Federal lawsuit filed today to block federally funded human embryo research

Federal lawsuit filed today to block federally funded human embryo research A group of plaintiffs filed a federal lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to "enjoin and overturn the controversial guidelines for public funding of embryonic stem cell research that the National Institutes of Health issued on July 7, 2009," according to a press statement.... A legal coalition of the Alliance Defense Fund, Advocates International, and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher are bringing forth the suit on behalf of the 16k-membered Christian Medical Association, Nightlight Christian Adoptions, which specializes in human embryo adoptions, and "all individual human embryos whose lives are now at risk under NIH's guidelines," among others. An attorney for the plaintiffs, Thomas Hungar, called NIH's plan to fund everything but harvesting "pure sophistry." The lawsuit contends NIH guidelines violate the ban because they "necessarily condition funding on the destruction of human embryos." escr 7.jpgPlaintiffs also allege the guidelines were "invalidly implemented, because the decision to fund human embryonic stem cell research was made without the proper procedures required by law and without properly considering the more effective and less ethically problematic forms of adult and induced pluripotent stem cell research." The lawsuit alleges the NIH guidelines fail President Obama's own standard. He earlier stated policy should fund ethically "responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research." But the NIH utterly ignored ethically and scientifically superior adult and Induced pluripotent stem cell research and treatment due to a "preconceived determination to fund human embryonic stem cell research," according to the lawsuit. Attorney Sam Casey further charged the NIH rebuffed public opinion. "The majority of the almost 50k comments that the NIH received were opposed to funding this research, and by its own admission, NIH totally ignored these comments," wrote Casey. Contact: Jill Stanek Source: JillStanek.com Publish Date: August 19, 2009 Link to this article.   Send this article to a friend.

Obamacare will be 1 big 'death panel'

