Federal contraception mandate wouldn't help women, physician and researcher says

    

Planned Parenthood and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) began a new joint effort this week to lobby the Department of Health and Human Services to make free contraception a part of new federal requirements for all hospitals. In response Dr. Thomas Hilgers, an expert in women's health and family planning methods, stated that the plan would not help women, nor promote public health as contraception advocates claim.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has already rejected efforts to mandate contraceptive coverage, saying it would violate the religious rights of Catholic hospitals and doctors. On October 14, Dr. Hilgers wrote to CNA from Omaha, Nebraska (where he directs treatment and research at the Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction) to explain the plan's inherent problems from a scientific and medical standpoint.

As part of her effort to convince the HHS to accept her proposal, Planned Parenthood's president Cecile Richards argued women would not have to "pay $50 for birth control pills anymore" if her idea became law.

But Dr. Hilgers said Richards' accounting ignores the real price women pay, when fertility is regarded as a sickness needing "preventive care." He noted that prominent side effects of the pill include circulatory problems, breast cancer, cervical cancer and liver tumors, and warned there were "many others beyond this as well."

Hilgers also disputed remarks by the ACOG's Vice President for Practice Activities Hal Lawrence, who claimed that contraceptive care leads to "healthier pregnancies."

"Nothing could be further from the truth," Hilgers wrote. "Once a woman discontinues oral contraceptives, the 'time to pregnancy' is longer than it would be if they were not on oral contraceptives. This is a form of infertility induced by the birth control pill."

Hilgers, who is the Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gyneconology at Creighton University, said he knew of "no evidence at all that suggests that the birth control pill leads to 'healthier pregnancies'."

He also warned that promotion of contraception, particularly by the federal government, cannot be considered a "middle ground in the abortion wars," as one research consultant to Planned Parenthood has called it.

Most popular methods of contraception, he explained, actually cause the abortion of a new and genetically distinct human life. Hilgers said that consistent advocates of the pro-life position should instead consider recent advances in natural family planning, including his own NaProTechnology.

"The oral contraceptive (pill) has basically three mechanisms of action," he explained. "It inhibits ovulation, blocks the cervical mucus and renders the lining of the uterus hostile to an early implanting blastocyst. The latter is an abortifacient effect," he stated, saying that scientists do not yet know how frequently oral contraceptives cause this form of abortion. He went on to mention that "the intrauterine device is associated with early abortions as well."

Dr. Hilgers additionally observed that the spread of contraception, and the attendant separation of sex from reproduction, had not improved public health or social stability at the national level. 

Instead, he said, artificial contraception had been verified by sociologists as "the main ingredient to the increase in the divorce rate" beginning in 1962, and a primary factor behind the current "epidemic of sexually-transmitted diseases."

Source: CNA/EWTN News
Publish Date: October 15, 2010
Click here to return to the Current Daily News

Doctors Treat First Patient with Embryo-Derived Stem Cells

    

A California-based corporation has announced it has enrolled the first patient to undergo therapy using embryo-derived stem cells, after overcoming federal officials' concerns over the dangers of injecting humans with the potentially cancer-causing cells.

The embryo-derived cells, known as oligodendrocyte progenitor cells or GRNOPC1, are being injected into the patient primarily to "assess the safety and tolerability of GRNOPC1" in patients with severe spinal cord injury, not to cure them. The patient is being treated at Atlanta's Shepherd Center, a spinal cord and brain injury rehabilitation hospital and research center.

Thomas B. Okarma, Ph.D., M.D., Geron's president and CEO, called the start of the trial "a milestone for the field of human embryonic stem cell-based therapies." He noted that, "When we started working with hESCs in 1999, many predicted that it would be a number of decades before a cell therapy would be approved for human clinical trials."

Although Geron Corp.'s clinical trial has been in the works for years, the Food and Drug Administration's reticence to inject the dangerous material in humans has delayed its inception. Geron announced in May 2008 that its clinical trial was put on hold by the FDA. In January 2009, the government greenlighted the project, but then backpedaled in October after it was revealed that mice injected with the embryo-derived cells had developed cysts. The trial was finally re-approved in August 2010.

The cancerous potential of the cells was not a surprise: a 2006 study released by researchers at the University of Rochester Research Medical Center in New York found that embryonic stem cells injected into rats showed signs of forming cancerous cells. Similarly, stem cells taken from aborted children have proven vastly uncontrollable and prone to tumors in many cases.

Meanwhile, induced pluripotent adult stem cells have proven much more stable, paving the way to dozens of treatments and even cures of previously intractable conditions such as Alzheimer's, juvenile diabetes, and multiple sclerosis. Embryo-derived stem cell treatments have produced no practicable treatments to date.

Although adult stem cell therapies have already provided promising results for individuals with old spinal cord injuries, Geron's embryo-derived treatment will only be tested on individuals with injuries less than fourteen days old. In addition, experts note that the patients will need to take immunosuppressive drugs to keep their bodies from rejecting the foreign material - a burdensome requirement entirely bypassed by adult stem cell treatments.

David Prentice of Family Research Council recently pointed out that, contrary to what the media is reporting, "Geron is not injecting growing embryonic stem cells into a patient," but rather "cells made from embryonic stem cells." He also observed that, "Of note is that now, a year and a half after approval, Geron has finally listed their experiment, the only approved embryonic stem cell trial, at ClinicalTrials.gov." However, by way of contrast, "As of this writing, there were 2,002 adult stem cell trials in patients listed." But, "Despite the overwhelming success of adult stem cells for patients, few have heard the good news."

Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, unleashed by President Obama in March 2009, is now under court scrutiny after a D.C. federal judge ruled in August that taxpayer funding for the embryo-destructive research violated a U.S. law known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Royce Lamberth also issued a temporary injunction against the funding, but that was overturned in an appeals court ruling the following month. 

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: October 14, 2010

Ride focuses on perils of abortion

    

The second Pro-Life Freedom Ride, patterned after the civil rights freedom rides of the 1960s, is being launched today.
 
During the first Pro-Life Freedom Ride for the unborn from Birmingham to Atlanta (July 23-24, 2010), more people participated than all of those who took part in all of the freedom rides combined during the civil rights movement 50 years ago. Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life says the next one, launched today in Tennessee, will travel from Knoxville to a special memorial in Chattanooga.
 
"It is the National Memorial for the Unborn," he says. "And in that facility one can see little gold plates placed on the wall which bear the inscriptions written by the moms and dads and other relatives of children who were lost to abortion."
 
Pavone says the gathering at that memorial on Saturday will provide a time for reflection, meditation, prayer, and healing for those who have faced the ramifications of abortion. But it is also a place of hope, says the pro-life activist.
 
"Men and women of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, who share their testimonies after abortion, will be there and will give their testimony at that Chattanooga service," he explains.
 
Pavone sees a lot of excitement and energy in participation in the pro-life movement, largely because of educating the public over the past several years on the harm of abortion, but also due to awareness of the genocide that abortion represents on African Americans and other minorities.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: October 15, 2010
Click here to return to the Current Daily News

Abortion on demand in California?

    

California officials are hoping to solve the state's economic crisis with a new budget plan, but one industry is wreaking havoc on the state's economy.
 
Carol Hogan, communications director for the California Catholic Conference, reports that abortion is an industry in California and that the state provides the procedure on demand. She says individuals in the state can have an abortion whenever and wherever, compliments of taxpayers.

"You can have an abortion if you want it; there [are] no restrictions," Hogan explains. "You can have it anytime during the pregnancy; you can have as many in a year as you want. If you can't afford it, we'll pay for it."

She points out that California spent $23 million in 2007 on 80,000 abortions in MediCal. Even though she knows the California Catholic Conference cannot overturn state law on the procedure, her group is working to inform Californian voters on the issue.

"This is an education project right now. We can't legally stop the funding of abortion because of that California Supreme Court decision, but we can educate Californians that their tax money is paying for abortions," Hogan details. "I don't think a lot of them realize that."

The California Catholic Conference is teaming up with other pro-family organizations to educate voters on this issue.

Contact: Becky Yeh
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: October 15, 2010

Pro-life lobby succeeds at the UN

    

International Planned Parenthood Federation, the world's largest abortion promoter, has admitted defeat in its efforts to hijack the millennium development goals in order to promote legalize abortion throughout the world - and unrestricted access to abortions for adolescents.

