A time for truth on abortion

A time for truth on abortion



Star ParkerFormer Alaska Governor Sarah Palin missed a great opportunity to personally kick off an issue of enormous importance to her state and to the nation.

She was scheduled to appear with me at an Alaska Family Council event in Anchorage to launch Alaska's Parental Involvement Initiative, which will require parental notification of teenage girls under age 18 before they can get an abortion. But, the schedules of we mortals cannot retard the imperatives of history, so, despite Mrs. Palin's absence, we've gone to war with the army we have.

Currently 35 states have laws that require either parental consent or notification in order for a teenage girl to receive an abortion. Alaska passed one in 1997.

However, after ten years on the books, in 2007 the Alaska Supreme Court, arguing that sharing this information with parents violated the privacy of their teenage daughters, found the law unconstitutional. So now a 13-year-old can get an abortion without the knowledge of her parents.

A large percentage of these abortions are paid for with state Medicaid funds, but no one seems to think that parents' privacy is being violated using their tax funds to pay for these.

Research shows the remedial benefits of parental involvement when a pregnant teenager considers abortion.

And research shows the profound psychological damage caused by teenage abortion. But, perhaps we should be wondering who we are today that we need to gather data to address an issue as intuitively obvious as whether a teenage girl may abort her child without her parents knowing.

Of course there are exceptional considerations, like abusive parents. But the Alaska initiative deals with this, as did a similar initiative in California, which was defeated last November.

No, this is not about being reasonable. It is about ideology. And what we have are opposing worldviews that cannot be reconciled. It's about choosing one or the other.

One view is secular, materialistic, and sees only individuals and the rights they claim.

The other view is about truths that precede individuals, and social realities of which individuals are a part, like family.

This contrast and conflict could not have been more clearly laid out than in an exchange at a congressional hearing last April between pro-life New Jersey Congressman Chris Smith and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Smith was questioning current administration policies to promote abortion internationally. As part of his questioning, he waxed philosophic and asked Mrs. Clinton about her recent acceptance of Planned Parenthood's Margaret Sanger award. Sanger founded Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion-provider.

He pointed out to Mrs. Clinton that Sanger was a eugenicist and racist who said "The most merciful thing a family does for one of its infant members is to kill it."

The Secretary of State listened stoically and then replied: "We have a fundamental disagreement....We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women's health, and reproductive health includes access to abortion."

A century and a half ago, a fundamental conflict in values in our nation came to a head. In one view, black African slaves were not human, so the question of slavery was about political, not moral, reality. The other view saw the slaves as human and slavery as a moral outrage. The conflict fomented at the nation's grass roots until it exploded in the national arena.

The parental involvement ballot initiative in Alaska is about Americans again grappling at our grassroots with crucial basic questions that divide us that must be resolved.

Are we a people that see the unborn, family, and individuals as all part of the fundamental fabric of life? Or are we a materialistic, secular nation of individuals making political claims on each other?

Contact: Star Parker
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: September 1, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Medical Journal Blames Disabled People "who want to live" for Confusion on Assisted Suicide Debate

Medical Journal Blames Disabled People "who want to live" for Confusion on Assisted Suicide Debate



An editorial appearing in the prestigious British Medical Journal (BMJ) has blamed disabled people "who want to live" for the difficulties surrounding the debate in the UK on assisted suicide. Tony Delamothe, deputy editor of the BMJ, bluntly admitted that he is in favour of assisted suicide.

"The debate on assisted dying has been hijacked by disabled people who want to live. It needs to be reclaimed for terminally ill people who want to die," he wrote.

Led by Baroness Jane Campbell, a disabled member of the House of Lords, the disability campaigners have stood in the way of those who "rationally" choose to die, rather than endure their conditions. Delamothe objected to the argument that a change in the law would undermine the rights of vulnerable people.

"The rights?" Delamothe asks. "I understand that changing the law might mean that some people could feel under some obligation to bring about their premature end to avoid being a burden to others - and that severely disabled people might feel this more than most. But should such a risk override the freedom of competent terminally ill people to bring about their own end at a time of their choosing?"

Delamothe quotes Baroness Warnock, the doyenne of British utilitarian bioethics philosophers, calling her intervention a response to the "sloppy thinking" of the pro-life position. Warnock said, "There are two different concepts," terminal illness and disability, which should not be put together under the "general heading of the vulnerable about whom we hear, in my experience, all too much".

Delamothe responds, "I hope Baroness Warnock lives for ever, although I know that she does not want to."

Currently in Britain it is an offence punishable by a possible 14 years in prison to assist a person to commit suicide. The law, however, is under attack and last month the House of Lords judicial committee ordered the public prosecutors to "clarify" the terms under which it would be enforced.

Also in July, Baroness Campbell gave a powerful speech in the House of Lords that was credited with squashing an amendment to the coroners and justice bill that would have taken Britain one step closer to legalising assisted suicide. Meanwhile, the effort to change the law continues by a cadre of experienced and powerful government insiders.

Contact: Hilary White
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: August 31, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR TUESDAY

NEWS SHORTS FOR TUESDAY

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.

US Bishop Who Says Priests Should Deny Communion to Abortion Backers Resigns

Pope Benedict XVI has accepted the early retirement of a U.S. bishop who has denounced nuns for sponsoring lectures by gay-rights advocates and directed priests to deny communion to abortion backers, the Vatican said Monday. The brief announcement, keeping to Vatican tradition, did not say why the staunchly conservative Monsignor Joseph Martino, 63, Bishop of Scranton, Pennsylvania, had submitted his resignation. He took up the post in 2003.
Click here for the full article.


Montana Court to Weigh In on Assisted Suicide Case

The state's highest court on Wednesday will take up Robert Baxter's claim that a doctor's refusal to help him die violated his rights under Montana’s Constitution -- and lawyers on both sides say the chances are good that he will prevail. Washington and Oregon allow physicians to help terminally ill people hasten their deaths, but in those states the laws were approved by voters in statewide referendums, and neither state’s highest court has examined the issue of a constitutional right to die. In Montana, the question will be decided by the seven-member State Supreme Court. A lower-court judge ruled in Mr. Baxter's favor last December -- on the very day Mr. Baxter died -- and the State of Montana appealed the ruling.
Click here for the full article.


'The Disposition Decision' -- What to Do With the Embryos?

For most Americans, the moral status of the human embryo is a question that seems quite remote. Even as hundreds of thousands of "excess" human embryos are now stored in American fertility clinics and laboratories, to most Americans these frozen embryos are out of sight and out of mind. Thus, one of the most important moral challenges of our day remains largely off the screen of our national discourse. The issue cannot remain out of sight or out of mind for long.
Click here for the full article.


A push for abstinence over abortion availability

Pro-lifers in a Texas town are fighting the opening of another Planned Parenthood abortion facility.

Nueces County, with a population of over 313,000, features the county seat of Corpus Christi. Pro-lifers are focusing on a program to deal with teen pregnancy rates and hoping funds will not go toward opening a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic. According to Jonathan Saenz of Free Market Foundation, the abortuary's sex education programs increase intimate behavior and generate abortion business.
Click here for the full article.


