Members of the Women's Coalition for Justice released the following statements in advance of the Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor beginning next Monday.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the Susan B. Anthony List, stated, "Women are best protected by the rule of law -- and blind justice. Their rights are most endangered when personal preference, ideology or painful personal history inform judgment. Susan B. Anthony and her early feminist compatriots fought for a human rights standard sustained only through blind justice. When evidence of personal preference appears in any Supreme Court nominee's judgment, it should give all women pause. Sonia Sotomayor's record of support for judicial activism and her work for the pro-abortion Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund offer little comfort that she will be a friend to the unborn on the Supreme Court. Given what we know about Sonia Sotomayor's own judicial philosophy, including her support of policymaking from the bench, senators have just cause to reject her appointment to the United States Supreme Court."
Genevieve Wood, Vice President of Strategic Initiatives, The Heritage Foundation, stated, "I am troubled by Judge Sotomayor's rejection of Justice O'Connor's favored adage that a wise old man would reach the same conclusion as a wise old woman. It is deeply offensive that she has suggested that the sexes and ethnicities 'have basic differences in logic and reasoning,' and even more offensive that she believes it is somehow patriotic to indulge in gender or ethnic biases. Her statements raise grave concerns about whether she can truly be impartial and the current defense that she simply endorses including different perspectives doesn't hold water. The Senators must ask challenging questions to determine whether she believes that a wise woman can reach the same conclusion as a wise man, or whether she intends to bring bias, as she has suggested, even to most cases."
Connie Mackey, Senior Vice President for FRCAction remarked, "I reject the admonition of Senator Chuck Schumer that opposing the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor will cause the Republican Party to lose women's vote permanently. I believe his crystal ball is cloudy when it comes to women in America. Women think independently and most women will see that Sonia Sotomayor is a judicial activist who will use the courts to make policy reflective of her own personal judgments as opposed to ruling based upon the tenets put forth by the Constitution. Her career as an activist is well-documented and disqualifies her from taking the 9th seat on the United States Supreme Court."
Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life remarked, "It's important for the American people to understand that the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court will dramatically shift the dynamics of the Court. Her record of activism in support of a radical pro-abortion agenda is clear and documented. This is a judge with a record significantly worse than Judge Souter's. We are asking the Senate Judiciary Committee to seriously consider the consequences of confirming a Supreme Court justice whose radical record shows she would rule against all common-sense legal protections for the unborn, including parental notification, informed consent and bans on partial-birth abortion. The American people will not tolerate a nominee who is outside the mainstream of American public opinion."
Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee stated, "Sonia Sotomayor's record reveals she lacks the primary characteristic required of a judge -- impartiality. She has used her position as a judge to deny equal justice to people based on their ethnicity. She worked with organizations that aggressively fought against common-sense regulations on abortion. Her flippant dismissal of cases and unwillingness to provide Constitutional reasoning for her decisions exposes her arrogance, disrespect for our judicial system and the people whose lives are dramatically impacted by her decisions. Through her work as a judge and in organizations, she has denied people equal opportunity to make a living because of the color of their skin, preborn babies their right to live, and women the right not to be exploited by abortionists. After giving her the benefit of the doubt, her record of giving preferences to certain classes of people and denying equal justice to others obliges Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee to oppose her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Sonia Sotomayor has disqualified herself from the U.S. Supreme Court. Senators need to set aside their party loyalty and do their Constitutional duty to uphold equal justice for all by opposing Sonia Sotomayor's nomination."
Contact: Joy Yearout Source: Susan B. Anthony List Publish Date: July 9, 2009 Link to this article. Send this article to a friend.
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) today filed an opening appeal brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a multi-million dollar fraud case against Planned Parenthood (PP) affiliates in California.
ACLJ is representing a federal whistleblower and former employee of the PP affiliate in Los Angeles who claims the affiliates illegally marked up the supposed cost of various birth control drugs when seeking government reimbursement, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of overbilling - at taxpayer expense.
The federal False Claims Act (FCA) forbids government contractors from submitting "false or fraudulent" claims for payment. The FCA also authorizes private individuals to bring suit against the offenders to recover the fraudulently obtained funds.
"No one should be permitted to scam the public treasury for profit," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. "The FCA was designed to remedy such illegal runs on taxpayer money."
When the former PP staffer sued the PP affiliates in federal court, charging the defendants with having fraudulently overbilled the state and federal governments in the amount of tens of millions of dollars, the prominent law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP began representing the PP defendants in the case for free. The Skadden attorneys asked the federal district court to dismiss the case on technical jurisdictional grounds.
The federal district court accepted the Skadden arguments in part, and dismissed the case. ACLJ attorneys then entered the case to handle the appeal.
"The basic question at this point is whether the former PP employee is a proper whistleblower under the False Claims Act," said Sekulow. "The answer is 'Yes.'
"The ACLJ brief dissects and refutes the arguments of PP's attorneys point by point, explaining why the court of appeals should reverse the lower court's judgment and reinstate the lawsuit."
President Obama has called for federal funds to the Title X familly planning program, which subsidizes Planned Parenthood, to be increased by $10 million to a total of $317 million.
Click here to read the ACLJ brief.
Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: July 8, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Justice discusses 'growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of'
In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."
Her remarks, set to be published in the New York Times Magazine this Sunday but viewable online now, came in an in-depth interview with Emily Bazelon titled, "The Place of Women on the Court."
The 16-year veteran of the high court was asked if she were a lawyer again, what would she "want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda."
Abortionists admit killing babies, call it 'absolute evil.' Get the culture-war classic 'The Marketing of Evil' – autographed – $4.95 today only!
Ginsburg responded:
Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don't know why this hasn't been said more often.
Question: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
Ginsburg: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae – in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn't really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
When pressed to explain what she meant by reproductive rights needing to be straightened out, Ginsburg said, "The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman."
Asked if that meant getting rid of the test the court imposed, in which it allows states to impose restrictions on abortion such as a waiting period, the justice said she was "not a big fan of these tests."
I think the court uses them as a label that accommodates the result it wants to reach. It will be, it should be, that this is a woman's decision. It's entirely appropriate to say it has to be an informed decision, but that doesn't mean you can keep a woman overnight who has traveled a great distance to get to the clinic, so that she has to go to some motel and think it over for 24 hours or 48 hours.
I still think, although I was much too optimistic in the early days, that the possibility of stopping a pregnancy very early is significant. The morning-after pill will become more accessible and easier to take. So I think the side that wants to take the choice away from women and give it to the state, they're fighting a losing battle. Time is on the side of change.
Actual artist rendition of
Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg
asleep during a hearing in 2006
Three years ago, Ginsburg received some embarrassing national attention when she napped on the bench during a court hearing.
"Justices David Souter and Samuel Alito, who flank the 72-year-old, looked at her but did not give her a nudge," reported Gina Holland of the Associated Press.
The incident caught the attention of Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, who said:
"At first, she appeared to be reading something in her lap. But after a while, it became clear: Ginsburg was napping on the bench. By Bloomberg News's reckoning – not denied by a court spokeswoman – Ginsburg's snooze lasted a quarter of an hour.
"It's lucky for Ginsburg that the Supreme Court has so far refused to allow television in the courtroom, for her visit to the land of nod would have found its way onto late-night shows."
Source: WorldNetDaily Publish Date: July 8, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has given embryonic stem-cell researchers the green light to apply for federal funding of their work with minimal restrictions under new guidelines that took effect July 7. However, the NIH rejected the overwhelming public input expressing concerns over the morally questionable research, which thus far has failed to yield any beneficial therapies, unlike adult stem-cells.