Earlier this year, Pat Buckley, SPUC's chief lobbyist at the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva,launched an appeal to church leaders and pro-life groups worldwide to oppose an extreme, "ideologically driven" pro-abortion report produced by Navanethem Pillay, the High Commissioner on Human Rights, being "bounced through the Human Rights Council. Pat said at the time: 

"This report is being bounced through the United Nations forums, blatantly ignoring any evidence which disputes its conclusions and deliberately avoiding debate. The clear intention of the powers-that be is to use this ideologically-driven report's findings to influence the Millennium Development Goals Review later this year at the UN in New York."

At Pat Buckley's instigation, SPUC issued a worldwide alert in five languages warning that a right to abortion, under the guise of reproductive health, would be proposed at a United Nations (UN) summit in New York between 20 and 22 September 2010 and urging pro-lifers around the world to take action - in particular to contact the most relevant government officials in their countries objecting to the attempts being made to promote abortion under the guise of reproductive health.

May I take this opportunity of thanking all those who took action to defend unborn children and their mothers throughout the world, including our colleagues in other pro-life organizations and courageous delegates from pro-life nations.

Carmen Barroso, regional director of International Planned Parenthood Federation/Western Hemisphere Region, has written to pro-abortion lobbyists saying that the Summit 's Outcome Document ... officially adopted by the General Assembly on the 22nd of September ... neglects any reference to safe abortion, comprehensive sexuality education, adolescents ... indicating that there is still much work to be done." [This language is pro-abortion code for legalized abortion and unrestricted access to abortion for children from 12 upwards.]

Contact: John Smeaton
Source: SPUC
Publish Date: October 15, 2010
Click here to return to the Current Daily News

'Dangerous' conditions not deterring pro-lifers

    

Charges are pending against a Tennessee abortionist in connection with an assault incident in Charleston, South Carolina.
 
Troy Newman of Operation Rescue explains that 62-year-old Gary Boyle flies into South Carolina from Tennessee to perform abortions. But following a recent incident outside the Charleston Women's Medical Center, Boyle was arrested for pointing a loaded gun at pro-lifers.
 
"It looks like he was so perturbed by the peaceful, prayerful 40 Days for Life people that were praying in front of the abortion clinic that he operates there that he pulled a gun and pointed this weapon at the peaceful, prayerful pro-lifers," Newman reports. "He was subsequently arrested and booked on aggravated assault in the local jail."
 
The Operation Rescue president finds the increased amount of violence against pro-lifers disturbing.
 
"We'll remember Jim Pouillon that was brutally gunned down and murdered in Michigan just last year, and we've had other incidents," he laments. "I've had weapons pulled on me. Recently, there was another incident in Albuquerque, New Mexico where a man threatened to shoot some pro-lifers out there. So it's becoming increasingly dangerous."
 
But even in the face of that danger, Newman says the pro-life advocates he knows will not be deterred because they are prayerfully working to rescue unborn children who are sentenced to die.
 
While the pro-life battle field is becoming increasingly dangerous, advocates in Rockford, Illinois, who thought they were about to reach a settlement with the city, will most likely finish their case in federal court because of the lack of protection the city provides for them. 
 
Rockford is the home of the Northern Illinois Women's Center, one of the most notorious abortion clinics in the state. The owner is known for hassling and threatening pro-lifers by taking measures like approaching them with a chainsaw, hanging rubber chickens by the neck in the window and posting anti-Christian slogans. One pro-lifer was actually attacked by a supporter of the clinic.

Tom Brechja, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society, reports that a federal civil rights lawsuit was filed against the city two-and-a-half years ago.

"We thought we were on the way to settling, and the judge even presided in a number of conferences in chambers. And suddenly, they changed their tune," he explains. "We're not sure exactly why or what led to it, [but] we think there's probably a civil war going on within the Rockford city government."

Brechja feels the pro-lifers have been as patient as possible with the city.

"Just the other day, we were in court and we're back on the war path," he laments. "We've staked out a schedule for hostilities, and we're going to proceed in earnest to enforce our claims and win complete relief, we trust, against the city in federal court."

Pro-lifers simply want the law enforced and their constitutional rights protected, but the city may now have to pay damages.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: October 15, 2010
Click here to return to the Current Daily News

The abortion nurse's daughter: Inside minds at the mill

   

I have always been intrigued with the psyche of abortion workers and asked Abigail Seidman extensively about this.

Recall when Abigail was 13 years old her mother began pulling her from school every Friday to volunteer as what pro-lifers call a "deathscort," someone who escorts mothers planning to abort from the parking lot, shielding them from pro-life sidewalk counselors attempting to engage them in conversation or provide written information.

So Abigail saw a lot as a semi-insider. I can only imagine how traumatized she must have been not only because she experienced all this as an adolescent and teenager but also as a closet pro-lifer.

Let me begin by saying this was 15 years ago. Since then the Toledo, Ohio, abortion clinic where Abigail's mother worked has moved to a new location, although it is still owned by the same woman, a Wiccan when Abigail knew her. Abigail's mother has also moved on, so I don't know if the nefarious practices and conditions Abigail observed are ongoing.

I asked Abigail if the clinic aborted women who weren't pregnant. Yes, she said, adding the clinic owner often joked "anyone who wants an abortion can have one, whether she's pregnant or not!"

I asked Abigail if due dates were ever adjusted. I recall the hospital where I worked admitted a mother for an abortion for fetal anomalies at 27 and sixth-sevenths weeks' gestation, according to her last menstrual period (LMP). But the attending physician charted that according to ultrasound she was only 23 weeks along, coincidentally the upper age limit allowed for abortions. The baby was born (alive) weighing two-and-a-half pounds, clearly as old as the LMP indicated.

Abigail witnessed similar scenarios. Since her clinic was only allowed to abort up to 16 weeks, due dates were either dialed down with the help of the mother, encouraged to "re-imagine" the date of her LMP. Or dates were manipulated by staff, who told the mother LMP dating was unreliable because women can skip periods or have spotting they don't realize is a period.

"I don't remember a woman ever being turned away because she was too advanced in her pregnancy," Abigail wrote me. "The latest date I ever heard was 28 weeks, although women were always told their date was 16 weeks or less."

What did staff think of aborting mothers? "They called them 'stupid sluts' if it wasn't their first abortion, or 'brood mares' if they chose life and left before aborting," wrote Abigail.

There was one particular scandal Abigail recalled of a clinic worker who accidentally got pregnant but decided against abortion.

"There was first the ideological issue," Abby explained. "The accepted belief was that all unplanned pregnancies were 'unwanted' by default and should be aborted. So the clinic owner insisted the philosophically correct thing to do was abort the 'unwanted' baby and then get pregnant again intentionally to have a 'planned, wanted' baby."

The pregnant staffer reminded the owner that included in the word "pro-choice" was "choice." The issue then became what effect would a visibly pregnant worker have on patients? Would more of them choose life, causing the clinic to lose money? The owner ultimately had no legal "choice" but to keep the pregnant worker, who refused to take a leave of absence.

When I was lobbying for pro-life bills at the Illinois capital in the early 2000s, the ACLU lobbyist became pregnant. I couldn't understand how she could testify for the culture of death while at the same time feeling preborn life inside her.

Pregnant pro-aborts obviously develop a mental schism. Abigail observed this with the pregnant clinic worker. "She appeared not to mind upsetting patients," Abigail wrote me, "and she also appeared to delight in tormenting pro-lifers."

The latter she would do by daily flashing her pregnant belly at sidewalk counselors, crowing, "Today's the day! I'm having an abortion!"

She didn't, of course, but continued to facilitate abortions after her daughter was born, bringing her to work so she could breast-feed. "I was charged with babysitting, upstairs in the clinic library," Abigail wrote, "a job I relished, since it kept me away from the drama out on the sidewalk and also meant I got to cuddle and play with a baby, which I loved, even though my mother disapproved!"

It was during this time Abigail's pro-life views were cemented not only by caring for the baby but also by reading "hostile" pro-life books in the library.

"There was a sort of delicious irony in reading pro-life books and caring for a baby in an abortion mill," Abigail wrote me. "I remember thinking, 'This is what I want my life to be someday.' Praise God, that wish has come true!"