Obamacare will be 1 big 'death panel' Just as in U.K., government system will lead to early demise of seniors President Obama has promised huge cuts in medical spending. In fact, he has warned that, if America fails to make such cuts, it will face financial Armageddon. "Make no mistake: the cost of our health care is a threat to our economy…," Obama told the American Medical Association in Chicago June 15. "It is a ticking time bomb for the federal budget. And it is unsustainable for the United States of America. … If we fail to act, one out of every five dollars we earn will be spent on health care within a decade. And if we fail to act, federal spending on Medicaid and Medicare… will eventually grow larger than what our government spends on anything else today." To avoid this catastrophe, America must make drastic cuts in health spending, says Obama. The size of his proposed cuts varies from speech to speech, but the figure cited most often by Obama's advisers is 30 percent per year – up to $700 billion annually. Get Jerome Corsi's classic No. 1 New York Times bestseller, "The Obama Nation," autographed by the author only in the WND Superstore. A 30-percent annual cut is going to take a big bite out of somebody's health care. The only question is whose. The numbers make clear that most of these cuts will have to come at the expense of those who need health care the most – the elderly, the disabled and the gravely ill.           "Older, sicker societies pay more on health care than younger, healthier ones," Obama told the AMA. He is right. According to a 2006 study by the Department of Health and Human Services, five percent of the U.S. population accounts for nearly 50 percent of health care spending in America. Who are those five percent? Most are people over 65 years of age with serious, chronic illnesses. By contrast, the study notes, half of the U.S. population "spends little or nothing on health care… with annual medical spending below $664 per person." These, of course, are mostly healthy young people – people without serious, chronic illnesses. Obviously, Obama will not meet his cost-cutting targets by reducing care to healthy young people. They are already spending next to nothing. It is the old, the dying and the chronically ill whose health care he will cut. The numbers make this clear. At present, the main vehicle of Obamacare is the so-called America's Affordable Health Choices Act, introduced on June 9. This law will force Americans to enroll in "qualified" health plans – that is, plans approved and controlled by the government. Americans will be invited to "choose" between "public" and "private" insurance plans, but will find little difference between them. "Public" or "private," they will all follow the same rules, dictated by the Department of Health and Human Services – the same agency, incidentally, which issued the report, titled "The High Concentration of U.S. Health Care Expenditures, 2006." How will Obama cut costs? His June 13 radio speech gave some hints. Obama said his plan would provide "incentives" to doctors to "avoid unnecessary hospital stays, treatments and tests that drive up costs." And what sort of treatment does Obama consider "unnecessary?" In an ABC News special June 24, he implied medical treatment might be wasted on elderly people with grave illnesses, citing his own grandmother as an example. Dying of cancer, with less than a year to live, Obama's grandmother broke her hip. "[T]he question was, does she get hip replacement surgery, even though she was fragile enough they were not sure how long she would last?" asked the president. It turns out that Obama's grandmother did get the hip replacement – though he did not say so on ABC that night. Obama left the story about his grandmother unfinished, but went on to suggest that other people faced with such choices might do well to forget about surgery and settle instead for palliative or comfort care – treatment that helps you feel better while you are dying, but does not prolong your life. "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller," Obama concluded. It's already happening in Europe In Europe, governments already ration health care, just as Obama plans to do here. The older and sicker people are, the less care they get. In England, for example, bureaucrats determine a patient's eligibility for health care using the QALY system (quality-adjusted life years). They divide the cost of treatment by the number of "quality" years the patient is expected to live. Older, sicker patients are expected to live fewer "quality" years, so why bother treating them at all? On this basis, British elders are routinely denied treatment for cancer, heart disease and other deadly illnesses. Many die in filthy, overcrowded hospitals or nursing homes, rife with pestilence, including the deadly, antibiotic-resistant "superbugs" Clostridium difficile and MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus). Each year in the U.K., nearly three times more people die from hospital infections than from traffic accidents. In the nation where Florence Nightingale invented modern nursing 150 years ago, cleanliness has become a lost art. British newspapers reported in 2007 that patients in government hospitals were told to "go in their beds" when they had diarrhea. In March 2009, British health inspectors reported that poor treatment at one hospital may have killed up to 1,200 people in three years. That's 1,200 people at just one hospital. Denied food, water and medicine, patients at Stafford Hospital in Staffordshire were left screaming in agony, drinking from flowerpots and lying helpless in their own waste. Many waited for operations which were repeatedly postponed. British officials were quick to label the Stafford horror an "isolated incident." But many health care professionals in England say it is typical. Unfortunately, dissenters have little voice in Britain's National Health Service. The system is notoriously hostile to whistleblowers. Take Margaret Haywood, for instance, a nurse of 20 years, who went undercover for the BBC, filming abuse and neglect of elderly patients at Royal Sussex Hospital. In April 2009, British health authorities punished Haywood for going to the press, banning her from practicing nursing. If she had complaints, they told her, she should have made them through proper channels. In England, whitewashing medical scandals is a bipartisan activity. Conservative and liberal politicians alike defend the National Health Service from all critics. After a harrowing stay at the Royal United Hospital in Bath, Lord Benjamin Mancroft, a Conservative member of the House of Lords, spoke out in Parliament, declaring, "It is a miracle that I am still alive." He described "filthy" wards that were "never cleaned" and nurses who were "grubby… slipshod, lazy… drunken and promiscuous." Fellow Tories denounced Lord Mancroft for defaming British medicine. But his observations may help explain why Royal United Hospital leads Britain in superbug fatalities, having racked up 306 superbug deaths in four years. Government health care supposedly works better in France. But in August 2003, when temperatures in France soared to 104 degrees Fahrenheit, nearly 15,000 elderly people dropped dead – that is, 15,000 more than the average or expected death rate for that time of year. Most died in institutions, such as government-run nursing homes, which lacked air conditioning and other basic amenities. Time magazine reported that deaths from the heat wave in France were "geometrically higher than anywhere else in sunbaked Europe," thanks to "a chronically underfunded and understaffed elder care system." Less money, less care For 20 years, health care reformers from Edward Kennedy to Hillary Clinton have praised the government-run health systems of Europe and Canada. Obama and his team have taken up the same cry. A June 1 report from Obama's Council of Economic Advisers praised European health care and urged Americans to emulate it. If health care is so abominable in Europe, why did Obama's economic advisers commend it? Simple. It's cheaper. Titled "The Economic Case for Health Care Reform," the report noted that six countries – Canada, Germany, Japan, Sweden, Britain and France – spend only 9.6 percent of their Gross Domestic Product on health care, while America spends 15.3 percent. It recommended bringing our health spending down to European levels through "efficiency improvements in the U.S. healthcare system." This is the dirty secret behind the movement for universal health care. Its true purpose is to cut medical care, not increase it. Every plan put forth by health care "reformers" in the last 20 years features drastic cuts – not increases – in health spending. During her 2008 presidential run, for example, Hillary Clinton vowed to slash medical spending in America by $120 billion per year. Obama says he will cut even more. With "the right kind of cost-effectiveness," Obama's chief economic adviser Lawrence H. Summers told MSNBC's "Meet the Press" on April 19, "we could take as much as $700 billion a year out of our health care system." Current annual health spending in America is about $2.5 trillion, so Obama and his team are talking about a 30-percent cut. It happens that the Health Care Financing Administration, or HCFA, reports that 27-30 percent of annual Medicare spending goes to end-of-life care for the elderly – specifically, health care during the last year of life. These figures suggest Obama could meet his target of a 30-percent cut simply by denying treatment to the sickest and feeblest of America's elderly – those with a life expectancy of one year or less. Obama's special adviser for health policy, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, appears to have something like that in mind. In a Jan. 31 article in the British medical journal Lancet, Emanuel advised steering health dollars toward the young and fit; specifically those between the ages of 15 and 40, while reducing health spending for the elderly. Weirdly, Emanuel – along with his co-authors Govind Persad and Alan Wertheimer – made a special point of arguing that age-weighted medical rationing does not violate the rules of political correctness. They wrote: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination … Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not." In other words, to put it crudely, deciding to let the elderly die because we think of them in "stereotypical" terms – say, as useless old dodderers –would be "ageism." However, letting them die for a "good" reason – for example, because they have already had their chance at life, and now it's time to give someone else a chance – is perfectly OK. In Emanuel's view, letting old people die is not the problem. The problem is finding the right words to justify it. Words are very important to Emanuel – for example, the words of the Hippocratic Oath. He blames the Hippocratic Oath for much of what he considers wrong in American medicine. Until the 1970s, all doctors swore this oath upon graduating medical school. It is believed to have been written by the Greek physician Hippocrates of Cos, the father of modern medicine, some 2,400 years ago. The oath forbids doctors to kill, and expressly forbids administering any "deadly drug" or performing an abortion. For that reason, it has fallen out of favor with modern medical schools, which often use edited versions of the oath, or different oaths entirely, written in modern times. Still, the tradition of Hippocrates dies hard. Doctors still honor him, and many feel guilty when they violate his precepts. Emanuel would like to steer modern medicine away from the Hippocratic tradition. In a June 18, 2008, article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, he wrote that strict adherence to the Hippocratic Oath caused "overuse" of medical care. "Medical school education and postgraduate training emphasize thoroughness," he complained. "When evaluating a patient, students, interns, and residents are trained to identify and praised for and graded on enumerating all possible diagnoses and tests that would confirm or exclude them. The thought is that the more thorough the evaluation, the more intelligent the student or house officer." Particularly galling to Emanuel is "the Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment'" which he says "doctors interpret as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others." Emanuel would like to see less thoroughness and more cost-cutting. Instead of being "thorough" and "meticulous," doctors should be "prudent" in assessing how much time, effort and money each patient is worth, for the greater good of society, he argues. Evidently, President Obama likes what Dr. Emanuel is preaching. In December 2008, Obama made him special adviser for health policy to the White House Office of Management and Budget. Given Emanuel's views, it can be expected that age-weighted rationing will figure prominently in Obama's health care "reforms." Should Obamacare become the law of this land, many of those 80 million Americans born between 1946 and 1965 can look forward confidently to a nasty, European-style death. It is already happening in Oregon You don't have to go to Europe to see age-weighted rationing at work. Just take a look at Oregon. Its state-run Oregon Health Plan works very much as our president says Obamacare will work. Barbara Wagner of Springfield, Ore., was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2005. Chemotherapy and radiation put her cancer into remission. But the cancer returned in May 2008. Wagner's doctor prescribed Tarceva, a pill which slows cancer growth. There was a good chance it might extend her life by a few weeks or even months. At age 64, Wagner had two sons, three daughters, 15 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. Every moment she could spend with her loved ones was precious. But Oregon's health commissars nixed the plan. Her Tarceva treatment would cost $4,000 per month. Wagner was going to die anyway, so why waste the money? Wagner received a letter stating that the Oregon Health Plan would not approve any treatment for her "that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of the disease …" However, if Wagner opted for physician-assisted suicide, Oregon would be happy to pick up the tab, said the letter. Physician-assisted suicide is legal in Oregon and costs only about $50. "It was horrible," Wagner told reporters. "To say to someone, we'll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it's cruel. Who do they think they are?" Wagner finally got her Tarceva when the manufacturer Genentech offered to supply it free of charge. She died in October 2008. A humble, retired schoolbus driver, Wagner touched more people in death than she had in life. Local and national press picked up her story, alerting many Americans to the danger of medical rationing. One person who remains untouched by her story is Dr. Walter Shaffer, who heads Oregon's Division of Medical Assistance Programs, which runs the Oregon Health Plan. Regarding the Wagner case, Shaffer told the Eugene Register-Guard, "We can't cover everything for everyone. Taxpayer dollars are limited for publicly funded programs. We try to come up with policies that provide the most good for the most people." Equally unsympathetic is Barack Obama, who views Oregon's medical rationing system as a model for the nation. On March 23, 2008, asked to comment on Oregon's assisted suicide law, candidate Obama told the Mail Tribune of southern Oregon: "I think that the people of Oregon did a service for the country in recognizing that as the population gets older we've got to think about issues of end-of-life care." Contact: Richard Poe Source: WorldNetDaily Publish Date: August 20, 2009 Link to this article.   Send this article to a friend.

