro-life bills await the approval of the Governor, who has been supportive of the bills.

20-week Abortion Ban & New Rules

The 20-week abortion ban (SF 471) was passed. The 20 weeks are measured post-fertilization. Abortions cannot be performed after 20 weeks, with very few exceptions. As medical science advances, the bill also provisions for the ban to adjust for viability if viability occurs before 20 weeks--it's whichever comes first. This bill goes beyond moving up the limit of when abortions can be performed. It also adds several rules that have been in place in other states. It is the largest change in abortion policy in Iowa in decades.

The exceptions that would permit an abortion include: doing so to save the life of the mother, performing the abortion in a medical emergency, and when performing the abortion intends to prevent the death or preserve the life of the pregnant woman. Exceptions for rape and incest are not included in this bill, so more lives will be protected in those cases.

The bill added a 72-hour (3-day) waiting period before women can get an abortion. The 72 hours begin once the physician obtains written certification of the following:

• An ultrasound of the child has been done
• The woman was given an opportunity to see the child (if she wanted to)
• The woman was given the option of hearing a description of the unborn child based on the ultrasound image and hearing the heartbeat of the child
• Information developed by the department of public health was provided to the woman
• Materials that offer the woman alternatives to abortion

Allocating Funds Away from Abortion Providers

The budget for the Health and Human Services has been passed (HF 653). The bill codifies the creation of a state-run program to handle what the federal Medicaid Family Planning Network Waiver addressed in the past.

Federal funds usually match state funds 9-to-1 to cover reproductive services. But in exchange for that, the state has to follow all of the federal rules. This has forced the state to fund Planned Parenthood and any other abortion provider in Iowa in the past. In order to avoid funding the abortion industry, the state decided not to participate in that program. So they replaced it with their own program. The only difference that presently exists is that Iowa will not fund abortion providers.

The media has been repeatedly defending Planned Parenthood by saying that taxpayer funds aren't paying for abortions today, so such a change is not necessary. If the bias was removed, they would simply state that the funds are not permitted to be spent on abortions. But lawsuits like Sue Thayer's lawsuit against Planned Parenthood of the Heartland alleges that funds ARE being used for most of the steps of abortions in Iowa. The media has been careless in their words. They cannot state with certainty that our money isn't paying for abortions given such lawsuits exist.

But the more common criticism is that any payment to an abortion provider for other services could allow them to divert their other sources of income to abortions, and thus indirectly fund abortions. They supporters who give money to provide various other services might have the majority of their donation pay for abortions when the government ends up paying for the services they hoped to cover.

Abortion providers often build up a client base by providing services paid for by taxpayer funds. Unfortunately, when they offer birth control that's not 100% effective, many women get pregnant with a mindset of not wanting a child. This creates a fairly ideal situation for selling abortions. And those same clients already have the relationship with the abortion provider. It's been a marketing system that has worked very effectively for decades, thanks to taxpayer funding and the strings tied to the "free" money from the federal government.

For several years, Planned Parenthood has bragged about the way they serve women regardless of "regardless of their ability to pay". They build sympathy and support from people who see this as a generous act on the part of Planned Parenthood. But when there are efforts to withhold taxpayer funds from abortion providers, we see the truth. They make it clear that large numbers of women will no longer receive healthcare. I guess they never shifted their rhetoric from when they tried to explain what happens if they were defunded. But the money will go to other healthcare providers. So women will still be served. And it's not their generosity, but OUR taxpayer money that they are using to pay for those services. Without OUR money, they sound like they aren't willing to stand by their offer to provide services regardless of the ability of their clients to pay. It's easy to appear generous when you receive tons of money per client or service. If they believe their rhetoric of serving women regardless of their ability to pay, then they should stand by that even when the government stops funding them. Many other organizations help people without receiving taxpayer funds. But I guess they believe they are "too big to fail" and demand our money.

Yes, there could be a strain in the first few years as other providers adapt to the increase in clients. But in a city like Cedar Rapids, consider how we estimate that a staff of 2-3 people are all that it takes to serve women at Planned Parenthood who are on Medicaid. If 2-3 new workers in a county of 200,000 people is a huge strain, then we have other issues. Smaller towns should have less demand. The other providers will get funding for the additional clients.

