The truth about 'risk reduction' sex education

      

A newly released study from the National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) presents a decisive challenge to the content, research, and funding of comprehensive sex education.
 
Valerie Huber, executive director of the NAEA, says this exhaustive report examines the differences between comprehensive sex education and abstinence education, and it shows the dismal research used to prop up comprehensive -- or "risk reduction" -- sex education.

"The research base for comprehensive sex education is seriously lacking," Huber tells OneNewsNow. "That argument is merely a strawman argument for the administration to push an ideological agenda that is, in fact, harmful to young people."

For too long, she says, people have been duped into believing sexual risk reduction is the best option for children. But this report, she believes, is a game-changer.

"I say that because it responds in a proactive manner to all of the attacks against sexual risk-avoidance abstinence education, and it also looks from an objective research view at what it takes to be an evidence-based program," the NAEA executive director explains.

Contact: Bob Kellogg
Source: OneNewsNow

Pro-choice, pro-'gendercide'

     

New undercover footage further reveals that pro-abortion organizations support sex-selective abortions and encourage women to carry out such terminations.

    
 
The latest undercover work from Live Action took place in North Carolina. The video shows a National Abortion Federation (NAF) clinic in Raleigh and a Planned Parenthood clinic in Chapel Hill advising women on how to move forward with aborting their baby girls because they want a boy instead. For example, a worker at the Raleigh clinic advises a woman to lie to her OB/GYN.

Woman: "If I went to them and they did the ultrasound and [said] everything is healthy and it looks good, but it's a girl, would they be judgmental of me if they found out later that I aborted because it was a girl?

NAF: "No. All you would have to do, if you wanted to go back to them for a follow-up or keep them as your regular doctor, just say that you had to go to the hospital and miscarried."

Lila Rose, founder and president of Live Action, says these clinics are hypocritical.

"They are helping the search-and-destroy mission of little girls," she asserts. "And I think that more and more people are realizing that this is fundamentally hypocritical and that the organization and all these groups that claim to pamper women are really helping wage the war against women."

Rose notes that the U.K., Australia and other countries have bans on sex-selective abortion, and she says it is time for the United Sates to ban "this most lethal form of gender discrimination."

"It's about time the United States started to protect these girls from gendercide," she contends.

Live Action's "Gendercide in America" project has now documented abortion clinics' support for sex-selection at eight clinics in five states.

Contact: Bill Bumpas
Source: OneNewsNow

Supreme Court Decision Means Americans Must Elect Mitt Romney and a Pro-Life Congress Committed to Repealing ObamaCare

Supreme Court Decision Means Americans Must Elect Mitt Romney and a Pro-Life Congress Committed to Repealing ObamaCare

    

"All voters who care about the value and dignity of human life must do everything they can to elect Mitt Romney and a Congress who are committed to repeal of ObamaCare," said National Right to Life President Carol Tobias. "If President Obama wins re-election, it will mean massive abortion subsidies and it will put the lives of millions at risk through systematic government-imposed rationing of lifesaving medical care."

Today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding most of the ObamaCare law is a call-to-action for the right-to-life electorate to work to elect a Congress and president this November committed to repealing ObamaCare in 2013, in order to prevent a future in which abortion insurance will be heavily subsidized by federal taxpayers and federal bureaucrats will be authorized to ration life-saving medical treatment.

That is the assessment of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of state right-to-life organizations, after analysis of today's ruling in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.

Under the enacted law, federal tax-based subsidies will begin in 2014 to subsidize millions of private insurance plans that will cover abortion-on-demand, including some plans ("multi-state plans") that will be administered by the federal government. Under another provision of the law, the federal government could even order many plans that do not receive federal subsidies to cover abortion as a "preventive" service. The law also created an array of other mechanisms and funding pipelines by which access to and subsidies for abortion can be expanded if President Obama wins a second term.

Moreover, few Americans realize that under ObamaCare, private citizens' right to spend their own money to save the lives of their own families will be subject to drastic restriction.

Unless repealed, ObamaCare will give federal bureaucrats the power to impose so-called "quality" measures on all health care providers, under which treatment that a doctor and patient deem needed to save that patient's life or preserve the patient's health but which runs afoul of the imposed standards will be denied, even if the patient is willing and able to pay for it. In 2015 and thereafter, an 18-member "Independent Payment Advisory Board" is directed to inform the federal Department of Health and Human Services how to use those imposed standards to limit what private citizens are permitted to spend on their own families' health care to below the rate of medical inflation.