Abigail and her husband are parents to two beautiful boys

Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: WorldNetDaily
Publish Date: October 13, 2010

Dem Candidate Charges SBA List with Criminally Misleading Ads: NRLC Responds

   

The National Right to Life Committee is stepping up to the plate to defend a national pro-life political action committee that has been charged by a pro-life Democrat with criminally misleading voters about his vote in favor of the national health care law sought by President Barack Obama.

U.S. Rep. Steve Driehaus, the incumbent Democrat in Ohio's 1st District, filed a criminal complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission against the Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List), charging that the PAC's claim that he voted for taxpayer funded abortion in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is "factually untrue."

Driehaus is taking a beating in the polls to pro-life GOP candidate Steve Chabot, who is endorsed by SBA-List and leads the incumbent congressman by 12 points. Adding insult to injury, national Democrats have given up on Driehaus's campaign and are reallocating money to races they think they can save from the coming GOP surge in November.
 
The Commission is set to hear oral arguments for both sides Thursday morning at 8:30 in Columbus, Ohio. If the commission finds that the SBA List violated Ohio law by publishing "a false statement concerning the voting record of a candidate or public official," then it becomes a criminal matter with penalties ranging from a five thousand dollar fine to six months in jail.

Democrats for Life and Catholics United have both submitted affidavits for Driehaus claiming that the federal health care legislation does not fund abortion.

But the NRLC has intervened on the side of SBA List with a sworn affidavit detailing precisely why the national health care reform law actually does allow federal subsidies for elective abortions.
"It is outrageous the Ohio law allows an incumbent politician, like Steve Driehaus, to  haul citizens before an appointed government tribunal, under threat of potential criminal prosecution, for expressing an opinion about the public policy implications of a vote that he cast in Congress," said NRLC's Federal Legislative Director Douglas Johnson.

In the 23-page affidavit, prepared and sworn to by Johnson, NRLC argues against Driehaus's claims in 65 detailed and numbered paragraphs that the Affordable Care Act "does not permit and in fact prohibits taxpayer-funded abortions."

NRLC counters that the PPACA actually contains "multiple provisions that do in fact authorize (i.e., create legal authority for) taxpayer funding of abortion, and that predictably will result in such funding in the future" unless the law is either repealed or fixed along the lines of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.

The affidavit also discusses four specific programs where the PPACA authorizes abortion or where abortion would become funded if Congress failed to renew the annual Hyde Amendment. NRLC points to problems surrounding the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Programs (PCIPs), the program of federal tax-based subsidies to purchase private health plans, the appropriation of $7 billion in new funding for Community Health Centers, and the section creating "multi-state" health plans to be administered by the federal Office of Personnel Management, to name a few examples.
"There are no directives in the Order that apply to all, or even to most, of the provisions of the PPACA," said Johnson, who pointed out President Obama's executive order obtained by Stupak has such an "extremely narrow and highly qualified" scope that even the president of Planned Parenthood called it "a symbolic gesture."

The NRLC affidavit has 16 documents attached as exhibits, including a legal analysis of the health law's abortion provisions performed by attorneys for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, documentation proving state PCIP plans for Pennsylvania and New Mexico covered elective abortions when they were first approved by the U.S. Health Department, as well as a Congressional Research Service report that stated nothing in the PPACA or Obama's Executive Order actually prevented funds for PCIPs from paying for elective abortions.

"In America, anyone should be free to express their views on the effects of the bills that Mr. Driehaus voted for, without fear of criminal prosecution or fines," said Johnson. "Mr. Driehaus enjoys full freedom to dispute his critics, with the voters as the ultimate judges about whose claims are most credible."

Click here for the NRLC affidavit and documents submitted as supporting evidence to the Ohio Election Commission.
 
Contact: Peter J. Smith
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: October 13, 2010

Oregon Hospices Refuse to Participate in Physician Prescribed Suicide

   

A few weeks back, I mentioned a study published by the Hastings Center that hospices in Oregon are not participating in assisted suicide.  The CBC asked me to expound more fully on a study published by the Hastings Center that hospices in Oregon are not participating in assisted suicide.

I discuss the abuses in Oregon–which we have dealt with many times over the years here–and then get to the issue of hospice specifically.  I reference the Hastings Center study's conclusion that "questions of legal compliance and moral complicity inhibits" hospice participation in assisted suicide. From my piece:

I hope the actual reason is more fundamental, that hospice workers in Oregon understand that facilitating assisted suicide is directly contrary to the hospice philosophy. Indeed, rather than facilitating doctor-prescribed death, hospice professionals are supposed to prevent the suicides of their patients by intervening to provide services or treatments the patient might be lacking, so that they no longer want to die immediately…

This raises an important question: Why does hospice philosophy oppose assisted suicide? According to the late Dame Cecily Saunders—the creator of the modern hospice concept and one of the great medical humanitarians of the 20th Century—doctor-prescribed suicide denies the equal dignity of hospice patients. As she wrote in the 2002 book, The Case Against Assisted Suicide (chapter, "The Hospice Perspective"), hospice asserts on behalf of the dying patient his or her "common humanity and personal importance" to the moment of natural death.

The great American hospice physician, Ira Byock, is similarly opposed to assisted suicide, writing in the Journal of Palliative Care, "The hospice focus is on life and the alleviation of suffering," whereas "the goal of assisted suicide and euthanasia is death." Moreover, if a hospice cooperated in doctor-prescribed death, it would abandon that patient to his or her worst fears—that they will die in agony, that they are a burden, that their lives truly are no longer worth living.

And this is a crucial point to remember:

Thus, when assisted suicide facilitators in Oregon brag that they have assisted the suicides of hospice patients, they are actually admitting that they interfered with the proper medical care of these patients. Indeed, boasting of helping hospice patients kill themselves is akin to patting themselves on the back for helping the patient die after denying them proper pain control—another crucial hospice medical service.

I conclude:

This is the bottom line: Hemlock (if you will) and Hospice cannot occupy the same philosophical space. That is why I am very pleased that Oregon hospices are generally keeping assisted suicide at arm's length. Legal or not, doctor-prescribed death has no place in proper end-of-life care.

More than that, it has no business in the practice of medicine or in a humane and moral society.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: October 14, 2010

Sex Ed’s Exaggerated ClaimsPosted by Chad Hills

   

Washington Times columnist, Cheryl Wetzstein, makes some poignant observations in her article, "'Lack' of sex ed is exaggerated." She compares the actual data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) regarding sex education and knowledge of birth control against the exaggerated claims that "more money, more condoms and more birth-control education" are needed.

 In truth, "access" to birth control or condoms is not the issue, nor is there a supposed "shortage" of birth-control education among teens.

 Sex outside of marriage is the issue. And, it's not as "safe" as Planned Parenthood, SIECUS and liberal pre-marital sex advocates would have teens and the U.S. Congress believe.

 "Protection" for casual sex is not all it's cracked up to be. Many still have unintended pregnancies, and half of all youth will have a sexually transmitted disease before the age of 25.

 The CDC report indicates that people (15-44 yrs) chose not to use birth control or condoms based on unwanted side effects and preference – not for lack of access to condoms or sex education.
 
More Observations from Wetzstein's Article...

 "Use of Contraception in the United States: 1982-2008," released this summer from the CDC:

 •The National Center for Health Statistics found that more than 95 percent of U.S. teens have had "formal instruction" in sex education, which makes "today's observation is about the so-called lack of formal education about birth control for teens" somewhat of a false claim. And how many millions more dollars are being poured into this supposed "educational void" about birth control?

 •Teens would need to be aware of birth control in order to use it, right? Well, according to another federal report, they are using it. Twenty-eight percent of 10.4 million teen girls, ages 15 to 19, use a birth-control method, evidence that they know what it is and how to get it. (If this percent seems small, remember, most teen girls aren't sexually active and have no need for these products).

 •Moreover, 99 percent of sexually experienced American women, ages 15 to 44, say they have used some form of birth control in their lives. This figure — which essentially means birth-control use is "universal" among U.S. women.

 •CDC report points to other reasons: More than 13 million women stopped using the pill because it gave them "side effects."

 •And around 1.4 million women stopped using the pill — full pause here — because they got pregnant while taking it.