This bill, once enacted into law should eliminate at least 90% of the government funding for Planned Parenthood in Iowa. The other 10% pays Planned Parenthood to educate our children in our schools with their materials. That could not be addressed easily in the same bill. But many people don't like Planned Parenthood being in their schools. Communities in Southwest Iowa kicked them out a few years ago. Planned Parenthood tried to get back into the schools and faced more opposition. It's troubling to see them educating our children. They have previously made it clear that they are in the schools within Linn County. The more children approach reproductive health the way they do, the more clients they may have in the future. Again, it's another very effective marketing strategy.

Culture of Life Dinner

One week from now, on Saturday, April 29, the Knights of Columbus will host their 5th Annual Culture of Life Dinner to honor and support the current and future Pro-Life healthcare providers.  The money they've raised has already helped train several FertilityCare™ practitioners.  FertilityCare uses the best in science to naturally and ethically treat reproductive health issues.

With the way so much of the medical field uses unethical or less advanced methods, it's important to support and encourage more practitioners and doctors to learn the methods that bring true healing to underlying health issues, rather than simply masking the symptoms or not respecting women enough to preserve their fertility when possible.

The event takes place at 5:30 pm on April 29th at the St. Wenceslaus Parish Hall in Iowa City.  That's in the lower level of the church on the corner of Davenport and Dodge.

For more information about the Culture of Life Dinner, you may visit their website.

Register for the Culture of Life Dinner online.

If Abortion = Murder, then is Miscarriage = Involuntary Manslaughter? (No)

For a few years now, I've heard people suggest that if abortion was made illegal that pro-lifers would have to treat women who had miscarriages as if they committed murder.  This never made any sense and it disrespected pro-lifers and women who had miscarriages.

Murder requires malice/intent. Miscarriage does not include that, so it seemed very easy to dismiss. I know more couples who faced miscarriages than I wish I knew since it's so traumatic. I'm always hopeful that more people will learn about NaProTechnology so fewer couples go through a miscarriage, among the many other health benefits it offers.

But someone recently compared miscarriage to involuntary manslaughter, and I was ready to dismiss it just as easily, assuming it was roughly the same concern. Sure, it had the word "involuntary" out front, but it still seemed like the argument would be similar. I struggled a bit at first. But after thinking about it more, I eventually figured out what I really needed to say. I hope I conveyed it in a way that came across well.

The key to understanding where to go with the discussion was in the definition of manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter doesn't apply to every situation where someone dies as a result of an unintentional action of another person. Some people are charged with involuntary manslaughter and are acquitted--found not guilty. There are two categories of involuntary manslaughter.

There is "unlawful-act manslaughter." This is the type that requires the perpetrator to be committing another crime. A good example of this is when someone is speeding through a red light and collides with another vehicle and someone dies. It wasn't the intention of the person who ran the light to kill anyone. But they broke other laws that were specifically created to protect lives from being lost and property from being damaged.

The other category is "criminally negligent manslaughter." This form involves the taking of an unreasonable and high degree of risk, often in situations that require some skill. If you were the operator of a wrecking ball on a site requiring demolition, and you swung the ball back into a crowd of people who were walking by the site, this could be an example of this type of manslaughter. You're expected to operate such dangerous equipment responsibly and with enough space sectioned off around it to prevent such loss of life.

I didn't get into those details with the person. Without looking up the definition in advance, I was focused on the unlawful-act categorization. It was clear to me that miscarriage isn't typically the result of someone breaking some other laws. It's also not typically the result of someone taking unreasonable risks in a situation involving skill. Being new to this argument, I didn't press them on it and they didn't say anything more about the manslaughter comparison after I made my better argument. The better argument was much shorter than the longer argument I originally posed, which was getting me nowhere.

I avoided the more confrontational approach. After all, I could have asked what other crime he thinks women are committing that caused the miscarriages or what unreasonable risks they took. If someone was being particularly rude and confrontational, maybe I would have considered it. But I think my point was made without using tactics that are obviously aiming to silence them. The assertion they made uses this tactic. No one wants to blame women for doing something wrong that they didn't do. This is why people might want to tie their opponents to logic [that is faulty] to make it appear that they think someone who has a miscarriage is guilty of manslaughter. It would have been easy to sling it right back and make them come up with the necessary crimes it would take to make their assertion true. Perhaps that might work better in a televised debate, but we want to really reach the people we talk to. In the same way we recognize their tactics, they will recognize it when it comes back at them.

I wish I hadn't wasted words with the stuff I said before it all clicked in my head and I had a concise solution. But it seemed like a case where simply stating the following:

In cases of manslaughter, something else wrong is happening. Someone could run a red light or be speeding excessively. They don't intend to kill someone, but they hit someone and someone dies. With miscarriage, there is none of that. That's why miscarriage would not be even involuntary manslaughter, and thus why it has never been treated as such, even when abortion was illegal.

