Attorney Christopher Johnson has filed with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, asking the court to allow Mr. Bobby Schindler, brother of Terri Schiavo, to serve as Guardian for Mr. Gary Harvey. In 2006, Mr. Harvey, a Chemung County resident, was involved in a home accident, which left him with a profound brain injury. His spouse, Mrs. Sara Harvey, sought guardianship only to be denied by the Chemung County Supreme Court who ultimately appointed the Chemung County Department of Social Services as Mr. Harvey's guardian. Since that time, Mrs. Harvey has been in a prolonged court battle with Chemung County officials and the New York State Court System.
Indeed, it was in May of 2009 when the ethics committee from the hospital where Mr. Harvey was residing recommended the removal of his nutrition and hydration tube, and also issued a "do-not-resuscitate order" (DNR). Fortunately, the court denied that request. However, inexplicably, the DNR stayed in place and Mr. Harvey remains under the control of Chemung County, despite the fact that the county tried to end his life.
"I have raised the question many times, 'How can Chemung County, Guardian of Mr. Harvey, be acting in his best interest when they, in fact, tried to kill him?' From all indications, it appears that Mr. Harvey has been warehoused and denied the opportunity to receive the care and rehabilitative services that would benefit his condition," stated Bobby Schindler.
It is the hope that with this filing, the court will recognize that Mr. Harvey deserves the chance to receive aggressive therapy and rehabilitation. Certainly from Mr. Schindler's experience with brain injured persons, he would afford Mr. Harvey the help he needs in the hopes to significantly improve his quality of life.
Bobby Schindler is the brother of Terri Schiavo and is the Executive Director of the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network, established in 2005 to protect the rights of the medically vulnerable.
Source: ProLifeBlogs
When Arizona new mother Alicia Atkins posted a photo taken by her husband during her recent c-section on Facebook, she thought it would only be viewed by a handful of friends. Instead it has drawn the attention of thousands of complete strangers, as well as the media.
The remarkable photo shows Alicia's newborn daughter, Nevaeh ("heaven" spelled backwards) reaching out and grasping the gloved fingers of a doctor. Already the photo has been viewed thousands of times, and is rapidly being shared on Facebook.
Source: Illinois Review
As we look back on the past year, we conclude that 2012 is a year that will go down in infamy.
For the first time in history, the government has attempted to force Americans to pay for the ending of human life – even if abortion violates their religious beliefs.
The issue came to a head this summer when the ObamaCare abortion pill mandate was scheduled to go into effect. The mandate forces employers to provide health insurance coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization. And many employers are compelled to provide these in spite of their sincerely held religious beliefs to the contrary.
A family business in Denver decided to take a stand and say "no" to the Obama Administration abortion pill mandate. The Newland family realized that they and their business faced a terrible choice: either comply with the mandate and violate their religious beliefs, or refuse and face crippling fines and penalties.
Alliance Defending Freedom came to the defense of the Newland family. Thankfully, we were able to win an important victory in court. The judge granted an injunction preventing the government from enforcing the abortion pill mandate against the Newlands. However, while this decision is a tremendous victory, it is not the end.
Rather, it is the first battle in an ongoing war—a war to determine whether the government gets to decide not only who is religious, but which religious beliefs are worthy of protection.
Here are five reasons why the ObamaCare abortion pill mandate should concern you.
1. If you are an employer, you may be forced to pay for health insurance that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization whether it violates your religious beliefs or not.
2. If you are an employer and provide health insurance but refuse to include abortion pills, you may be fined $100 per employee per day.
3. If you are an employee where your conscience about abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization was previously respected, you may now be forced into a health plan that violates your religious beliefs.
4. If you are an employee who refuses coverage, you will be fined the greater of either the cost of the plan or 1% of your salary for the first year, 2% of your salary the second year, and 2.5% each year after that.
5. Finally, you should be concerned that Planned Parenthood helped craft the mandate and applauded the abortion pill mandate's provisions. This is not surprising when you consider Planned Parenthood is the largest provider in America's abortion industry.