 •Cost, insurance coverage and access were only minor reasons women said they stopped using the pill.

 •And when it came to condoms, virtually no one stopped using them because they were difficult to get. Instead, the biggest reasons to skip the condoms were because the women's male partners didn't like them …

 •Women "worried that the [condom] would not work." That fear of failure was valid, by the way, since about 277,000 women said they became pregnant while using condoms (2006-08).

 Before multiple millions of taxpayer dollars are spent trying to mask the consequences – or treat the "symptoms" – of sex outside of marriage with more birth control and more condoms, maybe we need to ask Congress, "What will this accomplish?"

 It looks to me more like an exaggerated effort to super-fund something that doesn't need anymore funding at all.

Source: CitizenLink
Publish Date: October 13, 2010

Tiller associate facing disciplinary action

   

A former associate of slain late-term abortionist George Tiller will soon face the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts.
 
In 2007, Cheryl Sullinger of Operation Rescue filed a complaint against Ann Kristin Neuhaus and George Tiller because Neuhaus was the only one providing Tiller with second referrals. Under Kansas law, those referrals are required before an abortionist could terminate a pregnancy past 22 weeks, but the second referrer must have no legal or financial affiliation with the abortionist. So the pair faced a problem because Neuhaus shared office space and other connections with Tiller.

 Neuhaus is now accused of failure to perform adequate patient interviews and failure to obtain adequate patient history, among other things. She has hired an attorney and plans to fight the allegations.

"We're very, very confident that Neuhaus will be disciplined and could even have her license revoked because the law is very, very clear that an unaffiliated physician cannot provide a referral for a late-term abortion here in Kansas," Sullinger notes.

 She says there was certainly a direct connection between the two. But the pro-lifer points out that this is not the first time Neuhaus has faced the licensing board.

 "She had been accused of actually doing an abortion on a woman who had withdrawn her consent," the Operation Rescue spokesperson reports. "At one point, the board indicated that they believed that she was a danger to the public. She actually closed all of her abortion clinics a few years ago."

 Sullinger believes Neuhaus helped conduct abortions on viable babies that the laws were designed to protect, so she contends that will be enough to revoke the physician's medical license.


Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: October 13, 2010

Judge Allows Pittsburgh Pro-Lifers to Distribute Voter Leaflets

ACLJ Wins Injunction in Case against Pittsburgh Ordinance Banning Voter Leaflets

   

A federal judge has halted enforcement of a Pittsburgh city ordinance that prohibits individuals from distributing leaflets on parked cars prior to the November elections.

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) had filed a federal suit challenging the constitutionality of Pittsburgh Ordinance § 601.02, which restricts residents' ability to distribute literature on private property within the City of Pittsburgh. The ACLJ's suit asserts that the ordinance is overbroad, vague and impinges on the constitutional rights of free speech and due process.
 
In a hearing Wednesday morning, U.S. District Judge David Cercone issued an order suspending the law until a November 12 hearing, during which the plaintiffs will seek a preliminary injunction. ACLJ lawyer Ed White noted that although neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor the local appeals court has ruled on the issue, three circuit courts of appeal have ruled such ordinances unconstitutional, while one has upheld a similar ban.

"One of the foundational rights of all Americans is the right to free speech," said White in a press release Thursday. "Pittsburgh Ordinance § 601.02 fundamentally hinders the ability of the plaintiffs and all Pittsburghers to exercise their constitutional rights."

The ACLJ complaint says the ordinance goes too far because it would impose a fine on individuals if their activity handing out fliers, even if face-to-face, leads to littering. The law's author, Councilman Bruce Kraus, argued that the law helps cut down on litter.

ACLJ engaged the court on behalf of Kathleen A. Ramsey of Ross and Albert A. Brunn of Pittsburgh, two pro-life advocates who intend to distribute literature concerning the upcoming elections.
 
Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: October 13, 2010

Planned Parenthood Pushes for Universal Birth Control as Coalition Fights Abortifacient Ella 'Contraceptive'

   

As abortion giant Planned Parenthood pushes to force health insurers to cover all birth control, a coalition of pro-life leaders is sounding the alarm about ella, a drug the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved as an emergency contraceptive despite its ability to kill newly-conceived children.

EllaOne, approved unanimously by an FDA advisory panel June 17, is advertised as effective "contraception" up to five days, or 120 hours after intercourse. However, pro-life leaders and experts have castigated the FDA for approving the drug as a contraceptive despite the fact that its chemical make-up and function are nearly identical to the abortion drug RU-486, which has been linked to the reported deaths of at least twelve women, according to the Family Research Council's tally.

A pro-life coalition, including Students for Life of America, the Family Research Council, Life Issues Institute, the Human Life Alliance, and Concerned Women for America, has created a website aimed at revealing the truth behind the drug. The drug's packaging contains no reference to its potential to kill embryonic children.

 In a Family Research Council video, Dr. Donna Harrison explains that RU-486 is the "parent drug" of ella. "They are of the same class of drugs," says Harrison, "which is progesterone reception modulators" - a function that can block conception, but also disallows an already-conceived embryo from receiving nourishment in its mother's womb.
The Ella Causes Abortion website now features a downloadable flyer by the Family Research Council petitioning pharmacists not to stock the abortifacient drug.

"By labeling ella an EC [emergency contraceptive], the FDA is denying informed consent to women who will take ella AND to pharmacists who will not know that ella can cause an abortion," states the flyer. "Pharmacists who are asked to fill prescriptions for ella have an ethical right to know that the drug may cause an abortion and women desiring to purchase ella have a right to know it may cause an abortion."

Planned Parenthood has meanwhile launched a campaign to make birth control available for free to every woman under federal health care reform - a plan that, coupled with the devastating effects of ella, would unleash abortions on an unprecedented scale throughout the country.

"Affordable prescription birth control is an essential part of health care for millions of women," states Planned Parenthood on its political action website. "The time has come to provide birth control at no cost to every woman who wants it."

The organization has launched a petition to urge the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to interpret the new health reform law to "require health plans to provide prescription birth control to women with no co-pays" as part of "preventive care."

Perhaps the only direct challenge to Planned Parenthood's campaign so far has come from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which argued in a letter to the HHS last month that birth control is not preventive health care at all, since "abortion is not itself a disease condition, but a separate procedure that is performed only by agreement between a woman and a health professional." The letter also pointed to the link between contraception and higher abortion rates among unintended pregnancies.

"[Contraception] is almost always prescribed for personal or lifestyle reasons, not for any specific medical justification, and it poses its own serious risks and side-effects, some of which can be life-threatening," they wrote. "Use of prescription contraception actually increases a woman's risk of developing some of the very conditions that the 'preventive' listed in the Interim Final Rules are designed to prevent."

The bishops also noted that forcing health insurers to cover birth control would amount to "an unprecedented threat to rights of conscience for religious employers."

"Currently, [employers and insurance providers] are completely free under federal law to purchase and offer health coverage that excludes these procedures," they wrote. "They would lose this freedom of conscience under a mandate for all plans to offer contraception and sterilization coverage."

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: October 12, 2010

First Clinical Trial Starts on Human Using Life-Destroying Human Embryos

    


Geron Corporation's first clinical trial involving life-destroying human embryonic stem cells got under way on Friday at Shepherd Center in Atlanta.

 Dr. David Prentice, senior fellow for life science with the Family Research Council, said that adult stem cells have already improved the health of over 70 spinal cord injury patients.
 He said that Geron is aware that their embryonic cells won't work past one or two weeks after the injury. But that's not the case with adult.

 "Adult stem cells have been used in spinal cord injury patients all the way up to 15 years after the injury," Prentice said. "15 out of 20 spinal cord patients improved significantly using their own adult stem cells. Adult stem cells are really helping patients now, thousands of patients, dozens of diseases, and it doesn't rely on destroying human life."

 Wesley J. Smith, senior fellow in human exceptionalism for the Discovery Institute, is amazed at the media's obsession with embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) when the advancement in adult stem cell research is far more impressive.

 "Several years ago, in early human trials, adult stem cells (taken from the nasal passage) restored feeling to people with long term spinal cord injury, yet received almost no coverage despite being reviewed in peer reviewed journals," said Smith. "If that had been an embryonic stem cell success, the headlines would have been so big it would have taken up the entire front page. Apparently for the media there's only one right kind of stem cell research."