That was enough to bring the unreasonable comparison to an end in a respectful way, especially since it was on Facebook with a mostly unfriendly audience.

Tips for Productive Dialogue

We know there's the Scott Klusendorf event in Iowa City on March 25 & 26.  But this video includes some basic tips on making your dialogue with other people more productive.  Much of it is useful regardless of the topic, but it's particularly useful for talking about the pro-life topic.  So many people recognize that the angry rhetoric we all heard last year is not productive.  Wouldn't you like to learn a few tips to avoid last year's arguments?  Check this out!

http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/video-dialogue-tips-speech-mock-dialogue-students-for-life-conference/

Pro-Life Training by Scott Klusendorf

Don't miss the best pro-life training available in Eastern Iowa this year!

Saturday, March 25, 2017
St. Patrick Church- Iowa City  9:00 am - 3:30 pm
Full day of training- includes Lunch
Freewill offering  (Registration Requested by Mar. 23)

Sunday, March 26, 2017
St. Wenceslaus Church  1:00 - 2:30 pm  
The presentation will include a brief introduction to pro-life apologetics. 
Freewill offering  (Registration Requested by Mar. 23)

Scott Klusendorf trains pro-life advocates to persuasively defend their views in the public square. Scott travels throughout the U.S., Canada and Europe training groups of people to engage in conversation about abortion. He contends that the pro-life message CAN compete in the marketplace of ideas if properly understood and properly articulated. Klusendorf is President of Life Training Institute and is the author of The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture. www.prolifetraining.com 

Register on the page at the link below by Thursday, March 23.

http://www.jcrtl.org/scott-klusendorf---pro-life-training.html

You may contact Sheryl Schwager for more information (319) 855-8475
Presentations sponsored by Johnson County Right to Life & Iowa Right to Life


Our extra note about this:
We've shared books and shown videos to help our members make solid arguments in defense of life. Scott led people to argue more persuasively on this subject.  The books, videos, and websites we've pointed people to in the past have been put together by people who were inspired or greatly influenced by Scott.  So if you want to get some great training, don't miss this event!

Why Focus on Life Issues?

When people wonder why pro-lifers seem so focused on the life issue, seemingly ignoring other issues, I think of the way I described it to a like-minded pro-lifer this past weekend.

Imagine seeing someone being threatened at gun-point, and also seeing two people who appear hungry and homeless who are at half the distance as the person with the gun.  I would hope people would try to do what is needed to prevent someone from being killed, and then go back to help the others.

Pro-lifers are the type of people who take action to protect the person whose life is directly threatened.  Some people might take direct action, while others might simply call the police.  But we take action one way or another.  We recognize the urgency and the need to stop people who have the intention of ending human lives.  But after addressing the most pressing needs, we can go back and help others with less pressing, but still important needs.  We also note the magnitude of abortion, which takes more lives each year than anything else in our nation.  Like any subset of society, we all have a variety of interests and concerns.  So we don't just care about one thing, and yet the other things we care about vary greatly.

If we wanted to attack the character of people accusing us of being so focused on this worthy cause, we could easily cause the conversation to erupt.  All we would have to do is escalate things by saying something about how they must not care if people die.  We know it does no good to attack the character of others, nor is it respectful.  Let's stick to the issue at hand and have more productive dialogue.

It's not all about the numbers, but numbers are staggering

Who would ever think society would slip so far as to require decades of arguing to convince people that killing innocent children is not a good thing?  Who would ever imagine people could spend their lives working jobs to counter the messages of an industry that's built upon spreading the culture of death?  We admire the people who make such a commitment.  We need to prioritize the pro-life issues, especially abortion.  As time passes, we have more threats to the dignity of human life.  Mother Teresa was right about the way a culture that accepts abortion will soon fail to protect life at other stages.

Parking Reminder

Many people who come to pray during 40 Days for Life are used to parking on 35th St. Dr. SE next to Planned Parenthood.  As we pointed out at the turn of the year, lane markings were added to the street, which resulted in NO PARKING next to Planned Parenthood.  If you park there, you will block traffic.  The photo attached to this blog post shows a vehicle parked illegally.  Do NOT park where the Planned Parenthood employee parked!  You may park on the other side of the street.  But leave room for the family that lives across the street.  You may also park on 34th or Elm.

Do Not Park Here