In a press release, the NIH states that the new guidelines "will ensure that NIH-funded research in this area is ethically responsible, scientifically worthy, and conducted in accordance with applicable law."
The NIH directives were a response to President Barack Obama's Executive Order (EO) 13505 that rescinded an earlier executive order from the Bush administration in 2001. That order prohibited federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, except for those stem-cell lines already in existence, and mandated voluntary informed consent without financial incentives on the part of the parents of human embryos.
Under the current NIH regulations, "voluntary and informed consent" on the part of the individuals donating their embryonic offspring becomes the overriding ethical principle, along with the specification that stem-cells derived from human embryos must have been created originally for "reproductive purposes" through in vitro fertilization (IVF) and not for the sake of scientific research. The NIH guidelines state that individuals donating their human embryos to research must give "voluntary written consent" without payment of any kind, and must be informed of the available options at the IVF facility.
However, outrage has erupted on other corners over the NIH dismissal of a public review of the draft of guidelines, as nearly 60 percent of respondents had vocalized their dismay with the decision to fund embryo-destroying stem cell research with taxpayer money. These ethical and moral concerns, however, were not taken into account.
Catholic News Service reports that approximately 30,000 out of 48,955 comments on the National Institutes of Health's draft guidelines expressed opposition to the federal funding of such research. NIH dismissed these concerns on the basis that they were "deemed not responsive to the question put forth."
"We did not ask them whether to fund such funding, but how it should be funded," asserted Dr. Raynard S. Kington, acting director of NIH, in a July 6 telephone briefing with the media.
"The comments of tens of thousands of Americans opposing the destruction of innocent human life for stem cell research were simply ignored in this process," objected Cardinal Justin Rigali, Chairman of the U.S. Catholic bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities in a statement. "Even comments filed by the Catholic bishops' conference and others against specific abuses in the draft guidelines were not addressed."
Rigali points out that the NIH failed to eliminate specific abuses for what scientists do with the embryonic stem cells once they have obtained them. Although Sec. IV prohibits the introduction of human embryonic stem-cells into "primates," that does not close the door on scientists looking to develop other "chimeras" or admixed inter-species embryos. It only prohibits their "breeding."
"For example, federally funded researchers will be allowed to insert human embryonic stem cells into the embryos of animal species other than primates; federal grants will be available even to researchers who themselves destroyed human embryos to obtain the stem cells for their research," protested Rigali. "Existing federal law against funding research in which human embryos are harmed or destroyed is not given due respect here."
Although human embryos are admittedly destroyed by extracting their stem-cells, the NIH stated that the annual appropriations ban on human embryo research, sec. 509, the Dickey Amendment, has consistently been interpreted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HSS) "as not applicable to research using hESCs, because hESCs are not embryos as defined by Section 509." The NIH points out that Congress has not challenged this interpretation since the HHS began funding ESC research in 2001.
The NIH states that IVF doctors and stem-cell researchers "should be different individuals" in order that donors remain free from undue influence, but that distinction will be just encouraged, not mandated under the guidelines, as the NIH predicted that in some cases "separation was not practicable."
Prospective donors would also have to be informed that their embryos would be used to obtain their stem-cells for research, their embryos would be destroyed, that they could impart no restriction as to how their embryos were to be used or for whom they were used, and that they would not receive any direct medical benefit, or commercial benefit from the donation.
In substance, the final guidelines from the NIH have minimal differences from the draft proposed earlier in April, and pro-life advocates have criticized them saying the human beings most effected - and least taken into account - by these guidelines are the human embryos themselves.
"The Obama Administration today slides further down the slippery slope of exploiting non-consenting members of the human species - human embryos," stated Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).
Johnson pointed out that while the NIH will not fund the deliberate creation of human embryos specifically for research, "This seeming restraint is part of an incremental strategy intended to desensitize the public to the concept of killing human embryos for research purposes."
Johnson stated the NRLC believes a "bait and switch" strategy is already in the works, whereby Congress will codify and extend the boundaries of stem-cell research in legislation that exceeds the scope of the two bills on embryonic stem-cell research bills that were both vetoed by President Bush in 2006 and 2007. Such a bill, NRLC contends, would include the creation of human embryo farms with embryos created or cloned specifically for research purposes.
Contact: Peter J. Smith Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: July 8, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Disclaimer: The linked items below or the websites at which they are located do not necessarily represent the views of The Illinois Federation for Right to Life. They are presented only for your information.
RU486 and the Nazi connection
I have been looking at a few things that might be of interest concerning the connection between the RU-486 human insecticide and the trail it leads to the concentration camps gas Zyklon B. I know a lot of things have been implied about there being a connection, but I really want to define the connection for readers with the hope that others will wake up and see that once a company has trodden the path of human extermination, it doesn't take much to compel them down that path again. Maybe, just by chance, the hearts of a few will be pricked by the idea that this new "miracle drug" is nothing different than the old "miracle drug" that Zyklon B was to the Nazis.
Click here for the full article.
Catholic Church Offers $100,000 Stem Cells Grant
Hoping to contribute to the end of the use of embryos in research, the Catholic Church is offering a $100,000 grant for research into the medical use of adult stem cells. The Sydney Archdiocese announced the grant on Wednesday, saying it is still vehemently opposed to embryonic stem cell research but approves of the use of adult stem cells. Sydney Archbishop Cardinal George Pell says adult stem cells can already be used in the treatment of heart and liver disease.
Click here for the full article.
Couple to Face Committal Over Abortion
A young woman charged with procuring her own miscarriage will face a committal hearing alongside her boyfriend in September. Tegan Simone Leach, 19, of Cairns, became the first woman to be charged with the offence in half a century after using a smuggled pill to abort her foetus. Her boyfriend, Sergie Brennan, 21, is charged with attempting to procure and supply drugs to procuring an abortion. Cairns Magistrates Court on Wednesday set the matter down for a committal hearing on September 3. Pro-choice advocates have blasted the decision to charge the couple, saying it's an unprecedented breach of the rights of women.
Click here for the full article.
La. Governor Signs Refusal of `Deadly Health Care' Bill
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has signed into law a bill that protects doctors, nurses and pharmacists who refuse to provide health care on religious or moral grounds. The new law will shield health providers from civil or criminal penalties, job loss or demotion because they refuse to provide certain services. That includes abortion, certain types of emergency contraception, human embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia. Supporters of the bill said health providers shouldn't face retaliation from their [baby killer] employers if they refuse to perform care that violates their religious beliefs.
Click here for the full article.
Abortion Could Prove Divisive For Health Reform, Too
An ultimatum against using federal money for abortion procedures could reopen the politically treacherous rift over the issue, creating yet another obstacle for congressional Democrats to overcome if they are to achieve their health reform goals, Time reports. "While current versions of the [health reform] legislation do not address the abortion issue at all, late last month 19 anti-abortion Democrats in the House sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, warning 'we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan.'"
Click here for the full article.
Euthanasia bill fails in Britain Parliament
The Falconer Amendment would have permitted physicians, under certain criteria, to help disabled and terminally ill patients commit suicide. The amendment was powerfully opposed by Baroness Sue Campbell, who suffers from spinal muscular atrophy. She told members of Parliament that approval would send the wrong signal and instill a sense of fear in those who are disabled and those who face death from illness.