 Smith added that this is not a debate about science, but rather about ethics.

 "The ethical issue is that embryonic stem cells can only be derived from destroying nascent human beings, that is human embryos," he said. "The fact that adult stem cells are doing well is important in that ethical debate, because it is often couched in terms of 'without embryonic stem cells there is no hope.'"

Source: CitizenLink
Publish Date: October 12, 2010

Pro-Life Conservative Women Changing the Face of Politics

   

The 25-year span of political dominance by pro-abortion women and political recruiter EMILY's List may soon come to a close, as a record number of pro-life women vie for office.

 Whether it was the liberals' attempt to destroy former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin during the 2008 election or the overreaching, abortion-driven agenda being forced on Americans by President Obama and the Democrat majority,

 From U.S. House and Senate races to gubernatorial bids to state and local contests, two women in the Republican House leadership believe that 2010 will be a transformative year for conservative women in politics.

 '146 GOOD REASONS TO VOTE'

 During an interview with National Review Online, U.S. Reps. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state said:

 "Women voters are fired up for this year's election and will most definitely not be staying home on Nov. 2, and there are at least 146 good reasons for this.

 "A record number of Republican women have sought federal office this year – 129 GOP women in House races and 17 in Senate races. In 1994, another record-breaking year, 91 Republican women ran for the House and 13 for the Senate. How can EMILY's List say that the party is running women out when more and more women are running?
 "This is the year of the strong conservative woman, but because those women are overwhelmingly pro-life, EMILY's List clearly doesn't see them as good enough."

 Rogers added that conservative women candidates are now a better reflection of the majority of American women:
 "The type of women we are running – political outsiders who are moms, small-business women, women who up until recently never thought of running for office but were inspired to run because of the dangerous course (on which) President Obama and Speaker Pelosi are taking America — are threatening to the liberal special-interest groups who believe that to be a woman you must be a liberal and that conservative women candidates…must not only be defeated, but also branded as somehow anti-woman. This is absurd."

 EMILY'S LIST-LESS ATTACKS

 Liberal media pundits, along with pro-abortion politicians and activist groups, have denounced the veracity of what conservatives have coined as the "Year of the Conservative (Pro-Life) Woman."
 Marjorie Dannenfelser, president and chief executive officer of the Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) – the pro-life movement's answer to EMILY's List – said the number of pro-life women in this election cycle is turning into a referendum on abortion politics.

 "EMILY's List is running scared –and it shows," Dannenfelser said. "Clearly, in this 'Year of the Pro-Life Woman,' which Sarah Palin helped make possible, women have found their political voices. Pro-life 'Mama Grizzlies' represent the majority of women across the country."

 NATURALLY CONSERVATIVE

 Bruce Walker, in his June 11 article for The American Thinker, said the results from this year's primary season show that voters are tiring of identity or special interest politics – especially the "perversion of representative limited government proposed by the left:"

 "Women are, in many ways, more naturally conservative than men. Bad and dangerous schools, for example, are more likely to arouse direct action by mothers than by fathers. Pornography, juvenile promiscuity, and related social issues are at least as troubling to women as to men.

 "The avalanche of abuse thrown at Sarah Palin shows how much leftists fear strong conservative women. But Palin, like Bachmann and Brewer, are unperturbed. These women, along with others who will win office in November, are changing the face of American politics."

Contact: Catherine Snow
Source: CitizenLink
Publish Date: October 12, 2010

A Nobel Peace Prize Modeled After Henry Ford's Assembly Line

        

A Nobel Prize has been awarded to Robert Edwards, who is known as the father of the test-tube baby, and the inventor of in-vitro-fertilization (IVF). His Nobel prize was awarded for Physiology or Medicine for his IVF work.

What exactly is IVF, and why is there a controversy over the awarding of this Nobel Prize? Starting at the beginning; in-vitro-fertilization is literally fertilization in a glass. Why? Because the uniting of the sperm and egg is done in a petri dish. The sperm is most often obtained from masturbation; while obtaining the egg is more complex. Medicine can use powerful drugs to hyper-stimulate the ovaries, so that multiple eggs can be produced for

After fertilization, in the dish, the embryos are grown, checked for defects and often screened for sex and physical characteristics. The participants in IVF then choose, how many embryos to implant in the woman's uterus. Another technique for reproductive success is to implant an embryo or embryos, in a surrogate's womb. Henry Ford, the inventor of the assembly line for the Model T, would be proud. Now comes another dilemma. The embryos who appear normal are usually frozen for later use; although the participant may choose to discard any unused embryos.

To think that this technique of IVF is making dollars for clinics. I'm sure none of these dollars are being spent if there are complications for the woman; and there are complications. These complications go far deeper than mere physical. With IVF we have turned human beings into mere market products. Where's the natural process here, and how does that affect the woman's female physiology? It's all technology.

And what about the risks? IVF pregnancies carry a higher risk of ectopic pregnancies, as well as gestational diabetes for the mother, high blood pressure and bleeding, not to mention the severe health risks to the babies. More importantly, during the process, the parents are repeatedly put in the position of consenting to the death of one or more of their children because of an embryo who may have a defect or the wrong sex, or simply perceived as "superfluous".

Now, our society has awarded the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to Robert Edwards, inventor of the IVF. Commenting on the prize, Bishop Ignacio Carrasco de Paula, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said, "Without Edwards, there would be no market for human eggs; without Edwards, there would not be freezers full of embryos waiting to be transferred to a uterus, or more likely; used for research or left to die, abandoned and forgotten about by all." This is another example of medical science taking advantage of the heartbreak of humanity, by pitting the rights of the infertile parent against the rights of the child. Cardinal Antonellie, speaking on the Church's position on IVF stated, "The rights of a child dictates that a person cannot be produced, acquired and owned as an object for ones own self gratification".

Reasons why the Nobel Prize should not have been awarded, says Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro-Carambula who said, "The scientist is regarded as a hero, but what he has really done is to create a market for manufactured humanity. This is not a gift to humanity; it is a death sentence to millions of tiny human beings, who are created only to be destroyed. Edwards' supposed great accomplishment has also created a means for the ultra-rich to tamper with every genetic aspect of the person, creating designer human beings." Brings to mind Henry Ford, who created an assembly line for his designer Model T car. This is a Nobel Peace Prize on a par with Al Gore and his desire to save the environment by eliminating humanity.

RU 486: Two more U.S. deaths revealed

   

The use of RU 486 has resulted in the deaths of two more American women than was previously reported, it was revealed two days after the 10th anniversary of the abortion drug's approval in this country.

Officials with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) acknowledged the deaths of a 29-year-old woman in 2008 and a 21-year-old in 2009 in a letter that appeared in the Sept. 30 online issue of The New England Journal of Medicine. Their deaths bring to eight the number of women in the United States who have died after using RU 486, according to the CDC.

The abortion drug reached its 10th anniversary in the United States with the news that it has not proved to be as popular as its proponents expected, USA Today reported. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved RU 486 for U.S. marketing on Sept. 28, 2000.

RU 486, also known as mifepristone, is used as the first part in a two-step process in the first seven weeks of pregnancy. Mifepristone causes the lining of the uterus to release the embryonic child, resulting in his or her death. A different drug, misoprostol, is taken two days after mifepristone and causes a woman's uterus to contract, expelling her baby.

"Abortion proponents claim that abortions should be 'safe, legal and rare,'" said Jeanne Monahan, director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council. "Yet RU 486 use is increasing and its safety record is entirely dubious, as these two deaths prove."

More than 1.2 million American women have used RU 486, Danco Laboratories, its U.S. marketer, reported, according to USA Today. The drug is used in 20 percent of U.S. abortions performed in the first seven weeks of pregnancy, said Lawrence Finer of the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion research organization, the newspaper reported.

Yet, Finer said, "We haven't seen as much expansion in terms of where one can obtain it as we thought we might."

In 2009, Finer co-authored a report in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology that said, "Mifepristone has not brought a major improvement in the geographic availability of abortion." No abortion provider is available in 97 percent of non-metropolitan American counties, according to the Abortion Access Project, USA Today reported.

