Sex-selection abortion now a potential election issue

    

The pro-life community will press on in spite of the U.S. House rejecting a bill that would have banned sex-selective abortions nationwide.

The House failed to obtain the two-thirds vote necessary to suspend rules and proceed on passage of the bill, which means it remains legal in almost all states to terminate an unborn baby's life based on his or her gender. Marilyn Musgrave, vice president of government affairs at the Susan B. Anthony List, points out the vote was not in line with the public's view.

Marilyn Musgrave (former Colorado congresswoman)"When polled -- according to the Charlotte Lozier Institute -- 77 percent of Americans support a ban on sex-selection abortion. They don't believe a little baby should die just because of its gender," she explains. "And 80 percent of women support a ban on sex-selection abortion."

Musgrave believes sex-selection abortion could be an issue in the November election.

"I think that they will keep it in mind if we can get the word out there that this president and these members of Congress are so pro-abortion that they don't even understand the moral objection that the vast majority of Americans have," she remarks. "Hearing the words 'It's a girl' should not be a reason for abortion."

Musgrave notes that sex-selection abortion is already illegal in four states -- Arizona, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. So now the battleground goes to the legislatures in the remaining 46 states to ban the abortions.

The Charlotte Lozier Institute is SBA List's education and research arm.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow

Abortion/contraceptive mandate draws 23 suits

    

Certainly the White House hoped opposition to its abortion/contraceptive mandate would fade as the months passed and as it issued "compromises," but religious groups have not let up. Organizations have been filing lawsuits in a steady drip, so every few weeks the health care law's mandate comes into the news again.

Forty-three Catholic groups filed 12 lawsuits against the federal government May 21, the largest number of coordinated actions against the contraceptive mandate so far. That Catholic leadership opposes the mandate is no secret, but the breadth of the lawsuits drew attention. Not only did the prominent archdiocese of Washington, D.C., headed by Cardinal Donald Wuerl, file a lawsuit, but so did social arms like Catholic Charities, which has sided with the Obama administration on past issues related to the budget (such as cutting defense and preserving social programs).

The University of Notre Dame, which in 2009 invited President Obama to receive an honorary degree and speak at commencement, also filed a lawsuit against the administration. Separately, two colleges announced in May that they would be ending their student health plans because of the mandate.

The federal government now faces 23 lawsuits in 15 states over the abortion/contraceptive mandate. Many of the plaintiffs are Catholic, but three of the plaintiffs are devout business owners. Three are evangelical groups, including colleges such as Colorado Christian University. Seven states -- Nebraska, South Carolina, Michigan, Texas, Florida, Ohio and Oklahoma -- also have filed suit.

Under the mandate, all insurance plans must cover contraceptives and sterilizations as preventive services without cost to employees. This includes contraceptives, as defined by the federal government, that can cause abortions of tiny embryos. The mandate has a religious exemption that critics find woefully inadequate.

(The Becket Fund, representing several of the plaintiffs, has compiled a list of the lawsuits and links to the court documents: http://www.becketfund.org/hhsinformationcentral/)

Lawyers for these plaintiffs told WORLD in February that they were strategizing by filing lawsuits in different districts across the country, so as not to "put all of their eggs in one basket." But none of the suits have been filed in the states under the jurisdiction of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a circuit that would most likely take the administration's side.

"Nothing is a sure thing, but the most likely way to get an issue before the Supreme Court is to have a lot of high-profile cases coming down in the different circuits with different results," said Brad Jacob, a professor at Regent University School of Law, in Virginia Beach, Va. If regional courts ruled against the contraceptive mandate, that would not change the law for the rest of the country, which is the reason for the push for it to go before the U.S. Supreme Court.

All of these plaintiffs are waiting for the Supreme Court to issue its ruling on the broader health care law, an opinion the justices will likely publish at the end of June. If the high court decides that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, that would make the lawsuits moot since the contraceptive mandate is part of that larger mandate.

Wheels are turning outside the courts, too, in civil society. On Thursday (May 24), prominent Catholic, Jewish and evangelical leaders met in Washington, D.C. at the American Religious Freedom Program's conference. The conference included people like Robert George, the Catholic professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University; Hannah Smith, senior counsel at the Becket Fund; former Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt; Donald Landry of New York Presbyterian Hospital; and Timothy George, dean of Beeson Divinity School.