Church cannot remain silent in face of threats against life, says Cardinal Rivera

The Archbishop of Mexico City, Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera, has called Mexicans to rally to the defense of  life from conception to natural death, a task which he called essential and one which the Church cannot remain silent about.

During his homily last Sunday, the cardinal urged Mexicans to defend life against every threat facing it. 

“We are all aware of the diverse stages through which the human being passes, from the moment of conception until death. Jesus took on this process, illuminating human existence in all states of life,” he stated.
Click here for the full article.

The 'ineffective' morning-after pill

The 'ineffective' morning-after pill



The idea of being paid to advance the sanctity of life is foreign to most online pro-life citizen journalists and commentators.

Not that being financially reimbursed for providing this work is wrong. Paul in I Timothy 5:18 wrote, "For the Scripture says, 'Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,' and 'The worker deserves his wages.'"

It's just that the lack thereof doesn't keep our writers from performing what they consider a vocation.

But quality online pro-death advocacy would be pretty much nonexistent sans financial reward.

Knowing that behind the advancement of illicit sexual behavior is an industry raking in billions of dollars annually from the sale of contraceptives and abortion makes it too easy to see why online journalistic promotion would be a natural marketing tool.

The Reproductive Health Reality Check blog is but one example of pro-death pay to play, a "campaign," according to the United Nations Foundation, its financial backer "launched in 2006 to harness the power of new media to offer a reality check on the misconceptions about reproductive health … [a] rebuttal arsenal."

Recall that media mogul Ted Turner created UNF in 1997 with a $1 billion pledge.

All this brings us to a remarkable August 21 article in RH Reality Check by Elizabeth Westley, Francine Coeytaux and Elisa Wells, originally published in the journal, Contraception.

The topic was the failure of the morning-after pill to live up to its rosy forecast coupled with an appeal for donors not to abandon its advocacy, nonetheless. Excerpts (emphases mine):
… Recent analyses suggesting that emergency contraception is not as effective in reducing unwanted pregnancy rates at a population level as we once hoped seem to have put the brakes on funding and have revived the original arguments that emergency contraception is "not effective enough" to be promoted as an option and that women are "abusing" it, using it repeatedly instead of using other more effective methods. …
Our expectations for EC's effectiveness were biased upwards by an early estimate that expanding access to emergency contraception could dramatically reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy and subsequent abortion. This estimate made a compelling story and is likely a key reason why donors and others were willing to support efforts to expand access to EC. Now that we realize that this was an overly optimistic calculation …

While the exact effectiveness of emergency contraceptive pills is difficult to determine (estimates range from 59% to 94%), we know that using emergency contraception is more effective than doing nothing. … When we realized that the typical effectiveness of condoms and pills was much lower than their theoretical effectiveness, did we tell women to stop using them in favor of more effective IUDs? ...

Effectiveness also has been the main driver behind the push to use emergency contraception to "bridge" women to other methods. The idea behind "bridging" is to use the lure of emergency contraception to then get women hooked into a more effective method. …

We urge the reproductive health and donor communities to not give up on emergency contraception just because it is not proving to be as effective at the population level as we had once hoped. …

We also urge the reproductive health community to continue to learn from the experience of promoting EC. We need to find out more about what women like about emergency contraception and why they are willing to accept its lower effectiveness and high cost compared with other methods. …

Do you see why I called the article remarkable? Lots of revelations.

The first is an open admission that the industry pays friendlies to promote widespread access of the morning-after pill, or MAP.

Next is the industry expected the "lure" of the MAP to bring it ongoing business through monthly sales of the lucrative birth-control pill. Women are likely bypassing pill pushers like Planned Parenthood altogether by purchasing MAPs at neighborhood pharmacies.

A third revelation is the authors' admission of almost all that pro-lifers have always contended were problems with widespread access of the MAP: It is ineffective, it is being abused, and it is circumventing oversight by health-care providers.

The biggest jaw-dropper was the audacious request to continue promoting widespread MAP availability with basically this rationale: "Women should be able to choose any contraceptive they want, even if it's ineffective."

This showed an appalling disregard not only for women's health but also for the unplanned pregnancies they claim out the other side of their mouth they want to avoid.

But we already knew that.

Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: WorldNetDaily
Publish Date: August 26, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

CMA Doctors Warn of New Pro-Suicide Bias in U.S. Law and Policy

CMA Doctors Warn of New Pro-Suicide Bias in U.S. Law and Policy



The Christian Medical Association, the nation's largest faith-based organization of physicians, today warned of the potential for pro-suicide ideology to seep into law and government policy. The organization pointed to pro-suicide influence in a controversial Veterans Administration (VA) manual and a section of the main House healthcare overhaul bill.

The VA manual, entitled, "Your Life, Your Choices: Planning for Future Medical Decisions," was co-authored by Dr. Robert Pearlman, who unsuccessfully pleaded for a constitutional right to assisted suicide in a 1996 Supreme Court case. [i]

The VA manual lists scenarios such as being in a wheelchair, needing kidney dialysis, or requiring a feeding tube and then asks the patient to consider whether those situations might make his or her life "Not worth living."

Dr. Gene Rudd, Senior Vice President of the 16,000-member Christian Medical Association, said, "As physicians, we recognize the value of advance planning and counseling and appointing a personal healthcare proxy. The VA manual goes a step further, however, subtly raising with vulnerable patients the possibility that physical impairments might make their lives, in the words of the manual, "not worth living."

"And now we learn that the pro-assisted suicide group Compassion & Choices claims [ii] to have worked with Congressional leaders to secure the end-of-life section of the healthcare overhaul bill, HR 3200. Section 1233 of that bill calls for government funds to pay healthcare professionals to give patients 'an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include-- the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual's family...'

"Imagine that you're depressed. You found out last week you have cancer. You were told that with treatment you have a 50/50 chance of beating it. No one knows how sad you are; no one has asked.

"But now the end-of-life counselor suggests you should consider this: Your disease and treatment may be a burden on your family. The cost of treatment will be significant. You may accept treatment, or decline treatment and opt for comfort care. Imagine the impact of those suggestions on a vulnerable patient."

"Such counseling may serve the government's purposes in a bill explicitly designed to 'reduce the growth in health care spending.' But it does not serve the patient's best interest.

"A physician must remain an impartial advocate for the patient--not for the government. Paying physicians and others to counsel patients regarding the end of life when the government will be paying for that patient's end of life care creates a conflict of interest. Patients need to know they can trust us to give independent counsel--not government propaganda."

[i] Brief of Amicus Curiae Bioethicists Supporting Respondents, Vacco v. Quill., SCOTUS case decided June 26, 1997.

[ii] "Opponents Distort Health Care Debate"

Related links: (CMA)  (VA Manual)

Contact: Margie Shealy
Source: The Christian Medical Association
Publish Date: August 26, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Human Life from Conception to Natural Death Needs Protection Under any Health Care Plan

Human Life from Conception to Natural Death Needs Protection Under any Health Care Plan

Multiethnic, Multiracial, and Transgenerational Federation of Organizations Unite on Health Care



Today, a federation of some of the largest faith-based and policy organizations in the country weighed in on the national health care debate. United in their adherence to core values expressed in the Declaration of American Values, these multiethnic, multiracial, and transgenerational organizations affirm the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death and agree that any health care policy must protect human life.

