In 1996, then-President Bill Clinton famously said he would like to see abortion "safe, legal and rare." Seventeen years later, abortion remains legal. It kills more than a million unborn babies a year, so it is certainly not rare. And as a new project called "Safe & Legal" demonstrates, abortion is not safe for women.
"We are bringing graphic visuals to the truth that abortion harms women," explains Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, which is co-sponsoring this project along with Operation Rescue and Life Dynamics (the group which initiated it).
A new brochure, entitled "Safe and Legal," shows a beautiful photo of Marla Cardamone, and then her horrific autopsy photos following her death by "safe and legal abortion" at a respected hospital in Pittsburgh, PA.
"I am grateful to Marla's mom, Deborah, and her husband for their full support of this project and their permission to use these photos," said Fr. Pavone. "As they know, this project isn't just about Marla; it's about the countless women Marla represents, who are killed by abortion without the world ever knowing."
This past July, Priests for Life and its Director of African-American Outreach, Alveda King, helped bring attention to a young mother, Tonya Reaves, who was killed after a botched second-trimester abortion in Chicago.
"The utter failure of the abortionist to get help for Tonya after she developed complications constitutes nothing less than murder," Fr. Pavone explained.
The case of Tonya, and many others, will be highlighted along with that of Marla on the special website, SafeAndLegal.com that has been developed for this project.
The brochure about Marla will be distributed widely by Priests for Life and others at this year's March for Life. Moreover, also at the March, Priests for Life will release Executive Director Janet Morana's new book, Recall Abortion, which makes the case that abortion is a failed product that should be recalled by the government just as other harmful products have been recalled. This book, along with the annual gathering of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, which Janet co-founded, will reinforce the same message about how abortion harms women.
"We ask everyone to get involved and to spread the truth about Marla and others killed and wounded by abortion," said Fr. Frank. "As Deborah Cardamone has said often, we have to speak, because if we are silent, we are part of the problem."
For more info, and for audio and video format of this press release, visit Priestsforlife.org/Marla.
Source: Priests for Life
Nearly 6 in 10 Americans View Abortion as Morally Wrong
Four decades after the Supreme Court's controversial decision in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion throughout the United States, a new KofC-Marist Poll shows that more than 8 in 10 Americans (83 percent) favor significant restrictions.
The poll reveals that support for significant abortion restrictions has increased by four points since last year -- rising from 79 percent to 83 percent.
Of the 83 percent who support significant restrictions on abortion, 10 percent believe abortion should never be permitted; 12 percent believe abortion should be allowed only to save the life of the mother; 34 percent would restrict abortion only to cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother; and 27 percent would limit abortion to -- at most -- the first three months of pregnancy.
Just 11 percent would allow abortion at any time, while 6 percent would allow it during the first six months of pregnancy.
"After four decades of legalized abortion in this country, Americans have had ample time to understand that abortion has terrible consequences," said Knights of Columbus Supreme Knight Carl Anderson. "They understand abortion's true legacy -- a child loses life, and parents lose a child. And after witnessing the effects of abortion for the past 40 years, Americans are not legally or morally comfortable with that legacy. It is time for our country to chart a new course on this issue -- a course that protects both the mother and the child."
The survey also found that nearly 6 in 10 Americans (58 percent) believe abortion is "morally wrong." And 84 percent of Americans say laws can protect both mothers and unborn children.
"For years polls have found that Americans divide on labeling themselves as pro-life or pro-choice," said Lee Miringoff of The Marist Poll. "By asking more detailed questions about their specific views on abortion, we have been able to go beyond those labels to get a more complete picture of what Americans actually think about this issue."
Source: Knights of Columbus
On behalf of the adult stem researchers it represents, the Jubilee Campaign's Law of Life Project and their co-counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, expressed great disappointment that the United State Supreme Court declined to hear their petition for certiorari. The petition made two central arguments: first, that the D.C. Court of Appeals erred in holding that President Obama's Executive Order issued in 2009 can and did excuse an agency's failure to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act; and second, that that a preliminary injunction ruling is binding 'law' of the case. In declining to hear the case, the Supreme Court did not decide these questions, but did effectively end the case.