The FDA approved in mid-August what pro-life advocates describe as another abortion drug. The agency gave approval to "ella" as emergency contraception, saying it functions primarily to restrict or postpone ovulation. Pro-life organizations, however, say "ella" is more closely related to RU 486 than to emergency contraceptives Plan B and Next Choice, which are already on the market.

The FDA approved "ella" as emergency contraception "despite the fact that it shares an almost identical chemical make-up and identical modes of action with RU 486," Monahan said. "Given the strong resemblance, there is reason to believe that the negative side effects will also be similar. Women should not be the 'guinea pigs' of the abortion industry or the government."

RU 486, or mifepristone, is marketed under the brand name Mifeprex in the United States.

Contact: Tom Strode
Source: Baptist Press
Publish Date: October 12, 2010

Contraception cannot be the ‘default mode’ of marriage, Sacramento bishop says

   

Bishop Jaime Soto of Sacramento said that the meaning of human sexuality and relationships are "misunderstood and misused" because contraception has become the "unquestioned default mode of marriage."

Writing in the Catholic Herald, the diocese's new bimonthly magazine, Bishop Soto said that building a culture of life is "more than a political agenda." The gospel of life has the power to "transform hearts and habits as well as laws."

"One habit that has taken hold of many marriages is the use of artificial means of contraception," Bishop Soto wrote. "The prevalence of the practice in and outside of the Catholic community has made contraception the unquestioned default mode of marriage. As a consequence, sexuality and relationships are misunderstood and misused; and their true purpose is misplaced."

"The habit has shaped the hearts and minds of many, especially the young," he continued. "Marriage is no longer understood as the covenant of love between a man and a woman that creates life, because procreation is no longer associated with sexual intercourse," Bishop Soto continued.

He said that in this situation, many people cannot understand why a sexual relationship between any two people who care for each other cannot be called a marriage.

Bishop Soto explained that Catholic teaching against artificial contraceptives is rooted in a "reverential awe" for the marriage covenant, in which the family finds "life, grace and goodness" in the ordinary rituals of the home. "The sexual ritual should not be discounted or dismissed from this sacramental view," he added.

He noted that the technique of Natural Family Planning, which connects married couples to the "natural bodily rhythms that create life," is an important moral alternative to the "contraceptive culture" prevalent in society.

He encouraged married couples and young people eager to be married to embrace this alternative "as a gift, not a burden."

Source: CNA

First Human Embryonic Stem Cell Treatment Commences

Adult stem cells have advanced so much further than this ESC experiment–restoring feeling to people with long time spinal cord injuries–with almost no media coverage.  (Apparently, the advance was achieved with the wrong kind of stem cells.)  But it is worth noting that a human being has been injected with what might be described broadly as adult stem cells made from embryonic stem cells.  From the story:

    U.S. doctors have begun treating the first patient to receive human embryonic stem cells, but details of the landmark clinical trial are being kept confidential, Geron Corp (GERN.O) said on Monday. Geron has the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration license to use the controversial cells to treat people, in this case patients with new spinal cord injuries. It is the first publicly known use of human embryonic stem cells in people.

    “The patient was enrolled at Shepherd Center, a 132-bed spinal cord and brain injury rehabilitation hospital and clinical research center in Atlanta, Georgia,” Geron said in a statement. “Shepherd Center is one of seven potential sites in the United States that may enroll patients in the clinical trial.” Northwestern University in Chicago is also ready to enroll patients. Geron’s stem cells come from human embryos left over from fertility treatments. They have been manipulated so that they have become precursors to certain types of nerve cells. The hope is that they will travel to the site of a recent spinal cord injury and release compounds that will help the damaged nerves in the cord regenerate. The Phase I trial will not be aiming to cure patients but to establish that the cells are safe to use. Under the guidelines of the trial, the patients must have very recent injuries.

It will be hard to know whether the stem cells helped the patient as it can be hard to predict what will happen with new spinal cord injuries.  But this is a safety test, not one that measures efficacy, that is, to see whether the injections can lead to tumors or other complications.

That could take some time, in fact, perhaps years.  Let us all hope that the patient is not harmed by this experiment.  And in the meantime, that adult stem cell therapies make embryonic experiments of this type wholly superfluous.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: October 12, 2010

--  Illinois Federation for Right to Life 2600 State Street, Suite. E Alton, IL  62002  Phone: 618.466.4122 Fax: 618.466.4134 Web: www.ifrl.org E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

'I Wanted Him to Go': Michael Caine Says he Convinced Doctor to Kill Father

British Actor Michael Caine has revealed that he asked a doctor to kill
his cancer-stricken father because "I was in such anguish over the pain
he was in" and "I wanted him to go."

In 1955 Caine's father, a fish market porter named Maurice Micklewhite,
was dying of liver cancer at the age of 56. Caine, now 77, said in a
Classic FM radio interview broadcast Sunday that the doctor at first
recoiled, but then apparently gave in to the suggestion to kill Micklewhite.

"My father had cancer of the liver and I was in such anguish over the
pain he was in, that I said to this doctor, I said: 'Isn't there
anything else you could [do], just give him an overdose and end this,'
because I wanted him to go and he said: 'Oh no, no, no, we couldn't do
that,'" said Caine. "Then, as I was leaving, he said: 'Come back at
midnight.' I came back at midnight and my father died at five past
twelve. So he'd done it."

Although giving no indication that his father wanted to be put to death,
Caine went on to advocate "voluntary" euthanasia when asked about the
topic. "Oh I think so, yeah," he said. "I think if you're in a state to
where life is no longer bearable, if you want to go.

"I'm not saying that anyone else should make the decision, but I made
the request, but my father was semi-conscious."

Assisted suicide is illegal in Britain. However, last year the Director
of Public Prosecutions was accused of largely gutting the law with new
guidelines stating that officials would not enforce the law if
perpetrators did not appear to be driven by personal gain.

A spokeswoman for Dignity in Dying, a pro-euthanasia group, responded to
Caine's admission by calling for more legal allowance for individuals to
seek their own death.

"It is unimaginably difficult to watch a loved one suffer against their
wishes at the end of their life," the spokeswoman told the media, and
urged the advent of "up-front safeguards which allow people who are
terminally ill and mentally competent to be allowed to ask for help to
die in the final days or weeks of their lives, whilst also better
protecting vulnerable people. The current situation places a terrible
emotional burden on both patients, their families and their doctors."

However, Alistair Thompson, spokesman for the anti-euthanasia group Care
Not Killing, insisted that putting suffering patients to death is "both
cruel and unnecessary."

"There is always an alternative to euthanasia. We are incredibly lucky
to have access to amazing palliative care in this country, which is
second to none in the world," said Thompson. "That has been developed
over a number of years, and I find that the experts who we work with
regularly do not believe there is any necessity to legalise euthanasia."
Rather than pushing more and more license to kill, Thompson indicated
that advocates for the dying instead "need to make sure that everyone
who is in need of care is quickly attended to by specialists."

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: October 12, 2010

--
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
2600 State Street, Suite. E
Alton, IL 62002

Phone: 618.466.4122
Fax: 618.466.4134
Web: www.ifrl.org
E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

Commercial Surrogacy is Human Trafficking: Biological Parents to Birth Mother–Abort Down Fetus!

What a can of worms unregulated IVF has become.  Latest example: A couple using IVF and a surrogate have ordered the hired gestater to abort because the fetus/unborn baby had Down syndrome. From the story on BioNews:

    A couple from British Columbia, Canada, have been embroiled in a complex ethical battle after their surrogate refused their request to abort the fetus she was carrying. The couple made the request after tests revealed the baby would likely be born with Down's syndrome. Although the parties had entered into contract, legal proceedings were not brought by the surrogate who, in the end, decided to have an abortion due - in part - to her own family obligations…Dr Ken Seethram, the treating doctor, recently addressed the Canadian Society of Fertility and Andrology on the dispute. He revealed that, according to a signed agreement between the parties, the surrogate's refusal of an abortion would absolve the commissioning couple of any responsibility for the child.

Sickening on all counts. And whose responsibility would it be to care for the child that didn't meet the couple's criteria for being worthy of life if the surrogate didn't want the baby? The surrogate's according to the contract.