In a press release, Paul Tully, general secretary for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, urged the Voluntary Euthanasia Society -- now called Dignity in Dying -- to drop its parliamentary campaign in the measure's defeat. He calls it offensive to disabled people and their caregivers.
Click here for the full article.
Guidelines for federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research offer incentives for experiments that end human life and have not successfully treated disease.
The Obama administration's final guidelines for federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research do more than remove a small protection for living human embryos.
They actually encourage scientists to destroy preborn human life, courtesy of $10 billion in federal stimulus money designated for biomedical research, including embryonic stem-cell trials.
"The regulations virtually guarantee that many more living human embryos will be destroyed for research," said Carrie Gordon Earll, senior bioethics analyst for Focus on the Family. "This policy also creates a tax-dollar incentive for scientists to destroy human embryos."
The regulations, issued under the auspices of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), represent the fulfillment of President Barack Obama's March executive order to overturn a Bush administration policy that limited the number of stem-cell lines that could be used in federally funded experiments. Bush's order did not allow taxpayer money to be used on stem cell lines created after Aug. 9, 2001, removing the incentive to destroy additional embryos for government funded research.
That meant existing embryos created by couples through in-vitro fertilization were off-limits to federally funded researchers.
Tim Goeglein, a former Bush aide who now serves as Focus on the Family's vice president of external affairs, called Obama's reversal of the Bush policy "one of the most important domestic, political and policy changes between the two administrations."
"It is a remarkable contrast on the question on the centrality of human life," he said. "It is immoral to have taxpayers funding research that actually requires the destruction of human embryos."
Particularly troubling is that embryonic stem cells have not cured or successfully treated a single patient. By contrast, non-embryonic (or adult) stem cells are readily available in sources such as bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, the pancreas and brain, and no lives are lost in the collection process.
Currently, more than 70 identified diseases and disabilities are treatable using non-embryonic stem cells, including breast cancer, leukemia and sickle cell anemia. Researchers also have successfully treated patients with Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, heart damage and spinal cord injuries using non-embryonic stem cell sources.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, called the NIH guidelines "poor science" and "bad health-care policy."
"The guidelines implement a plan that will force taxpayers to foot the bill for research that involves human destruction, not healing," he said.
Earll pointed out that another tragedy of the policy is that it doesn't require couples be informed of all the options available to them when making a decision about what to do with their embryos, including the ability to "adopt the embryos to another pregnancy-challenged couple."
For that and many other reasons, Goeglein said, "this is a sad and disappointing decision."
"The greatness of the pro-life movement is that it upholds the standards of the moral levees that hold together a culture rooted in human dignity," he noted. "What this policy does is wrong. And we should say that.
"All of us, at one point, were human embryos. Embryos are a central part to human dignity and worth."
Contact: Gary Schneeberger Source: CitizenLink Publish Date: July 7, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
The Population Research Institute (PRI) is turning up the heat on the Obama administration for handing $50 million to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) with news of yet another investigation confirming the UN group's complicity in China's coercive birth control policies.
In March and May of 2009, PRI carried out two separate investigations, covering 6 UNFPA "model counties." These are counties where the UNFPA claim that their efforts have "removed birth targets and quotas and introduced a quality-of-care approach" - a claim the investigators call "outrageous."
PRI investigator Colin Mason and President Steven Mosher say they found that not only do coercive measures remain in force, but the situation is in some ways worse than in previous years, when an original investigation prompted the Bush administration to halt the UNFPA's U.S. taxpayer funding.
"We put boots on the ground, and found that the UNFPA's claim that it 'played a catalytic role in introducing a voluntary reproductive health approach in China' was patently absurd," said Mason. "The policy is just as coercive in these areas as anywhere else."
"Women continue to be arrested for the crime of being pregnant," said Steven Mosher. "They continue to be forcibly aborted. Minorities continue to be targeted. The handicapped are forbidden children. These violations of human rights are occurring right under the UNFPA's nose. It is ludicrous to suggest that the UN population controllers do not know about them."
In 2001, PRI submitted an exposé of the UNFPA's activities in China to the U.S. State Department. President Bush responded by sending State Department delegates on a second investigation. Although the team was welcomed and escorted by the Chinese government, the officials concluded that the UNFPA was in fact complicit in China's coercive birth control policies, and foreign aid funds were cut off from the UNFPA in 2002.
However, days after taking office in January, President Obama announced he would resume funding of the UNFPA without commenting on the investigations.
According to U.S. law, known as the Kemp-Kasten amendment, no taxpayer funds may go to an organization that supports coercive birth control. When the UNFPA was allotted $50 million in this year's omnibus appropriations bill, a clause was included that specifically insulated the UNFPA from the Kemp-Kasten prohibition.
The bill explicitly prohibited the sum from funding programs in China; however, there is no evidence that the UNFPA's monies are not fungible, and could therefore be used to free up other funds for use in China. In addition, the Kemp-Kasten amendment prohibits funds from going to organizations that support such programs, rather than prohibiting the programs themselves.
"United States law is clear: our tax dollars are not to be used to fund forced abortion or coercive measures overseas," said Mosher. "Yet it is equally clear that the UNFPA is involved in precisely what the law forbids.
"We call for Congress to recognize, even if the President will not, that funding for the UNFPA is de facto funding for coercive family planning in China. Such funding should be suspended immediately."
Mosher told LifeSiteNews.com in an interview today that he heard the accounts of human rights abuse from residents of three of the UNFPA's "model" counties in May: Fengning Manchu Autonomous County, Luan County, and Wenshui County. In Fengning, Mosher spoke to several Manchus who confirmed that "heavy fines and forced abortions are the order of the day."
PRI says that the UNFPA counties also facilitate the eugenic goals of the Chinese government. Mosher recounted his meeting with a mute woman in Luan county whom the investigative team learned had been forcibly sterilized.
"She was very intelligent, and very friendly, and among the most vivacious people I met while I was in China - she communicated by hand gestures," he said. "Then we came to the subject of children, and she had been sterilized, because she was mute. And what people don't realize about China's one-child policy is that it's also a eugenic policy. ...
"Handicapped babies are killed at birth; if a person with a handicap applies to marry, they may be given permission to marry, but they first have to undergo sterilization. So China doesn't want any children from people born with even minor handicaps."
Mosher said that a report on the latest investigation would be completed this week and sent to several officials with the Obama administration, who have not responded to PRI's investigation in March of similar "model" UNFPA counties in China.
Mosher expressed frustration at Obama's willingness to take the UNFPA's own claims "at face value," in stark contrast to the Bush administration's reaction in 2001.
"If they don't believe us, [the administration] should take a look for themselves," he said.
Contact: Kathleen Gilbert Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: July 7, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
The National Institutes of Health issued final guidelines on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research Monday that largely mirror an earlier draft, although it left a loophole that pro-lifers say could lead to ethical abuses, conflicts of interest and manipulation of infertile couples.
As expected, the regulations -- ordered March 9 by President Obama -- restrict federal grants for research to embryos that are 1) produced by in vitro fertilization for reproductive purposes, and 2) that are donated by couples who no longer want them and voluntarily provide their written consent. Stem cell lines eligible under President Bush also can receive funding.
Draft guidelines were issued in mid-April, beginning a period for public comment. Of the 49,000 comments received, approximately 30,000 expressed opposition to federal funding, the NIH said.
The guidelines also make clear that stem cells derived from therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, are not eligible for federal funds -- a stance that pro-lifers applauded.