These and other provisions of the law that will authorize rationing are documented at
http://www.nrlc.org/HealthCareRationing/index.html.

National Right to Life strongly opposed enactment of the ObamaCare law because of its abortion and rationing components.

Source: National Right to Life

Breaking News: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Law

Key provisions of the individual mandate were upheld with some restrictions on Medicaid changes.

In a dramatic conclusion to the year's most divisive legal debate,SCOTUSBlog says the U.S. Supreme Court has just ruled that the so-called individual mandate in the 2010 Affordable Care Act is constitutional — a decision that it's believed means the entire law passed by President Obama survives.

On Morning Edition, NPR's Ari Shapiro just explained that the individual mandate was upheld as a tax.

The Obama administration had argued that mandating that everyone in the country have insurance was constitutional under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. That was the administration's "A argument," as Ari explained. The "B" argument was that the individual mandate was constitutional under the federal government's ability to tax. During debate in Congress and in the law itself, the mandate is called a "penalty." It was up to the Supreme Court to decide whether the penalty was indeed a tax.

It appears, Ari said, that the "tax argument is what saved President Obama's signature law."

According to SCOTUSBlog's Tom Goldstein, it was Chief Justice John Roberts who was the deciding vote on the key issue of whether the so-called individual mandate would survive. The vote was 5-4, says Goldstein, and Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with the "conservatives" while Roberts shifted to the "liberal" side.

Source: NPR News

S. J. Res. 29 would cut heart out of First Amendment

      

NRLC Letter to the U.S. Senate on S. J. Res. 29

Dear Senator:

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of state right-to-life organizations, urges you to oppose S. J. Res. 29, a proposed constitutional amendment that would cut the heart out of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. NRLC reserves the right to include any roll call on S. J. Res. 29 in our scorecard of key roll calls of the 112th Congress.

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights provides in part that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ." While the First Amendment applies broadly, first and foremost it was intended to provide absolute protection for the right to speak freely about those who hold or seek political power.

It is precisely that form of speech – speech about those who hold or seek offices of power in government, at the Federal or state level – that is targeted by S. J. Res. 29. Under the proposal, Congress would be granted virtually unlimited power to regulate and ration speech about those who hold or seek federal office, including both congressional and executive offices. This power would extend to "the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections," including (but not limited to) "the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates."

S. J. Res. 29 would grant to state officeholders an equivalent power to regulate spending "made by, in support of, or in opposition to" state candidates – legislative, executive, or judicial.

It is predictable that this language will be construed to encompass not only any money spent for overt appeals to elect or defeat "candidates," but also to disseminate any speech that criticizes "candidates" or that portrays their actions or positions in a light that they find unflattering. There is no exemption for the "institutional" news media, or for any medium of communication. The power to regulate and ration political speech would extend to every mode of communication – print, electronic, broadcast, internet, etc.

The power to regulate and ration would also extend to "in kind equivalents," which could include volunteer labor, including donations of time and talent by professionals and celebrities.

"Candidates" will, of course, include all current office holders. Incumbent office holders frequently vote on matters of public controversy, and if S. J. Res. 29 were part of the Constitution, it is predictable that incumbent office holders will employ the power granted to inhibit or punish those who criticize them – partly if the criticisms are reaching an audience of any appreciable size. Among the many incumbent-protection-racket proposals that have been put forth under the banner of "campaign finance reform," this proposed constitutional amendment is the most ambitious power grab – a naked attempt to permanently empower the political patrician class to substantially insulate its members from criticism by and accountability to the plebeians.

Perhaps a lone speaker standing on a stool in the park, upbraiding the local congressman for a recent vote, could remain outside the scope of the restrictions that would flow from S. J. Res. 29 – but if he first went to a local copy shop to buy some leaflets to draw listeners to his presentation, he could no longer rely on the protection of the First Amendment. His "expenditure" would be deemed permissible, or criminal, solely at the pleasure of those who already hold the reins of power.

One other thing is predictable: If S. J. Res. 29 were part of the Constitution, the sweeping powers it grants to those who hold political office would, in time, be employed with particular ruthlessness towards individuals or groups who advance causes that are out of favor with important political elites – as has already occurred in some so-called "liberal democracies."

