Daley to Sign Abortion 'Buffer Zone' Ordinance to Keep Pro-Lifers 'Away'

Daley to Sign Abortion 'Buffer Zone' Ordinance to Keep Pro-Lifers 'Away'



Mayor Richard Daley said today he will sign a new ordinance aimed at keeping anti-abortion activists away from patients entering clinics. Daley said the ordinance will “try to make sure nobody is harassed.” The mayor said protesters can express their opinions but “should not harass and scream and yell” at people going into medical facilities. “There has to be some civility left in our society," he said. When a reporter noted that some aldermen voted against the measure, citing their religious beliefs, Daley, who is Catholic, said, “My religion is very personal.” The mayor's decision to sign instead of veto the abortion protester ordinance comes as his office today said it would halt a telephone survey it was conducting on the controversial ordinance.
Click here for the full article.

Also... Daley's office pulls plug on abortion protest survey



Mayor Richard Daley's office is abruptly halting a telephone survey it was conducting on a controversial, newly approved City Council ordinance intended to rein in anti-abortion protesters, a top aide said today.

The city had set up a phone line allowing callers to say whether they are for or against the new ordinance, which was approved by aldermen Wednesday and creates eight-foot "bubble zones" around people near medical offices.   Source: Chicago Tribune

Pro-Life Democrats Seek to Block Health Bill if Pelosi Won’t Allow Vote on Amendment Barring Abortion Funding

Pro-Life Democrats Seek to Block Health Bill if Pelosi Won't Allow Vote on Amendment Barring Abortion Funding


Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.) speaks to
students on steps of Capitol. (Congressional photo)

Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.), co-chairman of the House Pro-Life Caucus, told CNSNews.com that Democrats who oppose government funding of abortion will try to block the health care reform bill from coming to a vote on the House floor unless House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) allows a floor vote on an amendment to explicitly prohibit abortion funding in the bill.

Stupak was responding to a question from CNSNews.com about White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs's contention at Friday's press briefing that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops were mistaken in their belief that the Hyde Amendment, which bars abortion funding in each year's Health and Human Services Appropriation, would not apply to the new programs created and funded through the health care bill.

What Stupak wants to do is attach the language of the Hyde Amendment to the health-care bill itself so that abortion funding is permanently and explicitly barred in the federally funded health insurance plans.

"There are many of us Democrats in the House who are philosophically, legally, and morally opposed to public funding for abortions," Stupak told CNSNews.com in a statement. "We want the chance to offer our amendment, the Hyde Amendment, on the floor of the House."

"If our amendment is not made in order we will try to shut down the rule, preventing the health care bill from coming to the floor for a vote," Stupack stated. "If the Speaker believes that abortion funding is not in the bill then she should let me have my amendment, because if anything it would just be redundant."

If the rule that would govern debate on the health care bill and stipulate which proposed
amendments are eligible for votes on the House floor is defeated by a vote of the House, the health care bill itself would die. 

Stupak told Fox News last month he believed he had enough voted lined up to defeat the rule if Speaker Pelosi does not agree to allow a vote on an amendment to explicitly bar abortion funding through the bill.

Stupak (D-Mich.) is co-sponsoring the amendment with Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.).  It says: "No funds authorized under this Act (or an amendment by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except" in the cases of rape, incest and threat to the life of the mother.
 
The House health care bill as it now stands provides subsidies for people earning up to 400 percent of the poverty level to buy government-approved health insurance plans or a government-run "public option" insurance plan in a health insurance "exchange."  The secretary of health and human services is required under the bill to ensure that at least one plan in this exchange covers abortions. The secretary may also allow the public option plan to cover abortions. 

Contact: Fred Lucas
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: October 12, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

On Eve of Health Care Vote, New Video Urges Online Abortion Protest

On Eve of Health Care Vote, New Video Urges Online Abortion Protest



On the eve of one of the most important votes on health care reform to date, a coalition of pro-life groups has released a new video urging Americans to join an online protest of taxpayer funded abortions at IAM71.org. (View video.)


 
On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee is scheduled to vote on its version of health care reform legislation that experts say would allow for the public funding for abortions. If successful, it would be the first step toward forcing the American people to fund abortions through a national health care system even though such funding is opposed by 71% of the people, according to a recent Zogby Poll.
 
"Nearly three quarters of Americans oppose this ill-advised legislation that would force us to violate our consciences by funding abortions with our tax dollars," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman, who leads the growing coalition of sponsors of the protest which include, the Christian Defense Coalition, Rock for Life, Pro-life Unity, Jill Stanek, the Survivors, and others.
 
"Even though 71% is a huge majority, most people feel like no one is listening to their deeply held convictions on this matter. The online protest at IAM71.org gives these disenfranchised Americans the opportunity to make their voices heard by Congress in a unique way. We are using the power of the Internet to affect change in our government."
 
The video, now available on YouTube.com, urges Americans to upload photos of themselves with the number 71 to the IAM71.org website, which will be sent to each member of Congress.
 
"We are encouraging those who participate to spread the word using e-mail and their social networking sites," said Newman. "We are also urging them to take their protest to the next level by contacting their Senators and Representatives, protesting at their home offices, and writing letters to their local newspapers in opposition to Obama's scheme to force Americans to pay for abortions."
 
"Public pressure is an effective tool. We pray that the Senators will listen to the 71% of American people, and defeat any bill that does not specifically ban the use of tax dollars to pay for abortions."
 
Click here to view the video.

Contact: Troy Newman, Cheryl Sullenger
Source: Operation Rescue
Publish Date: October 12, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Deadly Danger of Treating Patients as Category Members Instead of Individuals

Deadly Danger of Treating Patients as Category Members Instead of Individuals



Many hospitals and nursing homes in the UK have adopted something called the Liverpool Care Pathway, in which dying patients are sedated–whether or not they need it to control unrelievable pain, apparently–and then denied food and water until death.

Currently about 16.5  percent of deaths in the UK occur while sedated–which is far more than the hospice experts I have talked with have told me is necessary to actually alleviate suffering.  Indeed, they tell me sedation is rarely necessary in hospice practice  If that is true, and I intend to do some more research on this, the Pathway misuses the legitimate treatment of palliative sedation, and mutates it in some cases into a method of causing death, known as terminal sedation.  This means that sedation is sometimes administered, not because the individual patient actually needs the procedure, but because he or she has been reduced to a category member, and that’s how members of the category are treated.

That’s a prescription for disaster. And now, a woman was almost dehydrated to death after being put mistakenly on the Pathway.  >From the story:

    AN 80-year-old grandmother who doctors identified as terminally ill and left to starve to death has recovered after her outraged daughter intervened. Hazel Fenton, from East Sussex, is alive nine months after medics ruled she had only days to live, withdrew her antibiotics and denied her artificial feeding. The former school matron had been placed on a controversial care plan intended to ease the last days of dying patients.