With the implementation of ObamaCare, the government has become the dictator of conscience. Because of the abortion pill mandate, people must either comply and violate their religious beliefs, or resist and pay the penalty for their faith.
Source: Alliance Defending Freedom
Pro-life advocates worry that the November elections might have resulted in a weakening of congressional pro-life sentiment.
The unanimous passage through the Senate of a defense spending bill that expands abortion access for military personnel has generated concern that pro-life politicians are in retreat because of the November election results.
"It's extremely disappointing," Tom McClusky, vice president of the Family Research Council, said of the National Defense Authorization Act's almost certain endorsement by the House of Representatives after passage by the Senate. "And we're concerned that we've allowed the other side to frame the debate entirely in terms advantageous to helping women. Everyone wants to help women. But we also want what happens to the child to be part of the debate. The child is a human being."
But McClusky said he saw the passage of the bill as a result of a general failure by the pro-life movement. "We all have to take responsibility," he said. "If we point fingers, the pointing would go full circle."
The defense bill was passed by the Senate unanimously Dec. 4 with an amendment sponsored by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., that provides medical coverage for military personnel to obtain abortions at military facilities in the case of rape or incest. It otherwise leaves in place the existing ban on funding or facility use for other abortions except when a servicewoman's life is in danger because of her pregnancy.
Since 1976, Congress has annually attached an amendment to all funding bills banning federal spending on abortions except when the mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy. The amendment is named after its initial proponent, Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois. During the Clinton administration, congressional Democrats forced the rape and incest exemptions into the Hyde Amendments, and these have remained in place. But they were never added to military appropriation bills until now, said McClusky.
McClusky and other pro-life analysts said the House was almost certain to accept the inclusion of Shaheen's amendment when the Senate and House negotiate the final version of the defense bill.
Victimizing Unborn Children
In his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), Pope John Paul II confirmed that "the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral."
Added Blessed John Paul II, "The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end" (57).
Marie Hilliard of the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia said that politicians were wrong to vote for the bill, but pro-life Americans should have been contacting their congressional representatives to let them know "there are two victims or potential victims when there is a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, the woman and the child."
Hilliard added, "It is a tragedy when a woman is sexually assaulted, but the unborn child should not be treated as a perpetrator. The child is innocent and should not become a victim too." Society, or, in this case, the military, should reach out to support women in this situation and offer them alternatives to abortion, she said.
As for congressional politicians, Hilliard rejected the idea that they had to vote for the bill because its good features outweighed the pro-abortion aspects.
"Pope John Paul II's teaching on incremental legislation allowed politicians to support laws that made abortion a little more difficult though not eliminating it altogether," she said. "But I don't think this teaching allows support for laws that make abortion a little bit easier."
Among supporters of the bill was a leading pro-life senator, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H. Some pro-life observers were concerned about her support of the bill's inclusion of funding for military abortions, particularly in light of her previous 100% rating from the National Right to Life Committee and 0% from both Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Ayotte's compromise on this pro-life issue came in the wake of a call from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to fellow Republicans to play down their beliefs about abortion and life issues.
Appearing on Fox News Sunday on Nov. 25, he suggested that, while "I can state my position on abortion," Republicans should, "other than that, leave the issue alone when we are in the kind of economic situation and, frankly, national security situation that we're in." McCain also voted in support of Shaheen's amendment to the defense bill.
'Complex Politics'
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, refuses to find any fault with the pro-life senators who supported the bill, given the "complex politics involved."
But Dannenfelser shares McClusky's concern about the impact of the election on pro-life advocacy in the corridors of power.
"I am concerned generally about the lack of courage shown by the Republican Party and about the wrong conclusions being drawn from the election results," Dannenfelser said.
What is worrisome to pro-life activists are the implications of the measure's passage unanimously through the same Senate that managed to muster 38 socially conservative votes early in December to defeat a U.N. disabled-rights treaty.
McClusky said the way the abortion issue played out in the November elections was problematic for the pro-life cause, especially in the case of Missouri Republican senatorial candidate Todd Akin, whose controversial use of the term "legitimate rape" to explain his opposition to abortion in the case of rape contributed to his loss.