Because NRLC believes that S. J. Res. 29 would have a crippling effect on the ability of the National Right to Life Committee to continue to effectively advocate on behalf of members of the human family who cannot speak on their own behalf – unborn children, and the medically dependant and disabled – NRLC strongly opposes this measure. In the NRLC scorecard of key roll calls of the 112th Congress, a vote for S. J. Res. 29 will be accurately characterized as a vote to empower elected lawmakers, federal and state, to restrict and punish speech that is critical of their votes and positions on public policy issues.

NRLC urges you to reject the frontal assault on the First Amendment embodied in S. J. Res. 29.

Source: National Right to Life

News Links for June 22nd, 2012

     

Giving of Life Awards More than $140,000 to 14 Ministries and Launches New Projects Season

Pending vote on definition of personhood

Dangerous Doctors Participate in California Abortion Project

One Abortion Clinic Closes, Five Others Stop Surgical Abortions Due to Pennsylvania Law

CBR Crushes Northland Abortion Clinics in Federal Court

Knights of Columbus files comment against altered HHS mandate

KS revokes doctor's license in abortion case

Canadian pro-aborts' 'infantile' behavior

Abortion proponents admit defeat at Rio conference

ADF calls on U.S. leaders to condemn forced abortion atrocity in China

Emotional goodbye for young Italian mother who died for unborn child

Doctor alleges massive euthanasia in Britain

Photo sparks global outrage over China's one-child policy

     

Hundreds of thousands of people worldwide have used social networks to protest China's one-child policy after a photo surfaced of an unconscious mother lying next to her seven-month old aborted fetus.

Chinese officials said they are investigating the case which occurred in the northern province of Shaanxi, where police forced Feng Jianmei to undergo an abortion after she was unable to pay the $6,200 fine levied by the government against those who wish to have more than one child.

Feng's husband posted a photo of the dead baby boy on a popular social network in China. The baby had been given a lethal injection directly into his head, while his mother was strapped to the bed by force.

More than half a million Chinese posted comments expressing outrage at the incident, and news of the forced abortion eventually spread to Facebook, Twitter and the international media.

In the 1970s China established its one-child per family police, which includes forced abortion and sterilizations. Those who violate the law and have more children are at risk of losing their jobs and paying heavy fines.

According to Carlos Polo of the Latin American Office of the Population Research Institute, publicizing these incidents is "the first step towards their eradication."

"Since the first visit to China in 1979 by our president, Steve Mosher, the PRI has sent numerous teams to research the application of the one-child policy," Polo told CNA.

In 2009, the PRI sent a field research team to six countries where the UN Population Fund helped China to apply the policy. Evidence of exorbitant fines, reprisals against families, persecution, forced late-abortions of babies was sent to officials in Washington, D.C. with the recommendation that financing for this population control organization be cut off.  

"Our work helped to cut millions of dollars in funding which unfortunately the Obama administration has reinstated," Polo said.

Source: CNA/EWTN News

Finding the Consciousness in “Unconscious” People Worth the Cost?

     

Patients diagnosed as persistently unconscious may be the most scorned people on earth. I mean, who else could be called a turnip or carrot with impunity?  It is within the context of this "unrepentent bigotry"  that I analyze a hopeful story about increasing efforts to find the consciousness within the diagnosed unconscious.

We have discussed before how scientists used advanced brain scanning techniques to determine that at least some of these patients are responsive. Now, Nature reports that research is ongoing to develop means that would allow some of these patients to communicate. From, "The Mind Reader" (June 14, 2012, no link):

Now, using an EEG, Owen is planning to study 25 people in a vegetative state every year…One goal is to identify other brain systems, such as smell or taste, that might be intact and usable for communication...

The studies will also explore whether these patients have the capacity for greater intellectual depth. Owen thinks that some people in a vegetative state will eventually be able to express hopes and desires, perhaps like French magazine editor Jean-Dominique Bauby, who dictated his memoirs by repeatedly winking one eye. "I don't see a reason why they could not have a similar richness of thought, although undoubtedly some will not," Owen says.

More power to him. But some worry that it might interfere with the dehydration imperative:

Owen's methods raise more difficult dilemmas. One is whether they should influence a family's or clinician's decision to end a life. If a patient answers questions and demonstrates some form of consciousness, he or she moves from the 'possibly allowed to die' category to the 'not generally allowed to die' category, says Owens. Nachev says that claiming consciousness for these patients puts families in an awkward position. Some will be given hope and solace that their relative is still 'in there somewhere'. Others will be burdened by the prospect of keeping them alive on the basis of what might be ambiguous signs of communication.