The abortion/contraceptive mandate came up again and again at the conference. One session was titled "Unprecedented Threats to American Religious Freedom and Rights of Conscience," while another was called "Legislative Action to Constrain Overreaching Officials."

State legislators were in the audience and taking notes as they are trying to carve religious exemptions into their own health insurance laws. One Arizona legislator asked about forming a network for state legislators on the issue, which organizers said was part of the design of the conference. If the mandate moves forward without delay, it will go into effect for most religious groups in August 2013.

Contact: Emily Belz
Source: World News Service

Strong U.S. House majority votes to ban sex-selection abortion

NRLC says Obama and 168 U.S. House members “complied with the political demands of pro-abortion pressure groups, rather than defend the coerced women, and their unborn daughters, who are victimized by sex-selection abortions”

     

The U.S. House of Representatives today conducted a roll call vote on the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (H.R. 3541), a bill to make it unlawful to perform or coerce a sex-selection abortion. The vote was 246-168 in favor of the bill – a strong majority, although short of the two-thirds vote required under the fast-track procedure utilized today. In a statement obtained exclusively by ABC News late May 30, the White House acknowledged that President Obama opposes the bill. The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of state right-to-life organizations, issued the following statement after the roll call:

“We are heartened that a strong majority of House members voted to ban performing or coercing abortions for the purpose of eliminating unborn babies of an undesired sex – usually, girls,” said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. “Shamefully, President Obama, and a minority of 168 House members, complied with the political demands of pro-abortion pressure groups, rather than defend the coerced women, and their unborn daughters, who are victimized by sex-selection abortions.”

Among the organizations that warned House members not to vote for the bill was the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), the nation’s major abortion provider. PPFA sent an email memo to House members on May 29 warning of its “intent to score” a vote for the bill as a vote against “women’s health.” Also on May 29, the Huffington Post reported that “no Planned Parenthood clinic will deny a woman an abortion based on her reasons for wanting one, except in those states that explicitly prohibit sex-selective abortions (Arizona, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Illinois).” So, for PPFA, abortion for sex selection is just another menu option, except where it is illegal – and PPFA vehemently opposes making it illegal.

“We commend the House Republican leadership for bringing this bill to the floor today under the fast-track procedure,” Johnson said. “Today’s groundbreaking majority vote was a stepping stone to this bill ultimately becoming law – perhaps after the replacement of some of the lawmakers who today were unwilling to protect victimized women and their unborn daughters from sex-selection abortions, because they were more concerned with maintaining favor with the abortion industry, pro-abortion advocacy groups, and Hollywood donors.”

Source: National Right to Life

Obama opposes ban on sex-selection abortion

U.S. House of Representatives to vote on ban today

President Obama comes out against ban on sex-selection abortions; National Right to Life says Obama "stands with the pro-abortion
political committees and his Hollywood donors, rather than with the coerced women, and their unborn daughters, who are victimized in sex-selection abortions."

WASHINGTON – ABC News White House correspondent Jake Tapper has posted an exclusive report that President Obama opposes the bill to prohibit performing or coercing abortions to eliminate unborn babies of an undesired sex – usually girls – on which the U.S. House of Representatives will vote this afternoon.

Tapper raised the question at Wednesday's White House press briefing, but initially got no answer. However, Tapper now reports on the ABCNews website: "The White House got back to me this evening [May 30] to say the president opposes the bill." Tapper reproduces a statement from a White House press aide: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/legislation-about-gender-selection-and-abortion-todays-q-for-os-wh-5302012/

NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson commented, "It is appalling, but not surprising, that President Obama now stands with the pro-abortion political committees and his Hollywood donors, rather than with the coerced women, and their unborn daughters, who are victimized in sex-selection abortions."

The legislation is the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) (H.R. 3541). The House will vote on the bill under "Suspension of the Rules," which means that a two-thirds vote will be required for passage. The roll call is expected to occur before 3 PM EDT today.

The bill would make it a federal offense to knowingly do any one of the following four things: (1) perform an abortion, at any time in pregnancy, "knowing that such abortion is sought based on the sex or gender of the child"; (2) use "force or threat of force. . . for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection abortion"; (3) solicit or accept funds to perform a sex-selection abortion; or (4) transport a woman into the U.S. or across state lines for this purpose. However, "A woman upon whom a sex-selection abortion is performed may not be prosecuted or held civilly liable for any violation . . ."