Richard Mourdock similarly lost his bid for a Senate seat in Indiana after he said that a pregnancy resulting from rape was "something that God intended to happen." This was widely and deliberately misconstrued by Democrats and mainstream news media to mean that he thought God approved of rape when it resulted in pregnancy.
McClusky said, "The pro-life movement has failed to defend or argue well enough the position that we care about women, yes, but we care about children in all circumstances." He added that the Republican Party and the pro-life movement should have prepared its candidates better to advocate for life and not fall back into a defensive stance.
Another Washington activist for an organization with strong pro-life views who spoke with the Register on condition of anonymity said that Mourdock and Akin were known to stumble over explanations of pro-life positions and should have been better prepared.
The pro-life advocate was worried about a misperception growing within the Republican leadership that the party lost the presidential election and some other close races because of social issues and, consequently, should now tread softly with positions regarded as conservative in these areas, especially with life issues.
Dannenfelser agreed strongly that this is a misperception. "There is no data to support the idea that the Republicans suffered generally or in the presidential race from socially conservative positions," she said. It is true that in a few individual races they did suffer.
"But, overall, it was a wash; socially conservative issues helped in some areas and hurt in others."
Defensiveness Doesn't Work
But the Republican Party's pro-life position on abortion would have been more of an asset, Dannenfelser believes, if Republicans had been more willing to promote it during the campaign and if they had defended themselves less feebly against attacks that accused the party of being anti-women.
"The Republicans were on the defensive from the start," she said. "They let the other side slap the extremist label on them without response. They never tried to label the other side as extreme."
Contact: Steve Weatherbe
Source: National Catholic Register
Though new studies confirm a link between abortion and breast cancer, that information is not being widely reported.
Karen Malec of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer tells OneNewsNow the studies [PDF] conducted in France and China between 2009-2011 confirm that breast cancer cases are related to the number of abortions a woman has. LifeNews.com reports that the authors examined information on disease diagnosis, demographics, medical history, and reproductive characteristics of the patients involved. They also looked at a number of other factors.
"There have been 71 studies now that have been published, epidemiological studies showing a statistical relationship between having an abortion and having an increased breast cancer risk," Malec notes.
Even so, she says, most women remain uninformed about it because many cancer-related not-for-profit organizations look the other way.
"They are ignoring it, and they're misrepresenting the research," the pro-lifer laments. "It's simply not good for fundraising to tell women that their abortions may be responsible for their breast cancers. It's a very emotional issue."
At the same time, the standard medical text shows that childbearing protects women because it has a significant defensive effect. Dr. Joel Brind, a professor at Baruch College in New York City, has compiled a statistical review of previous studies confirming the link between abortion and breast cancer, and the French and Chinese studies of late tend to confirm his findings
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow.com
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has refused to block enforcement of that part of the HHS mandate which requires employers to provide insurance coverage for the morning-after pill.
In September, Hobby Lobby Stores, a private chain of over 500 arts-and-crafts stores with 13,600 employees in 41 states, and a sister company (Mardel, Inc.) filed suit against the HHS mandate. The chain is owned by an evangelical Protestant family whose members have no objection to the contraception provision of the HHS mandate.
"However, the Green family's religious convictions prohibit them from providing or paying for the abortion-inducing drugs, the 'morning-after' and 'week-after' pills, which would violate their most deeply held religious belief that life begins at conception," stated the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing Hobby Lobby Stores.
On December 20, a federal court denied Hobby Lobby's request to block enforcement of the mandate, and six days later, Justice Sotomayor denied Hobby Lobby's petition to block enforcement.
Beginning January 1, Hobby Lobby will face a fine of $1.3 million per day if it refuses to offer the insurance coverage. Justice Sotomayor ruled that the company may continue to challenge the constitutionality of the mandate in lower courts.
Source: CWN
The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, late Friday, December 21, 2012, filed an Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on behalf of Tom Monaghan to stop enforcement of the HHS Mandate in order to prevent immediate irreparable injury to his fundamental rights.
The HHS Mandate requires employers to pay for health insurance that covers abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilization under threat of draconian fines. It also requires employers to educate their employees about use of those drugs. Tom Monaghan is a staunch pro-life advocate and Catholic philanthropist. His religious beliefs prohibit him from paying for abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilization.
TMLC attorney, Erin Mersino, asked Federal District Court Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff to hear the Motion "at the earliest possible time" because the HHS Mandate takes effect against Monaghan and his Domino's Farms Corporation on January 1, 2013. If granted, the TRO would permit Monaghan to continue to provide insurance for his employees that does not violate his constitutionally and statutorily granted rights to free exercise of religion, free speech, and free association.
In a strongly worded brief, Mersino accuses the Government of blatant violations of Mr. Monaghan's constitutional rights to the Free Exercise of Religion and Free Speech guaranteed by the Constitution as well as a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
Click here to read entire TRO Motion
The TRO motion is part of a lawsuit TMLC filed a week ago, December 14, 2012, in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, on behalf of Monaghan and his Company. This is the second lawsuit challenging the HHS Mandate filed by the Thomas More Law Center.
Earlier in the year, the Thomas More Law Center filed a lawsuit on behalf of Michigan-businessman Daniel Weingartz and his Weingartz Supply Company, as well as the staff of Legatus, an organization of top Catholic business owners and CEOs. TMLC was successful in obtaining a Preliminary Injunction banning the Government from enforcing the Mandate against Weingartz and his company. Legatus also remains free of the Mandate's requirements under the Mandate's safe harbor provision.
Both lawsuits challenge the constitutionality of the HHS Mandate under the First Amendment rights to the Free Exercise of Religion, Free Speech and the Establishment Clause. Both lawsuits also claim that the HHS Mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Source: ProLifeBlogs
The Muskegon Fire Department has posted closure notices on the Women's Medical Services in Muskegon, Michigan, and boarded up the abortion clinic until further notice, thanks to the work of Operation Rescue.
"We are happy to announce that the closure of Women's Medical Services is the twenty-fourth abortion clinic to close in 2012," said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue and Pro-Life Nation.
"There is a lot more to tell about this closure, but we cannot disclose further details at this time. Suffice it to say that there were serious violations at Women's Medical Services that made it unsafe to continue operating. This is one less abortion clinic that can prey upon vulnerable women and their pre-born babies, and for that, we are thankful."
Operation Rescue received photographs showing the closure notice, dated December 26, 2012. One of the clinic's doors was boarded up with a plywood panel.
"Abortion clinics are closing at a rate of about two per month," said Newman. "In 1991, there were 2,176 abortion clinics in America. Today, there are just 660. Nearly 70% of all surgical abortion clinics have closed for good. We look forward to the day when all abortion sites have been shut down and the pre-born baby is once again protected by law."
Contact: Troy Newman, President, Cheryl Sullenger
Source: Operation Rescue/Pro-Life Nation
Planned Parenthood has released a study that claims the abortion drug RU-486 is safe. But as one pro-lifer points out, a closer look gives a different conclusion.
The study covering one year shows one death from RU-486 and 385 patients suffering serious complications. Cheryl Sullenger of Operation Rescue tells OneNewsNow more than 250 other women had to be hospitalized "to be treated with things like blood transfusions and intravenous antibiotics."
"So we see this as an indication that these abortion pills are not safe," she asserts. "And this is just a typical spin from Planned Parenthood, trying to make us think that up is down and that wrong is right -- and in this case, we're not buying it."
Sullenger reports that the study was not conducted by independent parties.
"In fact, the people who were involved in this survey were members of Planned Parenthood, were on advisory boards to Planned Parenthood," she relays. "In one case, one received financial compensation from Danco Laboratories, which is the sole distributor of the abortion pill in the United States. So these people all had a vested interest."
The Operation Rescue spokesperson emphasizes that RU-486 is dangerous. Even so, its use is becoming more common. In fact, Planned Parenthood plans to have all affiliates doing abortions and will promote "telemed" abortions, which does not directly involve a doctor.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow.com