But those same pro-lifers expressed concern that the NIH guidelines fail to require that the fertility doctor and the embryonic stem cell researcher be different people. In other words, the fertility doctor who derives the embryos can, by law, also wear the coat of embryonic stem cell researcher.
"As a general matter, the NIH believes that the doctor and the researcher seeking donation should be different individuals," the NIH said in its July 6 report. "However, this is not always possible, nor is it required, in the NIH's view, for ethical donation."
Pro-lifers, though, disagreed, arguing that a researcher who doubles as a fertility doctor will have a natural desire for more embryos in the lab -- and thus may lead infertile couples to create far more embryos than needed.
"The guidelines purport to have tight informed consent requirements, but don't even require the IVF doctor and the stem cell researcher to be separate persons, opening a gaping loophole for researchers to increase embryo production for their own purposes," Tony Perkins, president of the pro-life Family Research Council, said in a statement.
Embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of the days-old human being and has yet to lead to any cures, even in the private sector. Critics argue that federal money would be better spent on adult stem cell research -- which does not involve embryos and has led to treatments for 73 ailments, supporters say -- and to induced pluripotent stem cell (iPS) research, a growing field whereby skin cells are reprogrammed into an embryonic-like state. Pro-lifers support both alternatives. "Dr. Oz" of Oprah fame told a nationwide TV audience he believes the "stem cell debate is dead" because of the promise of iPS research.
The NIH's final guidelines accompanied a transcript of all 49,000 comments and NIH's response to the most common comments.
Some commenters, NIH said, worried that couples could be paid for their embryos. To that, the NIH said it revised the guidelines "to state that there should be documentation that 'no payments, cash or in kind, were offered for the donated embryos.'"
On the other end of the ideological spectrum, some commenters suggested that the NIH broaden its guidelines so as to allow federal funding of stem cells "created expressly for research purposes" -- such as from therapeutic cloning.
"The Guidelines reflect the broad public support for federal funding of research using hESCs [human embryonic stem cells] created from such embryos based on wide and diverse debate on the topic in Congress and elsewhere," NIH said. "The use of additional sources of human pluripotent stem cells proposed by the respondents involve complex ethical and scientific issues on which a similar consensus has not emerged."
Therapeutic cloning, NIH said, requires women to donate eggs, "a procedure that has health and ethical implications, including the health risk to the donor from the course of hormonal treatments."
Although pro-lifers were thankful therapeutic cloning won't be funded for the moment, they were quick to note that NIH didn't completely rule it out for future funding.
On other matters, the final guidelines make clear that an infertile couple who gives informed consent can change their mind and "withdraw consent," provided the embryos can still be traced.
Perkins said the guidelines are full of problems.
"Embryonic stem cell research requires dissecting and commoditizing the youngest, most vulnerable humans," he said. "The new guidelines demanded by the President promote poor science, reflect bad health care policy, and do nothing to fund treatments with adult stem cells that are providing documented benefits for suffering patients. The guidelines implement a plan that will force taxpayers to foot the bill for research that involves human destruction, not healing."
Obama's March order overturned the policy by President Bush, which permitted federal grants for experiments on embryonic stem cell lines, or colonies, already in existence prior to his August 2001 order, while prohibiting research on any lines created after his order. Unlimited private funding was allowed to continue. Later in his administration Bush also signed orders providing federal funds for non-embryonic stem cell research.
Contact: Michael Foust Source: BP
Publish Date: July 7, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
There is much advocacy around the issue of cost containment as we enter the great debate over health care "reform." Here is the gig that seems to be developing:
* We have to cut costs.
* People having their lives extended when they can't be "healed" cost too much.
* They should choose hospice or refuse treatment.
* If they won't make the right choice, it is now often hinted (while not stated explicitly), we will.
An article called "Reform Health Care Now: End of Life Costs are Too High", by Russell Kirk, MD, seems to follow that road map. From the article:
This same scenario is played out again and again: A situation is more or less hopeless but gets dragged out for weeks, months and sometimes years. It seems as though the patient's quality of life takes a backseat to treating the problem at hand. More to the point, most family members don't consider the staggering costs of end-of-life care since Medicare covers many people who end up in this situation. In a report issued in April, Dartmouth researchers found that total Medicare spending in the last two years of life ranges from an average of $53,432 for patients treated at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota to $93,842 for those at the U.C.L.A. Medical Center in Los Angeles.
What's the alternative? No clear answer has emerged, but almost everyone agrees that we have to figure out how to manage end-of-life care in a more cost-effective way as the baby boomers age. And we need to distinguish between care that prolongs life and care that actually heals the sick. For example, one option for cancer patients when it's clear the disease is terminal is to utilize hospice care.
I am all for hospice care and refusing unwanted ICU–if that is what the patient wants. As long time readers know, I have been a hospice volunteer. My dad died of colon cancer receiving hospice as have other relatives and very close friends. But here's the thing: Once we say that a life is not worth preserving based on costs, we have instituted explicit rationing and created a duty to die.
The doctor then talks about a "well thought out plan" for end of life care and the signing of advance directives. Again, I'm all for it, but recall that there are many forces wanting to give faceless bioethics committees the right to veto your desires–even if set in writing. I suspect the good doctor would, too.
One final point: This article was linked and promoted at the assisted suicide advocacy group Compassion and Choices, and that set off alarm bells. Assisted suicide is the elephant in the living room of health care reform that Kirk ignored. But the fact that C and C lauded the article means that the money issue is coming to the fore in assisted suicide advocacy, just as I always predicted it would. I mean think of all the money to be saved if instead of hospice or an extended time of debilitation we could give the patient a lethal jab or a poison brew! Indeed, it's already happening: Recall, in Oregon, Medicaid has refused life-extending treatment to cancer patients but explicitly offered to pay for assisted suicide. Not that assisted suicide will become the cornerstone of health care reform. But make no mistake: It is the monster lurking in the shadows that we ignore at all our peril.
So, here's the gig as I see it developing: In the new health care order, "choice" will be sacrosanct if the choice is death–either naturally or by lethal means. But if the choice is is to go on living–at a certain point "choice" will cease to be operative because you will have become unwanted ballast. Eventually, that could even mean non voluntary euthanasia as now occurs with regularity in the Netherlands.
Contact: Wesley J. Smith Source: Secondhand Smoke Publish Date: July 7, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Offering brochures on pro-life alternatives to abortion may appear a safe enough act, but for one Arizona sidewalk counselor, the message of "no thanks" instead came through a drawn handgun allegedly held by a man determined that his girlfriend would get an abortion.
Local Phoenix station 3TV reported that a pro-life woman was offering literature on abortion alternatives to a man who had taken his girlfriend to the Planned Parenthood facility near Seventh and Campbell avenues, when suddenly the man pulled out a pistol, pointed the weapon at the woman for a few moments, and then drove away.
Lt. Larry T. Jacobs stated that Phoenix police were able to track the man down through the license plate number written down by the side-walk counselor, and arrest him.
The incident follows just a week after a man in Chico, California, had been arrested for allegedly attempting to run down an abortion protestor with his SUV near the local Planned Parenthood facility. The Chico Enterprise Record reports that Matthew Haver, 40, had become enraged with veteran pro-life advocate James Cantfield, 69, after Haver's two children sitting in the back of the vehicle pointed at Cantfield's sign and asked their father to explain the sign's prominent image of an aborted baby.
Police later arrested Haver at his home; he was later admitted to the hospital for an unexplained medical condition. As of Friday authorities had not decided whether to charge Haver with a crime.