IVF has led to a sense of entitlement to only have a baby we want–as if a child is a mere consumer product:

    Sally Rhoads, of Surrogacy in Canada Online, said decisions pertaining to the future of a defective fetus should be made at the outset. Furthermore, she argued for the protection of the commissioning couple. 'The baby that's being carried is their baby. It's usually their genetic offspring', she said. 'Why should the intended parents be forced to raise a child they didn't want? It's not fair'. Ms Rhoads points to the United States where, in some states, the commissioning couple can sue the surrogate to recover costs if the surrogate continues with a pregnancy against the couple's wishes.

I repeat, sickening. Such contracts should be voided by public policy outlawing surrogacy for pay.  I mean, if this isn't human trafficking, what is it?

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: October 11, 2010

--  Illinois Federation for Right to Life 2600 State Street, Suite. E Alton, IL  62002  Phone: 618.466.4122 Fax: 618.466.4134 Web: www.ifrl.org E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

Reaction to Medicine Nobel ignored IVF ‘agenda,' writer says

Reaction to the awarding of the Nobel Prize for Medicine to Robert
Edwards ignored that the true agenda of in-vitro fertilization (IVF)
includes hubris towards human life and the dominance of scientists over
society, a Scottish columnist has argued.

While some have attacked the Catholic Church's criticism of the Nobel
Committee, Gerald Warner said in The Scotsman, the Church's reaction was
"no more aggressive" than the professor's own comments.

According to Warner, the IVF pioneer Edwards has said of his work: "I
wanted to find out exactly who was in charge, whether it was God Himself
or whether it was scientists in the laboratory - It was us! The Pope
looked totally stupid."

"That hubristic claim revealed the true IVF agenda, which was not
primarily to assist childless couples," Warner charged. "Above all, it
was about the right of scientists to dominate society with a
dehumanizing technology which nobody must presume to constrain."

The columnist said that no critics have stopped to ask why the Church
condemns IVF. According to Warner, the Church accepts the "scientific
principle recognized since 1883" that a human being comes into existence
at the moment of fertilization.

"That confers an inviolable right to life," he continued, noting
Catholic teaching that IVF wrongly separates the unitive and procreative
purposes of marriage.

"(I)n practical terms it has killed millions of human embryos," Warner
said of the procedure. In his view, a development of immense moral
implications has been allowed "without serious debate."

Deeming the record of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
(HFEA) to be "appalling," he said it has worked opposite to its purpose
of protecting the special status of the human embryo and has never
refused a research license.

"(I)t might as well have never existed," Warner wrote, noting that it is
about to be abolished and replaced by the Care Quality Commission with
possibly "even less oversight of this morally acute area."

Source: CNA
Publish Date: October 12, 2010

--
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
2600 State Street, Suite. E
Alton, IL 62002

Phone: 618.466.4122
Fax: 618.466.4134
Web: www.ifrl.org
E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

Man Tries to Force Abortion at Gunpoint

Dominic L. Holt-Reid allegedly tried to force a woman at gunpoint to
have an abortion.

A pregnant woman and her unborn child are unharmed despite an attempt by
the baby's father to force her at gunpoint to have an abortion. Ohio
police arrested Dominic L. Holt-Reid October 6 after his girlfriend
Yolanda M. Burgess was able to hand a note to a clinic employee saying
she was being coerced, according to WBNS-10TV.

Reid is currently in the Franklin County jail under a $500,000 bond,
WBNS-10TV reported. He faces charges of kidnapping and carrying a
concealed weapon.

Burgess and Holt-Reid are not married but are also the parents of a
four-year-old, according to the Columbus Dispatch. Police allege that
they were in a car together October 6 after dropping their child off at
school when Holt-Reid pulled a handgun and pointed it at Burgess,
threatening that he would shoot her and cause a miscarriage unless she
drove to an abortion clinic, the Dispatch reported.

Burgess had made an appointment for an abortion at Founder's Women's
Health Center in Columbus, scheduled for that morning at 9 a.m. However,
police documents stated that she told Holt-Reid that she changed her
mind and did not want to abort the baby, according to the Dispatch.

After he threatened her with the gun, she drove to the abortion clinic.
Once inside, however, she gave the employee a note and the employee
called the police, WBNS-10TV reported.

Police did not specify the age of the unborn child, but did say that
Burgess was not injured during the incident, according to the Associated
Press.

Contact: Liz Townsend
Source: NRLC
Publish Date: October 11, 2010

--
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
2600 State Street, Suite. E
Alton, IL 62002

Phone: 618.466.4122
Fax: 618.466.4134
Web: www.ifrl.org
E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

Obama's Rank Demagoguery Appalls Pretty Much Everybody

As someone who been on the receiving end of a fair share of pro-abortion
brickbats, I counsel young people coming into the Movement that public
policy/politics isn't beanbag. If you choose to go into the public
arena, be forewarned that the anti-life crowd's stock in trade is
playing fast and loose with the truth. As I anticipated this only makes
the next generations of pro-life leadership even more eager to compete
in the public square.

What has to do with anything, you ask politely? Well, even knowing that
pro-abortion Democrats will now say anything (facing an electoral
backlash), President Obama's latest smear still makes me mad.

I grant you, it's not directed at us, but that's beside the point. You
and I and every American ought to be appalled by Obama's cynical and
calculated determination to inject the rankest kind of demagoguery into
the political bloodstream less than a month out from the mid-term elections.

Obama's TelePrompter now routinely includes an evidence-free attack on
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce based on a made-up-out-of-whole-cloth
report from a partisan Democratic "think-tank." The charges are so bogus
even the New York Times, CBS's Bob Schieffer, and NBC's Chuck Todd are
appalled.

The specifics need not detain us long. They have to do with Obama's
snarky charge that certain companies that do business overseas are using
"huge sums" of "foreign money" allegedly "to influence American elections."

However, "a closer examination shows that there is little evidence that
what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even
unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers
and campaign finance documents," writes the New York Times' Eric
Lichtblau. "In fact, the controversy over the Chamber of Commerce
financing may say more about the Washington spin cycle -- where an
Internet blog posting can be quickly picked up by like-minded groups and
become political fodder for the president himself -- than it does about
the vagaries of campaign finance."

Schieffer confronted White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod on his
"Face the Nation" program yesterday. "I guess I would put it this way.
If the only charge, three weeks [from] the election that the Democrats
can make is that somehow this may or may not be foreign money coming
into the campaign, is that the best you can do?"

According to the Heritage Foundation "Morning Bell" blog, "Axelrod went
on to contend that it is the responsibility of those the White House
accuses to prove they aren't breaking the law." This is so irresponsible
that on MSNBC's "Daily Rundown" this morning, "NBC's Chuck Todd
described Axelrod's answer as 'McCarthy-esque.'"

And for good measure there is this from Baltimore Sun columnist David
Zurawik, who may have put it best. "So much for hope and change; this
is the politics of fear, slander and divisiveness on the eve of an
election that looks as if it could deliver a damning verdict on the
first two years of the Obama administration."

[And just so there's no confusion, "White House officials acknowledged
Friday that they had no specific evidence to indicate that the chamber
had used money from foreign entities to finance political attack ads,"
Lichtblau reported.]

Let me make two concluding points, both obvious, but both worth
repeating. First, Obama and his band of pro-abortion Democrats are
scared silly. There are layers on top of layers of reasons the
electorate is unhappy. But what initiated the chain-reaction is when
Americans began to gag at having the abortion-laden, rationing-promoting
ObamaCare stuffed down our collective throat.

Second, you will hear that there is a kind of "return to the norm"--that
the fortunes of pro-abortion Democrats, while grim, are getting better.
Not so. How can you tell?

For one thing, the political class that once embraced Obama to its bosom
is attacking his with as much frenzy as it once showered him with praise.

TIME Magazines' Mark Halperin is so angry his column slipped off the
tracks. While dutifully blaming Obama's opponents for not "compromising"
(as if that has ever been a part of Obama's M.O.), Halperin wrote,
"With the exception of core Obama Administration loyalists, most
politically engaged elites have reached the same conclusions: the White
House is in over its head, isolated, insular, arrogant and clueless
about how to get along with or persuade members of Congress, the media,
the business community or working-class voters. This view is held by Fox
News pundits, executives and anchors at the major old-media outlets,
reporters who cover the White House, Democratic and Republican
congressional leaders and governors, many Democratic business people and
lawyers who raised big money for Obama in 2008, and even some members of
the Administration just beyond the inner circle."