Petitioner adult stem cell researcher Dr. James Sherley said:
"There are many human histories that teach us that the path to ending obvious inhumanities against humanity can be blocked by the blunt dismissal of knowledge and reason. The course of our court case to emancipate human embryos from research slavery sponsored by the NIH is yet another of these histories. Today's refusals by the Supreme Court to hear our case is not the ending of our cause. Instead, it provides a new basis for educating the world that embryos are living human beings, worthy of all the safeguards provided to other human research subjects. "
Petitioner adult stem cell researcher Theresa Deisher said:
"This lawsuit brought critical information into the public forum that had been suppressed by embryonic stem cell proponents. While the legal fight seems to have been lost for now, unless and until Congress acts to correct this waste of taxpayer funds, this case brought adult stem cells to the forefront of many scientists' minds and contributed significantly to the adult stem cell progress and focus that many scientists and clinicians are following. Without this suit many of these scientists and clinicians might have traveled blindly down the embryonic and aborted fetal stem cell roads. Patients will benefit because we raised the issue and brought awareness to the importance of adult stem cells. Adult stem cells continue to be safe, effective and affordable while embryonic and aborted fetal stem cells therapies fail patients by their tumor forming capacity, exorbitant cost and moral harms."
Petitioners initially brought this case over three years ago when, in response to President Obama's March 9, 2009, Executive Order, the NIH published and noticed for public comment regulatory guidelines allowing federal funds to be used for the first time for the creation of new stem cell lines (hESC) requiring and providing incentives for the destruction of living human embryos. The Petitioners contended then--and, indeed, continue to argue--that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Guidelines for funding human embryonic stem-cell research are invalid because they not only disregard the limitations in the Executive Order but also violated the plain language of federal law known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment and because they were promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Dickey Wicker Amendment currently prohibits the use of federal funds for "(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 C.F.R. 46.204(b) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g (b))." Pub. L. No. 112-74, § 508. "Congress enacted the Amendment 'in reaction to a 1994 NIH panel report,'" which "advocated federal funding of research 'designed to improve the process of in vitro fertilization, to determine whether embryos carried genetic abnormalities, and to isolate embryonic stem cells." Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388, 400 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Henderson, J., dissenting). The Dickey-Wicker Amendment has been included in every Health and Human Services appropriations bill since 1996, and has not been altered in any material respect. Thus, Congress continues to prohibit federal funding for "research in which" an embryo is "destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."
Sam Casey, JC-LOLP's General Counsel who served as co-counsel for Petitioners in the case, described the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling today saying:
"After almost four years of litigation the courts are apparently telling Congress that the Dickey-Wicker Amendment's language isn't plain enough to achieve its intentions. To fix this 'ambiguity' Congress at least will need to consider changing the phrase "research in which" to "research involving" and the phrase "are destroyed" to "are or have been destroyed." Hopefully, Congress will do so, along with any other steps deemed necessary to once again make plainly unlawful the federal funding of destructive human embryo research which the record shows continues to be an unnecessary, unethical and a wasteful use of the federal taxpayer's money."
After the NIH initially promulgated its proposed guidelines, they received approximately 49,000 public comments, more than 60% of which—that is, approximately 30,000—raised serious and highly relevant questions about the ethics and scientific merits of human embryonic stem cell research. The NIH refused to consider those comments, however, erroneously saying that the President's Executive Order precluded such consideration that would otherwise have been required by the Administrative Procedure Act. Nevertheless, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals incorrectly held that NIH's refusal to address numerous comments that it received in promulgating the Guidelines was justified by an executive order (Executive Order 13,505) issued by President Obama.
Petitioners' request for certiorari argued that the D.C. Circuit's holding embraces a fundamentally mistaken and unprecedented view of Executive power, authorizing the President to exempt agencies from the APA's requirements at will: "If allowed to stand, the decision below would eviscerate the vital checks that Congress has imposed on agencies to ensure transparency, accountability, and rationality in administrative decision-making."
