A nationwide legal alliance that defends conservative values says the Obama administration's birth-control mandate is one of the greatest threats to Christians' rights in U.S. history. Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney Kevin Theriot says this government mandate is about religious freedom in America, not about a woman's right to contraceptives. And he views this as one of the greatest threats to Christian liberty in the nation's history "because it's … setting the precedent for the government to be able to impose its will on a religious organization when doing that completely violates the longstanding convictions of that religious group." So his firm is already defending Louisiana College and Geneva College in their lawsuits against the Obama administration (see earlier story), and they expect to file more lawsuits in the near future. "The Alliance Defense Fund is representing religious organizations who have a sincerely held religious belief not to provide abortifacients or other types of care that would violate their religious convictions, and we do that free of charge," Theriot explains. Regarding the mandate, the attorney adds, "This is a calculated and intentional attempt to eradicate constitutional protections" that should terrify every freedom-loving American. Contact: Bob Kellogg Source: OneNewsNow
According to one pro-lifer, midwives and nurses performing abortions is the latest trend spreading throughout the country, as fewer and fewer doctors are interested in the practice. Late last month, Sen. Christine Kehoe (D) introduced SB 1501 to the California Senate -- a bill that would allow physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurse midwives to do chemical and aspiration abortions. But the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) tells OneNewsNow this idea is not confined to California. Legal Counsel Jennifer Popick reports that the notion is popping up in other states at the behest of abortion activists. "Those who promote abortion sort of have this two-tiered approach. They say abortion's something between and woman and her doctor and we want to keep it safe, rare, and legal. Quite frankly, they're working very hard to take the doctors out of the picture," Popick contends. "It's sort of just rhetoric masking that they want abortion on demand, and it's absolutely something that doesn't protect women." She points out that because abortion is invasive, the absence of a doctor could spell trouble if and when complications arise. However, fewer doctors are interested in that field. "Not many physicians are going into it anymore, into the practice of abortion. It's got a stigma attached to it," the pro-lifer explains. "For various reasons, nobody's going into it anymore as a practice field, and so there [are] fewer and fewer doctors across the country performing abortions." Popick also notes "telemed" abortions, where a woman speaks briefly via webcam with a doctor who is possibly located hundreds of miles away. RU-486 is dispensed with the push of a button, and the woman goes home to have the abortion by herself, which takes the doctor out of most of the picture. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
The Illinois Supreme Court will soon decide whether parents should have a role when their minor child seeks to terminate a pregnancy. The Parental Notice of Abortion Act was passed by the Illinois legislature 17 years ago, but has never been enforced because of legal challenges by the American Civil Liberties Union. Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney Steven H. Aden believes it is time for the state Supreme Court to change that. "Parents matter in abortion decisions," states Aden. "If abortionists truly cared about young girls, they wouldn't be pushing to make sure parents stay in the dark while the clinic takes advantage of their daughters' bodies and desperate situations -- not to mention the life of the child in the womb." ADF attorney Noel Sterett participated in filing a brief with the court, saying: "A young child's wellbeing is worth much more than an abortionist's bottom line. This law balances the needs of desperate young girls with the rights of the parents who care most about them. "The Illinois Supreme Court should allow this protective law to go into effect and reject the arguments of those who want to shut parents out of their children's critical health decisions." A lawsuit was also filed in federal court where the law was found to be constitutional, but the ACLU is now appealing that decision as well. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
Members of a U.S. House subcommittee questioned Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius about the mandate requiring Christian employers to pay for contraceptives and possible abortifacient drugs despite their religious and moral objections on Thursday. Sebelius was in front of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health to discuss her department's fiscal year 2013 proposed budget, but pro-life lawmakers made sure she faced pointed questions about the HHS rule. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., asked whether HHS had even consulted with the Department of Justice about the mandate's constitutionality. "No, we did not," Sebelius said. Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Penn., asked Sebelius if groups that refuse to offer contraception in their insurance plans will be fined. "Sir, we'll get, as you know this is, uh, a situation …" Sebelius answered. Employers who choose to follow their conscience could be penalized as much as $100 per employee each day — meaning a group the size of Catholic Charities, which provided food, housing and family services for over 10.2 million people in 2010, could be forced to pay as much as $140 million a year in fines. But during the hearing, Sebelius said "no one will be fined for faith." Committee Chairman Joseph Pitts, R-Penn., made it clear the mandate creates an untenable position for people of faith and moral conviction. "This is about religious liberty and whether people with deeply held moral and religious beliefs should be put in a situation where they have only two choices: Comply with the law, thus violating their consciences, or not comply with the law and face ruinous fines, forcing them to close their doors," he said. Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate on Thursday rejected a measure 51-48 to protect religious employers and insurance companies from making that choice. While HHS exempts some groups from the contraceptive mandate, that exemption specifically applies to churches — not faith-based schools, universities, hospitals or other nonprofits. Sebelius defended the rule by boldly proclaiming the cost of the contraception would be offset by fewer pregnancies. "So you're saying that by not having babies born, we are going to save money on health care?" Murphy asked. Thousands of individuals, religious leaders and groups have urged the Obama administration to reconsider its rule, and three House committees have held hearings addressing the issue. The House has not yet voted on its religious-freedom bill, H.R. 1179. Contact: Ashley Horne Source: CitizenLink
The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the national federation of state right-to-life organizations, said today that it would continue to challenge the Obama Administration's authority to mandate that virtually all employers pay for services they regard as morally objectionable, both in Congress and through political action. The U.S. Senate today rejected an initial attempt to prevent the Obama Administration from forcing employers to provide health insurance that covers drugs or procedures to which they are morally opposed. By a vote of 51-48, the Senate tabled (killed) an amendment offered by pro-life Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and strongly supported by NRLC. The text of the Blunt Amendment is taken from an NRLC-endorsed bill, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (S. 1467, H.R. 1179). It would amend the Obama health care law ("ObamaCare") to prevent the use of that law to issue regulatory mandates that violate the religious or moral convictions of those who purchase or provide health insurance. The Blunt legislation does not affect any federal law other than ObamaCare, nor does it apply to state laws. In addition, the legislation does not allow any insurer to "discriminate against individuals because of their age, disability, or expected length of life." The Obama Administration has issued an initial mandate that requires nearly all employers to purchase plans that cover all FDA-approved methods of birth control. NRLC has pointed out that the same authority could be employed by the Administration in the future to order virtually all health plans to cover all abortions. The focus now shifts to the House, where the same legislation, introduced as H.R. 1179 by Congressman Jeff Fortenberry (R-Ne.), currently has 220 cosponsors (more than half of all House members). In addition, numerous lawsuits have been filed by religiously affiliated employers, challenging the Obama mandate as a violation of constitutional rights and of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. "National Right to Life will continue to challenge the Obama Administration's abortion-expansionist agenda on Capitol Hill, and we will encourage millions of like-minded Americans to remember this issue when they cast their ballots in November," said Carol Tobias, National Right to Life president. Contact: Jessica Rodgers Source: National Right to Life Committee
Texas is standing by its rule against providing Medicaid funds to abortion providers, which means Planned Parenthood will not be receiving its annual $17 million. Gov. Rick Perry and Health and Human Services Commissioner Tom Suehs are following the legislative intent of SB 7 by supporting the rule that excludes Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid Women's Health Program. That measure passed during the June 2011 special session. More than 1,000 sources in Texas are available to provide preventative medical services like mammograms, and according to Dr. Joe Pojman of the Texas Alliance for Life, they do a better job than Planned Parenthood. Even so, he notes, President Barack Obama is standing by the abortion provider. "The Obama administration is threatening to kill this program, which is providing preventative health services to thousands of women of Texas every year, because Texas refuses to fund Planned Parenthood," Dr. Pojman explains. "Basically, the Obama administration may kill this program because Texas does not want our tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood, and we think that's a great travesty." The program expires at the end of March. Texas HHSC has reapplied to the Federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for an extension through 2013. But since the state does not fully fund the nation's largest abortion provider, there is a good chance that the administration will not grant the request. "If the Obama administration carries forward with its threats to kill this program, it's going to mean that the Obama administration is going to be denying preventative healthcare to low-income women of Texas, simply because we don't want our tax dollars here in Texas going to abortion providers," the pro-lifer summarizes. But Pojman asserts that Texas' policy makes sense because Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms or cancer treatment. He contends the only time a woman sees a doctor at Planned Parenthood in Texas is when she is going to have an abortion. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