The bill also specifically states, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require that a healthcare provider has an affirmative duty to inquire as to the motivation for the abortion, absent the healthcare provider having knowledge or information that the abortion is being sought based on the sex or gender of the child." The White House statement falsely claimed that the bill would "subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations" for an abortion.

NRLC has posted extensive information on the practice of sex-selection abortion in the U.S., and on the legislation, at its website here:
http://www.nrlc.org/Sex-SelectionAbortion/index.html

Source: National Right to Life

URGENT ACTION ALERT

U.S. House of Representatives Votes
Wednesday, May 30, on Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (H.R. 3541)
-- Bill Would Place National Ban on Abortion as Sex-Selection Method

TAKE ACTION NOW!

 

 

This is an urgent congressional alert from the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in Washington, D.C.

 

National Right to Life is urgently requesting phone calls to the offices of members of the U.S. House of Representatives, to urge them to vote for a bill that would impose a nationwide criminal ban on the use of abortion as a method of sex selection, at any stage of pregnancy.

 

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the bill, H.R. 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, on Wednesday, May 30, 2012, at about 7 PM Eastern Daylight Time.

 

The bill is being brought up under a fast-track procedure called "Suspension of the Rules," under which a two-thirds vote is required for passage.

 

Because this vote has been scheduled on short notice, the use of phone calls is strongly recommended.  If you send an email message to a lawmaker's office on this matter, it is quite like that nobody will read it or count it until after the vote is over.

 

Please click on any one of the "Take Action Now!" links in this alert.  This will take you to the National Right to Life Legislative Action Center.  After entering your zip code, you will be shown the correct phone number to call for the person who represents you in the U.S. House, and also suggested quick "talking points" to make during the call.

 

In a letter sent to House members today, National Right to Life said: "There are credible estimates that 160 million women and girls are missing from the world due to sex selection, and the figure may be even higher.  Writing in the Fall 2011 issue of The New Atlantis, political economist Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute observed, 'In terms of its sheer toll in human numbers, sex-selective abortion has assumed a scale tantamount to a global war against baby girls.'  Several academic papers have put forward evidence that the practice of sex-selection by abortion is also increasing in the United States, especially although not exclusively within communities of immigrants from Asia."

 

The NRLC letter also says:  "Of course, pro-life [House] Members will support this legislation.  But it is to be hoped that even many Members who deem themselves 'pro-choice' will recoil at the notion that 'freedom of choice' must include even the choice to abort a little unborn girl, merely because she is a girl.  Members who recently have embraced contrived political rhetoric asserting they are resisting a 'war on women' must reflect on whether they wish to be recorded as being defenders of the escalating war on baby girls."

 

To read the full NRLC letter, or to access other documentation on the issue of sex-selection abortion and the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, click on "Take Action Now!" and follow the links provided. 

Take Action Now!

News Links for May 25th

     

Ave Maria University drops student health insurance in response to HHS mandate

Michael J. Fox Finally Gets Real

911: Moans, screams heard from botched abortion victim at Carhart's NE mill

Abortion doctor says women who undergo procedure live with guilt

Maine Budget Cuts Funds to Planned Parenthood

Abortion Business Exposed by Activists Surrenders License

Two Wisconsin Abortion Outlets Stop Performing Chemical Abortions

Notre Dame vs. Obama

Abortion survivor fulfilling her purpose

African American Leaders Decry NAACP Endorsement of Homosexual Agenda, Say Issue also Linked to Abortion

Silent No More Founders: From China, We Can Learn the Truth About Abortion and Breast Cancer

Personhood USA Commits to Assisting European Partners with Vatican-supported Personhood Petition

Operation Rescue Hands Over Leaked Abortion Records to the Board of Healing Arts

What the hearing on the “District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” tells us about abortion and abortionists

     
     Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton

Last Thursday the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on H.R. 3803, the "District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act."  What the bill would accomplish can be described almost clinically: it would ban abortions on pain-capable unborn children, beginning at 20 weeks fertilization age (22 weeks LMP) in the District of Columbia.