Under the D.C. Circuit's erroneous rulings, Petitioners couldn't challenge the NIH's guidelines directly. Accordingly, the petition argued that because the President cannot dictate the outcome of a rulemaking in advance, declare all dissenting views and contrary data irrelevant, and essentially circumvent the ban on arbitrary and capricious agency action by instructing an agency to act in a way that plainly violates federal law, the D.C. Circuit was wrong to reject Petitioner's claim that the NIH Guidelines violate the Administrative Procedure Act. Additionally, the petition contended that the D.C. Circuit wrongly declined to resolve Petitioners' claim that the NIH Guidelines violate the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, by ruling that the preliminary-injunction decision in this case was a "definitive, fully considered [one]" made on what it later deemed a "fully developed factual record." Petitioners were relying on Supreme Court case law holding that rulings by a court granting a preliminary injunction are not binding at later stages of the case, so the D.C. Circuit panel erred in concluding that the preliminary-injunction ruling resolved the Dickey-Wicker Amendment claim.
Thus, this appeal to the United States Supreme Court was necessary to correct procedural errors made by the courts below so that this important case could be resolved in the courts below on the merits. The Jubilee Campaign Law of Life Project's General Counsel, Sam Casey, concluded by saying:
"Sure we are disappointed that the Court declined to hear our clients' case. Each time federal grant money is awarded to support human embryonic stem cell research, living human embryos are at risk. Not only is this an ethical tragedy, as well as a waste of taxpayers' money on unethical research that has not to date led to any therapeutic benefits, but it is also a clear violation of what we believe Congress intended when it passed the current federal law known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. Sadly, the DC Circuit Court of Appeal found ambiguity in the statutory language that we continue to believe is not there. We also think that the President, by authorizing NIH non-compliance with federal law, overstepped his legal boundaries, and it is now imperative that Congress step in to clarify the law. The Constitution and the Supreme Court say Congress enacts the laws in this country, not the Executive Branch. Now that the Supreme Court has declined to hear our case, the matter necessarily returns to Congress who will have to decide whether to amend the Dicker-Wicker Amendment to make it even clearer for the courts that Congress does not want NIH expending federal taxpayer funds on unethical and unnecessary embryonic stem cell research that requires the destruction of living human embryos."
Source: Jubilee Campaign's Law of Life Project
Last February, the ACLU released an Illinois-based poll saying that only one in three thought doctors offering ultrasounds to expectant mothers before undergoing an abortion was acceptable. The poll, conducted by Fako & Associates of suburban Lisle, found the majority of both men (57%) and women (53%) opposed the bill.
But now, only a year later, ultrasounds are in the news again. Ultrasounds have become so popular, that expectant mothers are hiring medical technicians to provide entertainment at their baby showers. A live, in utero introduction to a welcomed baby has now become the "must do" for trendy moms.
But ultrasounds being offered to expectant moms outraged Illinois' ACLU activists in 2012. The bill required abortionists to simply offer an ultrasound to all clients considering an abortion. All the woman would need to do to opt out is decline the offer in writing, using a form provided by the abortionist and retained by the Departent of Public Health.
HB 4085 would have provided mothers an image of their expectant child and insight into its superficial health condition.
Another attempt at offering ultrasound images of an unborn child may find less resistance among the public in 2013, but it's for certain the ACLU will remain firmly opposed.
Source: Illinois Review
In the aftermath of November's election, many are wondering if there's any life left in the Republican Party's pro-life movement.
Marilyn Musgrave of the Susan B. Anthony List tells OneNewsNow that when Republicans lose, they tend to point "an accusing finger at social conservatives" -- an attitude she says is a mistake, as the pro-life issue has not been at the forefront of party politics.
"That is disheartening to think about the real base of the Republican Party that are the faithful voters, the ones who do all the grunt work in election time," she comments.
"You know, leaving those people with just the impression that Yes -- it'll be in the platform, but we're really not going to act upon it is really politically disastrous for the Republicans."
So Musgrave says Republicans need to re-engage on the sanctity of human life. She also believes pro-life groups took a blow in the last election.
"But … I've been in this battle a long time, and we are on the right side of this when we stand for life," the former U.S. congresswoman asserts. "And I know that we will be always ready to stand for the sanctity of human life, even when dealt a blow like seeing the most pro-abortion president ever reelected in this country."
Musgrave goes on to stress that pro-lifers, regardless of political affiliation, have certainly revived and are fully prepared to press on in the fight for life.
Source: OneNewsNow.com
In response to a motion for preliminary injunction filed by attorneys with the Jubilee Campaign's Law of Life Project and Thomas More Society, the Federal District Court in Chicago today ordered that the Federal Government may not enforce its contraception mandate on Plaintiffs Triune Health Group and its owners
Triune Health Group and its owners, Christopher and Mary Anne Yep, represented by attorneys with the Jubilee Campaign's Law of Life Project and Thomas More Society, are among the dozens of employers around the country challenging the HHS required coverage of contraception, sterilization and abortifacients on religious liberty grounds.
