Caviezel’s personal life is even more remarkable than his incredible on-screen talent. Taking the road less traveled, Jim and his wife Kerri have adopted two children from China, both of whom had special needs.

Their first adopted child, Bo, came to the Caviezels after a traumatic first five years of life. The little boy had a brain tumor and had been abandoned before he was taken in by an orphanage and subsequently adopted by his loving parents. Bo is a remarkably boisterous child, and with the love he has received from Jim and Kerri, it is hard to believe that just a few short years ago he was struggling to survive in a hostile environment.

Also five years old at the time of her adoption, the Caviezels’ second child, Lynn, has a lot in common with her brother. She is also from China and suffered from a brain tumor. Although the Caviezels were originally offered a healthy infant, they knew that the young girl’s chances for finding a loving adoptive home were slimmer, and so they welcomed her into their family.

Caring for children with special medical needs is a challenge that many doctors recommend be avoided by opting for abortion. But the Caviezels stand as witnesses to the fact that beautiful families can be formed out of unexpected and imperfect circumstances, such as medical problems that require much love and care to overcome.

When asked how becoming a father had affected him, Caviezel told Catholic Digest, “Even though they’re adopted, it’s as strong as any instinct. That’s what blew me away. I always thought if I adopted that I wouldn’t have the same feeling [as I would] if they were genetically my own children. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

LifeNews Note: Lauren is a Legislative Associate for Texas Right to Life and a graduate of Ave Maria University. This post originally appeared at Live Action News and is reprinted with permission.

As LifeNews reported, the Internal Revenue Service was also targeting a pro-life Iowa group that acts in part as a watchdog over the Planned Parenthood abortion business. It was refusing to grant nonprofit tax status to the Coalition for Life of Iowa unless it agreed to limit its “picketing” and “protesting” of Planned Parenthood.

In papers to the group, the IRS questioned the “educational” nature of the Coalition’s materials, prayer meetings, talks and other pro-life activities.

Today, Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican confronted outgoing IRS Acting Commission Steven Miller about the discrimination. From CNS News:

“This comes directly from Iowa, one of my constituents attempted to establish 501(c)(3) charity called Coalition for Life of Iowa. She told my staff that an IRS agent told her ‘Your application’s ready to go. However, it will not be approved until you send a letter signed by your entire board under penalty of perjury saying that you will not protest at Planned Parenthood,’” Grassley said at a Senate Finance Committee hearing on the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups.

Grassley called it “outrageous” that the statement would even be “made by anybody in government that somehow you’ve got to compromise your First Amendment rights.”

In addition to the order that the group promise not to protest Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, Grassley’s constituent received a letter from the IRS with “several invasive questions, including the details of the group’s prayer meeting,” he said.

“Now stop to think about it – the government getting involved in somebody having a prayer meeting. It appears that the IRS essentially offered this group a quid pro quo – You can become a charity if you don’t protest in front of a Planned Parenthood, generally speaking so you don’t have to worry about 6103,” Grassley said.

Miller said he could not speak to the specific organization in question but apologized on behalf of the agency.

The report contains shocking allegations and makes for fascinating reading – NARAL’s crack staff of researchers apparently worked tirelessly to uncover a treasure trove of new information.

According to the report, Susan B. Anthony List 1) raises money for pro-life candidates, 2) supports pro-life laws, 3) hires pro-life people, and 4) receives grants from conservative foundations. Last spring the group even went so far as to hire a lobbyist to lobby against Planned Parenthood funding. Shocking!

In all seriousness, Susan B. Anthony List should welcome this report.

CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!

Founded in 1992, the group has done a fine job both raising the profile of pro-life women and assisting pro-life women who are running for elected office. Twenty years ago, there were almost no pro-life women serving in Congress. Now there are two female pro-life senators and over 15 pro-life female members of the House. This is in no small part to the efforts of Susan B. Anthony List, and the fact that the group is receiving scrutiny from its opponents is a nice testament to its effectiveness.

LifeNews.com Note: Dr. Michael New is a political science professor at the University of Michigan–Dearborn and holds a Ph.D. from Stanford University. He is a fellow at Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, New Jersey.

A Redditor just posted this brief note on the pro-life subreddit:

The entire Kermit Gosnell case changed me from staunchly pro-choice to pro-life. I am a single 30-year old male…not at all someone who stands to gain from a pro-life view. When I heard the details of this, my stomach turned. I tried to reason with myself as to why this affected me but “standard” abortions did not. Granted, this was beyond the pale, but the message remained clear: this man took human lives.

I don’t want to get downvoted for this change in mindset, but if it happens, it happens. I have to listen to my heart’s message in the matter and while I feel for the women who felt they had no other option, this was not it. I’m uncomfortable with how strongly I feel about the subject, but I can’t make it okay with myself. (emphasis added)

This is why I just published a discussion of how pro-lifers can have productive conversations about Gosnell. It’s all about starting with the common ground of Gosnell, and then leading the conversation purposefully to first trimester abortions. It’s more work, but the chance of changing the person’s mind about abortion altogether are much higher.

Click this link to download the audio, or click the video below to watch our episode about Gosnell. We discuss how pro-lifers SHOULD talk about Gosnell, how pro-lifers should NOT talk about Gosnell, (but often do,) and briefly respond to the claim that it’s pro-lifers fault that women went to Gosnell’s clinic in the first place.