It's remarkable how getting these people dead seems so important within some bioethical circles.

Here's what I worry about: In a world in which such people are denigrated as so many plant products and their bodies coveted as potential organ farms, will it matter?  Or will we decide that we know what we don't want to know? After all, when people communicate it humanizes them, making it harder to view them as a mere natural resource.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke

Fetal Surgery Shows Unborn Babies Are Patients Too

     

We hear sometimes from pro abortion types that fetuses are nothing of moral note until they are born–and sometimes not even then, e.g. personhood theory.  We are sometimes told that during prenatal care, only the mothers are patients.  Yet, a story just came out about life saving prenatal surgery.  From the CBS Miami story, "World's First of It's Kind Surgery Saves Miami Girl's Life:"

To see 20-month old Lyna Gonzalez, you would think she's just like every other toddler at that age – vibrant and energetic. "She's perfectly normal, thank God," said mother Tammy. But it wasn't always that way. During her pregnancy, Gonzalez's doctors discovered a benign tumor the size of a tennis ball growing on her unborn baby's mouth. Doctors told Tammy there was little chance her daughter would survive birth – and if she did, she would require an immediate tracheotomy in order to breath and have multiple surgeries thereafter.

Ah, not a "fetus," not a collection of tissues, not a parasite, but an "unborn baby."  Back to the story:

After a lot research and heart ache, Tammy sought help from University of Miami/Jackson Memorial fetal surgeon Ruben Quintero. Quintero, a pioneer in fetal medicine, has treated many birth defects and high risk conditions while the baby is still in the womb. "The concern with these tumors is they grow very rapidly, the cause bleeding which leads to the death of the baby," said Quintero. In May 2010, Quintero and Dr. Eftichia Kontopoulos operated on Tammy's baby in utero. Using an endoscope guided by ultrasound they performed a first of its kind surgery and removed the tumor from the fetus' mouth.

Now, who was the patient in that surgery; The gestating baby or the mother?  The baby!  And that is also true in other forms of prenatal care, in which both mother and child can be properly considered patients.  In other words, fetus's are human beings too and we should not let abortion ideology deflect us from this fact.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke

Christian Medical Assn: HHS birth control mandate similar to China's views

     

The 16,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA) has filed official comments opposing as "unlawful, unprecedented, unwise and un-American" a U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) rule that forces virtually all health insurance plans in the country to provide free contraceptive pills, devices and surgeries on demand regardless of users' ability to pay.

The CMA document deplores the fact that "The administration is instituting a decidedly un-American policy that (a) classifies pregnancy as a disease requiring mandated treatment and (b) advocates the prevention of child-bearing as a health care cost savings. Unlike communist leaders in countries like China, Americans historically have not viewed pregnancy as a disease or children as an unwelcome product posing a cost burden."

The comments of CMA and other groups were filed with HHS before the June 19 deadline for public comments on the rule, which has generated nationwide protests over what opponents consider a frontal assault on religious freedom, since the rule does not exempt most religious employers who object to the drugs on moral grounds.

CMA CEO Dr. David Stevens noted:

The contraceptives and sterilization mandate affects all people no matter what their faith is, and it is an attack on our first and most precious rights. Religious freedom and respect for conscience are among the most important issues that all people of faith face. This is a battle we dare not lose.
CMA Executive VP Dr. Gene Rudd added:

While researchers continue to debate whether certain mandated drugs labeled as contraceptive may actually end the life of a developing human embryo, the mandated drug Ella almost certainly has such a post-fertilization effect; it's the only way to explain the effectiveness rates claimed for the drug. What we have learned during this debate over the potential abortifacient nature of certain contraceptives is that those with a social agenda will deceive to achieve.

The Christian Medical Association document asserted that the HHS mandate is unlawful and unprecedented in that it violates abortion-related provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the law under which the mandate is enacted), federal laws protecting conscience rights and constitutional protections for religious liberty and just compensation.

CMA also noted that besides violating constitutional religious liberties, the mandate also "offers no accommodation options whatsoever to protect secular conscientious objectors."

The CMA comments conclude, "The administration retains only two realistic options regarding this unlawful, unprecedented, unwise and un-American policy: rescind the policy or face defeat in the courts. The CMA encourages rescission of this policy in its entirety."

More information on the mandate and comments from other organizations are available online.

Source: Standard Newswire