The Yeps, devoted Catholics, embrace a belief which is embedded in Triune's mission statement that each individual be "treated with the human dignity and respect that God intended." The Obamacare mandate, administered by HHS and the other federal agencies named in the lawsuit requires the company to provide abortion-related and contraceptive coverage for its employees and their
families, which imposes a gravely oppressive burden on the Yeps' deeply held religious beliefs.
"We applaud the court's decision to enjoin pending further litigation the imposition of these unnecessary and unconstitutional federal regulatory requirements. The federal governments ought not to be able coerce our clients to violate their conscientious convictions in a fashion that is completely at odds with the resounding declarations of our Founding Fathers and our modern Supreme Court jurisprudence," said Samuel B. Casey, Managing Director and General Counsel for the Jubilee Campaign's Law of Life Project. Mr. Casey also had high praise for the Yeps' courage in standing up for their fundamental rights, applauding the Yeps for "taking a stand to defend their right to run their business in a way that does not conflict with their faith and religious free conscience."
Mr. Casey concluded: "The Yeps and their company, Triune Health Group, are far from alone. More than 47 lawsuits like the Yeps' federal suit are pending in the federal courts with some courts granting the preliminary injunctive relief requested and others declining to do so. We are particularly encouraged that the Court today, pending further litigation, enjoined the HHS from applying the federal contraceptive mandate to our client health management company."
The most recent polling data from December 2012 shows Americans support a religious exemption to the HHS contraceptive mandate for individuals and organizations like the Yeps and Triune.
The Obama Administration has defended forcing private employers to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception, with an argument that people of faith forfeit their religious liberties once they opt to engage in business. The Triune case also asserts the primacy of religious liberties and free speech on behalf of a private company and its owners, who view business as a form of religious stewardship and an integral part of their lives as faithful Roman Catholics. By issuing its Order today granting a preliminary injunction that Court has indicated that it believe Triune is likely to prevail on these claims.
Triune Health Group has won public plaudits, not only as "the best" employer for women but also as an outstanding employer for everybody, having also placed very high on Crain's 2012 "Best Place to Work" list.
Source: Illinois Review
Attorneys for Jubilee Campaign's Law of Life Project and Thomas More Society await decisions by federal and state courts on their motions for preliminary injunction to stop the State of Illinois and the Federal Government from imposing confiscatory fines and other legal sanctions on a Roman Catholic health management company for exercising their state and federal free exercise of religion rights not to be forced to pay for abortifacients, sterilization, contraception and the related counseling now being imposed upon non-exempt businesses by state and federal law.
Christopher and Mary Anne Yep, the devout Roman Catholic founders and owners of Triune Health Group, Ltd., having already filed separate federal and state court complaints, now await each court's decision on their pending federal and state court requests for preliminary injunctions to stop the federal and the Illinois state governments, pending further litigation, from forcing them under sanction of severe monetary penalties and other regulatory requirements to provide insurance coverage and pay for abortifacients, sterilizations, contraceptives and related counseling that they conscientiously believe constitutes material cooperation with evil as taught by the Roman Catholic Church.
The Yeps, devout Catholics, embrace a belief which is embedded in Triune's mission statement that each individual be "treated with the human dignity and respect that God intended." The Obamacare contraceptive mandate, administered by HHS and the other federal agencies named in the lawsuit, as well as the Illinois insurance contraceptive mandate, administered by Illinois' Department of Insurance, require the Triune to provide and pay for abortion-related and contraceptive coverage for its employees and their families, which imposes a gravely oppressive burden on the Yeps' deeply held religious beliefs.