The Illinois Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of a 16-year-old law saying parents must be notified before their teen daughters receive abortions. Earlier today, the court accepted an amicus brief from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) pointing out that parents have a strong role to play in such life-altering decisions. "If abortionists truly cared about young girls, they wouldn't be pushing to make sure parents stay in the dark while a clinic takes advantage of their daughters' bodies and desperate situation — not to mention the life of the child in the womb," said ADF Senior Counsel Steven Aden. The law, which has never been enforced, was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union. A federal district court in 2010 said it was constitutional; the ACLU has appealed that decision. Meanwhile, in this separate state case, the ACLU is arguing the law violates girls' privacy as well as the equal-protection and gender-equality clauses of the state constitution. Illinois is one of five states with parental notification laws which are currently blocked in court. The ADF, Christian Medical and Dental Associations, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Catholic Medical Association disagree. "A young child's well-being is worth much more than an abortionist's bottom line," said ADF attorney Noel Sterett. "This law balances the needs of desperate young girls with the rights of the parents who care most about them." Contact: Karla Dial Source: CitizenLink
A U.S. House of Representatives committee has approved a bill prohibiting abortions based on a child's sex or race. The House Judiciary Committee endorsed the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, H.R. 3541, in a party-line vote. Republicans on the panel outpolled Democrats 20-13. "As Americans, all of us know in our hearts that aborting a little baby because he or she happens to be the wrong color or because she is a little girl instead of a little boy is fundamentally wrong," Rep. Trent Franks, R.-Ariz., the bill's sponsor, said at the committee meeting. The legislation would bar doctors and medical staff members from performing an abortion if they know the intent of the procedure is based on race or gender. The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and other pro-life organizations support Franks' proposal. Abortion rights advocates oppose the bill. Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said in a written statement the proposal "likely would restrict the ability of women of color to obtain abortion care, and ultimately could jeopardize the availability of abortion services for all women. Given that the Franks bill subjects providers to fines or a prison sentence for failure to detect that a woman is seeking abortion services for reasons of race or sex selection, the legislation essentially would encourage racial profiling in the doctor's office." Franks rejected Keenan's assertion. "There is nothing in this bill that requires doctors to police or to have some responsibility to ask their patients anything about the motivations for the abortion," he said. In defense of requiring doctors to report the intent of a woman seeking a sex- or race-selection abortion, Franks used an analogy: If a doctor prescribes a drug that could kill but does not know the purpose of its use, that doctor is not breaking the law, but if the doctor knew the intent was to kill "then, of course, he would be implicated as part of the crime," Franks said. According to the bill, "The evidence strongly suggests that some Americans are exercising sex-selection abortion practices." A March 2008 study suggested sex-based abortion is being practiced in some communities in the United States. The report, published in the journal of the National Academy of Sciences, said the increase in son preference is noticeable in census data and "sex-selection abortion is happening in the United States." The research found American-born children of Chinese, Korean and Asian Indian parents were more likely than those of white parents to be boys if the first children in the families were girls, according to ABC News. The third child in such communities was 50 percent more likely to be a boy if the first two children were girls. Franks introduced a similar bill in 2009, but it was held up in a committee. Franks' state, Arizona, is the only one that has a race-selection abortion ban. Gender-selection abortion laws exist in four states: Arizona, Illinois, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania. Florida is also considering such legislation. According to a Zogby International poll last March, 86 percent of Americans agree on making sex-selection abortions illegal. The committee voted Feb. 16. Contact: Mark Norton Source: Baptist Press
The U.S. Senate voted today 51-48 to support the Obama Administration in forcing religiously affiliated organizations to cover contraception and sterilization in their health insurance plans, even in cases where the institution opposes it on moral or conscience grounds. This reinforces that these organizations have no conscience clause protections under the ObamaCare health care law. (The Administration's dictate gave churches some limited conscience clause protections, but religiously affiliated organizations, such as church schools, hospitals, and charities, will have none). Fifty Democrats and one Republican voted to deny conscience rights and 45 Republicans and three Democrats voted in favor of recognizing the conscience rights of such organizations. One possible effect of this in the near-term is that with no conscience clause protection, the Obama Administration is now free to order insurance plans to also cover abortion itself, if it decides to do so. If Obama does this, it would likely be after the November elections when he doesn't have to answer to the voting public again. The National Right to Life Committee has long been an advocate against the Obama healthcare "reform" and continues to work to repeal it. We will continue to report abuses inherent in the law, and any denials of care that ensue from it, and we will fight bureaucracies and panels that arise from the bill whose purpose it is to expand abortion or to deny life-saving medical care. Source: National Right to Life Committee