But what it would mean in reality—in flesh and blood—cannot be genuinely appreciated unless you take the time to read prepared testimony and/or to watch the video of the oral testimony of three physicians.

In Parts two, three, and four, I will highlight portions of the testimony of Anthony Levatino, M.D., Colleen Malloy, M.D., and Byron Calhoun, M.D., respectively.

But by way of introduction, it's important to understand that much of the limited media coverage was an exercise in diversion—the same "let's quibble over the witness list"–intended (as always) to take the discussion down a rabbit trail, in the process ignoring what really happens to a baby who is pain-capable when aborted.

The Washington Post, helpful as always, ran "An interview with a late term abortion provider." Abortionist Willie Parker is sanctified early, a great guy who only got in the abortion trade eight years ago "largely out of what he says was concern for women's needs going unmet. Parker is primarily based in Washington and Philadelphia, but also travels monthly to see patients in Alabama."

You can read the interview conducted by the Post's Sarah Kliff, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/washington-doctor-speaks-out-against-ban-on-late-term-abortions/2012/05/20/gIQAOzG7eU_story.html, so let's address just a couple of points in what is unintentionally an amazingly revealing interview.

Asked about the six states that already have enacted the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, Parker tells us, "It's a gambit around public opinion… I think it's a very calculated strategy that fails to take into account the complexity of these cases."

"Gambit"? Please. These laws, like the proposed District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, are as straightforward as it gets. Is it okay to rip pain-capable unborn apart limb from limb, or is it not? And what's "complex" about grasping the baby's body parts (in English, arms and legs) and then grasping her head and crushing it 'in order to remove it from the vaginal canal" (see www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/DEabortiongraphic.html)? Brutal, yes, barbaric, yes, disgusting, yes. But not "complex." It's as simple as anesthetizing your conscience.

Speaking of which, Parker adds that these laws "create this impression that abortion providers are callous, and allow people to conflate murder and abortion. People feel morally justified to say 'this is wrong' because they're led to think it's close to murder."

The implication is that ordinary citizens have to be persuaded, be talked into, moral revulsion at a "procedure" that makes what takes place at slaughterhouses look like daycare centers. Not so. Once most people understand what is taking place—when the gauzy rhetoric about "choice" is stripped away–they don't need you or me to be scandalized.

One additional and VERY important point that NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson made in a follow up online comment:

"In his interview with Sarah Kliff of the Washington Post, Dr. Willie Parker estimated that 1 percent of abortions occur after the first trimester. This is a gross underestimate. Indeed, in a printed statement opposing the bill that he posted on the internet, dated May 17, Dr. Parker himself wrote that "roughly 12% of abortions occur at or after 13 weeks after a woman's last menstrual period," citing figures cited by the CDC. This is 12 times the figure he cited in the interview. However, Ms. Kliff stayed steadfast in the "wiffle ball interview" mode and did not challenge Parker's wildly erroneous figure — or anything else he said, really."

A Dozen Federal Lawsuits Challenge Health Care Mandate

     
 
In a sweeping defense of religious freedom, 43 Catholic entities — including the University of Notre Dame — filed 12 federal lawsuits on Monday challenging a government mandate that they cover contraceptives and possible abortion-causing drugs in their health plans.

"It is a compelling display of the unity of the Church in defense of religious liberty," said Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in a statement.

The Catholic Church joins other religious groups and businesses in opposing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate that all employers provide coverage for contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-causing drugs. They contend the mandate violates the First Amendment.

The USCCB is not involved in the lawsuits. But many other well-known Catholic organizations are plantiffs in the federal suits filed in eight states — Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas — plus Washington, D.C.

Those filing the suits include Notre Dame and the Catholic University of America; archdioceses in D.C., New York and St. Louis; as well as Catholic health-care providers; elementary and high schools; and charities.

Notre Dame gave President Obama an honorary degree when he delivered the 2009 commencement address. The irony of the Indiana school now challenging him in court was not lost on family advocates.

"It shows the erosion not only of religious liberty, but of goodwill," said Curt Smith, president of the Indiana Family Institute. "Notre Dame extended an olive branch to a president that they had disagreements with … it shows how surprised some are to go from 'Let's have a dialogue' to receiving a legal fiat to cover contraception. President Obama has shown no respect for differences."