However the minimal attention given to the acts of violence in the mainstream media has prompted pro-life advocates to point out the disparity in coverage of pro-abortion and anti-abortion violence.
"I think this proves all pro-aborts entering [Planned Parenthoods] are prone to violence against postborns as well as preborns and should be placed on Janet Napolitano's domestic terrorist watch list," stated pro-life advocate Jill Stanek on her blog, dryly noting the double standard applied to pro-life advocates.
Stanek was recently accused on national television of inciting the murder of abortionists by MSNBC host Keith Olbermann and subsequently received death threats.
Stanek also pointed out that the lackluster coverage of the incident omitted important information, such as that this particular Planned Parenthood had been exposed along with another Phoenix Planned Parenthood about four months ago as willing to cover up statutory rape by undercover pro-life journalist Lila Rose.
Rose's documented exposé on the abortion clinic's willingness to violate mandatory reporting laws for sexual abuse of minors and provide clandestine abortions provoked the state attorney general to order an investigation.
Contact: Peter J. Smith Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: July 6, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
On July 6, 2009, Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney circulated a "Dear Colleague" letter in which she invited cosponsorship of the "Equal Rights Amendment" (ERA), sometimes referred to as the "Women's Equality Amendment," which she apparently intends to re-introduce soon.
Rep. Maloney's resolution would add to the Constitution the following amendment: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. This Amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."
Congress proposed the same language to the states in 1972, with a seven-year ratification deadline. The deadline passed without ratification by the required number of states. Congresswoman Maloney apparently does not intend to attach any deadline for ratification to her new resolution.
THE ERA-ABORTION CONNECTION
Leading pro-abortion groups – including NARAL, the ACLU, and Planned Parenthood -- have strongly urged state courts to construe state ERAs to require tax-funded abortion on demand, and state ERAs have been so construed in New Mexico and Connecticut.
The proposed federal constitutional amendment is very similar to the language of the ERA which New Mexico added to its state constitution in 1973, which says, "Equality of rights under law shall not be denied on account of the sex of any person." On November 25, 1998, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled 5-0 that such language prohibits the state from restricting abortion differently from "medically necessary procedures" sought by men, and the court ordered the state to pay for elective abortions under the state's Medicaid program. (NM Right to Choose / NARAL v. Johnson, No. 1999-NMSC-005)
In its ruling, the court adopted the construction of the ERA urged in the case by Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, the ACLU, the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, and the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. The doctrine that the ERA language invalidates limitations on tax-funded abortion was also supported in briefs filed by the state Women's Bar Association, Public Health Association, and League of Women Voters.
These briefs, and a court's agreement with their argument, should not come as any surprise to knowledgeable observers. During the 1970s and 1980s, many pro-ERA advocates insisted that there was "no connection" between ERAs and abortion, but NRLC warned otherwise. As we predicted, pro-abortion advocacy groups have increasingly employed the ERA-abortion argument in state courts, and in New Mexico we saw the devastating result of enacting an ERA that does not include explicit abortion-neutral language.
Once a court adopts the legal doctrine that a law targeting abortion is by definition a form of discrimination based on sex, and therefore impermissible under an ERA, the same doctrine would invalidate virtually any limitation on abortion. For example, under this doctrine, the proposed federal ERA would invalidate the federal Hyde Amendment and all state restrictions on tax-funded abortions. Likewise, it would nullify any federal or state restrictions even on partial-birth abortions or third-trimester abortions (since these are sought only by women). Also vulnerable would be federal and state "conscience laws," which allow government-supported medical facilities and personnel -- including religiously affiliated hospitals -- to refuse to participate in abortions. Moreover, the ACLU's "Reproductive Freedom Project" published a booklet that encourages pro-abortion litigators to use state ERAs as legal weapons against state parental notification and parental consent laws.
THE REMEDY: AN ABORTION-NEUTRAL AMENDMENT
All of the pernicious results outlined above could be avoided if the following "abortion-neutral-amendment" -- originally proposed by Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner in 1983 -- is added:
"Nothing in this Article [the ERA] shall be construed to grant, secure, or deny any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof."
This proposed revision would not change the current legal status of abortion, nor would it permit the ERA itself to be employed for anti-abortion purposes. Rather, the revision would simply make the ERA itself neutral regarding abortion policy.
REGARDING THE THEORY THAT THE ORIGINAL 1972 ERA IS STILL ALIVE BEFORE THE STATES ("THREE-STATE STRATEGY")
Curiously, at the same time they are urging Congress to approve a new federal ERA resolution, many ERA proponents insist that the ERA that Congress approved in 1972 is still eligible for ratification by state legislatures. They also insist that only three more ratifications are needed to make the 1972 resolution part of the Constitution. The legal reasoning behind this "three-state strategy," originally set forth in 1994, is quite unpersuasive -- so much so, that not a single state legislature has passed a ratification resolution in the 15 years since the theory was concocted.
Based on Rep. Maloney's July 6 letter, we can only conclude that she must be doubtful about the notion that the 1972 ERA is still alive before the state legislatures. In fact, Rep. Maloney's letter acknowledges that "the deadline passed" on the 1972 ERA without ratification being achieved, and she adds, "We believe Congress should give the states another chance" (i.e., by proposing a her new, no-deadline ERA resolution to the states). It would not make much sense for Congress to begin the entire constitutional amendment process over again from square one, if the identical language really was still pending and available for ratification before the state legislatures.
Source: NRLC
Publish Date: July 7, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Disclaimer: The linked items below or the websites at which they are located do not necessarily represent the views of The Illinois Federation for Right to Life. They are presented only for your information.
Obama's Embryonic Stem Cell Rules Turn Americans Into `Cannibals'
"The United States once stood for equality and justice, based on the dignity of the human person – the basic building block of our society. Yet, today our country has taken another huge step backward, as it embraces ever-worsening dehumanization. The Obama administration's new embryonic stem cell research guidelines mark a new low in our government's tax-funded and imposed culture of death. The nation's most vulnerable human beings are now being torn apart for research and treated as leftover table scraps that need to be recycled. The new rules confirm, in black and white, that human beings created in the laboratory by in vitro fertilization, are now considered mere products that, if `no longer needed,' `left over' or destined to be `thrown away,' can also be destroyed in a laboratory."
Click here for the full article.
Appropriations Bill Could `Eliminate DC Funding Ban for Abortion'
The federal appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2010 includes several items that would end funding bans affecting several different issues in Washington, DC. If passed in its current form, the bill would eliminate a prohibition on using DC-raised monies for abortion, would end a ban that prohibits the use of federal funds for registration of domestic partners in the District, and would end a federal funding ban on needle exchange programs in DC. Another provision would allow DC to conduct a referendum on the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
Click here for the full article.
Obama, Democratic Congressional Leaders Push "Health Care Reform" Bills That Mandate Abortion Funding and Nullify State Abortion Laws
Lots and lots and lots going on today, so let me get right to it. Let me first thank all who wrote about yesterday's TN&V, the topic of which was pro-life Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
The numerous hit-jobs needed a response, and I tried my best. If you have a chance, go to www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24606.html. It is the finest rebuttal of the venomous nonsense spewed out against Palin that I've read. (And I've read a lot of 'em!)
I've attached a link to the latest from NRLC concerning the attempt by pro-abortion President Obama and the equally pro-abortion Democratic leadership in the House and Senate "to smuggle into federal law sweeping expansions of access to abortion on demand, including federal funding of abortion, through 'health care reform' legislation.'"