LifeNews.com Note: Josh Brahm is the educational director for Right to Life of Central California and the host of Life Report, also a LifeNews pro-life video feature. Find more episodes of Life Report at ProLifePodcast.net.

Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona also says his ban would have stopped the horrors at Kermit Gosnell’s abortion clinic.

Franks will hold a press conference on the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act tomorrow. The press conference will be in advance of a hearing to be held this Thursday by Franks, who chairs the Judiciary Committee’s Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee.

“The case of Kermit Gosnell shocked the sensibilities of millions of Americans,” he said. “However, the crushing fact is that abortions on babies just like the ones killed by Kermit Gosnell have been happening hundreds of times per day, every single day, for the past 40 years.”

“Indeed, let us not forget that, had Kermit Gosnell dismembered these babies before they had traveled down the birth canal only moments earlier, he would have, in many places nationwide, been performing an entirely legal procedure,” Franks told LifeNews in an email.

He added, “If America truly understands that horrifying reality, hearts and laws will change. Knowingly subjecting our innocent unborn children to dismemberment in the womb, particularly when they have developed to the point that they can feel excruciating pain every terrible moment leading up to their undeserved deaths, belies everything America was called to be. This is not who we are.”

The bill has the strong support of pro-life groups like the National Right to Life Committee and the Susan B. Anthony List. Marilyn Musgrave, Vice President for Government Affairs for the SBA List, talked more about why her groups supports the 20-week abortion ban.

“Tomorrow, Rep. Franks and other Members of Congress are holding a press conference on the Hill that I am attending announcing legislation that would ban abortions nationwide at the 20-week mark,” she said, adding that this is “truly a historic moment for the pro-life movement.”

Musgrave says Democrats are eager to push back against tying the bill to Gosnell’s late-term abortions.

She noted:  “In fact, an anonymous House Democratic leadership aide told the Hill publication Roll Call today: “ …using [Gosnell] as some sort of vehicle to change what is the law of the land is going to be greeted with fierce opposition.’”

In a nationwide poll of 1,003 registered voters in March, The Polling Company found that 64% would support a law such as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks — when an unborn baby can feel pain — unless the life of the mother was in danger. Only 30% opposed such legislation.

During the 2011-12 Congress, Mr. Franks’ bill garnered 222 co-sponsors in the 435-member House, and received the support of a majority of House members on July 31, 2012 (roll call no. 539).

In those videos, Live Action shows interactions between women whose pregnancies are in the range of 23 completed weeks of gestation.  Saletan critiques the editing of the video to omit points he argues show the clinics in a more favorable light, then states, “Here’s the big thing… even if you didn’t administer an injection, that kills the fetus inside the womb, which nearly all of these clinics do, the mere expulsion of the fetus, even at 21, 22, or 23, weeks is, itself, fatal.  That fetus is not prepared to survive the womb.”

What do established sources say about the survival rates of babies born at various stages of gestation?  These rates are a product of many factors, including the child’s weight, whether the mother took drugs to aid lung development with foreknowledge of an extremely premature birth, the proximity of the prematurely delivered baby to a neonatal intensive care unit and the technical skill of its treatment team.

The Lozier Institute will publish more on this subject in the future but here is one source, the  Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development on the outcomes with babies born in the 22-25 week range in terms of gestation (note that these rates acknowledge that a range of disability occurs in babies born at these ages and that the disabilities decline in both incidence and severity as the gestational age at delivery increases).

Outcomes Only for Mechanically Ventilated Infants in the Sample

**For mechanically ventilated infants, determination of Death/Profound Neurodevelopmental Impairment and Death/Moderate to Severe Neurodevelopmental Impairment based on 3,421 infants whose outcomes were known at 18 to 22 months corrected age; determination of Death based on a denominator of all 3,702 cohort infants.

CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!

Fetal development information compiled by the Mayo Clinic acknowledges that, at 23 weeks’ gestation, “With intensive medical care, some babies born this week might be able to survive.”  Thus, even with the application of mechanical ventilation in an effort to save the live of the extremely premature baby, 79 percent of those born at 22 weeks will die before discharge from the Neonatal ICU.  But for the extremely premature baby at 23 weeks the corresponding number is 63% and at 24 weeks it is 41%.  Specialists in the treatment of premature and extremely small neonates cite the thumbnail that over the past 40 years the survivability  for these children has improved by approximately one week each decade.  It is not a fixed number.

Saletan is correct that roughly 1 percent of U.S. abortions are done at these late stages of pregnancy, but the state of U.S. abortion reporting and the likelihood that these late-term abortions are not fully reported must be factored into the assessment.  Even at 1% there would be some 12,000 infants a year in the United States born near, at or after a stage of significant survivability.

Finally, if Saletan were correct that babies in this gestational range cannot and do not survive, there would be no justification for subjecting the woman to the injection of digoxin or another lethal medicine in the first place.  Induction of labor would certainly accomplish the objective of fetal demise.  It is to assure that outcome, or spare the mother the sight and/or sound of her child struggling for life and breath, that prompts the administration of a lethal injection through her abdominal wall.

LifeNews Note: Charles Donovan is the head of the Charlotte Lozier Institute.