Without an explicit exclusion for abortion, the health care proposals on the table will fund abortion. Attempts to exclude abortion from the House bill were voted down. The majority of Americans do not support abortion on demand and do not want to fund the destruction of innocent human life. It is a moral imperative to protect human life. As a society treats the most vulnerable among us in the womb, it will similarly treat the aged and the ill. Any health care policy or proposal must protect those with debilitating or terminal illness and the elderly.

Human life is sacred because we are made in the image of God and are endowed by our Creator with the inalienable right to life. Government must protect human life. Life, no matter how young, is not expendable and, no matter how ill or aged, is not to be weighed on a cost-benefit scale.

Rather than disregard life and restrict our freedom with bureaucracy and endless paperwork, good government policy should explore creative solutions to address the true number of uninsured, not an inflated political number. Rather than take over health care, government could, for example, provide a dollar-for-dollar tax deduction from a person’s gross income for the amount spent on health care premiums or payments. A similar dollar-for-dollar tax deduction with no limit could also be allowed for contributions to faith-based and nonprofit organizations that provide health care free or at a reduced cost for those in need. Health care should be portable and not anchored to a particular job. The solutions are as many as we dare to dream, but government control and bureaucracy are not the answer. No matter the solution, any health care proposal that destroys our freedom and does not protect human life from conception to natural death is unacceptable.

A partial list of organizations in the Freedom Federation will be posted online at www.freedomfederation.org. These and other organizations will participate in a national health care webinar on September 10.

Read the statements by the leaders of some of the organizations here (PDF).

Source: Liberty Counsel
Publish Date: August 26, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

WSJ: "Abortion is new front in health battle"

WSJ: "Abortion is new front in health battle"



Love the title.

I said in my last post that although I don't like some of Randall Terry's antics, he is helping fuel the tension about abortion in any healthcare plan. It takes a village, as someone once said.

The combination of pro-life citizens at town hall meetings asking the abortion question (as I personally witnessed at a town hall meeting last week, when well over half the questions and comments were about abortion), calls, emails, letters to congresspersons, protests outside offices of town hall-challenged wimps of Democrat congresspersons, letters to the editor in newspapers, and posts, articles, columns, and dialogue on the Internet are creating a crescendo.

This is good not only as abortion relates to the healthcare issue, but on the topic of abortion in general. Pro-lifers are finding and showing their muscle, gaining strength from each other. Abortion is unwanted not only in healthcare but period. This has got to be freaking pro-aborts out. They never have and never will have the ability to muster public reaction against abortion like pro-lifers do. And they DO NOT like to talk about abortion.

But I digress. Here are some choice excerpts from the WSJ piece:

Anti-abortion groups are gearing up for a battle in the fall over health-care legislation, another headache for Democrats who already face concerns about the measure's cost and reach....
While it gets less attention than some other parts of the plan, abortion has often been raised by critics at town-hall meetings during the August congressional recess....

Abortion opponents say they will be satisfied only if a health bill specifically bans all abortion coverage in any federally subsidized plan. They note that Congress has already established similar bans in other federally funded health programs, such as Medicaid, health insurance for federal workers and military plans. The only exceptions are for rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother....

Anti-abortion activists have attended town-hall meetings and plan to hold prayer vigils in front of lawmakers' district offices before the legislators return to Washington in September....

Planned Parenthood members have shown up at some town-hall meetings....

Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: JillStanek.com
Publish Date: August 27, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Preliminary Injunction Granted in IL Conscience Case - Pro-Life Pharmacists Score a Win

Preliminary Injunction Granted in IL Conscience Case - Pro-Life Pharmacists Score a Win

The circuit court in Springfield, Ill. on Friday issued a preliminary injunction in favor of two pharmacy owners who have been fighting to protect their right to conscientiously object to distributing abortifacient contraceptives.

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is representing the pharmacists, Luke VanderBleek and Glenn Kosirog, in the case of Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich.

The lawsuit was launched to fight against a 2005 executive order by former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich forcing pharmacists and pharmacy owners to distribute the abortifacient morning-after pill.  Blagojevich defended the executive order by saying that "right of conscience does not apply to pharmacists."

The ACLJ announced the injunction as the latest victory in an ongoing effort to protect the fundamental right of pharmacists to practice their profession without having to violate their conscience.

"The Attorney General's Office has repeatedly argued that the Health Care Right of Conscience Act does not apply to the practice of pharmacy-and they have repeatedly failed," said Francis J. Manion, ACLJ Senior Counsel.

"While this is not a final decision on the merits of our lawsuit, the writing is on the wall.  Our clients are entitled to run their pharmacies according to the dictates of their moral and religious beliefs.  This is what the law allows; this is what the court has affirmed."

In the court's decision, Judge John W. Belz ruled that "Plaintiffs have certain and ascertainable rights under state and federal law," and that the law forcing them to distribute emergency contraceptives is causing the plaintiffs to suffer "irreparable harm in the form of an ongoing chill of their free exercise rights and rights of conscience under federal and state law, as well as unlawful coercion based on their religious and moral beliefs."

The judge went on to find that the plaintiffs "have a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims."

As a result of the injunction, the pharmacists will be permitted to refuse to dispense Plan B and other forms of emergency contraception, if doing so would violate their religious or moral beliefs.

In Menges v. Blagojevich, the ACLJ represented seven individual pharmacists who succeeded in having the state amend the regulation to recognize the conscience rights of individual pharmacists.  In Vandersand v. Walmart and Quayle v. Walgreens, the ACLJ convinced two other courts that Illinois pharmacists are protected by the State's Health Care Right of Conscience Act.

The current case, Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich, seeks to ensure that pro-life pharmacy owners - not just individual pharmacists - receive the legal protection to which they are entitled under state laws as well as the U.S. Constitution.

The injunction will remain in place until a final ruling in the case is issued.

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: August 26, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

UNESCO/UNFPA Report calls for Explicit Sex Ed for All World's Children over Five

UNESCO/UNFPA Report calls for Explicit Sex Ed for All World's Children over Five

"Sexuality education," the report says, "is part of the duty…of education and health authorities and institutions" -Includes abortion information 



A UN agency has issued a report calling for all children in all countries to be taught about sex, "reproductive" and "gender" issues.  United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has issued a report, titled "International Guidelines on Sexual Education," that claims that international law requires States to "provide sexuality education in primary and secondary schools." The report says children should be given explicit information on sex from the age of five as an "entitlement".

"Sexuality education," the report says, "is part of the duty…of education and health authorities and institutions."

The report complains that children's knowledge of sex is hampered "by embarrassment, silence, and disapproval of open discussion of sexual matters by adults".

In what may be a swipe at Uganda's highly successful AIDS prevention programme focusing on abstinence and fidelity in marrige, the UNESCO report notes the "experience in Uganda" that "reveals that young people living with HIV are often discriminated against by sexual and reproductive health services and are actively discouraged from becoming sexually active."

As with most "progressive" demands for explicit sexual information for children, the rationale is to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and unintended pregnancy. This despite increasing evidence on the ground that such "education" increases these and other social ills.

"Few young people receive adequate preparation for their sexual lives. This leaves them potentially vulnerable to coercion, abuse and exploitation, unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV," the report says.

"It is therefore essential to recognise the need and entitlement of all young people to sexuality education."

The report was released in June in conjunction with the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), an organization which works for universal access to "reproductive health care." UNESCO has long been a major supporter of the United Nations' population control projects, including coercive abortion, in its overseas work. Also consulting in the report were "recognised experts" with UNICEF and the World Health Organisation, both organisations heavily invested in abortion and contraceptives as part of the international population control project.

Included in what the report calls its "rights-based approach", are issues like "sexual and reproductive rights," the role of women within families, the "right and access to safe abortion."

Despite insisting that parents should be included in consultations on age-appropriateness of the sex education programmes, the report repeatedly asserts that teachers and government-approved programmes are most responsible for children's well being.

"In a context where ignorance and misinformation can be life-threatening, sexuality education is part of the duty of care of education and health authorities and institutions.

"Teachers in the classroom have a responsibility to act in the place of parents, contributing towards ensuring the protection and well-being of children and young people."

Read the UNESCO report (PDF)

Contact: Hilary White
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: August 26, 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.

Rep. Stupak Reaffirms Opposition To Abortion-Related Provision In House Health Reform Bill

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), an abortion-rights opponent, says that he and as many as 39 other antiabortion-rights House Democrats will oppose the chamber's health reform legislation (HR 3200) unless it abandons language outlining coverage of abortion services, Time reports. The House bill does not overturn existing federal restrictions on funding of abortion coverage. However, Stupak claims the bill is "a dramatic shift" from current federal policy under the Hyde Amendment. The amendment was first enacted in 1976 and currently prevents states from using federal Medicaid funds for abortion services except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the woman is in danger. Federal policy also bars private insurance companies that offer plans to government employees, including the military, from covering abortion services. Opponents of abortion rights want health reform legislation to include language explicitly prohibiting private insurance companies that receive federal subsidies from covering abortion services except for cases currently allowed under the Hyde Amendment.
Click here for the full article.


Ghanaian archbishop asks Catholics to fight legalization of abortion

Philip Naameh, the Archbishop of Tamale, Ghana has asked Christians to help bring “the virtues of Christ” into the administration of the country and to fight the legalization of abortion there.

Addressing an audience of about 800 at the National Convention of the Knights of St. John International, the archbishop said it was un-Catholic to have abortions in Catholic societies, AllAfrica.com reports.

The archbishop said Catholics must practice sexual abstinence and desist from distributing condoms to the public. He also encouraged them to become involved in politics to ensure effective governance.
Click here for the full article.


Elderly Have Their Own Concerns About Health Care Overhaul

The trepidation that's taken hold among the elderly over President Barack Obama's drive to remake the nation's health care system is turning into one more political headache for Democrats as they struggle to reach agreement on sweeping health legislation that can pass the House and Senate after Labor Day.
 
Older Americans, who vote at a higher rate than other age groups, also hold deeper concerns than others about proposed health care changes, surveys have shown. An ABC/Washington Post poll this month found 45 percent of respondents overall supporting Democrats' proposed health care changes, while just 34 percent of seniors were in support.
Click here for the full article.


Kennedy's Death Being Used As An Excuse To Push Government Health Care Reform

Democrats are hoping that the memory of Sen. Ted Kennedy will revive the Democratic Party's flagging push for health care reform. "You've heard of 'win one for the Gipper'? There is going to be an atmosphere of 'win one for Teddy,'" Ralph G. Neas, the CEO of the liberal National Coalition on Health Care, told ABC News. Democrats are hoping that Kennedy's influence in death may be even stronger than it was when he was alive as they push for President Obama's top domestic priority. Democratic officials hope that invoking Kennedy's passion for the issue will counter slippage in support for heatlh care reform.
Click here for the full article.


Talk About Pulling The Plug On Grandma

The debate on health care reform is heating up. Americans are starting to pay attention to what is going on. Big Pharma, in a panic, has bought protection from the Obama administration. The Obama administration, fearing for its political life, has struck an 11th hour deal with the slimiest industry in the free world – change we can count on?
Click here for the full article.


Shanghai's Two-Child Policy

Low birthrates in Europe, East Asia, and even in places like Iran have resulted in rapidly aging societies. These societies will soon find themselves unable to sustain the kind of economic growth necessary to care for their population and maintain social peace. Officials in one unlikely country have taken notice. That unlikely country is China, home of the infamous “one-child” policy. Officials in Shanghai, China’s largest and richest city, are urging couples to have a second child. Family planning officials literally are going door-to-door, slipping leaflets under them. Whereas in most of China a visit from such an official is often a prelude to coercion and even forced abortions, these visitors implore couples to have a second child. Why? Not some newfound respect for life—it’s Shanghai’s deteriorating demographics. Nearly 22 percent of the population is over 60. Within 10 years, that will rise to a third. By 2050, there will be only 1.6 working-age adults to support every retiree.
Click here for the full article.

New Documentary "Blood Money" Seeks to Expose the Abortion Business

New Documentary "Blood Money" Seeks to Expose the Abortion Business

New Documentary "Blood Money" Seeks to Expose the Abortion Business A group of filmmakers have recently filmed a documentary that aims to expose the terrible reality of abortion, focusing on the financial aspect of the multimillion dollar abortion industry. The film, entitled "Blood Money," includes numerous interviews with leaders of the pro-life movement, in which they lay out the facts about the abortion industry and the effects that abortions have on women. The film covers a variety of issues, including "Roe V. Wade, Planned Parenthood, the scientific fact that life begins at conception, and how abortion affects women who have had one" the director of the film, David K. Kyle.  Click here to view the trailer.