Click here for the full article.
Media Utter Inability to Report Assisted Suicide Stories Accurately
The media everywhere can't–or won't–report assisted suicide-related stories accurately. Example: Most stories still report that Jack Kevorkian assisted the suicides of the terminally ill when 70 percent or so of his victims were not terminally ill and five had no illnesses upon their autopsies.
The same thing happens in Australia. In August 2001, I traveled to Australia to bust Philip Nitschke for arguing that "troubled teens" should have access to assisted suicide. It created a national media firestorm with television reporters chasing me down for interviews at restaurants. At first, he admitted it: After all, he had said that explicitly in an interview with Kathryn Jean Lopez over at NRO. Then, he turned on a dime and denied it: Rather than point out his different stories, the media simply pretended his lie settled the matter despite the evidence to the contrary in black and white.
Click here for the full article.
Pro-Life Ireland Unites Against Threat of Abortion from London, UN and EU
An organizer of a massive pro-life rally in Dublin says she and the other key figures were "jubilant" at the turn-out of seven thousand people on Saturday. Bernadette Smyth, Director of Belfast's Precious Life, also told LifeSiteNews.com that pro-life leaders in Ireland are especially encouraged by a growing cooperation between North and South in the pro-life movement in Ireland.
A major breakthrough of the pro-life campaigns in all of Ireland, she said, has been the growing awareness that if legalized abortion is forced into Northern Ireland, it will be effectively made available in the Republic of Ireland as well.
The All-Ireland Rally for Life was organized by a cross-border coalition of pro-life groups such as Youth Defence, the Life Institute, and Precious Life.
Smyth told LSN, "If abortion becomes legal in the north, it becomes legal in the south. It's only a car journey across the border. Irish children will die regardless of whether it is in the north or the south."
Click here for the full article.
Woman Charged For Using Abortion Pill
A young woman charged with procuring her own miscarriage will face a committal hearing alongside her boyfriend in September. Tegan Simone Leach, 19, of Cairns, became the first woman to be charged with the offence in half a century after using a smuggled pill to abort her foetus. Her boyfriend, Sergie Brennan, 21, is charged with attempting to procure and supply drugs to procuring an abortion. Pro-choice advocates have blasted the decision to charge the couple, saying it's an unprecedented breach of the rights of women.
Click here for the full article.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has released its final guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research. The rules allow the funding of research which uses stem cells harvested from fertility clinic embryos and also outline informed consent standards for women or couples who donate their embryos.
The guidelines, which implement a March 9 executive order issued by President Barack Obama, become effective July 7.
Msgr. David Malloy, General Secretary of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), has been critical of the NIH rules. In a May commentary on the guidelines, he said the rules were "broader or more permissive" than any previous research policy in key respects.
He also insisted it was a human right not to be subjected to harmful experimentation.
"As the President noted," Msgr. Malloy said, "we must not make 'a false choice between sound science and moral values.' In fact, these sources of guidance both point in the same direction, away from destructive embryonic stem cell research. His executive order and these Guidelines nonetheless insist on a course of action that is both morally objectionable and, increasingly, scientifically obsolete."
"This is not merely a political or ideological problem, or a problem of religious dogma, but a deeply human problem: We are testing the limits of our obligation to treat all fellow human beings, of every age and condition, with basic respect," Msgr. Malloy wrote.
There was doubt about whether the new NIH requirements for informed consent would have disqualified some existing stem cell lines, the Associated Press says. The NIH now requires documentation of voluntary informed consent from a woman or couple who donate the original embryo. They must have been told of other options for "leftover" embryos, such as donating to another infertile woman.
The NIH designed a compromise which deems old stem cell lines eligible for government research dollars if scientists can prove they met the spirit of the new ethics standards.
An NIH registry will list all cell lines that qualify.
Acting NIH Director Raynard Kington portrayed the informed consent guidelines as a "reasonable compromise" which will achieve President Obama's stated goal of "advancing science while maintaining rigorous ethical standards," the Associated Press reports.
Stem cell research hopes to harness the power of adult or embryonic stem cells to create better treatments for ailments ranging from diabetes to spinal cord injuries. Embryonic stem cells are harvested by destroying human embryos.
Source: CNA Publish Date: July 6, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (AP Photo)
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said President Barack Obama supports existing federal laws that prevent federally funded health care providers from forcing doctors and pharmacists who morally oppose abortion from either performing the procedure or providing abortion-inducing medication.
But Obama opposes a regulation put into place by the Bush administration that would require those federally funded providers to certify compliance with the law, Sebelius said.
On March 10, the Obama administration submitted to the Federal Register a proposal to rescind the "conscience clause" rule entitled "Ensuring That Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law."
"There really hasn't been a change in status of what the president proposed," Sebelius told CNSNews.com during a conference call with reporters on Monday. "The president continues to support the underlying law.
"He felt the regulation issued in the final days of the Bush administration was overly broad and jeopardizes critical health services for women," she said.
The March 10 proposal states: "The department believes it is important to have an opportunity to review this regulation to ensure its consistency with current Administration policy and to reevaluate the necessity for regulations implementing the Church Amendments, Section 245 of the Public Health Service Act, and the Weldon Amendment."
The Church Amendments are conscience clauses of the Public Health Service Act, enacted at various times during the 1970s, which prohibit the use of federal funds going to health care entities that discriminate against health care professionals who morally object to abortion or sterilization.
In 2005, the Weldon Amendment was adopted as a section of the Consolidated Appropriations Act and re-adopted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act in 2009. The amendment does not allow federal funding of entities if "such agency, program, or [state or local] government subjects any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions."
In explaining its proposed rescinding of the Bush administration rule, then-acting HHS Secretary Charles E. Johnson cited the public comments collected during the 60-day comment period that expired on Feb. 27, 2009.
"Commenters asserted that the rule would limit access to patient care and raised concerns that individuals could be denied access to services, with effects felt disproportionately by those in rural areas or otherwise underserved," the acting secretary wrote.
"The Department believes that the comments on the August 2008 proposed rule raised a number of questions that warrant further careful consideration," Johnson wrote.
In his summary of the rule, then-HHS secretary under the Bush administration, Michael Leavitt, wrote that the regulation was meant to ensure that pro-life health care professionals were protected and that federally funded health entities were following the law.
"The Department of Health and Human Services proposes to promulgate regulations to ensure that Department funds do not support morally coercive or discriminatory practices or policies in violation of federal law, pursuant to the Church Amendments (42 U.S.C. § 300a-7), Public Health Service (PHS) Act §245 (42 U.S.C. § 238n), and the Weldon Amendment (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, § 508(d), 121 Stat. 1844, 2209)," reads the summary.
"This notice of proposed rulemaking proposes to define certain key terms. Furthermore, in order to ensure that recipients of Department funds know about their legal obligations under these nondiscrimination provisions, the Department proposes to require written certification by certain recipients that they will comply with all three statutes, as applicable," the summary added.
Sebelius refused to answer a follow-up question about if and when the "conscience clause" rule would be officially rescinded by President Obama.
Contact: Penny Starr Source: CNSNews.com Publish Date: July 7, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
The National Education Association, the nation's largest labor union, voted July 5 to reject a proposal officially to remain neutral on the issues of abortion and family planning.