    Doctors say Fenton is an example of patients who have been condemned to death on the Liverpool care pathway plan. They argue that while it is suitable for patients who do have only days to live, it is being used more widely in the NHS, denying treatment to elderly patients who are not dying.

Why are we surprised? The Pathway is a blunt intstrument, and the uniqueness of each case is lost in the drugs sedating effects.  Even though its authors believed they had created a nuanced protocol, that is never how these things are actually applied in clinical practice.  Eventually, such “pathways” threaten to transform medicine into a paint-by-the numbers technocracy.

And look at what it took to save Hazel from dehydration:

    Fenton was admitted to hospital suffering from pneumonia. Although Ball acknowledged that her mother was very ill she was astonished when a junior doctor told her she was going to be placed on the plan to “make her more comfortable” in her last days. Ball insisted that her mother was not dying but her objections were ignored. A nurse even approached her to say: “What do you want done with your mother’s body?” On January 19, Fenton’s 80th birthday, Ball says her mother was feeling better and chatting to her family, but it took another four days to persuade doctors to give her artificial feeding.

This is a consequence of surrendering care approaches to cost/benefit/best care bureaucratic panels.  It becomes an excuse to merely write people off, particularly in a utilitarian environment where “quality of life” may determine the way the patient’s life is perceived by caregivers.

How many Hazel Fosters have died by dehydration who might have lived, or who could have spent their last days–pain controlled but awake and aware–surrounded by family?  There is no way to know.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: October 12, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Deluge of Pro-Life Protest after Chicago Bubble Zone Law Passes

Deluge of Pro-Life Protest after Chicago Bubble Zone Law Passes

Mayor's Telephone System Overloaded with Negative Response

   

Within hours after a Chicago ordinance muzzling abortion mill sidewalk counseling passed the City Council Wednesday, hundreds and perhaps thousands of pro-lifers began pushing back against the ordinance, flooding the city government with phone calls against what they call an egregious violation of free speech rights.

Mayor Richard Daley's office has received so many calls over the controversial measure that attempts to reach the mayor by telephone are being immediately transferred to an automated system registering callers' approval or disapproval on the bill.

The Disorderly Conduct Ordinance amendment, introduced by Chicago Alderman Vi Daley on September 9, prohibits pro-life protesters within 50 feet of an abortion mill from approaching within 8 feet of visitors without their consent.  Violators of the new law, to go into effect November 17, could be fined up to $500. 

The move was greeted heartily by Planned Parenthood of Illinois, who personally lobbied in its favor, saying it balanced "the need to protect patient and staff safety while preserving the freedom of speech."

But pro-life Chicagoans say it would put an effective end to the visible 40 Days for Life campaign in the city.  Even the ACLU - known for championing the "right" to abortion over the rights of the unborn - weighed in against the bill as a clear threat to First Amendment rights.

"Eight feet is a very large buffer for a city like Chicago," said Eric Scheidler of the Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League

Scheidler told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) that the ordinance "will actually be devastating to sidewalk counselling in the city" because of the high level of congestion, and sidewalks too narrow to abide by the law "without being driven out of any kind of opportunity to witness to the value of life."

Sources within the city government confirmed that "the phones have been ringing off the hook" with calls opposing to the ordinance, according to Scheidler. 

"They even had to set up an automated system, so that's a pretty good sign that people are really calling in," he said.  He also noted that, judging by the crowd that rallied before the City Council Wednesday, "an overwhelming majority" of the feedback was in opposition to the ordinance.

Scheidler noted that the bill's wording was dangerously vague, as it failed to specify what constituted enough "consent" from a visitor to allow a pro-lifer to approach without paying the penalty.

"It would have a tremendously chilling effect not only in its practical application," he said, "but in the fear that it raises amongst pro-life witnesses: that they may be breaching this confusing law - a fifty foot zone within which there is an 8 foot zone - and it may cause people to stay away simply out of fear."

He said the Pro-Life Action league planned to continue fighting against the ordinance with a legal brief to the mayor pointing out its unconstitutionality, amid other efforts.  While Daley does not need to sign the law, Scheidler said Daley has the power to veto the bill by executive order even after it goes into effect. 

Mayor Daley has yet to respond to the outpouring of opposition.

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: October 9, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Hundreds of Thousands of Students Will Refuse to Speak on October 20th

Hundreds of Thousands of Students Will Refuse to Speak on October 20th, as They Stand in Solidarity with Those Who are Killed Every Day by Abortion

 
Stand True, Christ-Centered Pro-life, will hold its sixth annual Pro-life Day of Silent Solidarity on Tuesday, Oct. 20. Last year students from over 4,700 campuses in 25 countries participated in the event, and Stand True expects even more this year. Last year Stand True heard back from participants about 58 girls who canceled their abortions on the day of the event due to the efforts of the students. These students stand in solidarity with each other to bring attention to the holocaust that is killing almost 4,000 babies every day in the United States alone.
 
"The students are speaking loud and clear; they want an end to legalized child-killing" said Bryan Kemper, President of Stand True Ministries. "We are getting thousands of e-mails, comments and internet messages from students thanking us for giving them a peaceful way to stand up and be counted."
 
Here are just a couple of the comments we have received from the students:
 
"I got one girl to not get an abortion because I took a ZERO in class for this and she started crying. She pulled me into the bathroom and told me she was pregnant and was going to have an abortion and she said because of how much this meant to me she didn't! We both sat in the bathroom and cried for a few min. and she put the baby up for adoption!"
 
"She's about a month or so pregnant. I have her for a couple of my classes. She kept glancing at my shirt all day and she took a flier. But she didn't say anything. Then today in 6th I was getting up and she came up to me. And in front of the whole classroom she began weeping and fell into my arms. She said she didn't want to have an abortion anymore. She said she wanted to receive Christ right there."
 
Students will not only remain silent but will also wear red armbands and/or red duct tape on their mouths, and distribute educational flyers to anyone who asks why they are silent. Many home-schooled students will also participate in the event by visiting local malls and other public areas to distribute flyers.
 
Participating students are instructed to be respectful to teachers and other officials and to speak with them when required.
 
"Thousands of American babies are permanently silenced every day by the violent act of abortion," said Kristan Hawkins, Executive Director of Students for Life. "This is a day for pro-life students to honor those children as they stay silent as an act of solidarity with these innocent victims."
 
"This is a way for us to challenge students of all ages to be bold advocates for the almost 4,000 pre-born who are murdered every day in our country," said Timmerie Millington of Survivors. "They have an opportunity to stand with their fellow classmates and an obligation to be a voice for the voiceless. By standing in united solidarity across the world, students everywhere can identify with the preborn children, and our silence will proclaim 'stop killing our generation!' We can and must be warriors for the preborn!"
 
Over the past few years many schools have tried to stop students from participating and have tried to quash their First Amendment rights. Every year, attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund defend these students and file lawsuits to protect their rights.
 
There is no cost to participate in the event. Flyers are available for download in PDF format at www.silentday.org. Students can also follow the event on twitter at www.twitter.com/prolifeday
 
Legal help for students involved is available from the Alliance Defense Fund (www.telladf.org or 1-800-TELL-ADF).

Contact: Bryan Kemper
Source: Stand True
Publish Date: October 12, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR MONDAY

NEWS SHORTS FOR MONDAY
(Referral to Web sites not produced by The Illinois Federation for Right to Life is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)

Woman Helps Produce Documentary That Reveals Link Between Abortion, Racism



In Swahili, the word "maafa" means "great disaster" or "tragedy." So it's fitting that the word would become the title of a new documentary that shows how the abortion industry in the United States is targeting members of the African-American community. Released this summer, "Maafa21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America," features St. Louisan Connie Eller, a longtime African-American volunteer with the pro-life movement here and coordinator of Missouri Blacks for Life.
Click here for the full article.


Embryonic Stem Cell Foes to Protest at NU Regents Meeting



An abortion regulation group plans to picket a University of Nebraska regents' meeting this month in hopes of winning assurances that they will not change the policy on stem cell research, an activist said Saturday. Julie Schmit-Albin, the executive director of Nebraska Right to Life (State affiliate to the evil National Right to Life Committee, NRC), is concerned that recent changes to the rules governing federal funding for stem cell research might tempt the university to ease its policy and allow UNMC researchers to destroy embryos. The Board of Regents' policy requires stem cell researchers at the University of Nebraska Medical Center to follow state and federal guidelines that ban such practices.
Click here for the full article.


Rare Anti Euthanasia Episode on Medium



Hollywood loves assisted suicide and euthanasia. Not just as a plot device, but to promote through its various products as a modern, caring, compassionate, and proper policy for society to accept. Perhaps the most notable example was the Clint Eastwood movie Million Dollar Baby, that carried a terrible and explicit message that dead is better than disabled. (Here’s my take published in the Weekly Standard.) Most major network television programs have had clearly pro assisted suicide episodes, including Law and Order, ER, and even Star Trek Voyager.
Click here for the full article.


Leading Interdenominational Pro-life Group to Give Award



The National Pro-Life Religious Council (NPRC) announced today the recipient of its annual Pro-life Recognition Award.  This award is bestowed each year upon a leader who has made a significant difference in the effort to restore protection to unborn children.  This year's recipient is Mr. Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council. 
Click here for the full article.


Planned Parenthood trying to EXPAND in Aurora



Several weeks ago, I was tipped off that Planned Parenthood was attempting a significant expansion in Aurora, expanding their parking lot by a whopping 27 spaces.

Since then, I've closely watched the process in the Aurora city government, attending public meetings and demanding documents from the city through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Planned Parenthood's petition comes before the Planning and Development  committee THURSDAY 10/15, and we've got to fight them.
Click here for the full article.

President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize for…funding abortions overseas?

President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize for…funding abortions overseas?
from FRC Blog by Cathy Ruse

It was announced this morning that President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Reuters reports that The Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Obama for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

But this prize was apparently awarded *prospectively*, since the nomination deadline for the prize came less than two weeks after Obama took office.

So what actions did Obama as President take before the February 1st deadline that gave the committee such assurance of his future worthiness of the prize?

On January 20 he called for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and declared his intention to give multiple rights and privileges to homosexual couples.

On January 22 he issued an order announcing his intention to close Guantanamo Bay.

On January 23 he issued an order authorizing tax dollars for abortions abroad.

As Michael Novak wrote in National Review Online at the time: "These first steps were unworthy of a great nation and unworthy of a serious leader."

Mother Teresa called abortion the greatest destroyer of peace.   But according to the Nobel committee, forcing taxpayers to fund it gets you a peace prize.

Abortion Haunts Peace Prize Winner

Abortion Haunts Peace Prize Winner



Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments today on why the abortion issue continues to haunt President Obama:

A few weeks ago, President Obama said that no federal dollars will be spent on abortion in the health care bill he intends to sign. This immediately won the plaudits of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). But things have changed.

On September 30, in a letter to the U.S. Senate, sent by three bishops representing the USCCB, they stressed that "Health care reform especially needs to protect those at the beginning of life and at its end, the most vulnerable and the voiceless." Yesterday, the bishops issued another letter, stating, "we remain apprehensive when amendments protecting freedom of conscience and ensuring no taxpayer money for abortion are defeated in committee votes."

After listening to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs two days ago, it is a fair bet that Catholic skepticism has turned to cynicism. When asked about the bishops' concerns, Gibbs said, "there's a law that precludes the use of federal funds for abortion that isn't going to be changed in these health care bills." Gibbs was referring to the Hyde Amendment.

The president, however, supports the Freedom of Choice Act, a bill that would revoke the Hyde Amendment. Moreover, when Obama's campaign staff was asked in December 2007 about this issue, the answer was clear: "Obama does not support the Hyde Amendment."

President Obama cannot have it both ways. Unlike another Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Mother Teresa, who said abortion was "the greatest destroyer of peace," Obama has never indicated that abortion undermines the cause of peace. Indeed, he champions abortion as if it were a sacred right. If he wants to pivot at this juncture, Catholics will welcome it. If he doesn't, he will have to live with the consequences.

Contact: Susan A. Fani
Source: Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
Publish Date: October 9, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Hyde Amendment does not apply to present health care bills, pro-life group says

Hyde Amendment does not apply to present health care bills, pro-life group says



White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is erroneously claiming that the Hyde Amendment which restricts federal funding for abortions will apply to federal health care reform legislation, the National Right to Life Committee has charged.

At a Wednesday press briefing at the White House, Cybercast News Service  reporter Fred Lucas asked Gibbs whether a letter from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was right to say that health care reform proposals have not met the president’s promise to bar the use of federal funds for abortion.

“Well, I don't want to get me in trouble at church, but I would mention there's a law that precludes the use of federal funds for abortion that isn't going to be changed in these health care bills,” Gibbs responded.

Lucas noted several proposed amendments that would explicitly bar abortions, to which Gibbs replied:

“Again, there’s a fairly well documented federal law that prevents it.”

Commenting in a press release, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) called Gibbs’ statement “highly misleading.”

The NRLC, presuming that Gibbs referred to the Hyde Amendment, said the provision applies only to funds appropriated through the annual Health and Human Services appropriations bill.

“Neither the Hyde Amendment nor any other existing restriction will govern the provisions of the pending health care bills that are the focus of the abortion-related concerns,” the NRLC reported.

The proposed bills contain a nationwide government-run insurance program and premium subsidy programs to help tens of millions of Americans purchase health coverage.

None of the funds for the public plan and spent by the premium subsidy programs would be appropriated through the annual appropriations bill and would therefore be outside the scope of the Hyde Amendment. The NRLC said this analysis has been confirmed by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service.

According to the NRLC, under the Capps Amendment to H.R. 3200 the public plan would be explicitly authorized to cover elective abortions.

The NRLC described the suggestion that the public plan could pay for abortions with private funds as “a myth” and ‘a political hoax.”

“As a matter of law, all of the funds that would be spent by the public plan, on abortions and everything else, would be federal funds,” the pro-life group said. “In other words, the public plan would engage in direct federal funding of elective abortion.”

Source: CNA
Publish Date: October 9, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Pastor pushes for murder charge in abortion case

Pastor pushes for murder charge in abortion case

A minister in Pompano Beach, Florida, wants charges upgraded against an abortion clinic worker whose trial begins today.
 


It was the "Baby Shanice" case in which the baby was born during an abortion in 2006, placed in a medical bag, then tossed on the roof of the abortion clinic, which is now closed. Belkis Gonzalez faces felony charges of providing unlicensed medical care resulting in death, and tampering with evidence.
 
Pastor O'Neill Dozier of Worldwide Christian Center Church talked with Miami television station WTVJ. "The proper charge here is murder," he said. "This is a homicide."
 
Mark Overton is the police chief in Hialeah where the abortion clinic was located. "They may not be the charges that we want to hear or we want to see," he acknowledged, "but the bottom line...is that she's being charged with serious felonies, and she's going to be held to account. We'll see to that."
 
Pastor Dozier went on to say that the case is additional proof that abortionists, including Planned Parenthood, target African-Americans. "Absolutely -- they are targeting minority's babies," said Dozier.
 
That fact has been documented in a documentary called Maafa 21, produced by Life Dynamics.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: October 9, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Supporters of Health-Care Reform Continue to Reject Abortion Ban

Supporters of Health-Care Reform Continue to Reject Abortion Ban
 
Polls show more Americans now on the side of life.

Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., and 182 other congressmen want a chance to vote on an amendment to explicitly exclude abortion funding from health-care reform. Democratic leadership is simply not interested.

"The Rules Committee hasn't even agreed yet to listen to the amendment and let there be a vote," Lamborn explained.

The latest amendment would reflect the language in what's known as the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer money from paying for most abortions. The current health-care reform proposals would not be constrained by the Hyde Amendment.

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) examined a half-dozen polls and found the American people consistently oppose the use of their tax dollars to pay for abortions, as well as abortion in general. For example, a recent Pew poll shows a decline in abortion support from 54 to 47 percent.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for NRLC, said that's why supporters of reform have chosen a smokescreen.

"That's the motivation for the double talk, the deceptive rhetoric by the White House and by the congressional Democratic leadership," he said.

Sixty-five percent of Americans say it would be good to reduce the number of abortions, an increase of six points from 2005.  And 48 percent say health insurance companies should be prohibited from covering abortions.

But Johnson said that's not stopping the Democratic majority.

"They are trying to smuggle into law here new provisions that would put the federal government in the business of paying for abortion on demand."

Contact: Stuart Shepard
Source: CitizenLink
Publish Date: October 8, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Bioethicists, Worthwhile Lives, and Health Care "Reform"

Bioethicists, Worthwhile Lives, and Health Care "Reform"

You'd think by now that no matter how front-loaded the bias is in a story, I'd not be shocked. But the lead paragraphs in Cathy Lynn Grossman's "Life and death: Hospital ethics panels help families decide" in Thursday's USA Today is a real corker.

"An infant is born with no functioning brain. A teen is ravaged in a car wreck. A 90-year-old with dementia and pneumonia lies unconscious in intensive care.

"Medical and moral decisions must be made. But there's no written directive for guidance. Family and physicians disagree. What now?"

Is it really even marginally fair to talk about medical decision-making in the context of the most extreme imaginable cases? Is that lead intended to engage the reader in a thoughtful dialogue or to persuade her to take off her thinking cap?

Newspapers and news magazines have crusaded for advanced directives for decades. National Right to Life offers a counterbalance--a life-affirming "Will to Live," which makes clear what you would want done to take care of you, not what you wouldn't want.

Typically, the ethos that runs through most quoted sources in most stories is that these "experts" understand what makes a life "worthy" and ought to have a larger role in end-of-life decision-making, especially when confronted with overly-emotional family.

For example, Dawn Seery offers this frightening comment in today's story: "We have failed to educate the public on how to discern what is worthwhile, what is not. How far do we go? Do we keep someone in a hospital bed just because they choose it? We're all in death denial." [Seery is "chairman of the ethics committee that provides consultation service for five San Antonio hospitals under the Methodist Healthcare System."]

To be fair, in this and Grossman's second story, she presents other views. Grossman quotes one self-described "bedside ethicist," Robert Orr, who told her what usually happens is that "we continue treatment unless we believe it causes unrelenting and unmanageable pain -- or it's futile."

"But I hate that word 'futile,'" Orr adds. "Do you mean no treatment or therapy will work at all? Or that there's just a 1% chance something would help? Who makes the call? Or does it mean that while it might prevent death, the worth of the life it provides is questionable? How does the patient define 'worthwhile'?"

These articles are written in the context of the ongoing health care "reform" debate. In one of her stories Grossman quotes someone who caricatures comments made by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

But the life-and-death issues raised in the back-and-forth to Palin's argument can not be so cavalierly ignored for two important reasons.

First, there is the kind of language that is still lurking in various legislative proposals that is intended to cut costs by the promotion of advance directives.

Aside from the many stand-alone bills related to advance directives in both houses, there are three separate provisions dealing with advance directives in the House legislation. There is the main provision of HB 1233. There are also two other amendments, one requiring private and public health care plans to give potential enrollees the option to establish advance directive; and the other to empower the Secretary to spearhead a public education campaign, toll-free telephone hotline, and clearinghouse to promote advance directives and other advance care planning.


Pro-Life Senator Jon Kyl

What is particularly disturbing about this "cost-savings" provision of the bill is that it appears to follow President Obama's call this past spring for "a very difficult democratic conversation" about "those toward the end of their lives [who] are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here."

It is also 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.

Second, there is what NRLC aptly describes as the "death spiral." As the Wall Street Journal pointed out in an editorial yesterday, "Beginning in 2015, Medicare would rank doctors against their peers based on how much they cost the program--and then automatically cut all payments by 5% to anyone who falls into the 90th percentile or above. …

"Since there will always be a missing chair when the music stops, every year one of 10 physicians will be punished if he orders too many tests, performs too many procedures or prescribes too many drugs--whether or not the treatments result in better patient outcomes," the editorial continued. "The 5% fine is substantial given that Medicare's price controls already pay only 83 cents on the private dollar."

This does not involve ancient developments. Less than two weeks ago, the Senate Finance Committee defeated an amendment proposed by Senator Jon Kyl (R-Az.) to eliminate that proposal.

Just as we are continually being falsely assured there is nothing to promote abortion in health care "reform," so, too, are we lectured that we are over-reacting in this area as well. We are not. Be sure to keep up to speed by going to http://powellcenterformedicalethics.blogspot.com.

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

U.S. Bishops Will "Vigorously" Oppose Health Care if Abortion Concerns Not Addressed

U.S. Bishops Will "Vigorously" Oppose Health Care if Abortion Concerns Not Addressed



Three U.S. bishops have written to Congress expressing their "disappointment" that the healthcare bills currently being considered in Congress have not addressed the issue of federal funding of abortion, and warning that unless their concerns are addressed, the U.S. bishops will have to oppose "vigorously" the health care reform legislation.

Writing on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), the three bishops said in a letter released today, "We are writing to express our disappointment that progress has not been made on the three priority criteria for health care reform that we have conveyed previously to Congress."

"In fact," they point out, "the Senate Finance Committee rejected a conscience rights amendment accepted earlier by the House Energy and Commerce Committee."

The three signatories of the letter, Cardinal Justin Rigali, Bishop William Murphy and Bishop John Wester, chair the Committees on Pro-Life Activities, Domestic Justice and Human Development, and Migration, respectively, for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). They had previously sent a letter to the senate on September 30, outlining their concerns with the healthcare overhaul plan.

The bishops go on to threaten that, if the healthcare legislation fails to meet the core principles outlined by them in their previous communications, "we will have no choice but to oppose the bill."

Those core principles include ensuring that federal funds do not pay for abortions and the inclusion of strenuous conscience protections. The bishops also emphasize the need for affordable care, and for the legislation to provide coverage for legal immigrants.

"We sincerely hope that the legislation will not fall short of our criteria," write the bishops. "However, we remain apprehensive when amendments protecting freedom of conscience and ensuring no taxpayer money for abortion are defeated in committee votes. If acceptable language in these areas cannot be found, we will have to oppose the health care bill vigorously."

In an interview yesterday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs responded to the bishops' previously stated concerns by prolonging the White House tactic of simply denying the abortion mandate in the healthcare legislation.

When asked about the bishops' statement from their September 30th letter, saying that the health reform bills still have not barred federal funds from paying for abortion, Gibbs responded simply, "Well, I don't want to get me in trouble at church, but I would mention there's a law that precludes the use of federal funds for abortion that isn't going to be changed in these health care bills."

Gibbs was presumably referring to the Hyde Amendment, which has traditionally prevented federal funds from paying for abortions. However, legal analysts have pointed out that the health care legislation includes amendments, such as the Capps-Waxman Amendment, that specifically allow federal funds to pay for abortions under the plan.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the national federation of right-to-life affiliates, said in response:  "Gibbs' statement is one more proof, if any more were needed, that the White House is actively engaged in a political smuggling operation - an attempt to achieve funding of elective abortion by the federal government, cloaked in smokescreens of contrived language and outright deception."

In their September 30 letter to the Senate, the three bishops, representing the USCCB, had written, "No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion."

"It is essential" they said, "to clearly include longstanding and widely supported federal restrictions on abortion funding/mandates and protections for rights of conscience."

But so far, they observed, "the health reform bills considered in committee, including the new Senate Finance Committee bill, have not met President Obama's challenge of barring use of federal dollars for abortion and maintaining current conscience laws. These deficiencies must be corrected."

The bishops also emphasized the need for strenuous conscience protections for healthcare workers.

"For decades," they wrote, "…Congress has respected the right of health care providers not to be involved in any abortions or abortion referrals, and has respected moral and religious objections in other areas as well.

"The Weldon amendment to the Labor/HHS appropriations act, approved by Congress each year since 2004, forbids any federal agency or program, and any state or local government receiving federal funds under the Act, to discriminate against individual or institutional health care providers or insurers because they decline to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortion."

They concluded, "Health care reform legislation should reflect longstanding and widely supported current policies on abortion funding, mandates, and conscience protections because they represent sound morality, wise policy, and political reality."

Contact: John Jalsevac
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: October 8, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR FRIDAY

NEWS SHORTS FOR FRIDAY
(Referral to Web sites not produced by The Illinois Federation for Right to LIfe is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)

Abortion protest limits: Chicago says protesters must stay 8 feet from other people outside medical facilities

New law's supporters cite safety; foes cite free-speech concerns



Anti-abortion activists will have to stay at least 8 feet away from people outside medical facilities in Chicago under a measure the City Council approved Wednesday.

The so-called bubble zones will exist within 50 feet of the entrances to all health care centers. Those who venture closer to another person without consent could face a fine of $500.

Before the City Council voted 28-13 in favor, more than 100 people opposing the ordinance circled City Hall's front doors. Many of them held small American flags as they sang "Amazing Grace" and shouted "Praise God."
Click here for the full article.


Father Sues School District Over Son's Anti-Abortion T-shirt

He wore a T-shirt that only read "Abortion is not healthcare"



A father alleges in a federal lawsuit that his son's rights to free speech and religious expression were violated in September when Crossroads Middle School officials forced him to turn an anti-abortion T-shirt inside-out. William Boyer filed a lawsuit Monday on behalf of his son, identified as E.B., against the West Shore School District. He argues the New Cumberland boy's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when he wore a T-shirt that read "Abortion is not healthcare" to the Fairview Township middle school on Sept. 8 and was forced to turn it inside out.
Click here for the full article.


French Abortions Rise despite Increase in Contraception: Study



According to a new study by the French National Institute of Demographic Studies (INED), although the number of unplanned pregnancies in France has fallen, the number of abortions in such cases has increased, reports the Monde Actu 24h/24.

Unplanned pregnancies fell from 46% to 33% from 1975 to 2004, ostensibly due to use of contraceptives, according to the study, but the number of abortions of such pregnancies increased from 40% to 60% over the same period.

Over 40% of French women have an abortion at least once in their life.

The study says that women using contraception have a greater desire to control their fertility and thus are more likely to abort a child who is not consistent with their plans. 
Click here for the full article.


Brain Activity Surge at Point of Death



Now this is interesting.  Activity in the brain surges at the point of death. From the story:

    A study of seven terminally ill patients found identical surges in brain activity moments before death, providing what may be physiological evidence of “out of body” experiences reported by people who survive near-death ordeals.

    Doctors at George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates recorded brain activity of people dying from critical illnesses, such as cancer or heart attacks. Moments before death, the patients experienced a burst in brain wave activity, with the spikes occurring at the same time before death and at comparable intensity and duration. Writing in the October issue of the Journal of Palliative Medicine, the doctors theorize that the brain surges may be tied to widely reported near-death experiences which typically involve spiritual or religious attributes.
Click here for the full article.


American Pro-Lifers to Greet Spain's Prime Minister at White House
Zapatero seeks to radicalize Spain's abortion law



Spain's Socialist Prime Minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, will meet with President Obama at the White House on Tuesday, October 13. Zapatero will be met by Americans in solidarity with Spain's citizens against his attempt to increase abortions.

Zapatero recently proposed a bill to liberalize Spain's abortion law. The bill would allow 16-year-olds to get abortions without parental consent, increase abortion without restrictions to 14 weeks, and change abortion from a crime to a social "right."
Click here for the full article.


Pelosi Claims She’s Not Aware of Senate Plan to Pass Health Care Through Unrelated House Bill



House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she was not aware of a previously reported plan by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to attach a final Senate health care bill to an already-passed House bill in order to push the measure through Congress. Pelosi, in fact, said reporters knew more about the idea apparently than she does.
 
Under the plan, as previously reported by CNSNews.com, Reid would attach a final Senate health reform plan to H.R. 1586, a bill that currently taxes bonuses paid to bailed-out bank executives. If the effort survived a filibuster, Reid would then send it to the House, which could vote on it directly and then send to President Obama, bypassing the conference-negotiating process and the public scrutiny that comes with it. 
Click here for the full article.

'Bubble zone' near reality in Windy City

'Bubble zone' near reality in Windy City


Prayer in front of an abortion mill in Chicago

A committee of the Chicago City Council has voted in favor of a bubble zone that highly restricts activities of sidewalk counselors at abortion clinics.

THE VOTE

YES (28): Robert Fioretti, 2nd; Pat Dowell, 3rd; Toni Preckwinkle, 4th; Leslie Hairston, 5th; Sandi Jackson, 7th; Michelle Harris, 8th; George Cardenas, 12th; Toni Foulkes, 15th; Joann Thompson, 16th; Howard Brookins, 21st; Ricardo Munoz, 22nd; Sharon Denise Dixon, 24th; Daniel Solis, 25th; Roberto Maldonado, 26th; Walter Burnett, 27th; Isaac Carothers, 29th; Scott Waguespack, 32nd; Richard Mell, 33rd; Rey Colon, 35th; Emma Mitts, 37th; Thomas Allen, 38th; Brendan Reilly, 42nd; Vi Daley, 43rd; Thomas Tunney, 44th; Helen Shiller, 46th; Eugene Schulter, 47th; Joe Moore, 49th; and Bernard Stone, 50th.

NO (13): James Balcer, 11th; Frank Olivo, 13th; Edward Burke, 14th; Lona Lane, 18th; Virginia Rugai, 19th; Willie Cochran, 20th; Michael Zalewski, 23rd; Ariel Reboyras, 30th; Ray Suarez, 31st; John Rice, 36th; Margaret Laurino, 39th; Brian Doherty, 41st; Patrick Levar, 45th.

DID NOT VOTE (9): Manuel Flores, 1st; Freddrenna Lyle, 6th; Anthony Beale, 9th; John Pope, 10th; Latasha Thomas, 17th; Ed Smith, 28th; Carrie Austin, 34th; Patrick O'Connor, 40th; Mary Ann Smith (48th).

It appears the proposals will sail through the Council's meeting next week and then head to Mayor Richard Daley for his signature. Ann Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League tells OneNewsNow about the ordinance.
 
"It would establish a 50-foot bubble zone, and inside that...bubble zone would be an eight-foot zone inside of which we could not approach any client coming to the abortion clinic without that woman's or man's consent," she explains, noting that it is impossible to hand pro-life literature to people from eight feet away.
 
"We were joking that maybe we should fold all of our literature into paper airplane shapes and just wing it at people," she chuckles. "How else are you going to get it to them?"
 
pro-lifer being handcuffedPlanned Parenthood officials complained that they need the law because of threatening behavior from pro-lifers -- an accusation Scheidler takes issue with.
 
"We know that that is not true," she asserts. "We know the Chicago police are more than competent to handle anything that comes up at an abortion clinic." Scheidler points out there has never been a hint of violence during their counseling efforts.
 
If Mayor Daley signs the ordinance into law, Pro-Life Action League plans to file suit.

Before this bad law goes into effect, Mayor Richard Daley has to approve it. We've got to convince the mayor to VETO the Bubble Zone.

We're already having such a big impact with our calls that they've set up an automated system for the public to speak out on the Bubble Zone. Here's the steps to follow:

    1. CALL the mayor's office at 312-744-3300.
    2. PRESS 1 to submit your opinion on the Bubble Zone.
    3. Then PRESS 2 to vote NO on the Bubble Zone.

If already made a call before today's City Council vote, PLEASE CALL AGAIN to convince the Mayor to veto it.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: October 8, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

New Chicago Ordinance Targets 40 Days for Life, Tramples Pro-life Americans' Free Speech Rights

New Chicago Ordinance Targets 40 Days for Life, Tramples Pro-life Americans' Free Speech Rights



"You know a law is an improper intrusion on First Amendment rights when even the American Civil Liberties Union sides with pro-life interests in opposing certain aspects of a legislative action," said David Bereit, national director of 40 Days for Life. "Such is the case with the new bubble zone ordinance, approved Wednesday by Chicago's city council, which unconstitutionally restricts the peaceful activities of pro-life individuals on the sidewalk in front of abortion facilities in an attempt to cripple the ongoing 40 Days for Life prayer vigils."

The new city ordinance could not only block sidewalk counseling and the display of pro-life signs within 50 feet of all entrances to an abortion facility, but it could also prevent any pro-life person from being within eight feet of an abortion customer without getting that person's permission. Anyone found in violation could be fined up to $500.

"This is a serious attack on free speech, and backers specifically cited 40 Days for Life in city council hearings as the reason for this measure," said Bereit. "We are asking anyone who loves free speech to call the office of Mayor Richard Daley and ask the mayor to please veto the bubble zone ordinance before it takes effect." The phone number for the Chicago mayor's office is 312-744-3300.

At the downtown Chicago Planned Parenthood location, for instance, this ordinance could completely block any 40 Days for Life vigil from the public right of way adjacent to the facility, due to sidewalks which make it virtually impossible for prayer vigil participants to be more than eight feet away from abortion customers without stepping into the busy street. Additionally, if someone were praying out loud, it could be interpreted as "education" or "counseling" and thus trigger the provisions of the ordinance.