YouTube Yanks Video Showing Abortionist's Satanic Handyman's Abusive Behavior

YouTube Yanks Video Showing Abortionist's Satanic Handyman's Abusive Behavior YouTube.com has removed a video that showed a handyman hired by late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart verbally abusing a pro-lifer and a clinic worker that he identified as his wife. The handyman, who was preparing Carhart's dilapidated Bellevue abortion clinic for paint, also described himself as a "Satanist" and pointed to his tattoos of demons as proof. At one point in the video, the handyman said to Larry Donlan of Rescue the Heartland, "Where the **** do you live so I can go to your house?" The handyman's wife was recognized to be Lindsey Alejandro, a former employee of George Tiller's now closed late-term abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas. Ms. Alejandro is known as the abortion worker who falsified the fetal age of a woman's pregnancy in order to avoid having to comply with Kansas laws. (Read documentation here.) Cheryl Sullenger, who posted the video for Operation Rescue received the following notice from YouTube.com: "Youtube is not a venue for things like predatory behavior, stalking, threats, harassment, intimidation, invading privacy, revealing other people's personal information, and inciting others to commit violent acts or to violate the Terms of Use. If you continue to post such content, you may have your account permanently suspended." "I completely resent the outrageous and false notion that the video was in anyway abusive on our part," said Sullenger. "The threats and intimidation shown in this video were made by the Carhart employee against the pro-life photographer, Larry Donlan. "I posted the video with his permission so that the world could see the truth about the abuse and threats that pro-lifers are forced to endure. I have asked YouTube to immediately restore the video and remove the flag from my account." "This video showed the abortion industry in its true light, and it isn't a pretty sight," said Sullenger. "The pro-aborts who reported the video as abuse will go to any lengths to cover up the truth about this ugly side of the abortion business and the threats and intimidation inflicted on pro-lifers." Operation Rescue re-posted the video here. (Caution: contains obscene language.) YouTube has pulled other pro-life videos in the past, stating that they violate the site's terms of use, although the videos break none of the rules published by the video hosting site. Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: August 19, 2009 Link to this article.   Send this article to a friend.

Newsweek Reporter Witnesses an Abortion

Newsweek Reporter Witnesses an Abortion   Pro-abortion reporter, Sarah Kliff, is surprised by her reaction to witnessing an abortion. Sarah Kliff has covered abortion at Newsweek for two years.  So she was surprised at the discomfort she felt when faced with the prospect of watching an abortion for a story she was doing on Nebraska late-term abortionist, LeRoy Carhart. Kliff spent four days at Carhart's Omaha clinic interviewing patients, hearing their stories and eventually viewing at least one first-trimester abortion. "There was a discomfort I hadn't expected," she said, "my emotional reaction to watching abortions.  I had (and still have) difficulty understanding my own reaction, both relieved to have watched…and distressed by the emotionality of the process." It's something many in the pro-abortion camp are reticent to admit.  Kliff faced odd reactions when she returned home. "Friends who supported legal abortion bristled slightly when I told them where I'd been and what I'd watched," she said.  "Acquaintances at a party looked a bit regretful to have asked about my most recent assignment." Carrie Gordon Earll, senior bioethics analyst at Focus on the Family Action, said the inner struggle is hard to ignore. "When you come face to face with the violence of what abortion really is," she said, "it can be a different story, as this reporter learned.  Abortion kills children, and witnessing an abortion demands a response to that truth." Kliff acknowledged that abortion is not just another medical procedure. "Abortion involves weighty choices that, depending on how you view it," she said, "involve a life, or the potential for life." Earll said, "The finality of abortion is almost palpable and once it's done, someone has died and you cannot reverse it.  That may be what the reporter experienced." Contact: Kim Trobee Source: CitizenLink Publish Date: August 19, 2009 Link to this article.   Send this article to a friend.

Abortionist Carhart denied hospital privileges

Abortionist Carhart denied hospital privileges Abortionist LeRoy Carhart A request to open a late-term abortion clinic has been shot down in Wichita, Kansas. Operation Rescue's Troy Newman launched an online petition drive to convince a local hospital not to grant hospital privileges to well-known abortionist LeRoy Carhart. The answer came just a few hours later.   "We were contacted by the hospital staff and entered into some negotiations, which culminated in the acquiescence of this hospital to our agreed principle that they ought not grant hospital privileges to the notorious late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart," Newman explains.   The pro-life leader says having hospital privileges is essential because late-term abortions too often cause complications, some of which require hospitalization. Newman is thankful for the hospital's decision.  Troy Newman "It will virtually prevent him from opening up his abortion clinic here -- and reopening up...the world's largest, most notorious abortion clinic," Newman points out. Carhart had stated his intention to reopen the abortion clinic of George Tiller, who was murdered in late May. Tiller was one of the few late-term abortionists in the country.   Now Operation Rescue is returning focus to Carhart's Nebraska clinic and asking that state's attorney general to launch an investigation. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow Publish Date: August 20, 2009 Link to this article.   Send this article to a friend.

Health care end-of-life provision causing anxiety among elderly

Health care end-of-life provision causing anxiety among elderly Members of the AARP are leaving by the thousands out of concern for the organization's support for President Obama's health care reform.  While several issues are to blame, many have expressed concern that Section 1233 of HR 3200 gives doctors an incentive to persuade ill patients that assisted suicide is their best option. CBS reports that 50,000 – 60,000 have left the AARP since July 1, 2009 due to disagreements on Obama's health care reform. Even though the AARP does not officially endorse the proposed health care changes, the association is generally seen to be in support of the reform- so much so that even President Obama mistakenly stated last week that the AARP is on board with the administration's changes. One section of the bill that has senior citizens as well as younger Americans concerned is section 1233 of HR 3200 which is titled, "Advance Care Planning Consultation." The text of the bill describes "advance care planning" as including a consultation between the patient and his or her doctor in which they would discuss and answer questions including future care, living wills, durable powers of attorney, information about a health care proxy and an explanation about end-of-life services that would be available. These services include, according to the text, "palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title." Pro-life organizations such as National Right to Life (NRLC) have spoken out specifically about this section of the bill.  LifeNews.com reports that the NRLC executive director David O. Steen expressed his concern that the bill could pressure ill patients into giving up treatment. He noted that the bill makes him uneasy:  "it doesn't take a lot to push a vulnerable person — perhaps unwittingly — to give up their right to life-sustaining treatment," he explained. Jennifer Popik, a medical ethics attorney with NRLC, also mentioned the fear that pushing patients to "prepare advance directives" could "become a means of persuading or pressuring them to agree to less treatment as a means of saving money." She added that a 2008 JAMA study found that "patients who reported having end-of-life discussions received less aggressive medical care." Attempting to win over those who oppose the bill, President Obama stated at the AARP town hall on July 28 that he believes the bill "is a good thing." The President explained that the section actually "makes it easier for people to fill out a living will" and noted that it puts the patient in control "so she can say whether or not she wants extraordinary measures to be taken to save her life." Obama explained that right now, "most of us don't give direction to our family members," so when one becomes ill, "nobody is there to make the decisions" and then the doctor, who doesn't know your preference, "is making the decisions." Obama said that contrary to many rumors, no one will be forcing anyone to fill out a living will, and "certainly nobody is going to be forcing you to make a set of decisions on end of life care based on some bureaucratic law in Washington." "It's putting more power, more choice in the hands of the American people and," he argued, "it strikes me as a reasonable thing to do." However, the President's words have not assuaged everyone's fears mainly because Section 1233 was written by two strong pro-euthanasia advocates: Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and Compassion & Choices. Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer wrote in the Huffington Post on July 28 that he knows "a little bit" about section 1233 "because it's a bill that I wrote which was incorporated into the overall legislation." Blumenauer is also known for being a backer of his state's "Death with Dignity" law.  Oregon was the first state to permit physician-assisted suicide. Compassion & Choices, formerly known as the Hemlock Society, also had a hand in promoting section 1233. On their website on Tuesday, Compassion & Choices noted that they have "worked tirelessly" to include "a provision requiring Medicare to cover patient consultation with their doctors about end-of-life choice." Popik, the ethics attorney with NRLC called it "extremely troubling that Compassion and Choices, the principal group that promotes physician assisted suicide throughout the country is not only aggressively promoting these provisions, but claims responsibility for the inclusion of the main provision." She added that "Section 1233 allows assisted suicide and euthanasia to be promoted as an option in the places where it is legal (i.e. Washington, Oregon, and Montana)." Source: CNA Publish Date: August 19, 2009 Link to this article.   Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR THURSDAY