"The federal and state governments are coercing our clients to violate their conscientious convictions in a fashion that is completely at odds with the resounding declarations of our Founding Fathers and our modern Supreme Court jurisprudence," said Samuel B. Casey, Managing Director and General Counsel for the Jubilee Campaign's Law of Life Project. Mr. Casey also had high praise for the Yeps' courage in standing up for their fundamental rights, applauding the Yeps for "taking a stand to defend their right to run their business in a way that does not conflict with their faith and religious free conscience." Mr. Casey concluded:
"The Yeps and their company, Triune Health Group, are far from alone. More than 47 lawsuits like the Yeps' federal suit are pending in the federal courts with some courts granting the preliminary injunctive relief requested and others declining to do so. We are particularly encouraged that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal on Friday, pending further litigation, enjoined the HHS from applying the federal contraceptive mandate to a Roman Catholic construction company in a case whose constitutional and statutory claims are factually and legally indistinguishable from our own. We trust the federal court in our case will consider the Seventh Circuit's decision persuasive if not binding precedent to follow in our case."
The most recent polling data from December 2012 shows Americans support a religious exemption to the HHS contraceptive mandate for individuals and organizations like the Yeps and Triune.
The Obama Administration has defended forcing private employers to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception, with an argument that people of faith forfeit their religious liberties once they opt to engage in business. The Triune case also asserts the primacy of religious liberties and free speech on behalf of a private company and its owners, who view business as a form of religious stewardship and an integral part of their lives as faithful Roman Catholics.
Triune Health Group has won public plaudits, not only as "the best" employer for women but also as an outstanding employer for everybody, having also placed very high on Crain's 2012 "Best Place to Work" list.
Copies of the key Illinois and federal court filings in the Triune Health Group cases are available here or upon request.
Source: Jubilee Campaign's Law of Life Project
Arts and crafts retailer Hobby Lobby says it is willing to pay fines of $1.3 million per day to follow its owners' religious beliefs, which conflict with the federal mandate that requires coverage of abortion-inducing drugs.
"The company will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees," said Kyle Duncan, general counsel for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing Hobby Lobby in the case.
"To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs," he explained.
Hobby Lobby's founder and CEO, David Green, has said that his family – which has owned the company since its 1972 founding – will continue seeking to serve God through their business decisions.
In addition to making significant charitable donations, the company closes all of its stores on Sundays so that its employees can have time to worship and rest with their families.
However, the Greens' ability to run their company in accordance with their religious beliefs is being threatened by the contraception mandate, which was finalized by the Department of Health and Human Services in Jan. 2012.
The mandate requires employers, regardless of their religious convictions, to provide health insurance plans that cover sterilization and contraception, including some drugs that can cause early abortions. As Christians, the Greens are opposed to facilitating any type of abortion, including those caused by "morning after" and "week after" pills.
Hobby Lobby is one of more than 100 plaintiffs that have sued over the mandate, arguing that it violates the First Amendment's religious freedom protections.
The federal government has argued that the owners of "secular, for-profit" companies cannot exercise freedom of religion in their business decisions.
Both a district court and the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Hobby Lobby's request for an injunction to block the mandate from taking effect while the lawsuit works its way through the court system.
The company then made an emergency injunction appeal to the Supreme Court.
On Dec. 26, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor – who is responsible for hearing emergency requests from the 10th Circuit – denied the appeal, saying that the case did not meet the extreme standard necessary for the nation's highest court to intervene.
The Greens can now continue their appeal before the federal appellate court. However, because they were not granted an injunction, they are subject to fines of more than $1 million per day – beginning Jan. 1 – so that they can follow their consciences while their case is being considered.
Duncan emphasized that the case is not over.
"The Supreme Court merely decided not to get involved in the case at this time," he said. "It left open the possibility of review after their appeal is completed in the Tenth Circuit."
Source: CNA/EWTN News
2012 brought with it a major Supreme Court decision, plus a massacre that plunged the nation into sadness.
On Friday, December 14 -- less than two weeks before Christmas -- a gunman forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, gunning down six adults and then 20 children in two rooms of the school. OneNewsNow talked with Liberty Counsel Action vice president Matt Barber, who said as a result both the nation and individuals need to experience change.
"We see that the culture of death -- which has been pushed certainly since 1973; since the Roe v. Wade decision -- coming out of the left is a culture that embraces violence in entertainment," he stated. "We find that America is sick in the soul."
Barber went on to say that the only thing that will save America is a revival to change the hearts of men, and a return to respecting and honoring God -- but added it's a certainty that cannot be legislated.
Will Marotti, pastor of New Life Church in Wallingford, Connecticut, was one of the first to respond to counsel families and emergency responders. He said churches in the area, including his, were packed the Sunday after the massacre, and not with just the expected Christmas crowd.