That was his second paragraph. It gets worse from there.

And as for the predictable slew of "comeback stories" we can anticipate,
several bloggers inclined to be sympathetic to Democrats reminded us in
the past week that this is the same narrative we heard in 1994 just
before pro-abortion President Bill Clinton and the pro-abortion
leadership of the House and Senate had their heads handed to them in the
first mid-term election of Clinton's first term. In fact 1994 was a
complete wipeout for Democrats.

Let me end where with the same cautionary note I finish every story.
None of the good things that can come to pass will come to pass if
anyone let's down their guard.

Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: NLRC
Publish Date: October 11, 2010

--
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
2600 State Street, Suite. E
Alton, IL 62002

Phone: 618.466.4122
Fax: 618.466.4134
Web: www.ifrl.org
E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

Pro-lifers working to end call for 'telemed'

A pro-life organization is taking a closer look at the abortion pill RU-486.

     

As Operation Rescue is working to end "telemed" abortions in Iowa Planned Parenthood clinics, the organization wants to hear from women and girls who have used and had complications from the drugs provided in this method of pregnancy termination. Spokeswoman Cheryl Syllinger explains that the list of medications includes "the RU-486 pill on its own, another drug known as Sidotec on its own, or a combination of the two, especially if the women got their abortions in Iowa."

Cheryl Sullinger (Operation Rescue)Operation Rescue believes the method, which involves a woman talking to a distant abortion doctor via an Internet connection and receiving RU-486 by pushing a button, is illegal as it requires patients to go home "in order to take the drug on their own."

Sullinger says her organization believes "there have been complications from that, but so far we haven't had any women step forward and talk about their experience."

Some of the complications include infection or incomplete abortions that require surgical removal of the baby. The pro-life organization's motivation is to publicize those problems and raise awareness about the nine women who died after using the drug. Operation Rescue also hopes to provide information to Iowa state officials who are considering its complaint against "telemed" abortions.

Contact:  Charlie Butts

Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: October 9, 2010

--  Illinois Federation for Right to Life 2600 State Street, Suite. E Alton, IL  62002  Phone: 618.466.4122 Fax: 618.466.4134 Web: www.ifrl.org E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

Activist: 'All girls allowed'

     

A new non-profit group is fighting against "gendercide," forced abortions and sterilizations in China.

All Girls Allowed was founded by Chai Ling, two-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee and former chief student leader in the 1989 Tiananmen Square Movement. She addresses the impact of the one-child policy.

"Under that policy, there were over 400 million lives, mostly in the form of little babies...taken," Ling laments. "Each day, there are over 35,000 forced abortions, and...over 500 mothers...commit suicide."

Chai Ling (All Girls Allowed)Female babies in China are often aborted or abandoned, as male babies are generally favored because they eventually support their families and care for their elderly parents. All Girls Allowed is committed to restoring life, value and dignity to girls and mothers, and also to revealing the injustice of China's one-child policy.

Chai Ling tells about one victim who already had one child, but during a required annual medical exam learned she was pregnant again. So police ordered her to have an abortion.

"Without her consent [or] her family members present, meaning mostly her husband, [they] forced her into [an] abortion clinic, which is next door," the two-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee reports. "She was put on the table, and [they] performed the procedure with no anesthetic."

Also, without the patient's knowledge or consent, doctors inserted an IUD to prevent future pregnancies -- a procedure that takes place about 35,000 times per day.

Chai Ling shares that her deep concern with China's policy came especially after her conversion to Christianity. After that, God called her to form All Girls Allowed and combat the issue.

Contact:  Charlie Butts

Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: October 10, 2010

--  Illinois Federation for Right to Life 2600 State Street, Suite. E Alton, IL  62002  Phone: 618.466.4122 Fax: 618.466.4134 Web: www.ifrl.org E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

Council of Europe Votes to Protect Medical Conscience

     

As readers of SHS and my other writings know, I think one of the big coming fights in bioethics will be over “medical conscience,” that is, efforts to force Hippocratic and/or pro life doctors to participate in procedures or treatments that involve the taking of human life. Since the ethics of the medical system have diverged sharply from those of the Hippocratic Oath, I believe that doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other medical professionals need to be protected if they wish to adhere to the traditional life-affirming values of medicine–with conditions, including that life sustaining treatment can’t be refused, refusals can’t be based on discrimination (e.g., refusing to treat a smoker or a gay person because they smoke or are gay), and that patients need to be told ahead of time that their doctor won’t do certain things, e.g. abortion, assisted suicide, embryonic stem cell treatments (should they ever become part of clinical practice).

Now the Council of Europe has adopted just such a medical conscience policy. From the resolution, “The Right to Conscientious Objection in Lawful Medical Care:”

    Resolution 1763 (2010)[1]

    1.       No person, hospital or institution shall be coerced, held liable or discriminated against in any manner because of a refusal to perform, accommodate, assist or submit to an abortion, the performance of a human miscarriage, or euthanasia or any act which could cause the death of a human foetus or embryo, for any reason.

    2.       The Parliamentary Assembly emphasises the need to affirm the right of conscientious objection together with the responsibility of the state to ensure that patients are able to access lawful medical care in a timely manner. The Assembly is concerned that the unregulated use of conscientious objection may disproportionately affect women, notably those having low incomes or living in rural areas.

    3.       In the vast majority of Council of Europe member states, the practice of conscientious objection is adequately regulated. There is a comprehensive and clear legal and policy framework governing the practice of conscientious objection by healthcare providers ensuring that the interests and rights of individuals seeking legal medical services are respected, protected and fulfilled.

    4.       In view of member states’ obligation to ensure access to lawful medical care and to protect the right to health, as well as the obligation to ensure respect for the right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion of healthcare providers, the Assembly invites Council of Europe member states to develop comprehensive and clear regulations that define and regulate conscientious objection with regard to health and medical services, which:

    4.1.    guarantee the right to conscientious objection in relation to participation in the procedure in question;

    4.2.    ensure that patients are informed of any objection in a timely manner and referred to another healthcare provider;

    4.3.    ensure that patients receive appropriate treatment, in particular in cases of emergency.

The area with which I disagree about this is the duty to refer.  If the duty means cooperating when a patient obtains another physician in transferring records, etc., then absolutely. But if it means procuring a doctor to do the procedure that you don’t wish to do–no.  That makes the doctor fully complicit in the act and obviates the point of the protection.

Still, this is a good step in the right direction.  I hope that individual European nations will heed this call and that the USA will also understand the importance of maintaining a Hippocratic medical sector.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith

Source: Secondhand Smoke
Date Published: October 11, 2010

--  Illinois Federation for Right to Life 2600 State Street, Suite. E Alton, IL  62002  Phone: 618.466.4122 Fax: 618.466.4134 Web: www.ifrl.org E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

Abortion is not a Right, but a Crime

     
  
A coalition of Mexican women's organizations and other NGOs issued a communiqué Tuesday denouncing the promotion of abortion as a "right," a claim made with increasing frequency in the nation's media.

According to Mexico's El Universal newspaper, the organizations decry the use of maternal mortality statistics as a "pretext" to pressure officials to legalize abortion, pointing out that the World Health Organization attributes only 13 percent of such cases to unsafe abortions.

Claudia Perez of Codigo Mujer (Women's Code) observed that the major causes of maternal mortality are not being addressed, and that poor women often don't have access even to antibiotics to treat hemorrhages or infections, a violation of their constitutional right to health care.

For many politicians and organizations, it is cheaper "to kill her child before it is born and even when it is born" than to provide a woman with the maternal health care she needs, remarked Patricia Lopez Macera of the Center of Integral Formation and Study for Women - Cancún, who added that abortion is not only not a "right" but continues to be a crime according to Mexican law, and is only depenalized in some circumstances.

In addition to the above-named groups, the organizations Sé Mujer (Be a Woman) and the Center for Studies and Reflection of Veracruz were also among the authors of the communiqué, which was issued following two months of increasingly intense activity by pro-abortion organizations in the country.

Contact: Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: October 7, 2010

 Illinois Federation for Right to Life 2600 State Street, Suite. E Alton, IL  62002  Phone: 618.466.4122 Fax: 618.466.4134 Web: www.ifrl.org E-mail: mail@ifrl.org