NEWS SHORTS FOR THURSDAY 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. ADF rebuts NY hospital's claim that pro-life nurse can't sue ADF attorneys respond to claims of Mount Sinai Hospital Alliance Defense Fund attorneys submitted a brief in federal court Monday in response to the claim of New York's Mount Sinai Hospital that a pro-life nurse who sued the hospital has no right to defend herself in court. ADF filed suit after the hospital forced senior nurse Cathy Cenzon-DeCarlo to participate in a late-term abortion procedure. "Pro-life nurses shouldn't be forced to assist in abortions against their beliefs. Nonetheless, Mount Sinai Hospital is multiplying its injustices against nurse Cathy Cenzon-DeCarlo," said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. "First it disregarded Cathy's conscience; now it argues she can't go to court to defend her rights. Mount Sinai Hospital does not have the right to disregard federal law and then refuse to face the consequences of its actions." Click here for the full article. Oklahoma AG To Appeal Anti-Abortion Decision The Oklahoma Attorney General's office has decided to appeal a judge's decision to overturn an anti-abortion law. Charlie Price, a spokesman for Attorney General Drew Edmondson, said Wednesday the appeal will be filed with the Oklahoma State Supreme Court. Oklahoma County District Judge Vicki Robertson on Tuesday ruled that Senate Bill 1878 was unconstitutional because it covered more than subject. Click here for the full article. Statewide Campaign Against Tax-Funded Abortion Launched in California Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust announced they will be organizing with pro-lifers throughout California to campaign against tax-funded abortion in Obama's Healthcare Reform bill. The campaign, which starts Thursday, Aug. 20th, will feature demonstrations and protests in cities across California, asking elected officials to guarantee that tax-funded abortion will specifically be excluded from the bill. Currently the Healthcare Reform bill includes wording that will allow for tax money to pay for abortion as "reproductive care." "Abortion is not health care," said Jeff White, founder of Survivors, "And the majority of Americans don't want to pay for it." He cites a recent Zogby poll which indicates that 71% of those polled did not want tax money paying for abortions. Click here for the full article. Susan B. Anthony List on President Obama's Health Care Conference Call Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser released the following statement in response to President Obama's remarks on his health care reform conference call with faith leaders today: "Public support for abortion is on decline, and the President knows that openly advancing an abortion mandate in health care reform is unpopular with the American people. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that Obama's statements conflict with the proposed legislation. Americans demand an explicit exclusion of abortion coverage, not more obfuscation and confusion from the President and his allies." Click here for the full article. FRC Action ramps up effort to exclude abortion from health care reform Just ahead of President Obama's evening teleconference to promote his health care reform initiative to some faith-based groups, Tony Perkins, the president of the group Family Research Council Action, held a conference call with reporters to discuss the need to prevent abortion from being funded by the government under the guise of health care reform. Referring to the current legislation being considered by Congress, Perkins said, "We readily acknowledge that if you do a word search of the thousand-plus-page bill, you won't find the word 'abortion.' You also won't find the word 'tonsilectomy,' nor will you find the word 'bypass.' "But you will find 'essential health care services,' and when you follow the trail to how this administration defines that, they include reproductive health care, which this administration readily admits includes abortion," Perkins stated to reporters. Click here for the full article. Planned Parenthood President Slams U.S. Bishops on Abortion, Healthcare The president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, has penned a scathing editorial, published today in the Huffington Post, in which she sets her sights on the U.S. Catholic bishops, slamming them for their opposition to the abortion mandate in the Obama health care bill, and to abortion in general. "Does anyone else see the irony in the U.S. bishops wanting to define universal health care as covering everything except for what they don't support?" writes Richards. "Since when does universal health care mean denying comprehensive reproductive health care supported by the majority of Americans?" Richards then goes on to accuse the bishops of endangering "millions" of women's lives around the globe with their "hard-line opposition to women's rights." "The effort to criminalize access to safe abortion endangers most women in the developing world -- the very women that you would think the bishops would be concerned about," says Richards. The U.S. bishops, while expressing support for healthcare reform in general, have been adamant in their stance that healthcare reform must not include mandated abortion coverage - something that the current legislation would do if passed.  Click here for the full article.

Nebraska Launches Investigation Into Carhart's Abortion Business

Nebraska Launches Investigation Into Carhart's Abortion Business Request for investigation part of campaign to block Carhart from opening an international late-term abortion mill in the U.S.  Operation Rescue has received written confirmation from the Nebraska Attorney General's office that a request for a comprehensive investigation into late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart's abortion business has been directed to the Nebraska Department of Health and Environment. The investigation will be monitored by the Attorney General's office. Pro-life groups had sent the attorney general a packet of documents, including information about incidents of botched abortions involving Carhart that required emergency transport to the hospital along with photos of the ambulances involved in those incidents. Also included were photos of dilapidated conditions at his abortion clinic, a complaint filed in Kansas about Carhart's part in the third-trimester abortion death of Christin Gilbert, and several news stories that raise questions about the safety and legality of Carhart's abortion operation. "We asked for an investigation, and we are getting one. This alone is a victory," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.  Joining Operation Rescue in making the request were the Christian Defense Coalition of Washington, DC, Nebraskans United For Life, and Rescue the Heartland. "This is the first step down a road that could lead to the revocation of Carhart's medical license or even criminal charges," said Newman. The news comes days after Wesley Medical Center in Wichita, Kansas, responded to a petition launched by Operation Rescue, indicating that they would not make a transfer agreement with an abortion clinic should one attempt to open in the community. Carhart has indicated that Wichita, Kansas, is his first choice to open a late-term abortion clinic to replace George Tiller's closed facility. Operation Rescue was assured that Carhart would not be granted hospital privileges at Wesley. "We are opposing Carhart's plans in at least two states now, and are monitoring several other states for any indication that he may be shifting his plans elsewhere," said Newman. "Our goal is to use the legal means at our disposal to block Carhart from opening a late-term abortion mill that would draw women from every state and from around the world for abortions that are illegal in their areas, and perhaps put him out of business altogether." The investigation request and Wesley petition were part of the "Keep it Closed" campaign, which will include an event in the Omaha, Nebraska area on August 28-29. Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: August 18, 2009 Link to this article.   Send this article to a friend.

Why pro-aborts went silent

Why pro-aborts went silent At least once or twice weekly Nancy Keenan of NARAL had been sending a steady stream of "Keep anti-choice extremism out of health-care reform"-type e-mails, as was her July 28 message entitled – until Aug. 3. Nancy has now gone silent for over two weeks. Same goes for Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood, who likewise was transmitting "Anti-choice groups step up attacks on women's health"-type emails, as was the title of her July 22 dispatch – until July 24. Cecile hasn't been heard from in over three weeks. On Aug. 11, President Obama unveiled his Reality Check website with nary a word about the biggest obstacle to passing health care, abortion. Coincidental clam-ups? No. In her last e-mail, Cecile wrote, "[T]ell Congress that women's reproductive health care MUST be part of health-care reform." Nancy in hers wrote, "Ask your lawmakers to oppose anti-choice attacks on health-care legislation." Clearly, both felt their unnamed treasure trove, abortion, was in imminent danger of being aborted from health care. Then … silence?        The other side does nothing without a plan. The plan is to stop talking about abortion 1) in hopes the controversy will die down, and 2) to regroup and reframe the argument. But make no mistake: Abortion is still part of the liberal plan. On Aug. 12, Cecile tweeted:     Just left the White House meeting on women's health care – they appreciate all the might pp supporters speaking up for reform in the states! Also on Aug. 12, an ad popped up on Craigslist by Planned Parenthoods in Chicago and New York recruiting workers to push abortion in health care:     Right now anti-choice forces are trying to hijack health-care reform. They want to exclude reproductive health care. And, they want to cut out trusted community health-care providers. … We need your help to build up public support for this campaign! Full-time and management positions available NOW. … Earn $335-$535. So pro-aborts are still pursuing the goal of taxpayer-funded abortions, just stealthy. Meanwhile, Cecile gave a glimpse of how they plan to reframe the debate in an Aug.. 13 Facebook entry. It's going to be all about alleged disparity in women's health care:     Yesterday I attended a special meeting at the White House to discuss women and health insurance reform. The basic message was that we've got to remind folks why we became so dedicated to reforming the health-care system – or more particularly, the health insurance system – in the first place. …     Women are charged higher health insurance premiums because – NEWS FLASH – we bear children! Wouldn't you think we would get a medal instead of higher insurance costs? ...     Women get the short end of the stick from the insurance industry, so, yes, of course, we want national standards! According to a recent survey by the National Women's Law Center, the vast majority of individual market health insurance policies don't even cover maternity care. Not to mention that women are too often blocked from insurance coverage because of pre-existing conditions – including breast cancer and pregnancy!     Women need affordable health care that covers OUR needs – from childbearing to Pap smears to mammograms. Geez, we represent more than half the population here! No wonder we're fighting for real health care change. So believe it or not, the health-care spin by the United States' largest abortion provider is going to be baby delivery coverage. Meanwhile, the abortion industry has a mounting problem within their congressional ranks. On Aug. 11, EMILY's List, which specializes in raising funds to elect pro-abortion Democrat women to Congress, issued a fundraising plea (bold highlights theirs):     The [National Republican Congressional Committee has] picked 70 districts to target for 2010 – and nine of these are currently held by pro-choice Democratic women. …     History shows that now is their opportunity to strike. In almost every recent midterm election, the party that holds the White House loses seats in Congress. …     That's why I'm asking you to support EMILY's List today. … Americans are obviously leaning away from the concept of nationalized health care. But before that Americans historically polled heavily against the idea of taxpayer-funded abortions, now in their face within the already unpopular health-care plan. So pro-abort legislators face a double-constituent negative by supporting Obamacare. It's true, by the way, that the NRCC has targeted 70 Democrat seats to take back in 2010, nine held by pro-abort women. So Planned Parenthood and NARAL can plot all they want. Right now it looks like they lose no matter what they do. Although, do NOT take that for granted. Contact: Jill Stanek Source: WorldNetDaily Publish Date: August 19, 2009 Link to this article.   Send this article to a friend.

British Doctors Practising "Slow" Euthanasia through Deep Sedation: BBC Report

British Doctors Practising "Slow" Euthanasia through Deep Sedation: BBC Report A BBC report has revealed that physicians in the UK are increasingly seeing and using "continuous deep sedation" as a form of "slow" euthanasia. Adam Brimelow, BBC News health correspondent, writes that the use of continuous deep sedation, also known as "terminal sedation" is becoming more common in the UK and may be the way physicians are skirting the law prohibiting direct euthanasia.   Research has shown that 16.5 percent of all deaths in the UK are associated with continuous deep sedation until death, a number twice that of Belgium and the Netherlands, both countries that already have legalised direct euthanasia. Deep sedation can be used intermittently or continuously until death, and the depth of sedation can vary from a lowered state of consciousness to unconsciousness.  Under UK law, patients can give a directive to medical staff that they refuse 'palliative care' or 'terminal sedation', or 'any drug likely to suppress respiration'. Alex Schadenberg, the head of Canada's Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, said that continuous deep sedation is a technique that can be used ethically in cases of dying patients to alleviate intractable pain, such as neuropathic pain that does not respond to morphine, but the ethics depends upon the situation and the intention. "It's important to make the distinction," Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews.com, "between what we do with someone who is nearing death and someone who is in pain but not dying." In some cases, he said, patients who are not dying but may be suffering are put into deep sedation, and then dehydrated to death - a use that is always unethical. However, "if your patient is nearing death and is experiencing organ failure, you really can't be putting food and fluid into a body that can't use the fluids. When the body is shutting down, this is a natural part of the dying process. But when they're not dying, like Terri Schiavo, or someone who is experiencing great pain associated with cancer, that is a different issue, because then we are talking about causing that person's death. "[Deep sedation] can be a backdoor route to euthanasia if it is used unethically," he said. "The issue is intention. The intention must be the alleviation of pain and suffering. Even a long-term sedation can be ethical as long as the person is not being dehydrated to death. A good palliative care physician won't use the technique very often." Last year, Dutch researchers found that the use of continuous deep sedation until death was becoming more widespread in the Netherlands where direct euthanasia is already legal. In 2001, researchers found that in six European countries deep sedation was used in 8.5 percent of all deaths in patients with cancer and other diseases. "The increased use of continuous deep sedation for patients nearing death in the Netherlands suggests that this practice is increasingly considered as part of regular medical practice," said lead researcher Judith Rietjens, a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Public Health at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam. "Also, the use of continuous deep sedation may in some situations be a relevant alternative to the use of euthanasia for patients," Rietjens said. Deep sedation is associated now with approximately 10 percent of all deaths in the Netherlands, an increase that coincided with an increase in public disquiet about the numbers of active euthanasia cases - numbers that have since declined. Schadenberg said that the answer to the puzzle is simple: "The statistics of active euthanasia have gone down in the Netherlands because they are simply resorting to deep sedation instead. "But in fact this simply means that patients are being euthanised slowly in conjunction with the withdrawal of fluids. It is why this is being called 'slow euthanasia'. A lethal injection is quicker, but in fact the ethics are no different. Both intend death." Judith Rietjens confirmed this, saying, "We can see in our study that those sub-groups where we saw an increase of continuous deep sedation - just in those sub-groups - we saw a lowering of the frequency of euthanasia." Contact: Hilary White Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: August 18, 2009 Link to this article.   Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR WEDNESDAY