Anna Franzonello, legal counsel for Americans United for Life, graduated from two of the universities that filed suits.

"There are not going to be plans that pro-life Americans can be on, "she said, "that don't violate their conscience."

Contact: Steve Fountain
Source: CitizenLink

An abortuary's priority targets

     

In releasing a survey that shows abortionists are targeting colleges in a substantial way, Students for Life says that underlines the need for pro-life campus groups.
 
Life Dynamics in 2011 released "Racial Targeting and Population Control," an exhaustive study of zip codes that proved Planned Parenthood and other abortion facilities are strategically located near minority-dominated neighborhoods. Now, Students for Life's Kristan Hawkins tells OneNewsNow her group checked out the significance of Planned Parenthoods in zip codes that were not minority areas.

"Those zip codes that were not African-American or Latino neighborhoods were within five miles of a college," Haskins reports. "And then we looked at Planned Parenthoods. There [are] about 780 Planned Parenthood affiliates across America, and we found that 78.8 percent, so 615, Planned Parenthoods are located within five miles of a college [or] university."

She suspects those locations are targeting 18- to 25-year-old students and are helping Planned Parenthood sell its message of contraception and abortion. But in Hawkins' view, that underlines the need for a pro-life message.

"It just confirms what we know -- that we have to be there on college campuses because it's the ground zero of the pro-life movement," she asserts. "And it confirms even more why it's important to have a Students for Life group on a campus, to be there educating students and providing a source of support for pregnant and parenting students who need help."

She notes that with the appropriate support, pregnant students can have their babies and continue their education.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow

Abortion brought to Congress' attention

     

Congress is currently considering two pro-life bills -- one addressing taxpayer-funded abortions for illegal immigrants, the other dealing with late-term abortions in Washington, DC.
 
An amendment has been attached to a bill in Congress that would eliminate taxpayer-funded abortions for illegal immigrants detained by customs officials. The language, authored by Reps. Robert Aderholt (R-Alabama) and Bill Huizenga (R-Michigan), is attached to a funding bill for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America (CWA) points out that it was revealed a few weeks ago that U.S. tax dollars were being used to finance college education for illegal immigrants. Now, it is learned that ICE is providing pregnancy services, including abortions, for illegals.

"This is just outrageous, and it just seems that there is no end to the kind of things this administration is willing to do with taxpayer money to implement their agenda, which includes abortion for anybody and everybody who wants one," Crouse laments.
 
But the Appropriations Committee's amendment would ensure that taxpayer dollars will not be used to fund abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or if the mother's health is in danger.

"You start reading the fine print [of the administration's report], and you discover that it covers everything from the time the woman wants to get pregnant until the time that her child is able to walk," the CWA spokeswoman explains. "It provides prenatal care straight through to care of the baby after it's born, or the abortion, if the woman decides to have an abortion."

Plus, ICE will provide transportation to an abortion clinic and back, all on the taxpayers' dime. But the new amendment, if passed, would prevent that.

Congress is also considering a measure that would ban abortions after 20 weeks in Washington, D.C. Most scientists agree that a preborn baby can feel pain at 20 weeks gestation. (Listen to audio report)

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (HR 3803) is sponsored by Congressman Trent Franks (R-Arizona). Former Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave is now vice president of government affairs for the Susan B. Anthony List. Her group is pushing for the measure's passage.

"The gruesome procedure by which their life is ended is just unconscionable," she asserts. "And so this is legislation in the House of Representatives that has 193 co-sponsors. It has momentum and really acknowledges the humanness of that precious unborn child."

Musgrave points out that several states, including Nebraska, Kansas, Idaho, Alabama, Oklahoma and Arizona, have already approved measures similar to HR 3803.

"The presumed nominee, Mitt Romney, running against the most pro-abortion president ever has pledged to advance this legislation at the national level," the pro-lifer notes. "So, [it's] a very important time right now for pro-life people around this country to let their members of Congress know that they're very supportive of a 20 weeks ban for the District of Columbia."

Currently, abortion is legal in D.C. through the ninth month of pregnancy. At a hearing in the U.S. House earlier this month, members of Congress were informed that one abortion facility in the city openly advertises abortion at seven months into pregnancy. Three doctors pointed out that only about five nations in the world have such an extreme legal policy.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow