July 13, 2009

Obama science czar Holdren called for forced abortions

'Comprehensive Planetary Regime could control development, distribution of all natural resources'


John Holdren

The man President Obama has chosen to be his science czar once advocated a shocking approach to the "population crisis" feared by scientists at the time: namely, compulsory abortions in the U.S. and a "Planetary Regime" with the power to enforce human reproduction restrictions.

"There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated," wrote Obama appointee John Holdren, as reported by FrontPage Magazine. "It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

Holdren's comments, made in 1977, mirror the astonishing admission this week of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said 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."

In 1977, when many scientists were alarmed by predictions of harmful environmental effects of human population growth, Holdren teamed with Paul R. Ehrlich, author of "The Population Bomb," and his wife, Anne, to pen "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment."

Holdren's book proposed multiple strategies to curb population growth, and, according to the quotes excerpted by FrontPage Magazine, advocated an international police force to ensure the strategies were carried out.

"Such a comprehensive Plenetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable," Holdren and the Ehrlichs reportedly wrote. "The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. ... The Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits."

Learn how close to home "Planetary Regime" really is by reading Jerome Corsi's New York Times best-seller, "The Late Great USA." This weekend only, get an autographed, hardcover copy for only $4.95 - a $21 discount!

The website Zombietime.com has posted photos of text excerpts from "Ecoscience," referencing even further strategies from Holdren and the Ehrlichs, including compulsory adoption of children born to teenage mothers, forced sterilization and other government-mandated population control measures.
 
A former Teresa and John Heinz professor of environmental policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Holdren was appointed as the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and confirmed on March 20 to assume the position informally known as Obama's "science czar."

Holdren's track record shows a trend of alarmist viewpoints on scientific issues, including a statement made in 1973 that the U.S. population of 210 million at the time was "too many, and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many." In response, Holdren recommended "a continued decline in fertility to well below replacement should be encouraged, with the aim of achieving [zero population growth] before the year 2000."

The current U.S. population is approximately 304 million.

After the perceived "crisis" of population growth faded, however, Holdren began sounding the alarm over global climate change. In the 1980s Holdren warned of human-caused ecological disasters resulting in the deaths of a billion people before 2020, and as recently as 2006, Holdren warned that sea levels could rise as much as 13 feet by the year 2010.

WND reported Holdren's participation in a panel predicting a dire future caused by global warming and calling for a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions in a report to the U.N.

Holdren's activism for greater government involvement drew a negative reaction from other scientists in the form of an open letter to Congress, WND reported.

"This is the same science adviser who has given us predictions of 'almost certain' thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem to arrive on time.

"The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for 10 years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.

"The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren? We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN'T EXIST."

During his confirmation, at a hearing before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, Holdren was grilled about his history of predicting calamity and advocating radical measures in response.

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., expressed concern at the hearing that Holdren's alarmist positions violated a statement made by President Obama when he nominated the Harvard professor:

"The truth is that promoting science isn't just about providing resources – it's about protecting free and open inquiry," Obama said. "It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology."

In response, Holdren sought to differentiate between alarmist "predictions" and simply "descriptions" of where America could wind up if it continues on its current path:

"The motivation for looking at the downside possibilities, the possibilities that can go wrong if things continue in a bad direction, is to motivate people to change direction. That was my intention at the time." Holdren explained. "I think it is responsible to call attention to the dangers that society faces so we will make the investments and make the changes needed to reduce those dangers."

Regarding his more recent forecasts of environmental doom, Holdren affirmed, "We continue to be on a perilous path with respect to climate change, and I think we need to do more work to get that reversed."

Nonetheless, Vitter persisted in questioning Holdren's potential political ideology behind advocating government-mandated population control:

"I'm scared to death that you think this is a proper function of government," Vitter said. "Do you think that determining optimal population is a proper role of government?"

"No, Senator, I do not," Holdren answered.

Holdren then explained that current policies, including those that promote health care and opportunities for women, as well as education, naturally create families more likely to have fewer children, thus solving the potential problems of population growth.

Contact: Drew Zahn
Source: WorldNetDaily
Publish Date: July 11, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Abortion Pill Kills 1 in 4 Children Aborted Early in U.S.



About one out of four children aborted early in America are killed by the abortion pill rather than a surgical procedure, according to an Associated Press report.

The report concerns a Planned Parenthood study published in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine touting the improved safety of a drug used in abortions that is now dissolved orally instead of vaginally - the latter being a technique that is more prone to causing severe and sometimes fatal infections.

The chemical abortion method consists of first distributing mifepristone, also known as RU-486, which kills the child before misoprostol is administered two days later, a drug that induces the body to expel the corpse.

A spokeswoman with Danco Laboratories LLC, the manufacturer of Mifeprex (mifepristone), told the AP that such "medical" abortions account for about one quarter of all early abortions, and about one third of early abortions at Planned Parenthood.

The AP reports that the use of RU-486 has risen steadily since its approval in 2000, despite its availability only in clinics or doctors' offices rather than pharmacies.

Planned Parenthood researchers published a study in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine analyzing chemical abortions at Planned Parenthood between 2005 and mid-2008, and found that the change in the misoprostol's administration reduced the risk of serious infection from about 1 in 1,000 to 0.06 in 1,000.

The study did not address mifepristone's side effects, including abdominal pain, uterine cramping, and vaginal bleeding or spotting, which almost all patients experienced in clinical trials for an average of 9-16 days.  About 8% of the women experienced bleeding for 30 days or more.

In 2007 the New England Journal of Medicine published a study showing that chemical abortions did not pose more of a risk for miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, preterm births, or low birth weight than surgical abortions.

While the media reported the news as proof that the abortion pill is "safe," critics said the conclusion was misleading as the study failed to compare the rate of post-abortive complications with the rate of complications in women who had not aborted a previous child.  That would have shown that the abortion pill was merely equally as likely as surgical abortions to dramatically increase the risk of such complications, as shown by several studies.

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: July 10, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

86% of Americans Would Significantly Restrict Abortion: New Poll

86% favor significant restrictions; Majority believes abortion hurts a woman long-term



The American people continue to move to the pro-life perspective on abortion according to the latest Moral Compass polling by the Knights of Columbus and Marist Institute.

The poll mirrored findings of other recent surveys, showing that more Americans identify as pro-life than as pro-choice (an 11% shift from October), and that the vast majority of Americans favor restricting abortion.

Among the key findings:

- 86% of Americans would significantly restrict abortion.

- 60% of Americans would limit abortion to cases of rape, incest or the life of a mother -- or not allow it at all.

- 53% of Americans believe abortion does more harm than good to a woman in the long term.

- 79% of Americans support conscience exemptions on abortion for health care workers. This includes 64% of those who identify as strongly pro-choice.

- 69% of Americans think that it is appropriate for religious leaders to speak out on abortion.

- 59% say religious leaders have a key role to play in the abortion debate.

Additionally, the data showed that nearly every demographic sub-group had moved toward the pro- life position except for non-practicing Catholics and men under 45 years of age.

Independents and liberals showed the greatest shift to the pro-life position since October, while Democrats were slightly less likely to be pro-life now than they were in October.

"The data shows that the American people are placing an ever increasing value on human life," said Supreme Knight Carl Anderson. "Far from the great divide that most people think exists when it comes to the abortion debate, there is actually a great deal of common ground.

"Most Americans are unhappy with the unrestricted access to abortion that is the legacy of Roe vs. Wade, and pundits and elected leaders should take note of the fact that agreement on abortion need not be limited to the fringes of the debate and issues like adoption or pre-natal care. The American people have reached a basic consensus, and that consensus is at odds with the legacy of Roe."

The survey of 1,223 Americans was conducted May 28 - 31 and has a margin of error of +/-3%.

Source:
LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: July 10, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Report on 'medical abortions' somewhat misleading

A new report on the abortion-drug regimen known as RU-486 may leave a false impression of safety.



The report suggests that about one-fourth of the abortions in America are induced using RU-486, a two-drug combination that causes the death and abortion of an unborn baby. One of the concerns surrounding usage of that regimen has to do with the number of deaths and serious side effects, including infection.
 
Chris Gacek of the Family Research Council was asked if it is really safer. "What it's safer about is it's not causing these massive septic infections," he explains.
 
Such infections have claimed a number of lives. But another problem, Gacek notes, still persists -- excessive bleeding -- because that is just a fundamental part of the regimen.
 
"The drug induces sort of the chemical strangulation of the embryo or fetus, and then you have to dispose of the remains," says Gacek. "[T]he Misoprostol essentially strips the uterus of the baby and the products of conception -- [in other words] all the tissues that accompany the conception and help the pregnancy develop near the lining of the uterus and all that."
 
There has been no significant increase in abortions in the aftermath of the drug's introduction.
 
The report is based on research conducted at Planned Parenthood clinics across the U.S. Planned Parenthood is the nation's biggest provider of what the organization refers to as "medical abortions."

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: July 13, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

The public health plan: a pro-life non-starter



The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee has posted on its website its version of the health care reform bill. It's called the "Affordable Health Choices Act," and, as promised, it contains a public health care option. The impact on other health insurance providers is reason enough to oppose a public health plan, but an even greater reason is the way it is going to undermine pro-life values.

The public plan's immediate and long-term threat to pro-life values is what makes it a non-starter. The plan's immediate threat to pro-life values is evident from its failure to provide any pro-life protections.

There is no protection for health care providers who, due to their faith convictions, cannot provide abortion or abortion referrals. There is no protection for pharmacy owners or workers who cannot in good conscience dispense abortion drugs. There is no restriction on abortion, either. There is no language in the bill that would prevent the public plan from paying for any abortion under any circumstance. The bill does not even prevent the eventual inclusion of assisted suicide as a benefit.

Some will argue that the bill doesn't have anything to say about these things one way or another, but that is precisely the point. The bill's failure to explicitly protect these pro-life values will be interpreted as a requirement to ignore them.

It is instructive to remember the struggle to stop abortion funding through Medicaid on this point. In Medicaid law what isn't explicitly prohibited is therefore required. This is why Medicaid began paying for abortion as a covered benefit when abortion was legalized in 1973. It took the Hyde Amendment in 1976 to change that by explicitly restricting the use of taxpayer funds for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother.

The Hyde Amendment continues to protect taxpayers from paying for elective abortions. However, the Hyde Amendment is itself on a death watch these days. The amendment must be approved annually. It is clear that many in Congress would happily drop the Hyde Amendment language if they could. Many of us thought Congress would try to omit the amendment last year. Furthermore, the Hyde Amendment doesn't protect other pro-life values, like conscience protections and banning assisted suicide.

Of further concern is that the bill authorizes the secretary of Health and Human Services to create the public health plan. The person currently sitting in that seat is Kathleen Sebelius, a long-time abortion rights protector. The fact that the benefits provided under the public plan will be decided by political appointees and entrenched bureaucrats out of public view should be enough reason to fear for pro-life values.

Given Congress' history of excess, the long-term prospects for pro-life values are bleak as well. An insurmountable problem with the public option is that the government will be deciding what the plan will cover. Can you imagine what a health plan built by the government will look like after a few years? It will be loaded down with every imaginable benefit and coverage. In his Wall Street Journal opinion piece, "Public Option: Son of Medicaid," Daniel Henninger writes, "Medicaid is a morass. Since the program's inception, Congress has loaded it up every few years with more notions of what to cover, shifting about 43% of the ever-upward cost onto someone else's tab, mainly the states." There is no reason to think that Congress will exercise any restraint with a new health plan.

As Congress loads more benefits onto the plan, the costs will skyrocket in the same way they have for Medicaid. While the government will certainly raise taxes and/or premiums to pay for the higher costs, it will eventually have to resort to the same rationing scheme under which people in England and Canada are suffering.

In England, it is illegal for doctors even to tell patients about drugs that the country's health care rationing body has determined to be too costly. It doesn't even matter if the drug has proven helpful to some people. If it costs too much per person, it can be disallowed for coverage, and doctors cannot even tell their patients the drug exists. In Canada a person literally can die while waiting for rationed treatment.

While the American health care system has its flaws, especially when it comes to abortion, it still places a much higher value on life than either the English or Canadian plans. I suppose rationing is one way to keep health care "affordable," but I'm sure it's not what most Americans want. If England and Canada can't figure out how to make a public plan work without rationing, there is no reason at all to think our government will do any better. We must continue to move pro-life values forward, not backward.

Making it possible for every person to get and keep health insurance is a pro-life value worthy of everyone's support. But I do not believe it is necessary to throw our other pro-life values under the bus in order to achieve that worthy goal.

Contact: Barrett Duke
Source: BP
Publish Date: July 10, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Obama science czar Holdren called for forced abortions

'Comprehensive Planetary Regime could control development, distribution of all natural resources'


John Holdren

The man President Obama has chosen to be his science czar once advocated a shocking approach to the "population crisis" feared by scientists at the time: namely, compulsory abortions in the U.S. and a "Planetary Regime" with the power to enforce human reproduction restrictions.

"There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated," wrote Obama appointee John Holdren, as reported by FrontPage Magazine. "It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

Holdren's comments, made in 1977, mirror the astonishing admission this week of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said 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."

In 1977, when many scientists were alarmed by predictions of harmful environmental effects of human population growth, Holdren teamed with Paul R. Ehrlich, author of "The Population Bomb," and his wife, Anne, to pen "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment."

Holdren's book proposed multiple strategies to curb population growth, and, according to the quotes excerpted by FrontPage Magazine, advocated an international police force to ensure the strategies were carried out.

"Such a comprehensive Plenetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable," Holdren and the Ehrlichs reportedly wrote. "The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. ... The Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits."

Learn how close to home "Planetary Regime" really is by reading Jerome Corsi's New York Times best-seller, "The Late Great USA." This weekend only, get an autographed, hardcover copy for only $4.95 - a $21 discount!

The website Zombietime.com has posted photos of text excerpts from "Ecoscience," referencing even further strategies from Holdren and the Ehrlichs, including compulsory adoption of children born to teenage mothers, forced sterilization and other government-mandated population control measures.
 
A former Teresa and John Heinz professor of environmental policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Holdren was appointed as the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and confirmed on March 20 to assume the position informally known as Obama's "science czar."

Holdren's track record shows a trend of alarmist viewpoints on scientific issues, including a statement made in 1973 that the U.S. population of 210 million at the time was "too many, and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many." In response, Holdren recommended "a continued decline in fertility to well below replacement should be encouraged, with the aim of achieving [zero population growth] before the year 2000."

The current U.S. population is approximately 304 million.

After the perceived "crisis" of population growth faded, however, Holdren began sounding the alarm over global climate change. In the 1980s Holdren warned of human-caused ecological disasters resulting in the deaths of a billion people before 2020, and as recently as 2006, Holdren warned that sea levels could rise as much as 13 feet by the year 2010.

WND reported Holdren's participation in a panel predicting a dire future caused by global warming and calling for a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions in a report to the U.N.

Holdren's activism for greater government involvement drew a negative reaction from other scientists in the form of an open letter to Congress, WND reported.

"This is the same science adviser who has given us predictions of 'almost certain' thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem to arrive on time.

"The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for 10 years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.

"The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren? We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN'T EXIST."

During his confirmation, at a hearing before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, Holdren was grilled about his history of predicting calamity and advocating radical measures in response.

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., expressed concern at the hearing that Holdren's alarmist positions violated a statement made by President Obama when he nominated the Harvard professor:

"The truth is that promoting science isn't just about providing resources – it's about protecting free and open inquiry," Obama said. "It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology."

In response, Holdren sought to differentiate between alarmist "predictions" and simply "descriptions" of where America could wind up if it continues on its current path:

"The motivation for looking at the downside possibilities, the possibilities that can go wrong if things continue in a bad direction, is to motivate people to change direction. That was my intention at the time." Holdren explained. "I think it is responsible to call attention to the dangers that society faces so we will make the investments and make the changes needed to reduce those dangers."

Regarding his more recent forecasts of environmental doom, Holdren affirmed, "We continue to be on a perilous path with respect to climate change, and I think we need to do more work to get that reversed."

Nonetheless, Vitter persisted in questioning Holdren's potential political ideology behind advocating government-mandated population control:

"I'm scared to death that you think this is a proper function of government," Vitter said. "Do you think that determining optimal population is a proper role of government?"

"No, Senator, I do not," Holdren answered.

Holdren then explained that current policies, including those that promote health care and opportunities for women, as well as education, naturally create families more likely to have fewer children, thus solving the potential problems of population growth.

Contact: Drew Zahn
Source: WorldNetDaily
Publish Date: July 11, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Abortion Pill Kills 1 in 4 Children Aborted Early in U.S.



About one out of four children aborted early in America are killed by the abortion pill rather than a surgical procedure, according to an Associated Press report.

The report concerns a Planned Parenthood study published in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine touting the improved safety of a drug used in abortions that is now dissolved orally instead of vaginally - the latter being a technique that is more prone to causing severe and sometimes fatal infections.

The chemical abortion method consists of first distributing mifepristone, also known as RU-486, which kills the child before misoprostol is administered two days later, a drug that induces the body to expel the corpse.

A spokeswoman with Danco Laboratories LLC, the manufacturer of Mifeprex (mifepristone), told the AP that such "medical" abortions account for about one quarter of all early abortions, and about one third of early abortions at Planned Parenthood.

The AP reports that the use of RU-486 has risen steadily since its approval in 2000, despite its availability only in clinics or doctors' offices rather than pharmacies.

Planned Parenthood researchers published a study in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine analyzing chemical abortions at Planned Parenthood between 2005 and mid-2008, and found that the change in the misoprostol's administration reduced the risk of serious infection from about 1 in 1,000 to 0.06 in 1,000.