Bereit said the biggest chilling effect is that "most pro-life Chicagoans will simply not know what they can or can't do without risk of a fine, and will thus be forced to stay far away from the abortion center or not come at all -- the abortion industry's desired effect. The bottom line is that if pro-life Americans don't push back, more situations like this will happen all across the country and our rights will be trampled on more and more by the abortion industry."

Contact: Amber Dolle
Source: 40 Days for Life
Publish Date: October 8, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Is Capitol Hill ignoring 71% of Americans?

Is Capitol Hill ignoring 71% of Americans?



Operation Rescue is giving Americans a chance to take a personalized stand against tax dollars for abortion in national healthcare reform.

The pro-life group's effort is designed to give people a chance to photograph themselves holding a handwritten sign saying "I Am 71." Troy Newman, who heads Operation Rescue, explains the significance of the number 71.
 
"That is 71 percent of the American people disagree with paying for abortions with taxpayer dollars," says Newman. "So we're part of a tidal wave of American sentiment that believes that the Obama healthcare plans should never, ever include taxpayer-funded abortions."
 
Newman says in the first few days, more than 100 photos were submitted. "And I've got several hundred more e-mails in my box that I've got to post," he adds.
 
"So as long as [President] Obama wants to pay for abortion with taxpayer dollars, we're going to have a hew and outcry on the Internet telling him we are the 71 percent of the people who say absolutely not."
 
The campaign will continue until abortion funding is removed from healthcare reform.
 
Meanwhile, the Senate Finance Committee has rejected pro-life amendments to its version of healthcare reform. Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee explains what that means.
 
Douglas Johnson (NRLC)"What this basically guarantees is that when the full Senate takes up healthcare legislation, the bill that they start with is going to have in it pro-abortion provisions -- including government subsidies for abortion insurance and other provisions that would expand abortion in this country," he laments. (Click here to listen to the audio report) (MP3)
 
The bill also stands firm in terms of "conscience" penalties -- in other words, healthcare workers who refuse, on the basis of religious beliefs, to perform certain procedures such as abortion could be penalized. Johnson notes the different messages coming from Capitol Hill on the matter.
 
"Despite the soft rhetoric that some Americans have heard coming from President Obama, the actual substantive actions that are being taken by the Democrats on Capitol Hill -- with the backing of the White House -- are very much in the pro-abortion direction," he states.
 
Johnson says the key to defeating the current bills is for the public to contact their elected representatives in the Senate and House en masse.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: October 8, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

White House Continues Push for Health-Care Reform

White House Continues Push for Health-Care Reform
 


'Sadly, there are people out there who are more interested in their agenda than they are with the health care of their neighbors.'

The White House is claiming bipartisan support of health-care reform.  A list of Republicans, including California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bush administration official Tommy Thompson and others reportedly are turning the tide in favor of the plan.

Don Stewart, communications director for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, said the Kentucky Republican doubts the legitimacy of the list.

"Everybody that the White House has cited," he said, "has also said that they don't support the bills that are currently before Congress."

Dr. Gene Rudd, associate executive director of the Christian Medical Association, called it another political ploy.

"Sadly, there are people out there who are more interested in their agenda, than they are with the health care of their neighbors," he said.  "So, they're putting things like abortion funding, abortion mandates and abortion subsidies into these bills."

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president and chairman of the board of the Susan B. Anthony List, said there is a way for the president to get both Republicans and Democrats onboard.

"If the president really does want a bipartisan effort and really does want to pull together a winning coalition for this legislation," she said, "he has got to say, and then mean — that he will have an explicit exclusion of abortion in the health-care plan."

Rep. Bart Stupak, R-Mich., said he has commitments from 40 Democrats in the House who say that unless they get a chance to vote abortion out of the bill, they will vote against it.

Contact: Steve Jordahl
Source: CitizenLink
Publish Date: October 7, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Beware the Drive to Reduce Some Human Beings Into Mere Natural Resources

Beware the Drive to Reduce Some Human Beings Into Mere Natural Resources



Oh-oh: Here they come. For years, organ transplant ethicists and some in the bioethics community have agitated to increase the supply of donated organs.  There is nothing wrong with that in the abstract, of course. Increasing the supply would alleviate much human suffering and is devoutly to be wished.

But therein lurks a great danger.  Increasing supply is a worthy goal only so long as the organs are obtained ethically. But there is a growing chorus among the Medical and Bioethical Intelligentsia to obtain more organs by harvesting living patients. Yes, some of our most influential voices now seek a license to kill for organs.

They don't put it that bluntly, of course. Rather—reflecting the spirit of our times—advocates argue that our definition of death should be changed to allow a great pretense that living patients are actually dead, thus permitting organ procurement.  For example, the internationally prestigious science journal Nature recently editorialized for the liberalization of the rules governing the declaration of brain death in order to obtain more organs.

Currently, brain death requires the irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain and each of its constituent parts. Nature's editorial claimed—without proof—that doctors obey "the spirit but not the letter, of this law. And many are feeling uncomfortable about it."

As well they should.  But the proper answer to unethical practice isn't to accommodate wrong behavior by redefining it as right.  Rather, it is to work to bring actual methods back into proper alignment with legal and ethical practice.

Instead, Nature descends into rank relativism, arguing that "the legal details of declaring death in someone who will never again be the person he or she was should be weighed against the value of giving a full and healthy life to someone who will die without transplant." In other words, some of us are more valuable than others of us, and those deemed inferior can be used as if they were mere natural resources.

In that seductive prescription is the end of human equality and universal rights. Lest you think I exaggerate, a 2004 article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics seriously proposed that patients diagnosed to be in a persistent vegetative state—like Terri Schiavo—have their kidneys harvested for use in transplantation, and then replaced by pig organs to test whether animal to human transplantation (xenotransplantation) could be performed safely.  "If it can be agreed upon that PVS bodies can be regarded as dead," Ghent University (Belgium) philosopher An Ravelingien wrote, "then experimenting on them is legitimate under the same conditions as experimenting on cadavers."

We are not—yet—at the point that society will permit open harvesting and experimentation on cognitively devastated people.  But that doesn't mean we won't get there.

The slippery slope undermining human exceptionalism—the intrinsic value of human life simply and merely because it is human—is already slip-sliding away. Popular majorities support using nascent human life as corn crops in embryonic stem cell research, if the embryos were "leftovers" and going to be thrown out anyway. But scientists have already moved beyond that early limitation. Many are now actively researching human cloning toward the end of manufacturing embryos for use and destruction in research.

