A federal district court decision against the Idaho Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act issued March 6, 2013, opens the way to an ultimate consideration by the United States Supreme Court whether mounting medical evidence that unborn children are capable of feeling pain supports a compelling state interest allowing protection of such children from abortion.
"Unborn children jerk away from painful stimuli, their stress hormones increase, and they require anesthesia before any fetal surgery," said Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D., director of state legislation for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC)
Idaho is one of eight states that have enacted legislation to protect unborn children capable of feeling pain from abortion, but the only one whose law has to date been challenged in federal court.
"We have always recognized that it will take a decision by the Supreme Court to allow expanded protection of unborn children capable of feeling pain, and there are strong indications that five of the sitting Justices would look with sympathy on a law providing such protection," Balch said. "The next step will be an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, followed, after its decision, by a request to the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case."
A major legislative priority of the National Right to Life Committee, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act first made headlines in 2010 when the Nebraska legislature became the first to enact the bill into law. The legislation breaks new ground in the fight to protect mothers and their unborn children by acknowledging the large body of scientific evidence showing that unborn children are capable of feeling excruciating pain by at least 20 weeks after fertilization and recognizing that states have compelling interest to protect these pain-capable unborn children. Further documentation and links to the scientific studies can be found at: www.doctorsonfetalpain.com.
Source: National Right to Life Committee
Thomas More Society Scores "Wins" by Settlement of Pro-Life Free Speech Case
After more than five years of federal litigation, members of the Rockford Pro-Life Initiative have settled their federal lawsuit against the City of Rockford over the city's alleged harassment of pro-life individuals and other alleged federal civil rights violations. The agreement, reached between attorneys from the Thomas More Society and the city, will result in positive reforms and revisions of city ordinances, payment of attorney's fees, and compensation for losses suffered by the removal of pro-life advertising by members of the Pro-Life Initiative.
"We owe a solemn duty to our country as well as our clients to assure that state or municipal laws in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution are revised to protect the fundamental rights of citizens to engage in a robust exercise of their First Amendment rights," explained Tom Brejcha, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Society, "After over five years of litigation, we are gratified that the city of Rockford has agreed to respect these rights as a key part of our final settlement of this federal lawsuit. This settlement agreement now guarantees that Winnebago County's pro-life advocates will be able to speak out, loud and clear, in support of the truly American principle, as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence, that the life of every human being is sacred, and endowed with an inalienable worth and dignity, from beginning to end -- that is, as biological science and DNA now prove, from conception until natural death, no matter whether 'wanted' or 'unwanted,' flawed or flawless, humble or exalted."
Brejcha and co-counsel Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society, along with attorney Jason R. Craddock, reached a resolution of the federal lawsuit in a long series of meetings with Rockford officials, going back over several years, even after the city's lone abortion provider, Wayne Webster, was forced to shutter his highly controversial abortion operation. Webster achieved national notoriety for conducting his abortion business in an old abandoned school building, featuring hanging rubber chickens, nun dolls pierced by sewing needles, and other exotic and gruesome displays in his windows. Webster himself was once photographed while dressed in a red devil costume, yelling insults at pro-life demonstrators and even threatening to spray them with raw sewage from a truck parked on his property. Two years ago, an Elgin, Illinois pregnancy resource center began to send a bus with an ultrasound machine, staffed by nurses, to park nearby and offer free ultrasounds to abortion-bound moms. Webster tried to retaliate by parking old vehicles from his car collection to block all available parking spaces and getting the city to ticket the bus for parking violations. But all those contentious times now seem part of a bygone era, as early last year Webster's business was shut down by state authorities after failing repeated health & safety inspections.
According to the settlement agreement, the city of Rockford, Illinois, has agreed that its governing ordinances should not violate the fundamental rights of Rockford citizens to freedom of expression and assembly. The city will be revising a specific number of its ordinances and laws and implementing a training program for the Rockford Police Department in order to properly educate law enforcement about citizens' First Amendment rights. The settlement agreement's stated goals include the prevention of any wrongful arrest of citizens, including pro-life advocates, for participation in constitutionally-protected activities.
"In the past the city of Rockford had refused on numerous occasions to protect pro-life demonstrators against threats as well as actual assaults by lawless persons hostile to the pro-life view," said Kevin Rilott, one of the primary plaintiffs in the federal suit. "We brought our lawsuit against the Rockford to compel our own city's law enforcement officials to protect pro-lifers as well as other citizens from against such public and private harms."