Also during its annual meeting in San Diego July 1-6, the NEA went on record as supporting laws legalizing civil unions and "gay marriage" -- it said either are acceptable -- and it backed efforts to repeal federal legislation that "discriminates" against same-sex couples, which presumably could target the Defense of Marriage Amendment.
The proposed bylaw amendment regarding abortion would have invalidated NEA Resolution I-16 on family planning, which says NEA "supports family planning, including the right to reproductive freedom."
The defeated proposal said the NEA takes "no position" on the issues of abortion and family planning. It would have prohibited the NEA from filing a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in litigation seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade, and it would have kept the NEA from "lobbying for or against legislation regarding the dissemination of birth control information, the funding of birth control procedures, or the sale of birth control products."
"Right now they say they have a neutral position on abortion, which means let the woman choose," Jeralee Smith, cofounder of the Conservative Educators Caucus within the NEA, told Baptist Press.
"'No position' means that they could be sued if there was any evidence that they were spending any money or making any effort to help the Roe v. Wade decision. So 'no position' is a much stronger retreat from the current position," she said.
Debate over the issue was significant, Smith said, and a representative from the conservative caucus appealed to the union's local leaders who have been losing members who opt out as religious objectors.
"He said the union just shouldn't be involved in this, and there were a lot of people who agreed with him," Smith said of the delegate.
In a ballot vote, 61 percent were against the bylaw amendment and 39 percent were for it in what Smith described as a no-win situation for the liberal NEA leadership.
"If they had voted for it, they wouldn't have been able to spend any money on abortion," she said. "But since they voted against it, it's a much clearer case for anyone who wants religious accommodation, that the union supports abortion."
Teachers who have religious objections to paying NEA dues -- which can be used to fund the pro-choice and homosexual agendas -- have the right in some states to give money to a charity instead, Smith said. Information is available from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation at nrtw.org.
"People don't realize -- because they're told otherwise -- that they have a right to get out of the union," Smith said.
A loss of membership dues also played into the discussion over "gay marriage" when one state leader got up and said he's a liberal who supports "gay rights" but doesn't believe the NEA should be involved in the issue because they're losing members over it.
Smith said the executive committee, one of NEA's two top decision-making bodies, drafted the same-sex proposal because the committee expected proposals to come from the delegates on the floor and it wanted to preempt them with language that wouldn't be as divisive.
At previous meetings, the NEA has supported "obtaining, preserving, and strengthening basic civil and human rights under law" and specifically called for "passage of a federal statute prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and expression."
By voice vote delegates in San Diego adopted the following action plan July 3:
-- "NEA will support its affiliates seeking to enact state legislation that guarantees to same-sex couples the right to enter into a legally recognized relationship pursuant to which they have the same rights and benefits as similarly-situated heterosexual couples, including, without limitation, rights and benefits with regard to medical decisions, taxes, inheritance, adoption and immigration.
-- "NEA does not believe that a single term must be used to designate this legally recognized 'equal treatment' relationship, and recommends that each state decide for itself whether 'marriage,' 'civil union,' 'domestic partnership,' or some other term is most appropriate based upon the cultural, social, and religious values of its citizenry.
-- "NEA will support its affiliates in opposing state constitutional and/or statutory provisions that could have the effect of prohibiting the state and its political subdivisions from providing the same rights and benefits to same-sex couples as are provided to similarly-situated heterosexual couples.
-- "NEA will take such actions as may be appropriate to support efforts to (a) repeal any federal legislation and/or regulations that discriminate against same-sex couples, and (b) enact federal legislation and/or regulations that treat same-sex couples and similarly-situated heterosexual couples equally with regard to social security, health care, taxation, and other federal rights and benefits.
-- "NEA recognizes that the term 'marriage' has religious connotations and that same-sex marriages may not be compatible with the beliefs, values, and/or practices of certain religions. Because of its support for the separation of church and state and the right to religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, NEA supports the right of religious institutions to refuse to perform or recognize same-sex marriages."
The fourth bullet has been interpreted by some conservatives as aiming at the Defense of Marriage Amendment, Smith said. Signed into law in 1996, DOMA gives states the option of refusing to recognize "gay marriage" from other states.
"It was implied at both the state and the federal level that they would be interested in overturning DOMA, but they didn't say that directly. The way they described it, it was pretty clear that's what they had in mind," she told BP.
During discussion preceding the vote, a representative from the gay and lesbian caucus wanted to remove the fifth bullet protecting churches, but "the Representative Assembly very definitely refused to do that," Smith said.
Also during debate, a representative from the conservative caucus spoke against the action plan.
"As soon as she mentioned the words 'marriage should be between a man and a woman,' she got booed," Smith said. "The chair stopped the booing and reminded everybody that in a democracy everyone gets to have their say."
After about five speeches on each side of the issue, the assembly voted to end debate despite 20 or 30 more people lined up to speak on each side, Smith said.
"They did a voice vote and the nays were pretty strong, but you could tell that they weren't winning. It was probably again around that 60/40 split, I would imagine," she said.
NEA's executive committee will monitor the implementation of the action plan on "gay marriage" and will keep NEA affiliates informed of actions taken to achieve its objectives, the organization said.
Smith said the conservative caucus was prepared to speak further against the action plan but didn't get the opportunity.
"People don't recognize that this issue goes way beyond both equality and religious liberty," she said. "It has to do with what the next generation of children will face as far as stability and nurturing.
"The French government, a very secular government, spent a whole year studying it and decided not to grant 'gay marriage' because of the children," Smith said. "Our speech was to get away from the tug-of-war between equality and religious liberty and say it's really all about the kids and can't we all be adults and do what's best for them."
Also of interest, she said, is that for the second year in a row someone from the floor moved that a creation science exhibit not be allowed at the NEA convention.
"It lost again big time," Smith said. "Last year when they brought it up, they wouldn't even allow discussion on it. But this year, they did allow discussion, and there was one lady who got up and said, 'What is this? Christians are now the enemies of the NEA?' Some people clapped. It failed because I think the membership at large believes that people should have their say."
NEA's 3.2 million members work at every level of education, from preschool to university graduate programs. NEA has affiliate organizations in every state and in more than 14,000 communities across the United States.
Contact: Erin Roach Source: BP Publish Date: July 6, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
In a meeting with several members of the Catholic media Thursday, President Obama insisted that pro-life Catholics' fears over the new administration's abortion agenda was "not based on anything I've said or done." The president also said he embraces the so-called "seamless garment" moral theory of Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, which he said he feels has been "buried under the abortion debate" in recent decades.
The president called for the brief round-table meeting with Catholic media to discuss his upcoming meeting with Pope Benedict XVI July 10, but addressed the rift between his stance on abortion and the Catholic Church's moral teaching in response to questions.
The meeting was attended by representatives of the Catholic News Service, the National Catholic Reporter, National Catholic Register, America magazine, Commonweal magazine, Catholic Digest, Vatican Radio, and a Washington Post religion writer.
According to the Catholic Digest report, one member asked for more information on President Obama's stance on conscience protection for doctors objecting to abortion.
President Obama said that the expectation of heavily pro-abortion policy from his administration "is not based on anything I've said or done, but is rather just a perception somehow that we have some hard-line agenda that we're seeking to push."
Obama, who in February began repealing a Bush regulation strengthening doctors' conscience rights, said he favors a "robust" conscience clause. However, he did not elaborate on what aspect of the Bush regulation he considered flawed and did not give a compelling reason for why his administration is repealing the regulation.
"[The new conscience clause] may not meet the criteria of every possible critic of our approach," he said, "but it certainly will not be weaker than what existed before the changes were made."