And it won't stop there if current trends continue. We already see early advocacy for "fetal farming," that is, gestating fetuses for use in organ transplantation and medical experimentation. Thus bioethicist Jacob Appel urged in the Huffington Post [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/are-we-ready-for-a-market_b_175900.html] that women who intend to abort should be paid to carry their babies into the later stages of pregnancy so that the aborted fetuses can be harvested.  He even suggests that fetuses be created solely for this purpose:

Someday, if we are fortunate, scientific research may make possible farms of artificial "wombs" breeding fetuses for their organs -- or even the "miracle" of men raising fetuses in their abdomens. That day remains far off. However, the prospect of fetal-adult organ transplantation is a much more realistic near-term possibility. A market in such organs might benefit both society and the women who choose to take advantage of it.

It would be a terrible mistake to say, "It can't happen here." For as the late theologian Fr. Richard John Neuhaus once wrote, "Thousands of medical ethicists and bioethicists, as they are called, professionally guide the unthinkable on its passage through the debatable on its way to becoming the justifiable, until it is finally established as the unexceptionable."

That process is steaming full speed ahead in the related fields of organ transplantation and biotechnology.  The only way to stop this dehumanizing agenda is to take notice and push back before it is too late.  Some things should ever and always be unthinkable.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: CNSNews.com / Discovery Institute
Publish Date: October 7, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

White House Press Secretary's Remarks Show White House Still Engaged in Smuggling Operation for Government Funding of Abortion

White House Press Secretary's Remarks Show White House Still Engaged in Smuggling Operation for Government Funding of Abortion



A spokesman for the nation's major pro-life organization said that remarks by the White House press secretary on October 7, "once again demonstrated that the White House is a partner in an ongoing smuggling operation, which if successful will result in funding of abortion on demand by the federal government."

The following exchange occurred during the October 7, 2009, daily press briefing by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs:

QUESTION [by CNS News reporter Fred Lucas]: It's a question on health care, actually; two questions. First, in a letter to senators last week, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said that, quoting, "So far the health reform bills considered in the committee, including the new Senate Finance Committee bill, have not met the President's challenge of barring the use of federal dollars for abortion."  Is that statement wrong?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I don't want to get me in trouble at church, but I would mention there's a law that precludes the use of federal funds for abortion that isn't going to be changed in these health care bills.

Q: There have been, though, several amendments that would explicitly bar abortions, that would therefore reject it, some of those amendments by Democrats --

MR. GIBBS: Again, there's a fairly well documented federal law that prevents it.

In his answers, Gibbs in essence repeated a discredited claim made by President Obama himself on August 20, when the President said:  "There are no plans under health reform to revoke the existing prohibition on using federal taxpayer dollars for abortions.  Nobody is talking about changing that existing provision, the Hyde Amendment.  Let's be clear about that.  It's just not true."

More recently, Obama said in a September 9 speech to both houses of Congress that "under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions."  On September 13, George Stephanopoulos of ABC News asked Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, "So you're saying it will go beyond what we have seen so far in the House and explicitly rule out any public funding for abortion?," and received from Sebelius this answer:  "Well that's exactly what the President said and I think that's what he intends that the bill he signs will do."

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the national federation of right-to-life affiliates, said:  "Gibbs' statement is one more proof, if any more were needed, that the White House is actively engaged in a political smuggling operation -- an attempt to achieve funding of elective abortion by the federal government, cloaked in smokescreens of contrived language and outright deception. There is no current federal law that would prevent the new programs created by the pending health care bills from paying for abortion on demand -- and the White House knows this full well.  Only language written directly into the bills would prevent government funding of abortions -- but such language has been blocked by the Democratic chairmen of five congressional committees, with White House cooperation, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is refusing to allow the House to even vote on adding a true Hyde Amendment to the health care bill."

"The motivation for the ongoing White House deception is found in three recent national polls that show strong public opposition to government-funded abortion," Johnson added.

The October 7 reporter's question, and the quoted statement from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, clearly pertained to the health care bills currently under consideration in Congress.  The pending bills each contain one or both of the following components:  (1) a nationwide government-run insurance program, "the public plan," and (2) programs that would subsidize health insurance for tens of millions of Americans.

None of the funds that would be spent by the public plan, and none of the funds that would be spent by the premium subsidy programs, would be appropriated through the annual appropriations bills.  This has been confirmed in memoranda issued by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.  This means that none of these funds will be covered by the Hyde Amendment, because the Hyde Amendment applies only to funds appropriated through the annual Health and Human Services appropriations bill.

Under the House bill (H.R. 3200), as amended by the Capps-Waxman Amendment, the public plan would be explicitly authorized to cover elective abortions.  The public plan would be a program within the Department of Health and Human Services.  As a federal agency, the public plan could not possibly pay for abortions with anything other than federal funds, as documented in this memorandum.

In 2007, Barack Obama stood on stage alongside the president of the nation's largest abortion provider, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), and promised that his health reform legislation and his public plan would cover abortion.  (This assertion was recently reviewed by PolitiFact.com and rated "true," here.  You can watch a short video clip of Obama making the promises here.)

"When senior congressional Democrats suggest that the public plan would pay for abortions with 'private funds,' they are engaged in a deception, a political hoax," Johnson said.  "The public plan would be a program operated by a federal agency, which by law can spend only federal funds. The public plan would be engaged in direct funding of elective abortion.  The Hyde Amendment would not apply to this program, and the Capps Amendment explicitly authorizes the federal agency to pay for the elective abortions, using funds drawn on a U.S. Treasury account."

Aside from the public plan, under which the government would directly fund elective abortion, both the House bill (H.R. 3200) and the two Senate bills (S. 1679 and the Senate Finance Committee bill crafted by Senator Max Baucus) would use federal funds to pay part of the cost of the premiums of private health plans that cover elective abortions.  This would be a sharp departure from current federal policy.  Current federal laws prevent both direct funding of abortion, and subsidies for health plans that cover abortions (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest).  The Hyde Amendment, for example, prohibits the use of state Medicaid matching funds for elective abortion (even in states that choose to set up their own separate abortion-funding programs).  But the Hyde Amendment and other current laws would not apply to the new premium subsidy programs, because they would not be funded through the appropriations bills to which the current restrictions are attached.

NRLC has issued a detailed memorandum that explains how the proposed public plan and the proposed premium subsidy programs would be funded, and why the Hyde Amendment would not apply to the proposed new programs.  Another NRLC memorandum explains why all of the funds that would be spent by the public plan, and all of the funds that would be used to subsidize health plans under the premium subsidy programs, are in reality and in law "federal funds."  To document key points, both memoranda link to documents issued by the Congressional Research Service, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Government Accountability Office.

Source: NRLC
Publish Date: October 8, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.