The study did not address mifepristone's side effects, including abdominal pain, uterine cramping, and vaginal bleeding or spotting, which almost all patients experienced in clinical trials for an average of 9-16 days.  About 8% of the women experienced bleeding for 30 days or more.

In 2007 the New England Journal of Medicine published a study showing that chemical abortions did not pose more of a risk for miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, preterm births, or low birth weight than surgical abortions.

While the media reported the news as proof that the abortion pill is "safe," critics said the conclusion was misleading as the study failed to compare the rate of post-abortive complications with the rate of complications in women who had not aborted a previous child.  That would have shown that the abortion pill was merely equally as likely as surgical abortions to dramatically increase the risk of such complications, as shown by several studies.

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: July 10, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

IFRL NEWS SHORTS FOR MONDAY

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.

Community Outreach: Center Takes Steps To Assist Planned Parenthood to Target Hispanics for Population Reduction

Clinic outreach workers for Thomason Hospital Women's Health Center have been touring the area's closed Planned Parenthood offices in a large white RV since the longtime women's health service called it quits in El Paso on June 30. The workers' hope is that women who don't know where to go for medical services will find a new home and not neglect their health. They hope the large vehicle helps grab patients' attention. "We are going to different sites of Planned Parenthood to talk to patients and let them know we're here to help," said Lelia Onsurez, community health educator for Thomason Hospital Women's Health Centers. "They're not going to be left out in the cold." Planned Parenthood provided family planning and primary care services and services for people living with AIDS and HIV.
Click here for the full article.



Vandals Hit Oregon Pregnancy Support Center With Graffiti

Graffiti vandals have targeted a local support center for pregnant women. The phrases "kill us now", "give us your eggs", "freedom", and a swastika cover the glass windows at the front of the Lane Pregnancy Support Center on 13th Avenue in Eugene. The vandalism occurred late Tuesday night or early Wednesday morning. According to a news release, Lane Pregnancy Support Center is a non-profit, privately funded pro-life community outreach serving over 300 clients in Lane County each month.
Click here for the full article.


'Cardiac Death' Allows One to Kill the Organ Donor

In 2006, research done by Dr. Gerald Buckberg, a cardio-thoracic surgeon and UCLA expert, demonstrated that a person can survive cardiac arrest for an average of 72 minutes if they are given the following treatment: cardio-pulmonary resuscitation, the use of a heart-lung machine to keep blood and oxygen circulating, and gradual restoration of blood and oxygen flow.

This research was done at hospitals in Alabama and Ann Arbor, Michigan and also in Germany. Of 34 patients, seven died, only two had permanent neurological changes and 25 recovered completely. One patient had been in cardiac arrest for two and a half hours. Similar results were obtained by research in Japan, Taiwan, and elsewhere in Asia.
Click here for the full article.


The Most Pro-Life State Gains Momentum for Personhood Initiative as Lt Governor Signs On

The Personhood Initiative in Mississippi has recently gain significant momentum because of national personhood efforts emerging around the country. Mississippi has long been known as the most "pro-life" state in America and could be the first state to affirm the personhood rights of all humans.

Lt Governor Phil Bryant also gave this effort a boost by endorsing the effort and signing the petition. He joined a growing and diverse group of political, church, and community leaders from across the state who are getting behind this effort.
Click here for the full article.


Abortion Pills Administered Incorrectly


The protocol at Planned Parenthood clinics for administering RU-486, the drug that causes medical abortions, was officially changed in order to reduce the resulting serious infections and deaths. Planned Parenthood is now trying to claim kudos for making medical abortions safer, for the mother. When the FDA first approved RU-486 — a combination of two drugs, mifepristone and misoprostol — as an abortifacient for the general public's use, manufactured by Danco Laboratories, their guidelines suggested oral use as the safest way to effect an abortion. However, Planned Parenthood (PP) had been telling women to use the drug as a suppository, and by their own admission giving it thusly in their clinics. This resulted in serious cases of infection and even death.
Click here for the full article.


Pro-Life Protester Interrupts Sotomayor Confirmation Hearing

An anti-abortion protester briefly disrupted the opening of Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination hearing.
 
The outburst came during Sen. Dianne Feinstein's opening statement Monday. A man in room interrupted her remarks by shouting: "Senator. What about the unborn!" He called abortion "genocide.
 
Capitol Police identified the protester as Robert James, from Virginia. He was charged with unlawful conduct and disruption of Congress.
Click here for the full article.

July 10, 2009

Health Bills Biggest Pro-Abortion Grab Since Roe


Kennedy-Dodd Health Bill

The two central "health care reform" bills currently moving in Congress – the Kennedy bill and the House Democratic leadership bill – each contain provisions that would, if enacted, represent the greatest expansion of abortion since the Supreme Court handed down its Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion in 1973.  These bills contain multiple provisions that would result in federally mandated insurance coverage of abortion on demand, massive federal subsidies for abortion, mandated creation of many new abortion clinics, and nullification of at least some state limitations on abortion.

Next week, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee is expected to consider a number of NRLC-supported amendments offered by Republican senators that would remove the pro-abortion mandates and subsidies from the Kennedy bill.  House committees will consider similar amendments during markups of the House Democratic leadership bill, which is also planned for next week.

On July 9, Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ), co-chairman of the House Pro-Life Caucus, distributed to his colleagues the letter that appears below – a collection of statements by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and five pro-abortion organizations, confirming their intent to greatly expand access to abortion on demand, using "health care reform" as a vehicle.  You will find it easier to read if you download the PDF image of the letter, click here

If President Obama, congressional Democratic leaders, and the pro-abortion advocacy groups were to succeed in mandating vast expansions of access to abortion, with federal funding, the predictable result would be a great increase in the number of abortions performed – this, from a president who assured the American people that he would pursue policies to reduce abortions.  Click here to see the related Action Alert

Contact: Douglas Johnson
Source: NRLC
Publish Date: July 10, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Chief of Human Genome Project Tapped by Obama to Lead NIH



President Barack Obama has nominated acclaimed geneticist and leader of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis S. Collins, to become the next chief of the National Institutes of Health. The appointment of Collins, a scientist and evangelical Christian who has defended the inherent compatibility of science and religious belief, comes just two days after the NIH released its guidelines governing human embryonic stem-cell (hESC) research.

"My administration is committed to promoting scientific integrity and pioneering scientific research and I am confident that Dr. Francis Collins will lead the NIH to achieve these goals," said President Obama in a statement.

Collins earned fame as a gene hunter upon joining the University of Michigan, pioneering a gene identification technique called "positional cloning." Beginning in 1993, Collins directed the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), an institute under the NIH, until his resignation as its chief in 2008. His most noteworthy contribution during that time was his leadership of the Human Genome Project, which mapped the genetic sequences of 3.1 billion chemical base pairs in human DNA.

The NIH, headquartered in Bethsaida, Maryland, this year will dedicate 40 billion dollars for scientific research, which will now be available to scientists involved in hESCR. Obama has repealed a November 2001 executive order from former President George W. Bush that allowed federal funds only to researchers to working with existing stem-cell lines derived from destroyed human embryos.

Under new NIH guidelines, hESC researchers may apply for federal funding once they have demonstrated that the hESCs they derive are obtained from human embryos created solely for reproductive purposes at fertility clinics, and that the embryos are donated by their parents with "voluntary and informed consent."

Pro-life critics of the NIH guidelines have pointed out that the regulations do not specify enough against the creation of "chimeras" (hybrid human-animal embryos) and have stated that the NIH guidelines are widening the path to embryo-farming for the sake of scientific research.

The Senate confirmation of Collins as NIH director will likely be a smooth process. Collins supported the presidential campaign of Barack Obama and lauded the President's decision to repeal the Bush administration ban on funding new hESC lines. He has also voiced support for "therapeutic human cloning" or somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), whereby the nucleus of a human egg is replaced with the DNA of an individual, resulting in the creation of a clone embryo of that individual. Collins has speculated that stem-cells extracted from an individual's clone would not face immune rejection problems inherent with other hESC therapies.

Collins has also stated that little if any ethical controversy surrounds adult stem-cell research, making it appear that the new NIH-chief will be supportive of that research as well.

However, despite Collins's support for hESC research and SCNT, his high-profile defense of the compatibility of science and religious belief has drawn fire from certain quarters that insist his religious views make his commitment to science suspect. According to the New York Times, some have "privately expressed unease" over Collins's "very public embrace of religion," although the paper did not name any specific individuals.
 
Collins has written a book called "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" and has given talks, such as to the American Scientific Affiliation, explaining his life-changing conversion as a 27-year-old scientist, which was due in part to his encounter with C.S. Lewis's book "Mere Christianity."

While a staunch opponent of atheistic Darwinian evolution (Collins has debated Richard Dawkins, author of the "God Delusion"), Collins does not identify himself with the Intelligence Design movement, but instead describes himself as a "theistic evolutionist."

Collins is also the founder and president of the BioLogos Foundation, an educational organization which seeks to promote the harmony existing between science and faith, and educate the public of scientific evidence in nature that points to a Creator.

As an expert on genetic research, Collins has also dismissed the claim of a "gay" gene: that DNA predetermines homosexual behaviors. Instead Collins has noted that environment - including childhood experiences - can influence gene expression leading to a predisposition, but free will and choice have a role in determining a person's behavior.

Contact: Peter J. Smith
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: July 9, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Attempt to restore Mexico City Policy sunk by committee



Testifying before the U.S. House Rules Committee in support of the bipartisan Smith-Stupak-Sensenbrenner-Jordan Amendment to restore the Mexico City Policy, Rep. Chris Smith said on Wednesday the proposal would reflect a pro-life trend and would prevent the U.S. from funding the "Trojan horses" of the abortion industry.

Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) told the committee that polls showed 65 percent of Americans opposed President Obama's January executive order reversing the Mexico City Policy, which forbade federal funding for groups which promote or perform abortions overseas.

"The United States is clearly trending pro-life—ultrasound technology has shattered the myth that an unborn child is not a person," he remarked.

Without euphemism, he said, abortion is "violence against children" that also harms women "emotionally and physically."

He argued that abortion should be understood as infant mortality, which everyone recognizes as an evil.

"An unborn child's immaturity or dependence shouldn't mitigate, negate, or nullify an unborn child's inherent humanity. Human rights ought to be about inclusion, especially for the weakest and most vulnerable, not exclusion."

Rep. Smith also told the House committee that the 2009 Foreign Operations appropriations bill increases population control funding by 40 percent to a record $648 million.

"Our amendment would simply ensure that the huge allocation of tax-payer grant money not be awarded to foreign non-government organizations (NGOs) that perform abortion or lobby for abortion on demand in developing countries," Rep. Smith said.

He said the amendment would direct funds to "family planning services," not abortion.

"Prior to January, the pro-life Mexico City Policy guaranteed, to the extent possible, that unborn children in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere not be put at risk of death by the NGOs we fund," he continued. "Every human life is precious and sacred and worthy of respect. No one is expendable."

Empowering some NGOs would create a "Trojan Horse" for the "global abortion industry," which Rep. Smith said would render President Barack Obama's endorsement of reducing the number of abortions into "cheap political sophistry."

Late on Wednesday evening, the amendment was blocked in the Rules Committee by the Democratic majority.

The Foreign Operations bill, sans amendment, passed the House on Thursday afternoon.

Source: CNA
Publish Date: July 10, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

RU-486 Cited in Rise of Chemical Abortion




Chemical abortions accounted for roughly one-fourth of early abortions obtained by American women last year, according to a new study that cited improved safety in the using the so-called "abortion pill," RU-486.

"However, abortion of any kind is not safe for a pre-born child," said Shari Rendall, director of Legislation and Public Policy for Concerned Women for America.

The research, conducted at Planned Parenthood clinics nationally, reveals a lower risk of a dangerous infection now that the second of the two pills dispensed is taken orally.

But Rendall points out that chemical abortions aren't as safe for women as they are led to believe.  "They're making it easy. And this access, coupled with the fact that they're in private means that you're going to have repeated use, which could lead to long-term effects that have never even been studied."

Medical experts expect more chemical abortions, especially because they offer more privacy than surgical abortions.

Chemical abortions require medical oversight but in some states, a less credentialed health professional can administer the drugs with a doctor's supervision.

Pro-life leaders note that pro-abortion groups pushed for RU-486 to be legalized in the U.S. because fewer and fewer doctors are willing to perform surgical abortions.

Contact:
Roger Greer
Source: CitizenLink
Publish Date: July 9, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Governments Maintain IPPF Funding Despite Financial Crisis in 2008

 

The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the world's foremost abortion provider, recently released its latest financial report which shows that the organization continues to receive the majority of its multi-million dollar budget from government grants and pay six figure salaries to dozens of its executives despite the world financial crisis.

"IPPF Financial Statements 2008" highlights the work done by IPPF and its affiliate organizations all across the globe.  In total, the organization boasts that it has provided over 24 million "contraceptive services" and over 650,000 "abortion-related services" during the reporting period.

Though the financial crisis has increasingly put pressure on governments, funding for IPPF's activities primarily came from government donations. Of IPPF's total income of $119 million, almost 80% of that came directly from government grants. 17 countries gave money to IPPF in 2008, with the governments of Sweden, the United Kingdom and Japan topping the list.

Additionally, $1 million in funding came from the United Nations Population Fund and the UN Program on HIV/AIDS. Charitable foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, and the Hewlett Foundation also filled IPPF's coffers with $23 million. Other prominent abortion advocacy organizations such as Population Action International and Ipas also gave significant amounts.

IPPF's total expenditure for 2008 totaled $121.4 million. While much of that money was spent on IPPF's five priority action areas - adolescents, abortion, access, advocacy and HIV/AIDS - a large amount was spent on staffing costs. In 2008, IPPF employed 297 staffers full-time for a cost of $23 million. Over 3 dozen individuals were paid out six figure salaries, with the top salary grossing close to $480,000 a year.

The report shows that IPPF handed out over $60 million in grants to its member associations around the world and also lists grants to "other organizations."  The grants to these "other organizations" include hundreds of thousands of dollars to Latin American offices of "Catolicas" por el Derecho a Decidir ("Catholics" for A Free Choice), abortion-provider Marie Stopes International and Women's Link Worldwide, a group dedicated to strategic litigation against laws protecting life globally.

According to the organization, IPPF's tentacles reached 176 countries through 151 affiliate organizations to push abortion and contraception worldwide last year. In a survey of affiliate activities, IPPF boasts that 88.4% of its affiliates are involved in "advancing national policy and legislation on sexual and reproductive health and rights."  82.3% of those affiliates state that they are involved in counteracting any opposition to sexual and reproductive health and rights.

IPPF is seeking to take advantage of the Obama Administration's decision to rescind the Mexico City Policy which banned organizations from performing or promoting abortion overseas. The report outlines the organization's plans for 2009 which include: pushing its "Declaration of Sexual Rights," a document which declares that governments are obligated to guarantee a sweeping definition of "sexual rights," including abortion, "sexual freedom" and "comprehensive sexuality education."  This year, IPPF will also focus on using the events surrounding the 15th anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development - also known as the "Cairo Conference" - to advocate for abortion at the United Nations.

Contact: Samantha Singson
Source: C-FAM
Publish Date: July 9, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Program Resulted in More than Twice as Many Teen Pregnancies

More than half of UK teen pregnancies end in abortion



A scheme to reduce teenage pregnancies that cost British taxpayers £6 million ($9.8 million US) has backfired, with girls in the program ending up more than twice as likely to become pregnant than those in the general population. The Young People's Development Programme (YPDP) cost £2,500 ($4,085 US) per person and involved giving teenagers sex education and advice about contraception. At the end of the project a total of 16 percent of those involved became pregnant compared with just 6 percent in a comparison group.

A Department of Health spokesman said, "This pilot was based on a successful American program. It did not appear to reduce teenage pregnancy so we will not be taking it any further."

The program ran in 27 parts of England between 2004 and 2007, based on a similar model in New York, and was designed to offer education and support for 13 to 15-year-olds who were deemed at risk of exclusion from school, drug abuse and teenage pregnancy. A total of 2,371 teenagers took part in the program over the three years.

A study evaluating the program published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) found that young women in the YPDP group were more likely to have not used contraception when they most recently had sex.

The study concluded, "Among young women, YPDP participants more commonly reported teenage pregnancies, early heterosexual sex and expectation of becoming a teenage parent, as well as temporary exclusion from school and truancy. No evidence was found that the intervention was effective in delaying heterosexual experience or reducing pregnancies, drunkenness or cannabis use. Some results suggested an adverse effect."

At the same time, recently released statistics show that after decades of sex education programs in schools combined with easily available publicly funded abortion, more than half of the children conceived by unwed teens in Britain are killed by abortion. Of around 40,000 pregnancies among girls under 18 years in 2008, more than 20,000 were ended by abortion.

According to figures released this year from the Office for National Statistics, 41.9 girls per 1,000 aged 15 to 17 became pregnant in 2007, compared with 40.9 in 2006. Among girls aged 13 to 15 the rate rose from 7.8 per 1,000 girls to 8.3. Around 8,196 girls aged under 16 became pregnant in 2007.

As these figures were released, the government announced an increase of £20.5 million in funding for "reproductive health" clinics, long-term contraceptive implants and advertising campaigns. More recently, the government announced that it will make explicit sex education a compulsory part of the school curriculum in all grades.

Faced with an ever rising number of teenagers conceiving children, the Labour government has insisted that only more and more explicit "sex education," wider availability of artificial contraception and abortion is the answer.

Phyllis Bowman of Right to Life slammed the government's failed attempts at curbing the problem of teenage pregnancy. "The young have been deliberately sexualised in a culture which sneers at the idea of telling teenagers they should not have sex," she said.

She pointed to "contraception campaigners" who look to unwed teenagers for the bulk of their revenue. "We have the highest level of sexually transmitted disease in Europe and the highest level of sexual activity among teenagers in Europe. UNICEF says we have the unhappiest teenagers in Europe.

A Department of Health spokesman, however, defended the government's approach, saying, "One of the key aims of this Government, as set out in the Sexual Health and Teenage Pregnancy Strategies, is to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and consequently abortions, through better access to contraception.

"Prescribed contraception is available free of charge under NHS arrangements, and the Department of Health has recently invested additional funds to allow for improvements in contraception services."

The Teenage Pregnancy Strategy, launched by Tony Blair's New Labour, has received more than £300 million in funding. It was meant to halve the number of conceptions among girls under 18 in England between 1998 and 2010. At the time the government started the Strategy, fewer than four out of ten pregnant teenage girls opted for an abortion.

Contact:
Hilary White
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: July 9, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR FRIDAY

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.

My First Abortion Party

In a recent article published on AlterNet, 'My First Abortion Party', writer Byard Duncan relates his experience of attending a party thrown by his friend 'Maggie' so as to raise funds to pay for her abortion.

When I got the invite to a friend's abortion party, I thought it was a way to help her through a difficult decision. I was right and wrong.

"Have you guys heard the news?" Maggie (name changed) unwrapped the scarf from around her neck and patted her flat belly. "Preggers." It was around 30 degrees outside, and her cheeks were splashed pink from the Indiana wind.

She had discovered earlier that week, after missing a period and taking the test. "I kind of knew already.
Click here for the full article. - Warning - this is an unedited article about this abortion party coming from an attender, some terms are kind of crude.



New Study Confirms that Pres. Obama's DC Policy Will Increase Abortions Says Dr. Alveda King


Dr. Alveda King, Pastoral Associate of Priests for Life and niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., commented today on a new Guttmacher Institute study that shows that in states where Medicaid pays for abortions, more poor women have abortions.

"The Guttmacher report is really just another study that confirms the obvious -- subsidized abortion means more abortions," said Dr. King.  "My medical insurance paid for my 'legal abortion' in 1973.  My 'free' abortion, in turn, made it all too easy for me to be an unsuspecting victim of population control."
Click here for the full article.


Appeals Court: WA Pharmacists Must Heed Order to Distribute Abortifacient Plan B Pill

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled that Washington pharmacists will likely have to obey a 2007 regulation forcing them to distribute the abortifacient morning-after pill, known as Plan B.

The regulation had been temporarily blocked by a Washington judge in 2007 when pharmacists who refused to distribute the pill launched a suit against the state.  Today's decision overturned that of U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton, who agreed with the complainants that there was reason to believe the rules violated the pharmacists' right to the freedom of conscience.

The Board of Pharmacy and the State regulations require pharmacy owners to provide the pill, and require individuals to distribute or refer elsewhere for the drug regardless of personal conviction.
Click here for the full article.


Abortion Advocacy Group Uses "Extreme Case" at UN to Punish Peru for Pro-Life Laws

The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) is representing a Peruvian teenager who sought an abortion after a rape and suicide attempt in a proceeding before the United Nations compliance committee tasked with overseeing the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). CRR is charging that Peru violated its obligations under the treaty because the teen was unable to obtain an abortion at a public hospital.

After the girl attempted suicide by jumping off a building, CRR alleges she was denied an abortion that CRR says was medically necessary to facilitate successful spinal surgery on the now-paraplegic teen. The complaint asks the Peruvian government to acknowledge a violation of rights under CEDAW, provide her with reparations and rehabilitation, and institute measures to ensure that women can access "therapeutic" abortion.
Click here for the full article.


NIH Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Ignore Public Opinion and the Human


July 7, 2009, marked a major ethical shift in United States government-funded research. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) implemented President Obama's executive order, "Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells" (March 9, 2009). The new NIH "Guidelines" authorize taxpayer funding of research on human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) harvested from human embryos as of July 7, 2009, or from earlier sources, both domestic and foreign, with the approval of the Working Group of the Advisory Committee to the Director.

Historically, federal funding of research on humans from which they derived no benefit has been prohibited. Now the destruction of human beings in their earliest and most vulnerable stages is promoted and funded by federal taxpayer dollars. Lengthy explanations exist as to how informed consent from the embryo donors will be obtained, and about how conflicts of interest will be handled, but no mention is made about the rights of the embryos themselves.
Click here for the full article.


Abortion Pill Used in a Quarter of U.S. Abortions

Roughly a fourth of American women getting early abortions last year did so with drugs rather than surgery, statistics show, as a new study reported improved safety in using the so-called "abortion pill."
 
Some experts predict the percentage of such "medical abortions," which offer more privacy than surgical termination at an abortion clinic or hospital, will rise even more due to the new study.
Click here for the full article.

PRO-LIFE EVENTS


The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity (CBHD) located on Trinity International University's (TIU) Deerfield campus will be hosting its 16th annual summer conference,
Global Bioethics: Emerging Challenges Facing Human Dignity.  The conference commences on July 16 and runs through July 18 with pre-conference institutes July 13-16, and post-conference seminars July 20-22.

CBHD, has partnered with Christian Medical & Dental Associations, Nurses Christian Fellowship, Advocates International, and TIU to present this conference which features eight plenary speakers, paper presentations, and opportunities for attendees to network with one another. 
Click here for more information or to register.

July 9, 2009

Pro-Life Amendment Defeated in House Committee


A 13-year-old ban on federal funding for Washington D.C., abortions, called the Dornan Amendment, has failed to pass the full House Appropriations Committee, by a vote of 26-33.  "We now see taxpayer dollars going to fund abortions in the District of Columbia if this becomes law," said U.S. Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., who led in the effort to restore the amendment. "And it's very likely it will become law." 

Any maybe not the only anti-life law. Life advocates expect pro-abortion Democrat members of the House to target other existing amendments such as the Hyde Amendment and the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.  The Hyde Amendment prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion except in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother; and the Dickey-Wicker amendment prohibits taxpayer funding of the destruction of human embryos for research.
Click here for more...

Obama at the Vatican - pro-abortion meets pro-life

Tomorrow President Barack Obama will travel to the Vatican to meet with Pope Benedict XVI.



Pope Benedict and ObamaWhile President Obama is in Italy on July 10 for the G-8 summit, Pope Benedict has agreed to meet with him. The Associated Press reports that Pope Benedict is so interested in meeting Obama that he has agreed to an afternoon appointment -- a non-traditional time for the Pope to hold meetings -- despite his disagreements with Obama's pro-abortion stance and support for embryonic stem-cell research.
 
American pro-life Catholics are showing outrage over the much-anticipated gathering between Obama and Benedict.
Click here for more...

Abortion Employee Runs into Pro-Lifer, Keeps Going at Bizarre Rockford Abortuary



ROCKFORD, Illinois, The pattern of abuse at a Rockford abortion facility has continued after an employee allegedly struck with his car a homeless man praying with pro-life protesters, and drove away, according to witnesses at the scene.

The vehicle reportedly struck Scott Griffin on Wednesday as it drove into the driveway of the abortion facility, where pro-lifers say workers frequently drive recklessly in an apparent attempt to intimidate those praying and handing out pro-life literature.

"The dark colored SUV the clinic worker was driving hit Scott Griffin with the mirror on the passenger side so hard the mirror was slammed back into the vehicle and Mr. Griffin was stunned and bruised," Rockford pro-life veteran Kevin Rilott said.

"After the clinic worker hit him she didn't slow down or stop to see how he was - she just kept going."

Another witness, George Lambert, said the female clinic worker "really nailed the guy hard - I couldn't believe she didn't even stop to see how he was."

City Attorney Kerry Partridge refused to comment on whether any suspects had been questioned or charged, saying only that the case is still under investigation.



It was previously reported on the bizarre behavior of the owner and a local abortion supporter at Rockford's Northern Illinois Women's Center. Pro-life protesters have been regularly harassed and grotesque displays remain in the abortion mill's windows, including rubber chickens hanging from nooses, a crufied rubber chicken, a nun doll in a miniature coffin and displays with crucifixes and the words "Jesus loves you a**holes."

One of the most recent additions to the facility's displays is a hand-written sign that reads "NIWC 50,000; JC 50," which indicates the number of abortions performed at the Northern Illinois Women's Center in comparison to 50 saved from abortion by "J.C." - or Jesus Christ.

In March, LSN reported that two young African-American men persuaded their female companion not to abort her child after they were horrified by the rubber chickens hanging by nooses in the abortion facility windows, which pro-lifers at the scene pointed out to them.

The recent Rockford incident continues a rash of violence against pro-life protesters and sidewalk counselors across the country in recent weeks. Last week a man was arrested after he pulled a gun on a woman offering him pro-life literature in front of a Phoenix abortion mill. Another vehicular assault occurred in June at a Chico, CA abortion clinic, where a pro-life protester was nearly run down by an SUV.  Witnesses report the driver was enraged by the graphic abortion image the woman carried.  The suspected attacker was subsequently arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: July 7, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

IRS tells pro-lifers to give up 1st Amendment

IRS Requires affirmation they will not 'protest'



The Internal Revenue Service has told members of the Coalition for Life of Iowa they would have to give up their 1st Amendment rights in order to be recognized as a non-profit organization, according to a complaint being pursued by members of the Thomas More Society.

The organization incorporated in 2004 as a not-for-profit under Iowa law and has been operating strictly within the guidelines for groups set up for religious, educational and charitable purposes, a letter sent to the IRS last week said.

"As detailed in its … narrative, the Coalition for Life carries out its tax-exempt work by sponsoring educational forums and coordinating with other like-minded groups to educate the public and otherwise promote sanctity of life principles," the letter continues.

"The Coalition is aware that from time to time, individuals who may or may not be involved with the Coalition gather for prayer outside of a Planned Parenthood facility. These gatherings are consistently small (ten or fewer people), peaceful, not in any way disrupting, and consist solely of silent and spoken prayers," the lawyer wrote.

However, an IRS agent then contacted the Coalition, through its president Susan Martinek, demanding to know whether the group "engaged in any 'picketing' or 'protest' activities at Planned Parenthood. … You then asked Ms. Martinek to have all Coalition Board members sign a statement that the Coalition will not 'picket' or 'protest' outside of Planned Parenthood or similar organizations and will not 'organize' others to do so," the law firm's letter said.

Concerned over the sudden restrictions on free speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion rights, the Coalition contact legal counsel, and attorney Sally Wagenmaker said she contacted the IRS about the issue.

"You expressed the legally erroneous view that the Coalition is not allowed per se to engage in 'advocacy' as a section 501(c)(3) organization," the attorney said.

"The IRS' requests come perilously close to violating the First Amendment constitutional rights of the Coalition's supporters, and they are not otherwise germane to the Coalition for Life's pending ... application. As you acknowledged verbally to me over the telephone, the Coalition's application is now ripe for approval. The IRS's delay and questioning … constitutes unnecessary and prejudicial interference with the Coalition's legal right to a tax-exempt determination."

"This is the way government oppression creeps into a society," said Judie Brown, president of American Life League. "It starts when the government targets, and attempts to intimidate and silence the grassroots dissenters who will not dance to the tune of the Obama administration's radically pro-abortion policies."

"This is not only political intimidation by the Internal Revenue Service but it is a blatant violation of First Amendment rights," Brown said. "Neither the Coalition for Life of Iowa nor any other educational and advocacy organization should be subjected to such discriminatory scrutiny. This is a clear case of government repression."

Contact:
Source:
WorldNetDaily
Publish Date: July 9, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Women's Coalition for Justice: Conservative Women Leaders Speak Out on Sotomayor

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.

ACLJ Files Appeal Brief in Massive Fraud Case against California Planned Parenthood Affiliates



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.

Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables

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.