A Pro-Lifer Eulogizes Ted Kennedy

A Pro-Lifer Eulogizes Ted Kennedy I imagine most would like to die as Ted Kennedy did, knowing a relatively pain free end was coming - and approximately when - so as to use that gift of time to spend with loved ones as well as search their past and soul to try to make any amends necessary with the world and with God.... Kennedy was given all that, a year knowing he had terminal brain cancer before he died at home last night at the age of 77. Only God knows the condition of Kennedy's heart when he fell asleep here and woke up there. But on earth Kennedy never retracted his pro-abortion stance. We know he was capable of changing his mind because he was once pro-life. Kennedy fully understood the magnitude of the issue before renouncing the sanctity of preborn human life, as demonstrated in an August 3, 1971, letter he wrote to a pro-lifer: While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized - the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old. On the question of the individual's freedom of choice there are easily available birth control methods and information which women may employ to prevent or postpone pregnancy. But once life has begun, no matter at what stage of growth, it is my belief that termination should not be decided merely by desire.... When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception. Kennedy knew. Kennedy was called "the Lion of the Senate," by most accounts the most powerful of all, wielding tremendous influence. This means his opinion mattered more than others. In my mind Kennedy bears greater responsibility for his anti-life votes. They were not just votes. They were gauges by which others voted... and more. In his book, Onward Christian soldiers: The growing political power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States, Deal Hudson wrote: Mike Schwartz, a longtime pro-life Democrat who now works [as chief of staff] for [Republican] Tom Coburn, maintains that it is impossible to overestimate the impact decision on the Democratic Party, the Church, and politics in general: "He changed everything. Had Ted Kennedy maintained his pro-life posture, I don't think American liberalism would have said that it is a good thing to butcher the unborn." So here is Kennedy's anti-life legacy, compiled by a grateful NARAL, which consistently gave him a 100% approval rating year after year after year.... Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP, March 14, 2008 Voted NO to increase funding to enforce the Child Custody Protection Act, previously passed in the Senate to stop interstate trafficking of minors for abortion without parental involvement, March 13, 2008 Voted YES to expand taxpayer funding of human embryonic experimentation, thwarting President Bush's moratorium, April 11, 2007 Sponsored legislation to force all hospitals, regardless of religious beliefs, to provide emergency contraception to sexual assault victims, September 26, 2006 Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions, July 25, 2006 Voted YES on $100M to expand comprehensive sex and and availability of contraceptives to teens, March 17, 2005 Voted NO on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which made it a crime to harm a preborn baby during the commission of a violent crime, March 25, 2004 Voted NO on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, March 12, 2003 Voted NO on maintaining a ban against abortion on military bases, June 20, 2000 Voted NO on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, October 21, 1999 Voted NO on banning human cloning, February 11, 1998 I once checked out Kennedy's office in the Russell Senate Building in Washington, DC. I was scouting for a friendly senator whose office we might use to film the March for Life as it passed by on Constitution Avenue. Ironically, the offices for Kennedy and his staff spanned half the length of the building, with all windows facing the March. I knew Kennedy was no friendly. Sometimes it's the little things. So farewell, Senator Kennedy. I do mourn for you if you were not right with God when you died. I hold out hope you gave your life to Jesus, accepting His gift of eternal life in exchange for His death for us on the cross. Doing so erases the gravest of sins, even one's partial responsibility for millions of abortions. And Senator Kennedy, your death also provokes me this morning into deep mourning for those innocent children. Contact: Jill Stanek Source: JillStanek.com Publish Date: August 25, 2009 Link to this article. Send this article to a friend.

'In the Womb' is Now on the Net: Amazing 4-D Footage of Growing Baby

'In the Womb' is Now on the Net: Amazing 4-D Footage of Growing Baby The two-hour National Geographic documentary 'In the Womb' is now available on YouTube in 9 parts.  Originally aired in 2005, the documentary used revolutionary techniques in computer imaging and 4-D ultrasounds to present stunning images of the developing embryo, taking viewers through the amazing journey of the unborn baby from conception to birth. The video presents a remarkable visual apologetic for the pro-life message that human life begins with fertilization.  Showing the continuous development of the unborn child from conception to birth, it shatters all attempts to pinpoint any other time as the beginning of life.  While portraying images of the sperm and egg coming together, the narrator explains, "Once within the egg wall, the sperm's nucleus is drawn toward the egg's. The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. "This is the moment of conception," he declares, "when an individual's unique set of DNA is created, a human's signature that never existed before, and will never be repeated." The narrator goes on to explain how all of the characteristics of the human body are laid out in the first weeks of life.  "Over the course of the first trimester, or first three months, this single egg will begin to transform itself into a fully-formed baby," he says.  "But all the features of the human body, limbs, nerves, organs, muscles will be mapped out in the fragile first weeks." Through vivid computer-generated images, we are shown how at 4 weeks the black dots that will become the baby's eyes have already formed, as well as the "emerging buds" along her body that will grow into her limbs.  By six weeks, the eyes, though still not functional, have become "glassy domes with no eyelids," and by nine weeks the buds have grown into full-fledged limbs. We see the beginning movements of the fetus at nine weeks, and through 4-D ultrasound imaging, we witness the initial stepping reflex of the little 11-week child.  The ultrasound shows the child bouncing around in her mother's womb, "using the walls of the uterus like a trampoline," as the narrator says. The documentary takes the viewer into the operating room, where a fetoscope is used to perform surgery on a 26-week-old fetus who has developed a hole in his diaphragm.  Without the surgery, his intestines will have grown into his lungs by the time he is born, not allowing him to breathe.  The doctor puts the fetoscope through an incision in the mother, into the baby's mouth, and down the back of his throat to insert a tiny little inflatable balloon that will allow the lungs to grow properly (see end of video #7 to beginning of video #8). The documentary's message is self-evident: the child in utero is fully human and her development in her mother's womb is merely one important phase in her continuous growth.  Concluding the video with the birth of a newborn baby girl, the narrator explains, "She's gone from egg to embryo to fetus to trillions of cells of newborn baby.  Her birth marks the beginning of her journey in the world, but she has already travelled an incredible path during her 9-month odyssey in the womb. "Protected by her mother, and following her own unique genetic blueprint, she has grown a face, eyes, arms, and legs," he says.  "She has a brain and nervous system to control her body.  Stomach and intestines to digest food and a heart to pump blood.  She has learned to breathe, to hear, to feed, to remember, and to tell her parents when she's hungry, tired, happy, or in pain.  All before being born.  And now, she is ready to face the world." See the following videos on YouTube:   (Warning: These do contain some suggestive material, including nudity.) "In the Womb" "In the Womb: Multiples" Contact: Patrick B. Craine Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: August 25, 2009 Link to this article.   Send this article to a friend.

Health Care and Religious Freedom - Forced to Choose?

Health Care and Religious Freedom - Forced to Choose? Yet again, a religious institution may be forced to choose between obeying the government or staying true to its religious beliefs. Find out the alarming details. What word comes to your mind when we talk about a Catholic college that won't allow abortion, sterilization, and contraception to be covered by its employees' health care plan? Is "conservative" a good word? How about "faithful"? After all, the church teaches that abortion, sterilization, and contraception are immoral. So it makes sense that a conservative Catholic college would make sure that its health plan doesn't cover such practices. Well, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has a different word for Belmont Abbey College: "sexist." Using reasoning that could only be concocted by a consummate bureaucrat, the director of the agency's Charlotte office has said that denying contraception is sexist "because only females take oral prescription contraceptives. By denying coverage, men are not affected, only women." The EEOC stepped in because eight college employees complained about the lack of coverage. The EEOC has now ordered the college to find a resolution. Even though North Carolina law protects religious institutions from having to cover contraception, abortion, and voluntary sterilization, the case could end up in the federal courts. But as the president of the college, William Thierfelder, stated, "Belmont Abbey College is not able to and will not offer nor subsidize medical services that contradict the clear teaching of the Catholic Church." In fact, Thierfelder has said that he would "close the school rather than give in." Good for him. We've seen this before. In Boston, Catholic Charities was forced out of the adoption business because it would not place children with homosexual couples. Christian fertility doctors have been sued because they refused artificial insemination to a lesbian—even though they referred her to another doctor. Christian pharmacists have lost their jobs for not distributing morning-after pills. When will this end? The more serious question is, however, when does the next round of government regulation against religious freedom begin? We'll see soon enough in the current health care debate, and we need to be ready to do as William Thierfelder has done. Congress, after all, has rejected every attempt to include language to protect the consciences of medical professionals in the health care debate. Pro-life groups have warned about the very real possibility of religiously based hospitals shutting down before being forced to provide services that violate their religious principles. And back to insurance, current legislation being considered could also hand over to a "Health Choices Commissioner" the ability to regulate "basically all health insurance in America." Now, imagine a bureaucracy—completely unaccountable to voters—deciding what medical procedures must be covered by the insurance plans of a small Baptist day care center or a Christian high school. Frankly, I don't even want to imagine it. That's why Christians need to insist that any health care system must protect religious freedom. It's sad to me that we have reached a state where we must insist on laws that specifically protect religious freedom and freedom of conscience from government bureaucracy. Silly me, that's what I thought the Constitution was for. Contact: Chuck Colson Source: BreakPoint Publish Date: August 26, 2009 Link to this article.   Send this article to a friend.

Nebraska Abortionist Vows to Train Others

Nebraska Abortionist Vows to Train Others   Nebraska abortionist is determined to train others. LeRoy Carhart wants to educate as many doctors as he can to perform late-term abortions so the process doesn't die with him, according to the latest issue of Newsweek. "That makes the anti-abortion activist's job just 10 times harder," he said, "because there are now 10 times more of us." Carrie Gordon Earll, senior bioethics analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said that may be easier said than done.   "Many obstetrics and gynecology residency programs offer abortion training, yet the number of physicians willing to do abortions doesn't seem to be on the increase," she noted.  "It's not a preferred profession or even sideline for most doctors, and for good reason." Carhart's clinic in Omaha, Neb. sees dozens of women each day seeking late-term abortions.  Newsweek reporter Sarah Kliff calls Carhart, who also has licenses in seven other states, an 'abortion evangelist.'  Carhart can't exactly say why he does abortions, but he refuses to stop. "Abortion is not a four-letter word," he said.  "I'm proud of what I do." In May, Carhart's fellow late-term abortionist George Tiller was shot and killed.  But Carhart is steadfast in his commitment to the gruesome procedure. "If we give in, pro-lifers win," he said. "That's unacceptable."  Earll contends Carhart's commitment is misguided.  "The question of who 'wins' in the abortion debate is a critical one," she said.  "However, it's not the pro-lifers that matter.  It's the mother and child who both deserve a chance at life — and life without regret." Contact: Kim Trobee Source: CitizenLink Publish Date: August 25, 2009 Link to this article.   Send this article to a friend.

Pro-Life Activists Travel to Martha's Vineyard to Challenge President Obama on Taxpayer Funded Abortions in His Health Care Plan

Pro-Life Activists Travel to Martha's Vineyard to Challenge President Obama on Taxpayer Funded Abortions in His Health Care Plan The group to remind the President that abortion is not health care and there is no vacation from human rights, social justice and the truth.   The activists will be on Martha's Vineyard, Thursday, August 27. The activists will be holding large banners saying "Abortion is Not Health Care" and "President Obama human rights begin in the womb... Protect America's children."   The events on Martha's Vineyard are part of a national campaign called "Abortion is Not Health Care" sponsored by the Christian Defense Coalition, Operation Rescue, Expectant Mother Care and the Coalition for Life.   Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, states,   "We are traveling to Martha's Vineyard to publicly remind the President that abortion is not health care and not one penny of public monies should be spent on paying for abortions.    "We think it is important during this national debate on health care, that President Obama embrace social justice and human rights for all.  We do not want the President to turn health care, which is supposed to heal and bring comfort to those in need, into something that destroys and diminishes innocent human life.   "Our activities will remind President Obama there is no vacation from human rights, social justice and the truth.  We prayerfully ask him that while he is spending $30,000 this week to be with his children that he would make the same commitment to protect America's children and end the violence of abortion." Contact: Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Kaitlin Martinez Source: Christian Defense Coalition Publish Date: August 26, 2009 Link to this article.   Send this article to a friend.

Pro-life group sues state over campaign finance law

Pro-Life Convictions Worth Risking Career For: "The Passion" Actor Jim Caviezel

Pro-Life Convictions Worth Risking Career For: "The Passion" Actor Jim Caviezel Jim Caviezel, the actor who took the film world by surprise with his moving depiction of Christ in 2004, said this week that abortion has nothing to do with helping women and that he is willing to risk his career to say so. Caviezel gave an interview with the US magazine Catholic Digest, in which he spoke about the challenge he received from a colleague to adopt a disabled child as a demonstration of his well-publicized pro-life stand. Earlier this year Caviezel adopted his second child - a five-year-old girl with a brain tumour from the Guangzhou region of China. Reflecting on the 51.5 million surgical abortions to date in the US since Roe v. Wade, Caviezel began by saying, "I was listening to Johnny Mathis the other day and I said, 'What an amazing voice'. I have yet to hear another person sound like Johnny Mathis. "Look, I am for helping women. I just don't see abortion as helping women. And I don't love my career that much to say, 'I'm going to remain silent on this'. I'm defending every single baby who has never been born. And every voice that would have been unique like Johnny Mathis's. How do we know that we didn't kill the very child who could have created a particular type of medicine that saves other lives?" Caviezel told interviewer Julie L. Rattey that the Christian is obliged to act in accordance with his faith, regardless of the risks. He compared the injustice of abortion to that of the mistreatment of women in some Arab countries. Caviezel's latest film, "The Stoning of Soraya M," released in June this year, is based on a novel that purports to tell the true story of a woman stoned to death on a trumped up charge of adultery in modern Iran. The novel's author, the late journalist Fereydoune Sahebjam, was dedicated to exposing injustices in Iran under the Islamic regime. "The man who wrote this book chose to get involved in something that cost him his entire life. There were many a bully who went after him. They had been hunting this man down for years." "When you go to church on Sunday, it's absolutely worthless unless you apply what you've learned to your everyday life. What I hope they take away is the same story Jesus tried to tell years ago, which was the Good Samaritan. At some point, we all play a character in the Bible. We all think of ourselves, Oh, I'm Peter. I'm Paul. I'm John. I'm Jesus (laughs). "But nobody says, 'I'm Pontius Pilate'." Contact: Hilary White Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: August 26, 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. Morning-after pill is abortifacient, say experts in Nicaragua At the "Emergency Contraceptives" symposium organized by the Nicaraguan Association for Life, various pro-life experts explained how the morning-after pill is indeed an abortifacient.   Dr. Rafael Cabrera, president of the Association for Life, said science has shown that one of the actions or effects of the pill is to block implantation of the embryo in the womb, which translates into an "abortifacient action," since human life begins at conception.   "We can say that an abortion does not occur just because one takes the pill, since sometimes it is taken when ovulation has already passed, but if it is taken one day before or six days after ovulation, there is an 80% chance it will cause an abortion," Dr. Cabrera said. Click here for the full article. Hm, Hillary opposes sex selection abortions? From the New York Times, August 18: Q: Many of the countries where the abuses against women are most prevalent are also countries that have a vital strategic importance to the United States: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, India. How can you aggressively advocate for women without jeopardizing those strategic relationships?... Clinton: Obviously, there's work to be done in both India and China, because the infanticide rate of girl babies is still overwhelmingly high, and unfortunately with technology, parents are able to use sonograms to determine the sex of a baby, and to abort girl children simply because they'd rather have a boy. And those are deeply set attitudes. But at the governmental level, there is a great deal of openness and commitment that I am seeing.... This is problematic for hardcore pro-aborts, because Hillary is admitting preborns are distinct and separate human beings and also that some abortions are wrong. Can't find any pro-abort blog taking note of this traitorism. Click here for the full article. Pro-Lifers Start Push for 'Personhood' Measure Colorado abortion foes are launching another campaign to amend the state constitution to give legal protections to human embryos (human beings). Supporters said Tuesday they'll begin collecting signatures to get it on next year's ballot. The measure is often called a "personhood amendment" because it grants embryos (human beings) the legal status of a person. Last year, voters decided 3-to-1 against a similar measure that defined fertilized human embryos as people. Click here for the full article. Your Life ... think it's time to end it? We've been focused on the gubernatorial candidate interviews (see "Illinois Review asks" HERE and HERE) but lots has been going on that we didn't want to leave off the table for discussion.  One is this disturbing booklet being discussed in blogs and discussion rooms that the Obama Administration has resumed distributing to veterans facing hospital stays and possible life-threatening conditions.  The booklet entitled "Your Life, Your Choices," is co-authored by Dr. Robert Perlman, a leading proponent of assisted suicide.  A copy of the pamphlet is available online HERE. Click here for the full article. A Gruesome Harvest: Aborted Fetuses and Their Organs For years, scientists and celebrities supporting embryo-destructive stem cell research have used two arguments. First-blind to the destruction of the embryo itself-they argue embryonic stem cell research will save lives. Second, they maintain that embryos leftover from fertility treatments will otherwise be wasted. Now, one stem-cell expert is using these same arguments to promote harvesting organs from aborted fetuses. Speaking at a conference in March, Oxford University stem-cell expert Sir Richard Gardner commented that he was surprised the possibility had not been considered, and that experiments in mice have shown that fetal kidneys grow extremely quickly when transplanted to adult animals. Click here for the full article. FactCheck.Org Confirms Health-Care Dangers   FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan, nonprofit policy center, said President Barack Obama "goes too far when he calls the statements that government would be funding abortions 'fabrications.'"   Brooks Jackson, a director at FactCheck.org, said even though the plan does not specifically mandate tax-payer funded abortions, Americans should not be fooled. "Private plans, purchased with federal subsidies for low and moderate income folks," he said, "might also include coverage for all abortions." Click here for the full article.

Debate Over Department of Veterans Affairs' "Death Book"

Debate Over Department of Veterans Affairs' "Death Book"

Only Strengthens Reasons for Concern

 

"If President Obama wants to better understand why America's discomfort with end-of-life discussions threatens to derail his health-care reform, he might begin with his own Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He will quickly discover how government bureaucrats are greasing the slippery slope that can start with cost containment but quickly become a systematic denial of care."
     From "The Death Book for Veterans," by Jim Towey, which appeared in the Wall Street Journal August 19, 2009.

Although Jim Towey's column has stirred the proverbial hornet's nest, my hunch is that not enough people are aware of the growing controversy over what is afoot at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). According to Towey (the one-time director of President George W. Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives, among other things), the VA has brought back to life a death initiative into which Bush tried to drive a stake back in 2007. All this, needless to say, is being pooh-poohed by the Obama Administration.

Towey's Wall Street Journal piece, charges that a 52-page "hurry up and die" workbook/primer titled Your Life, Your Choices: Planning for Future Medical Decisions "presents end-of-life choices in a way aimed at steering users toward predetermined conclusions, much like a political 'push poll.' For example, a worksheet on page 21 lists various scenarios and asks users to then decide whether their own life would be 'not worth living.'"

This "hurry-up-and-die message is clear and unconscionable," Towey writes. "Worse, a July 2009 VA directive instructs its primary care physicians to raise advance care planning with all VA patients and to refer them to 'Your Life, Your Choices.' Not just those of advanced age and debilitated condition--all patients. America's 24 million veterans deserve better."

Since the document is available online (complete with a quickly added disclaimer once Towey's op-ed appeared), I read it for myself to see if Towey's allegations held water. And, unfortunately, they most assuredly do.

The workbook is permeated from the first grim example onward with a bias in favor of death--of presenting one scenario after another followed by the question (begging for a negative response) would you really want to remain alive if you were in one of these conditions? More about this in a moment.

One can only wonder, as Towey does, how a disabled young solider coming back from Iraq or Afghanistan would react to the following:

The circumstances listed include ones common among the elderly and disabled: living in a nursing home, being in a wheelchair and not being able to "shake the blues." There is a section which provocatively asks, "Have you ever heard anyone say, 'If I'm a vegetable, pull the plug'?" There also are guilt-inducing scenarios such as "I can no longer contribute to my family's well being," "I am a severe financial burden on my family" and that the vet's situation "causes severe emotional burden for my family."

When the government can steer vulnerable individuals to conclude for themselves that life is not worth living, who needs a death panel?

When Towey debated Tammy Duckworth, Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs, yesterday on Fox News Sunday, it is instructive, to say the least, that Duckworth refused to be on the air at the same time. Forced to defend an unconscionable document, Duckworth--herself a decorated veteran--was reduced to denying the undeniable.

For example, as an increasingly exasperated host Chris Wallace patiently pointed out, the VA, under the Obama Administration, did resuscitate Your Life, Your Choices last July after the VA, under the Bush administration, had suspended it in 2008. And the directive did "urg[e] providers to refer patients to it." And the "Note" now on the VA website [which states that the document is "currently undergoing revision" and "will be available soon"] did not exist until after Towey's op-ed appeared in the Journal.

To make matters worse, Duckworth also not-too-subtly suggested Towey's motives included promoting a small book he authored on end of life decision-making.

Please take the time to read the document . Only if you read this for yourself can you appreciate how dangerous the document is.

The scariest section is titled, "What make your life worth living?" It lists a series of circumstances and asks "if this factor by itself described you" would you find it "difficult, but acceptable"; "worth living, but just barely"; "not worthy living"; or "can't answer now" (but how-we-can-help-you-decide hints at the bottom of the page).

Those circumstances include, "I live in a nursing home," "I am a severe financial burden on my family," and "I cannot seem to 'shake the blues.'" Just in case the reader isn't quite ready to go the direction the workbook clearly prefers, it helpfully asks, "If you checked 'worth living, but just barely' for more than one factor, would a combination of these factors make your life 'not worth living?' If so, which factors?"

As Towey pointed out on Fox News Sunday,

The biggest problem is that when you go beyond those questions to the boxes you check, the first option you have, "it's difficult but acceptable," a lot of people with disabilities, a lot of people who have family members with stroke, find life beautiful. There's meaning and purpose. Sure, they're suffering, but their life hasn't been diminished by that illness.