NEWS SHORTS FOR WEDNESDAY 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. Lawyers launch effort to overturn legalization of abortion in Mexico City The College of Catholic Lawyers of Mexico has filed a complaint before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against Mexico for legalizing abortion up to the twelfth week in Mexico City.   In their complaint the College blames the Mexico City Legislature, Government Chief Marcelo Ebrard and the Supreme Court for the decision to make the procedure legal.   The group of Catholic lawyers argues that passage of the measure legalizing abortion, which occurred on April 24, 2007, violates Article 1 of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man.   They also argue that the legalization of abortion in Mexico City "violates the human rights of the unborn and disassociates from them the term death, which seems to erase their status as human beings and does not recognize that their lives are being ended." Click here for the full article. Movie review: '4 Months' an impressive take on a repressive state A gloomy sense of impending, implacable doom hangs over "4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days," an abortion drama set in the authoritarian Romania of 1987 that won the grand prize at this year's Cannes Film Festival. The film opens with opaque small talk in the drab college dormitory shared by Gabita (Laura Vasiliu) and Otilia (Anamaria Marinca). They pack a valise with soap, cigarettes, money and other necessities for some outing. Gabita is vulnerable, nervous, withdrawn; it's up to the pragmatic Otilia to barter and haggle for the supplies. Gradually it becomes clear that the young women aren't packing for a weekend getaway, but for a clandestine rendezvous with an abortionist, an illegal act in a nation where women were called upon to breed as their patriotic duty. The finale, a silent, squirm-inducing face-off between two shellshocked characters over a dinner of organ meat, is more eloquent than any overt prolife/prochoice debate could hope to be. It's a fitting end to a brilliant and discomfiting film. Click here for the full article. Oklahoma Judge Tosses Abortion Law Requiring Ultrasound An Oklahoma judge on Tuesday overturned a state law that required women seeking an abortion to receive an ultrasound and a doctor's description of the fetus.   Oklahoma County District Judge Vicki Robertson said the law violated constitutional requirements that legislative measures deal only with one subject. He did not rule on the validity of the ultrasound provisions.   Special Assistant Attorney General Teresa Collett said she will meet with state officials to discuss whether to appeal. The law was passed in 2008, but legal action has prevented it from going into effect.   Nova Health Systems, the parent group of Reproductive Services in Tulsa, filed a lawsuit in October, arguing that the law was unconstitutionally vague and it was not clear what the doctor should tell women undergoing the ultrasound. Click here for the full article. Woman Repeatedly Stabbed After Refusing Abortion A Southbridge teen who police said wanted his ex-girlfriend to abort their baby, repeatedly stabbed the woman Friday, leaving her seriously wounded, police said. Alex Santana, 18, later said to police that he told his ex-girlfriend "she was going to abort the pregnancy 'one way or the other.'" Leah Diver, 28, was found by police lying in a pool of blood in the hallway of her apartment at 78 Pine St. just after 2:30 a.m. According to a police report in Dudley District Court, the woman told police she and Mr. Santana had an argument during which he grabbed a knife and stabbed her several times. Click here for the full article. Vermont Case On Legal Recognition Of Fetuses Could Reignite Debate Over Abortion The case of a Vermont woman -- who is seeking legal recognition of her six-month-old twin fetuses that died in a car accident -- could reignite a debate over abortions in the state. Some baby killers have expressed concerns that revising state law to give legal recognition to fetuses could conflict with the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade. The woman involved in the case, Patricia Blair, said, "They're babies. It just makes no sense to me how anyone can say 'they're not babies, they're a fetus,'" adding, "We need to speak for them. Click here for the full article. 100 Scottish Children as Young as 12 Have Had Abortions Abortions are being carried out on dozens of girls aged just 12 and 13 in Scotland. Figures obtained by the Record under Freedom of Information show eight 12-year-olds and 87 13-year-olds have had abortions in the last nine years. Hundreds of girls aged 14 and 15 have also had abortions during the same period. The Catholic Church in Scotland last night described the figures as "appalling and distressing". Click here for the full article. State: Planned Parenthood defying appeals court Lawyers for the state of South Dakota say Planned Parenthood is defying an appeals court and is not entitled to a restraining order for a law requiring doctors to tell women that abortion ends a human life. Planned Parenthood requested the order from a judge last week after receiving a letter from the state Department of Health listing deficiencies at its Sioux Falls clinic, the only one in the state that offers abortions. The state gave the clinic until Saturday to submit a correction plan, which could trigger an administrative process that ultimately includes suspending or revoking its license to perform abortions. Click here for the full article.

Schlafly awarded Lifetime Achievement Award

Schlafly awarded Lifetime Achievement Award



Today is conservative heroine Phyllis Schlafly's 85th birthday. This week Mrs. Schlafly was awarded a Lifetime Achievement Award by the Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute. The video below is a portion of this week's discussion.

Click here for the video.

Moments of Conception

Moments of Conception

You would think Barack Obama of all people would be up for allowing things to gestate a good long while before ultimately deciding whether they should be allowed to come into being.

This is a man, after all, who during his tenure in the Illinois State Senate was a staunch enough defender of the Peter Singer-wing of the pro-choice movement to prefer allowing infants that somehow survived the tribulation of "induced labor abortions" with beating hearts to die in soiled utility closets (the hospital unsurprisingly preferred the euphemism "comfort rooms") rather than risk voting for a bill that might define what he nonsensically (or dishonestly) deemed "pre-viable" fetuses -- what living child isn't "pre-viable" if you lock it in a grimy closet long enough? -- as "persons" entitled to Constitutional protections.