"The problem is that many times, though they run to God and then they begin to feel a sense of safety and security come back; and as we saw in 9-11, churches all over the country saw this swell in attendance. But as soon as the security and safety came back, it was like the tide rolled out and took a lot of folks back with them -- so it's a temporary faith."
Pastor Marotti told OneNewsNow that's not the kind of faith that is needed. "Saving faith is long term, lasting faith in the good times, bad times, and everything in between," he said.
Marotti added it is up to the individual members of the Body of Christ to take the gospel out into the community to bring people to Christ, disciple them, make them feel welcome in church, and encourage them to continue on the path laid out in the gospel. There have been four mass shootings in as many years.
ObamaCare before SCOTUS
The entire country was waiting for the Supreme Court's decision on whether to uphold ObamaCare or declare it unconstitutional. Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver forecast what it would mean if the court upheld the individual mandate.
"It means that the Supreme Court has authorized the federal government to have unlimited power far beyond the original intent of the constitution," said Staver. "It's going to go beyond the mandates that we've recently seen with regards to abortion funding. It'll cover all kinds of things that the federal government will have the power to do to literally override our religious beliefs and collide with our moral values."
In its split decision sustaining the law, the Supreme Court left the door open a bit by saying that upholding the constitutionality of ObamaCare's individual mandate did not mean that constitutional rights could be violated.
In November, Liberty Counsel learned that the Supreme Court had decided to revisit its case challenging the employer mandate, which requires businesses and institutions to offer insurance, and the coverage required by law, regardless of the employers' religious beliefs. That includes contraception, abortion-causing drugs and sterilization -- all for free. Liberty Counsel's case is on behalf of Liberty University.
Lower courts go against mandate
Several courts, however, have ruled that the mandate does violate constitutional protections of religious freedom. One is Weingartz Supply Company and its owner Daniel Weingartz, who is a committed Christian.
Weingartz is represented by Thomas More Law Center's Erin Mersino, who said the federal court ruling impinges on their religious freedom.
"Basically the court went through every step of the analysis and said that it was unclear that the government had a compelling interest in the HHS mandate in promoting women's public health," Mersino reported.
Federal Judge Robert Cleland said in his ruling that "the loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury."
Essentially, this is the furthest reaching injunction rendered from the court so far.
The various federal court rulings are making their way through the system to the nation's high court, where attorneys are hopeful the majority of the nine justices will rule that religious freedom overrides the authority of the mandate.
Planned Parenthood responsible for death
Several organizations kept a close watch on abortion clinics around the country in 2012. In a Chicago Planned Parenthood, 24-year-old Tonya Reaves had an abortion that went awry. Operation Rescue's Cheryl Sullenger said Reaves was left bleeding for five-and-a-half hours before an ambulance was called to rush her to emergency room doctors.
"They found out that she had been given an incomplete second-trimester abortion," said Sullenger. "They had to redo the abortion, and then they found out the uterus had also been perforated and that's what was causing the uncontrolled bleeding."
That was repaired, but it was too late and Reaves died. Operation Rescue has requested an investigation.
In Birmingham, Alabama, complaints were filed against New Woman All Women Health Care after ambulances were called to rush women to the hospital three times in one day. State authorities have closed the clinic after an investigation resulted in 71-pages of health code violations.
In Rockford, Illinois, pro-lifers maintained a constant vigil on an abortion clinic and were finally able to convince state authorities to investigate. They did and the clinic is permanently closed.
Activist, family leave China for U.S.
One of the thrilling stories of the year involved Chen Guangcheng, a blind, self-taught lawyer and activist against China's forced-abortion policy.
Chen was imprisoned and tortured time and again for over four years, and upon his release, authorities kept him and his wife imprisoned in their home, where they were regularly beaten.
Chen escaped in the dead of the night, made his way to the U.S. embassy in Beijing, and then was hospitalized. Bob Fu of ChinaAid was able to call him from America.
"Basically, he was in the hospital, feels very isolated and even during my conversation with him he was crying and kept telling me that please help and bring my family to the U.S.," reported Fu.
That situation caused a diplomatic tussle between the two countries, but eventually Chen, his wife, and two children were able to fly to New York where he is now a student.
Source: OneNewsNow.com