Despite Obama's claim that pro-life fears are "not based on anything I've said or done," a steady stream of pro-abortion policy since his inauguration has left the pro-life community little room to doubt the President's devotion to the abortion agenda. These policies include abolishing the Mexico City Policy, funding the United Nations Population Fund, unleashing federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research, and calling for taxpayer-funded abortion in Washington, D.C.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in April confirmed that the Obama administration would work to dismantle pro-life laws around the world as part of its policy of promoting "reproductive health."
In terms of Obama's personal stance on abortion, pro-lifers have pointed to a July 2007 speech in which Obama told Planned Parenthood that the "first thing" he would do as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). Because FOCA would establish abortion as a "fundamental right" for women, the legislation would effectively eliminate all state and federal bans on abortion, as well as the rights of medical professionals to deny to perform or refer for abortions.
"I am absolutely convinced that culture wars are so nineties; their days are growing dark, it is time to turn the page," Obama had said. "We want a new day here in America. We're tired about arguing about the same ole' stuff. And I am convinced we can win that argument."
In addition to his statement on FOCA, Obama had a 100% pro-abortion voting record as a U.S. senator, including voting against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which would have mandated that babies that are born alive after failed abortions receive normal medical care.
In Thursday's meeting, President Obama mentioned more than once his attraction to Cardinal Bernardin's consistent life ethic or "seamless garment" theory of social justice, which advocates a holistic approach to the sanctity of human life by opposing abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and economic injustice.
However, Obama said, that theory has been "buried by the abortion debate" in recent years, and he expects to advance a "broader set of values" than those espoused by pro-life Catholics.
"It's not up to me to try to resolve those tensions [among Catholics]. All I can do is to affirm how that other tradition has made me, a non-Catholic, reflect on how I can be a better person and has had a powerful influence on my life," said the president. "And that tells me that it might be a powerful way to move a broader set of values forward in American life generally."
Although President Obama has more than once called upon the theory to downplay his disagreement with the Church on abortion, including in his speech at Notre Dame, Cardinal Bernardin himself strongly condemned the use of the consistent life ethic to dismiss the centrality of the abortion debate.
In 1988, Bernardin told the National Catholic Register: "I know that some people on the left, if I may use that label, have used the consistent ethic to give the impression that the abortion issue is not all that important anymore, that you should be against abortion in a general way but that there are more important issues, so don't hold anybody's feet to the fire just on abortion. That's a misuse of the consistent ethic, and I deplore it."
Thursday's discussion also touched on the "common ground" the administration is avowedly seeking on abortion when one journalist asked about the president's expectations for the initiative.
Obama responded that he awaits a memo from his task force mapping out common ground, and said he expected to find agreement on advancing sex education and reducing "the circumstances in which women feel compelled to obtain an abortion."
Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, has criticized Obama's emphasis on reducing the "need" for abortion while staunchly refusing to support reducing the number of abortions.
Wright recounted her experience at a May meeting of the abortion "common ground" task force in which Melody Barnes, the Director of Domestic Policy Council and a former board member of Emily's List, corrected Wright for stating that the administration wished to reduce abortions.
"It is not our goal to reduce the number of abortions," said Barnes, but rather only to "reduce the need for abortions."
"Obama needs to be honest with Americans," said Wright. "Is it true that it is not his goal to reduce the number of abortions?
"More importantly, will he do anything that will reduce abortions? Actions are far more important than words."
Contact: Kathleen Gilbert Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: July 6, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
From Fox News, July 6 (Can't believe Fox called these images "graphic."):
Anna Amador has gone to court on behalf of her daughter, who she says was ordered by her principal to change her shirt on "National Pro-Life T-Shirt Day." The shirt the girl was wearing displays two graphic pictures of a fetus growing in the womb....
The incident occurred in April 2008 at McSwain Elementary School, a K-8 school in Merced, CA. Amador alleges in her legal complaint that school Principal Terrie Rohrer, Assistant Principal C.W. Smith and office clerk Martha Hernandez mistreated her daughter and denied the girl her First Amendment rights when they ordered her to leave the cafeteria and change her shirt.
"Before Plaintiff could eat [breakfast] she was ordered by a school staff member to throw her food out and report immediately to Defendant Smith's office...," the complaint reads.
"Upon arriving at the main office, Defendant Hernandez, intentionally and without Plaintiff's consent, grabbed Plaintiff's arm and forcibly escorted her toward Smith's office, at all times maintaining a vice-like grip on Plaintiff's arm. Hernandez only released Plaintiff's arm after physically locating her in front of Smith and Defendant Rohrer...
"Smith and Rohrer ordered Plaintiff to remove her pro-life T-shirt and instructed Plaintiff to never wear her pro-life T-shirt at McSwain Elementary School ever again...
"Completely humiliated and held out for ridicule, Plaintiff complied with Defendants' directives and removed her pro-life T-shirt, whereupon, Defendants seized and confiscated it. Defendants did not return Plaintiff's property until the end of the school day."
The school administrators dispute some of the allegations, said Anthony DeMaria, attorney for... McSwain....
He said he was unable to reach the administrators to determine which parts they say are incorrect, because school is out for the summer....
The school district sought to get the case thrown out due to "failure to state a cognizable claim," but a U.S. Eastern District Court judge ruled last month that all but one of Amador's claims could go forward.
The complaint quotes school district officials saying that they ordered Amador's daughter to remove the shirt because it constituted "inappropriate subject matter" in violation of the school's dress code, which bans clothing with "suggestion of tobacco, drug or alcohol use, sexual promiscuity, profanity, vulgarity, or other inappropriate subject matter."
Amador claims in the legal complaint that other students at the school have been allowed to wear expressive shirts, and she blames the school for "inconsistently applying their Dress Code based upon subjective determinations as to which messages are acceptable and which messages are not."
One of the girl's lawyers, Mark Thiel, said that the images on her shirt of a fetus in the womb were same as those in her science textbooks. He said no student had complained about the shirt, and he said the girl's parents were not called when the incident took place....
A spokeswoman for the local Planned Parenthood chapter declined to take sides in the case.
"Even offensive speech is protected as long as it doesn't impinge upon the rights of others," said Deborah Ortiz, vice president of public affairs for PP Mar Monte....
UCLA law professor and First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh said Supreme Court precedent appears to support the girl's case.
"During the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court ruled that wearing black arm bands [at school, to protest the war] was OK," Volokh said. "If students can wear armbands in protest, why can't they wear a pro-life shirt?"
He said the case would be different if there was evidence that the shirt could have led to disruption or fighting....
But the fact that it's a K-8 school with very young children could change things, said Brooklyn Law School professor William Araiza. He pointed to the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Morse v. Frederick, where the court allowed a high school to suspend students in Juneau, AK, who waved a banner that read "Bong hits 4 Jesus" from across the street during an Olympic torch relay, because it was seen as promoting illegal drug use.
"[The school] could almost use a "bong hits" kind of rationale about protecting students from inappropriate messages," Araiza said. "For instance, would you allow a 4th grader to wear a gruesome picture of a bomb scene? You probably wouldn't."
First Amendment attorney William Becker, who represents Amador, disagreed that the shirt could be seen as containing inappropriate messages.
"The message of the T-shirt is that life is sacred," he said. "One would be very hard pressed to find anything wrong with that particular idea, except that some people do object to the political message."
Source: JillStanek.com
Publish Date: July 6, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