"The equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child," Obama reasoned during a 2001 speech in opposition to an Illinois "born alive" bill, "and if this is a child then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

See how complicated things can get when one delves into the minutiae of a bill?

So important was it to him to ensure every "i" was dotted and every "t" crossed, Barack Obama took upon himself the heavy, lonely task of dragging legislative due diligence into uncharted waters. "Birth has been the law's bright line, at least since Roe v. Wade," David Freddoso writes in the harrowing chapter of The Case Against Barack Obama on abortion. "Apparently not for Obama." Later Obama insisted he would have voted in favor of the almost identical 2001 Born Alive Infants Protection Act that unanimously passed the U.S. Senate (98-0). The august body he was destined to soon blip through, it seems, finally got the language just right.

So…if what is good for the goose really is good for the gander it would seem safe to presume what is okay for a sentient child just forcibly evicted, ex utero, would be just fine for the latest illiberal legislative doorstop Nancy Pelosi or Henry Waxman are cooking up, right?

The very same Barack Obama who once fretted over the lack of "any clear deliberation or debate" on bills "a foot high" that "nobody has read" during the New Dark Ages of George W. Bush has had an Oval Office epiphany early on in his presidency: Whatever proposed law his young administration may be midwifing at a particular moment becomes inviolable and sacrosanct as soon as Pelosi faxes Obama an ultrasound of the shadowy legislative zygote.

These days the citizen craving assurance their representatives might have some idea what is actually in a bill everyone seems to agree will fundamentally alter the nation is liable to be shellacked as an "un-American" obstructionist with a nefarious preference for the Napoleonic Waterloo over the ABBA remix. (Presumably John McCain supports both.) We're expected to accept it as natural that less time is allotted for debating major legislation in Congress than Obama set aside for mulling over the merits of Bo the Portuguese water dog with Malia and Sasha. And crikey! Don't you realize how annoying the President finds your jibber-jabber? "I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking," Obama groused recently, a pristine example of the subjective judgment.

It's an intriguing contrast. When it comes to preventing theocratically inclined religious fundamentalists from punishment by means of baby, Obama will deliberate over every nuance of a bill's wording. But a law that, say, punishes the country on behalf of an urbane eco-fundamentalism with a cap-and-trade regime that will cost the nation millions of jobs, reduce GDP by trillions of dollars, and increase electricity prices by perhaps 90 percent…well, the President now feels a moral imperative to "urge" Congress to rubber stamp a mountain of "ayes" upon what has been aptly summarized as "1,200 pages of text -- containing, at last count, 397 new government regulations and 1,090 new economic mandates -- followed by over 300 pages of text with no index that amended the previous legislation on paragraph by paragraph basis" -- on the basis of a mere nine hours, never mind nine months, of deliberation.

At least a humanoid bad seed, albeit with notable exceptions (Lyle and Erik Menendez, Damien Thorn), is only able to "punish" you for the eighteen years before you can legally evict him from your basement. A bad government program can't even be compared to the living dead. It never expires long enough to be resurrected as such.

Obama is even more radical when it comes to healthcare reform: Like Kyle Reese in The Terminator, the President appears willing to be sent back in time to rescue humanity from the clutches of the insurance agents he believes make Skynet look like Amway -- tell me Obama's argument for healthcare can't be reduced to "Come with me if you want to live" -- and salvage Obamacare at its very moment of conception, a date he has variously placed between sixty ("Whenever I hear people say [health care reform is] happening too soon, I think that's a little odd. We've been talking about health reform since the days of Harry Truman") and 100 years ago ("It's not too soon to reform our health care system, which we've been talking about since Teddy Roosevelt was president").

he President makes it sound as if the Rough Riders have been treading around a dusty Big Pharma corral with a satchel containing Obamacare's exact progenitor since 1905, tragically unaware that cynical Astroturf enthusiasts in Washington, D.C. have been killing scheduled vote after scheduled vote on the same compromise healthcare reform package since 1948 in an effort to preemptively stymie the Chicagoan Hopemonger of longstanding prophecy. This sort of misdirection is no doubt much easier to prettify rhetorically than a full court press for passing an elephantine bill barely fertilized never mind conceived, just as the President almost certainly prefers saying "the time for talk is through" over the less romantic "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about."

Indeed, while the public is struggling to discern the contours of a given Democratic statist brainchild -- will I be knitting pink or blue booties in the reeducation camp? -- the White House has signaled Obama may or may not be indifferent to the details. When the Weekly Standard's John McCormack queried Robert Gibbs as to whether the President might be bothered to actually read the healthcare bill he is so passionate about, the White House press secretary sniffed, "I don't know what his vacation plans are currently." Hey, Mr. President, it might not be as interesting as your beloved Entourage, but for those of us who would like to believe you'll pull out if the whole enterprise ends up as actually ill-conceived as it seems (a tall order, certainly!), the knowledge that you might have taken more than a cursory peek at the text would offer a measure of comfort. For a guy so incensed over Waterloo allusions Obama's attitude can at times seem not all that far off from Napoleon's on the morning of the battle: "I tell you Wellington is a bad general, the English are bad troops, and this affair is nothing more than eating breakfast."

If born infants living completely outside of a woman's womb could be denied medical attention as well as even a glimpse of human compassion for the duration of their sad, brief lives in order for Barack Obama to have the time necessary to become comfortable with legislative language, it hardly seems too much to ask that we back away from the haphazard, crisis-hyping-in-place-of-consideration assemblage process that has so far characterized the debate over mega-legislation so pregnant with peril and maybe do a little of that due diligence our President was once so fond of.

Contact: Shawn Macomber
Source: The American Spectator
Publish Date: August 17, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Planned Parenthood Continues Boasting Close Ties with White House on Obamacare Bill

Planned Parenthood Continues Boasting Close Ties with White House on Obamacare Bill



As calls for protection against abortion in President Obama's health care legislation fall on deaf ears, Planned Parenthood (PP) has made no secret of its continued communications with the White House on its interest in ensuring that "reproductive health" plays a central role in the final version of the legislation.

"Just left the White House meeting on women's health care - they appreciate all the mighty PP supporters speaking up for reform in the states!" wrote Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards on her Facebook and Twitter accounts Wednesday afternoon.

The latest meeting continues an apparently tight relationship between Planned Parenthood and the White House, where Obama administration officials have expressed their full cooperation with and encouragement of Planned Parenthood's stake in the bill.

In the opening session of the Planned Parenthood 2009 Organizing and Policy Summit last month, White House Public Engagement director Tina Tchen gave an update on the administration's progress in attaining health care reform and assured the crowd of President Obama's commitment to "women's health."

According to the PP release, participants at the three-day summit set their sights on the current health care legislation, to ensure it includes "access to comprehensive reproductive health care and access to essential community providers within the network."

"Health care reform is moving full steam ahead, and policymakers in Washington need to know the importance of including women's health care as part of a reform package," said Richards.

As Family Research Council president Tony Perkins has pointed out, Planned Parenthood, America's largest abortion provider, stands to gain substantially if the legislation includes them as an "essential community provider."  Insurance providers, in order to be certified, would be required to contract with Planned Parenthood under that designation.

During a meeting of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee last month, when pro-life Senator Orrin Hatch expressed concern that Planned Parenthood would be included in the bill, Sen. Barbara Mikulski admitted that Planned Parenthood was slated for "essential community provider" status.

Yet while the Obama White House has been swift to attack other criticisms of the bill, it continues to remain silent on the impact the bill will have on America's abortion landscape

While the abortion expansion embedded in the bill - called the "Planned Parenthood Bailout Bill" by Family Research Council's Tony Perkins - has sparked considerable public backlash in its own right, the issue is notably missing in the White House's "reality check" page on health care reform legislation.

When CBS news anchor Katie Couric in July asked President Obama point blank whether he favored a government option that covered abortions, Obama evaded the question, saying it was important not to "micromanage" the content of the benefits package or "get distracted by the abortion debate at this station."

Nonetheless, Obama's current legislation appears to be making good on his promise to Planned Parenthood in July 2007, when he assured that abortion availability played a central role his plans for health care reform.

Obama, a senator at the time, told attendees at the Planned Parenthood Action Fund event that he intended to include abortion in the public health insurance option, and require such coverage by private insurers.

In response to a question on the role of "reproductive health care" in his health care reform, Obama answered: "Well look, in my mind reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care, and so it is at the center, and at the heart of the plan that I propose.

"Essentially, what we are doing is to say that we're going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don't have health insurance. it will be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services.

"We also will subsidize those who prefer to stay in the private insurance market, except the insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care," he added.

In addition, Obama stated that "it is important for organizations like Planned Parenthood to be part of that system."

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: August 13, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Pamphlet-bearing pro-lifer exonerated by court

Pamphlet-bearing pro-lifer exonerated by court



A woman arrested during a pro-life demonstration in Overland Park, Kansas, has had her day in court.

Alliance Defense Fund attorney Daniel Blomberg explains that Carrie Kafka's case dealt with the fact that Christians do not get their free-speech rights taken away -- even when the complaint comes from Planned Parenthood.
 
"Thankfully, in a situation where the city of Overland Park had decided to prosecute my client [Kafka] for simply offering literature to people who are entering a clinic, the court found that charge was completely without a base and dismissed it," says the attorney.
 
Planned Parenthood had complained that Kafka was obstructing traffic entering and leaving the clinic's parking lot. OneNewsNow asked if Kafka actually did that.
 
pro-lifer being handcuffed"...[S]he was standing on a sidewalk holding up a pamphlet to vehicles that were entering Planned Parenthood," Blomberg explains. "Those vehicles could voluntary choose to stop, and most did not -- but when they did, she would step out just one or two steps off the sidewalk into the public easement across the driveway and she would hand them information and talk to them for a moment."
 
The pamphlets Kafka was distributing are designed to convince women seeking an abortion to choose life for their babies instead.
 
Without warning, Kafka was arrested in March by local police for criminal trespass. According to ADF, security video shows the pro-life activist never entered private property, never prevented vehicles from entering or exiting the parking lot -- but in fact, encouraged stopped vehicles to move on when another car approached from behind.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: August 17, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Trek across the country reveals a pro-life America

Trek across the country reveals a pro-life America


Crossroads participants from a 2005 trip

After weeks of witness on the road, in church youth groups, and in front of abortion clinics, forty young people will end their three simultaneous cross-country pro-life walks across America in Washington, D.C on Saturday. The walk organizer said the endeavor helped women to reject abortion and revealed significant pro-life support. Three groups of young people with the group Crossroads began their respective walks in Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles on May 23. They collectively logged 10,000 miles across 36 U.S. states in 12 weeks.

Each walker averaged over 1,000 miles and spoke to parishes and youth groups. They also engaged in "peaceful, prayerful" protests and sidewalk counseling at abortion clinics.

The effort has taken place annually since 1995. This year's walk will end with a 1 p.m. rally at the U.S. Capitol.

Speaking in a press release, Crossroads president James Nolan said the trip showed that America is a pro-life country.

"[U]nlike polls that take a small, phone-based sample, we have had the advantage of directly interacting with thousands of Americans.  And the support for the rights of the innocent, unborn has always been in the majority," he remarked, charging that the Obama administration is "out of touch" with the mainstream.

Speaking with CNA in a Friday interview, Nolan said walkers spoke at thousands of religious services and met with people one-on-one. He claimed the effort revealed a "massive conversion" of youth towards religion and spirituality and pro-life views. It also showed a "massive rejection" of the "culture of death," especially among the youth, he said.

Many who interacted with the walkers were "very, very supportive" of the effort. Nolan told CNA that people are "hungry for truth" and for "something new," and are not "buying the old lies involved with the culture of death in general."

He explained that participants walked 24 hours a day around the clock during weekdays, while on weekends they would pray at abortion clinics, youth groups, and various religious services.

The Crossroads walk has witnessed "amazing stories of conversion" and of women "choosing life," according to Nolan.

"There was one parish out in the Midwest where after the walkers spoke at one of the evening Masses a gentlemen came up and asked if they had been praying at the clinic earlier that Saturday."

The walkers responded that they had.

"This gentleman said that he had actually been driving his daughter to the clinic for the abortion and when they saw young people in T-shirts and praying the rosary, they decided they just couldn't do it," Nolan recounted.

After turning away from the clinic, the pregnant woman and her father then went to get an ultrasound. They discovered she was carrying twins.

"The father was just in shock. Before, he was just that close to choosing abortion. Now, he's a grandfather of two."

He described the incident as a moment of "real conversion" through the youth.

"When people see young people really taking a stand, hearts and minds get changed. It's pretty amazing."

CNA also asked about an incident at Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado where a park ranger initially stopped three female walkers from entering the park. According to Nolan, the ranger said the shirts "might offend other people with opposing views" and needed to be changed.

While the situation was resolved after half an hour, Nolan commented, "just the fact that young people wearing pro-life T-shirts were stopped from entering, just in itself, is an outrage."

"There is no doubt in our minds that this was a case of thinly veiled harassment based on nothing more than political ideology," Nolan said of the incident.

Though Nolan told CNA that the park ranger did not mention President Barack Obama specifically, he said the incident is indeed evidence of mounting pressure on pro-life groups under the Obama administration.

Nolan reported that Crossroads walkers had faced "harassment" under the Clinton administration but had a "break" under President George W. Bush.

"With the Obama administration, we're just seeing a ramping up of pressure on pro-life groups. It's clear that there has been a change in administration.

"That harassment has started up again," he charged, citing the Rocky Mountain National Park incident as his group's first "real clear example."

However, Nolan was optimistic about the future.

"The pro-abortion position is definitely in the minority now," he said. "The youth of the country especially are returning back to the religious and the life-respecting roots of earlier generations."

Source: CNA
Publish Date: August 15, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.