I think there -- if you were trying to be unbiased and fair, you'd have a box that starts off that says "My life is beautiful. Yes, I suffer, but I find meaning in it."

Yes, that would be proper...if the goal were to be "unbiased and fair." But in an Administration whose first instinct is to decrease the level of care to the elderly and the most vulnerable (ostensibly to make it available to all), it is only prudent to suspect the worst.

Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: NRLC
Publish Date: August 24, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Abortion Coverage in ObamaCare is No 'Fabrication'

Abortion Coverage in ObamaCare is No 'Fabrication'

"As for the House bill as it stands now, it's a matter of fact that it would allow both a 'public plan' and newly subsidized private plans to cover all abortions," writes FactCheck.org director.

Last Wednesday, President Barack Obama responded to claims that his health care legislation would institute government funding of abortion by calling those claims "fabrications."  In an article released on Friday, however, FactCheck.org, an organization that analyzes the accuracy of statements made by American political leaders, confirmed the assertion of pro-life organizations that the legislation would indeed open the door to government-funded abortion.

In the article, "Abortion: Which Side Is Fabricating?," FactCheck director Brooks Jackson carefully distinguishes how abortion is included in the bill.  "The truth is that bills now before Congress don't require federal money to be used for supporting abortion coverage," he says.  "So the president is right to that limited extent. But it's equally true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new 'public' insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them."

It is "likely," the article says, that Obama would implement abortion coverage once it is allowed.  "Obama has said in the past that 'reproductive services' would be covered by his public plan, so it's likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that," Jackson writes.  "Low- and moderate-income persons who would choose the 'public plan' would qualify for federal subsidies to purchase it. Private plans that cover abortion also could be purchased with the help of federal subsidies.

"Therefore, we judge that the president goes too far when he calls the statements that government would be funding abortions 'fabrications'," Jackson concludes.

Responding to Obama's "fabrications" remark, the National Right to Life Committee's legislative director Douglas Johnson said, "the bill backed by the White House (H.R. 3200) explicitly authorizes the government plan to cover all elective abortions."  Jackson, indicating that FactCheck does not take a position on whether abortion should be covered or not, nevertheless confirms Johnson's statement, saying, "our analysis shows that Johnson's statement is correct. ... The House bill does just that."

Jackson says it is the July 30th Capps amendment - which was billed as a "common ground" initiative - that has opened the door to publicly funded abortion.  The amendment explicitly includes abortion funding in the government plan, namely those covered by Medicaid, such as cases of rape or incest.  But it also allows other types of abortions to be covered, according to the judgment of the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

The current Secretary of the HHS, Kathleen Sebelius, is a well-known abortion supporter.

"The Capps Amendment MANDATES that the public plan cover any Medicaid-fundable abortions, and AUTHORIZES the secretary to cover all other abortions," said NRLC's Johnson, quoted by Jackson.  "From day one, she [Secretary Kathleen Sebelius] is authorized to pay for them all. And, she will."

"We can't say what anyone will do in the future," writes Factcheck.org's Jackson, but then points to Obama's 2007 comments to Planned Parenthood, where he indicated that "reproductive services" would be "essential care" in his health plan.  "Obama did not use the word 'abortion,'" Jackson says, "but a spokesman for the campaign said later that abortion would be included, according to the Chicago Tribune."

Under the Capps amendment, Jackson says, the public health plan could fund all abortions.  While, "the Capps amendment does contain a statement ... that prohibits the use of public money to pay for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother," the plan could cover all abortions, "so long as the plans took in enough private money in the form of premiums paid by individuals or their employers."

"The Capps language also would allow private plans purchased with federal subsidies ('affordability credits' for low-income families and workers) to cover abortion," he says.

Jackson mentions the defeated Stupak amendment, which would have overruled the Capps amendment, that "prohibited government funding of 'any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion,' except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother."

But, he concludes, "as for the House bill as it stands now, it's a matter of fact that it would allow both a 'public plan' and newly subsidized private plans to cover all abortions."

Contact: Patrick B. Craine
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: August 21, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Suit Filed in Case of New York Nurse Forced to Participate in Abortion

Suit Filed in Case of New York Nurse Forced to Participate in Abortion




The Alliance Defense Fund recently responded to a brief filed by Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York that seeks to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a Catholic nurse who was forced to participate in the abortion of a 22-week-old unborn child.

On August 10, attorneys for Mt. Sinai Hospital filed a brief claiming that Cathy Cenzon-DeCarlo, the Catholic nurse forced to participate in an abortion, has no right to sue.

The Alliance Defense Fund, in a suit filed on behalf of Cenzon-DeCarlo, is seeking to prosecute the hospital for violating the "Church Amendment" which "protects the right of conscience of pro-life health care workers employed by recipients of federal Health and Human Services funding."

According to the suit, Cathy Cenzon-DeCarlo was forced to participate in the abortion despite her protests and was told by the hospital it was an emergency procedure. Cenzon-DeCarlo later found out the procedure was deemed a "Category II," meaning the circumstances were not life-threatening to the mother.

She was threatened with charges of insubordination and patient abandonment if she did not go along with the abortion.

Subsequently, when she filed a complaint, the hospital cut her over-time hours and tried to force her to sign a document agreeing to take part in abortions in case of emergency.

Since the incident, Mrs. DeCarlo has said that she cannot sleep and has been having nightmares, requiring her to seek the assistance of a physician.

"It felt like a horror film unfolding," said Cenzon-DeCarlo in an interview with the New York Post.

The Church Amendment "provides that no recipient of federal health funds may discriminate in the employment of privileges of its health care personnel because of their religious objection to abortion."

However, according to Mount Sinai Hospital, the Church Amendment "does not grant individual litigants a private right of action."

In the motion to dismiss, attorneys for Mt. Sinai claimed, "There is simply no basis to infer a private right of action under the Church Amendment."

The ADF, though, responded to this brief by filing its own letter with the court. In it, ADF said, "The law contains no exception letting Mt. Sinai compel assistance based on their unbridled judgment that abortion is an 'emergency.' "

"Mount Sinai's actions are a quintessential example of discriminating in employment and privileges on condition that Mrs. DeCarlo violate her objection to abortion."

Further, the ADF directly addressed Mt. Sinai's claim that Cenzon-DeCarlo is not allowed to sue because the Hyde Amendment does not cover private litigation. The ADF argued that even though the Hyde Amendment did not directly address private litigation, the absence of such a mention has always been understood to thus allow a private right of action.

"The Church Amendment involves all of the factors that the Supreme Court has used to recognize implied private rights and remedies."

"Mount Sinai Hospital is multiplying its injustices against Nurse Cathy Cenzon-DeCarlo," said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman in an ADF press release.

"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."

ADF is seeking an injunction against the hospital to ensure that it does not attempt to cut Cenzon-DeCarlo's hours during the lawsuit, or force her to participate in any more abortions. Furthermore, they are also suing for mental damages to Mrs. DeCarlo and arguing that Mt. Sinai should not receive any more federal funds under the Church Amendment.

Contact: Matt Anderson
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: August 24, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.