The settlement dictates a comprehensive policy reform on Rockford's part, mandates law enforcement education and training regarding citizen rights, requires payment by the city for the plaintiffs' legal fees as well as modest compensation for damages incurred when a pro-life bus bench advertisement was defaced and obliterated and future advertisements barred. Also, a spurious city complaint against Rilott for alleged "jaywalking" outside Webster's abortion now-shuttered abortion premises was dismissed.
A copy of the settlement is available here.
Source: Thomas More Society
A new policy that was created in part with the consultation of Planned Parenthood of Illinois will require Chicago Public School students from kindergarteners and up to receive sexual health education instruction beginning in 2015.
According to the Chicago Public Schools website, the new policy passed last week requires "minimum instructional minutes" for students, and instructional material is tailored around age-appropriateness and "medically accurate information."
"It is important that we provide students of all ages with accurate and appropriate information so they can make healthy choices in regards to their social interactions, behaviors, and relationships," said Chicago Public Schools CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett in a statement.
"By implementing a new sexual health education policy, we will be helping them to build a foundation of knowledge that can guide them not just in the pre-adolescent and adolescent years, but throughout their lives," she continued.
According to the Chicago Public Schools website, the new policy was developed by the Chicago Public School Office of Student Health and Wellness (OSHW). The Chicago Public Schools website said that since June 2012, OSHW has been in consultation with various stakeholder groups for feedback and recommendations in developing the policy.
"Among the participants were Mikva Challenge, Chicago Department of Public Health, Planned Parenthood of Illinois, University of Illinois Chicago, Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health and CPS high school students," the website said.
CPS said that the policy, which replaces the district's 2008 Family Life and Comprehensive Sexual Health Education Policy, "will set more modern standards" for instruction for their students at all grade levels. Younger students will receive family life instruction that was also in the 2008 policy.
"For K-4 students, instruction will center on anatomy and physiology, reproduction, healthy relationships and personal safety," the website said.
"For example, younger students in this group will focus on the family, feelings and appropriate and inappropriate touching while students in fourth grade will learn about puberty, including the physical, social and emotional changes that accompany it, and the causes and transmission of HIV infection," it added.
"For older children in grades 5-12, instruction will include information appropriate for each grade level on human reproduction, transmission and prevention of HIV/AIDS and other sexually-transmitted infections (STIs), healthy decision-making, sexual orientation and bullying, and contraception, including abstinence," the website read.
At least two teachers from each school will be designated as sexual health education teachers.
CPS said that the policy "conforms to the Mayor's Healthy Chicago public health agenda" and aligns with and supports priorities in President Obama's HIV/AIDs strategy."
Source: CNSNews.com
A House bill with 50 co-sponsors was introduced Tuesday (March 5) that would exempt organizations and businesses from the Obama administration's abortion/contraceptive mandate.
Sponsored by Republican Reps. Diane Black (Tenn.), Jeff Fortenberry (Neb.) and John Fleming (La.), the bill would provide a full exemption to any organization or business whose religious beliefs are violated by the mandate, which requires organizations and businesses to carry employee insurance covering abortion-causing drugs and contraceptives. The abortion-causing drugs come under brand names such as Plan B and ella.
The bill, Black said after introducing it, would protect First Amendment rights.
"Non-compliance to the administration's mandate is forcing many Americans to choose between respecting their religious convictions or following the law," Black said. "If they refuse to comply, many will be forced out of business, leaving thousands of Americans without jobs or health care coverage."
At least 218 votes are needed to pass a bill in the 435-member House. But even if it passes there, it faces an uphill climb in the Democrat-controlled Senate and a likely veto by President Obama. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said "we would have some Democratic senators who would support the bill if it got on the floor" of the Senate. He mentioned Democratic Sen. Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.) as a likely yes vote.
Land supports the bill.
"This is a question of conscience, not contraception. It's a question of religious freedom, not reproductive freedom," Land said during a press conference at the National Religious Broadcasters convention in Nashville March 5. "... Freedom of religion leaves citizens of faith free to bring their religious convictions to bear in every arena of life."
The bill -- the Health Care Conscience Rights Act -- also would provide conscience protection to individuals and health care entities that refuse to provide, pay for or refer patients to abortion doctors.
The mandate was announced by the Department of Health and Human Services in August 2011 as part of the new health care law. Although the Supreme Court upheld the health care law last June, the justices' ruling did not deal with the religious liberty issues surrounding the mandate.
A total of 48 lawsuits have been filed against the mandate, and so far, opponents of the mandate are winning. Of the 17 court rulings involving businesses, opponents have won 12 times and lost five. The latest victory by opponents of the mandate came Feb. 28 when a federal court granted a temporary injunction to a Missouri-based plumbing products manufacturer, protecting the business from the mandate. The judge, Ortrie Smith, was nominated by President Clinton. Smith's jurisdiction resides within the Eighth Circuit, where the court of appeals previously had issued an injunction against the mandate.
"Americans should be free to honor God and live according to their consciences whether they are at home, church, or work," said Alliance Defending Freedom-allied attorney Jonathan R. Whitehead, who defended in court the Missouri company, Sioux Chief Manufacturing. "The court was right to stop enforcement of this unconstitutional mandate against Sioux Chief and its owners. They, like all other family-run businesses, have the God-given freedom to live and lead their company according to the values of their faith. American entrepreneurs cannot be forced to surrender their First Amendment freedoms when they go to work."
Source: Baptist Press
Wauconda resident Danielle Rowe headed the
baking project with assistance from her 13 year
old niece Kayla and Kayla's mother Dana Rowe
(Kayla is pictured). Volunteers distributed the
loaves at the Capitol.
For over 40 years, Illinois has been at the center of an effort to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. Despite the U.S. Supreme Court ruling 20 years ago that the effort was dead, State Rep Lou Lang (D-Chicago) has consistently re-introduced the amendment session after session. Once again, Lang has introduced HJRCA 7, this year with the help of State Reps Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago) and Naomi Jakobsson (D-Champaign).
As in the 1970s, the women's conservative organization Eagle Forum is leading an effort once again to stop the constitutional amendment from passing in Illinois. The group's legislative liason, Sharee Langenstein of Jackson County, is speaking with members of the House Judiciary Committee before Lang's HJRCA-7 is scheduled for hearing Wednesday, March 6th at 8:00 AM.
"When I was a kid in the 70's, some women thought we needed a Constitutional Amendment to guarantee equal rights for women," Langenstein said. "However, my hero Phyllis Schlafly proved to the world that the ERA would decrease women's rights, not increase them."
Against all odds, Schlafly and other women fought the ERA, Langenstein said. One of their ways of getting the attention of Illinois legislators was to bring them loaves of home-baked bread.
This week, Eagle Forum had several volunteers revived the tradition and made 118 loaves of home-baked bread to House members with a message "Preserve the Heart and Hearth of the Home. Vote NO on ERA" attached.
For more information on the ERA, please visit: http://www.eagleforum.org/era/
Source: Illinois Review
Turnabout is fair play, I always say. Many is the time I've dissembled pro-abortion rhetoric, piece by piece, so let's see how successful Tara Culp-Ressler is in her piece, "Your Glossary to Decoding the GOP's Anti-Abortion Rhetoric."
She tackles six subject areas but we only have time to take a look at a representative sample of her attempt to go "underneath all the euphemisms intended to disguise Republican affronts to women's health."
So, "fetal pain laws" (a reference to the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act). To Culp-Ressler, nobody can give any credence to the many, many studies that demonstrate the unborn IS capable of experiencing pain by the 20th week. It's all "junk science." Well, go to http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/ and then tell me it's all "euphemisms."
In this section she also misrepresents the legal status of a couple of the laws passed (as of today) in eight states and [deliberately?] misunderstands how banning abortions at this point is not "moving the goalposts," but recognizing that we now know things we didn't [couldn't] know 40 years ago.
By the way, so who's "anti-science"? Those who insist that our understanding of the unborn must forever be frozen in 1973 or those who recognize that the unborn child—nearly invisible four decades ago—is an astonishingly complex human being from the very beginning?
Two others: "webcam abortions" and "crisis pregnancy centers." Like all abortion advocates, Culp-Ressler tries to piggyback webcam abortions onto legitimate uses of telemedicine. At least she is honest enough to mention the real objective of webcam abortions (which unites together abortifacients and video conferencing in an unholy union): expand abortion access to rural areas. Not a word about how painful chemical (RU-486) abortions are, or how many women have died using these two powerful drugs, or how (because the abortionist is not onsite) he is not there when there is a complication.
Crisis pregnancy centers are the thorn in the side of the Abortion Industry, a direct (albeit hugely underfunded) alternative to the death peddlers. One way to tell how much of an irritant they are is to count the number of slurs, personal attacks, distortions, and sheer orneriness in her description. CPCs do NOTHING right, push misleading information, dole out propaganda, indulge in manipulation, "prey on vulnerable women"—and that's the best that Culp-Ressler can say about CPCs (also known more commonly as Pregnancy Care Centers and Women Helping Centers). It's not remotely true, but that's not the point; the point is to blanket them in criticisms.
The implication is that real "women's health clinics"—abortion clinics—are just the opposition. Like THEY offer ALL alternatives? (How many do adoption referrals?) And talk about preying on the vulnerable. Read anyone who formerly worked in an abortion clinic and you'll see the top priority almost always was volume: more abortions, more often=more money.
Finally, her charge that CPCs peddle "false medical information" is really a blanket denial that there can ever be ANY negative consequences to an abortion. No emotional aftermath, no greater propensity for premature deliveries in subsequent pregnancies, no greater risk for higher rates of anxiety, depression, alcohol use/misuse, marijuana use, and suicidal behavior, compared to those who have not had an abortion.
So, how did Culp-Ressler do in getting "underneath all the euphemisms intended to disguise Republican affronts to women's health"? Couldn't give her a passing grade.
But she does get an [unwanted] "A" for revealing just how shallow are pro-abortion criticisms.
Source: National Right to Life
Oh, oh. NYU Bioethicist Art Caplan seems to suggest–in the context of a story about former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon–that we should not maintain people like Terri Schiavo and others, who are either in a persistent vegetative or minimally conscious state–this even though new research suggests that at least some are more aware than thought previously. From the PRI story:
What these new technologies can reveal about brain activity is important, Caplan said, but it's important not to overstate their importance, because people end up in a comatose state for different reasons. "Even though people see certain things going on in someone in a permanent vegetative state, there are some reflexes there. They are digesting their food, they're not dead, there's some brain activity, we have to realize the quality of life can be awful," he said. In Sharon's case, Caplan said, he's in a state that's starting to be called "minimally conscious."
"But in all these situations, let's keep in mind, people of goodwill, loving family members, partners, friends, they could still say 'I don't care if his brain is active, he would not want to be bed-bound, in a minimally conscious state. That's not a situation I want to prolong with technology,'" he said. But the sort of care that's needed for these people can be incredibly costly. It can also take up valuable spots in hospitals and intensive care units. Caplan says family members should consider alternative means of caring for their relatives, if they find them in such a state. "We shouldn't have 5,000 to 10, 000 people in intensive care in the United States alone, when we can barely provide basic care for our children," he said.
The term "intensive care" in the last sentence is inaccurate in many–perhaps most–cases, since the vast majority of such patients are not hooked up to "machines" in the ICUs of hospitals–at least in the long term–but already receive skilled nursing or in-home care rather than remaining in hospital. Moreover, quite a few don't even need respirators, just food and water, warmth–and hey, how about a little love–like Terri Schiavo's family wanted to give her.
But to Caplan's last point: If we "shouldn't" have these patients draining our finances, what should be done to prevent it, particularly since we don't permanently maintain most of these patients in ICUs now? Sounds like implied death panel talk to me!
Source: National Review
The head of a conservative student organization at DePaul University has been sanctioned by the university and could be expelled after he released the names of vandals who destroyed a pro-life flag display.
Kristopher Del Campo, the chairman of the Young Americans for Freedom chapter, was found guilty by the university on two counts – "Disorderly, Violent, Intimidating or Dangerous Behavior to Self or Others" and "Judicial Process Compliance."
The charges were a result of posting a copy of the university's incident report on the YAF's website. Click here to read the posting.
DePaul University did not return calls seeking comment.
Last January Del Campo and other pro-life students received permission from the university to erect a pro-life display featuring 500 flags. Vandals later destroyed the display – stuffing a number of the flags into trash cans.
The university's public safety department launched an investigation and eventually identified 13 students who confessed to the crime. Those names were then released by the university to Del Campo.
On Feb. 5 the national Young Americans for Freedom organization posted the names of the vandals on their website. The posting generated negative comments directed at the vandals – and the university held Del Campo responsible.
Three days later, Del Campo was informed that he had violated DePaul's Code of Student Responsibility. He was formally charged ten days later.
"Instead of supporting a student whose free speech rights were violated, DePaul University bullied Kristopher Del Campo for daring to expose the 13 vandals," said Young America's Foundation President Ron Robinson. "They put him through a Soviet-style show trial."
Free speech and conservative groups said they are shocked that the university is punishing the victim of a crime.
"Simply publishing the names of the students who confessed to vandalizing YAF's display does not place them at 'substantial risk of physical harm," wrote Pete Bonilla, of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education in a letter to the university's president.
"The 13 DePaul students named in the public safety report admitted not only to vandalizing YAF's display but also planning to do so," he wrote. "Students who purposefully vandalize the works of other students should not expect to be shielded from the public consequences of their actions."
According to an email obtained by Fox News, the dean of students warned Del Campo that he could ultimately be removed from the university.
"It is unfortunate that this incident is part of your educational career," wrote Dean of Students Art Munin. "Any further infractions of the Code of Student Responsibility during your probationary period may result in additional disciplinary action including removal from the university."
Del Campo, a 23-year-old psychology major, is about to graduate. He agreed to speak to Fox News knowing that he could face expulsion.
"I lost my dignity as a person," he told Fox News. "They told me I couldn't say anything and I had to keep all of this confidential."
Del Campo said he is speaking out because he doesn't want other conservatives to suffer through the ordeal he's been subjected to.
"The dean told me not to fight," he said. "He told me it wasn't worth it – that I just have 13 weeks left at the university. But I'm going to fight this. This is wrong. This university has a problem with free speech rights and this time they met a challenger who is not backing down."
Kate Edwards, of YAF, said they are demanding that DePaul University drop all charges against Del Campo.
"His free speech rights were completely violated," she told Fox News. "They intimidated him. They threatened him. They placed a gag order on him."
Edwards said the university even forbade Del Campo from contacting YAF and was not allowed to have any counsel during his tribunal.
"He couldn't get a lawyer – he was completely intimidated," Edwards said.
Source: OneNewsNow
On February 22nd the Girl Scouts of America celebrated "World Thinking Day."
On "World Thinking Day," they earn badges for thinking about hunger or talking to a Peace Corps volunteer. They also "give thanks for" their membership in the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS), the creator of World Thinking Day. And to really show their thanks, they collect money to send it to WAGGGS. Parents, hold on to your pocketbooks!
A noted player on the international stage, WAGGGS is an ardent advocate for controversial social policies including abortion and sex rights for children. Girl Scouts USA is its single largest organizational funder. In fact, every American girl who joins a Girl Scout troop at her neighborhood church is made a de facto member of this radical group.
If you have not read about the plans, programs, and priorities of WAGGGS, you must do so today. I promise, it will give you something to think about.
Read about WAGGGS here:
http://www.100questionsforthegirlscouts.org/100/wagggs.cfm
http://www.girlscoutswhynot.com/WAGGGS.html
http://www.honestgirlscouts.com/files/HGS2011NatlConvFlyer.pdf
Source: FRCBlog
"Persistent vegetative state" is the only medical diagnosis I know of that contains a pejorative. No human being is a carrot. And the more we learn about these persistently unconscious patients, the more we seem to be discovering that they may not be "gone" after all. Now, a study shows that they may experience pain. From the New Scientist story:
IT IS a nightmare situation. A person diagnosed as being in a vegetative state has an operation without anesthetic because they cannot feel pain. Except, maybe they can. Alexandra Markl at the Sch̦n clinic in Bad Aibling, Germany, and colleagues studied people with unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS) Рalso known as vegetative state Рand identified activity in brain areas involved in the emotional aspects of pain.
Yikes. Some changes in care may be needed:
Nonetheless, Kotchoubey is confident that the way people with UWS are cared for will change, even if their diagnoses remain the same. "I know that many doctors working with such patients have been instructed to treat their patients as if they can understand them and perceive at least something in the environment, perhaps pain, pleasure, or emotion," he says.
But not all people are treated this way. Prior to the study, one of the people in Markl's study was given no anesthesia before a tracheotomy, which involves an incision in the neck to allow breathing without using the nose or mouth. As people with UWS are clinically considered unable to understand pain, doctors do not have to give an anesthetic.
Dehydrating to death over 14 days would also hurt. Terri Schiavo died that way without benefit of anesthesia, indeed, not even allowed ice chips on her lips. Her cruel case aside, don't expect the practice to stop. They will just be anesthetized while their bodies drain of fluids (some already are) or lethally injected.
Source: National Review
