Organizations Representing Over 30 Million People Voice Opposition to Healthcare that Funds Abortion, Violates Conscience, Rations Care, or Limits Freedom

Organizations Representing Over 30 Million People Voice Opposition to Healthcare that Funds Abortion, Violates Conscience, Rations Care, or Limits Freedom



Some of the nation's largest multiracial, multiethnic, and multigenerational faith-based and policy organizations, representing more than 30 million people, went on record to voice opposition to any healthcare bill that funds abortion, violates conscience, rations care, or limits freedom.

Representing the unified position of the organizations signing on to the statement of principles, Mathew Staver commented: "We believe social justice includes healthcare reform that lowers the cost, increases quality, and expands choice at the greatest convenience, without moving private health decisions from the doctor's office to Washington bureaucrats. Individual liberties trump government-imposed obligations. We believe that individuals, communities, and doctors in the free market make better health decisions than government mandates. We believe in incentives, not coercion."

Staver continued, "We oppose funding for abortion. Abortion is not healthcare. We support the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. 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. We support conscience laws protecting hospitals and healthcare providers from coerced participation in abortion. We oppose government policies pressuring people to forgo or limit treatment because of age or illness. We oppose rationed healthcare due to age, illness or based on a government agency's determination of 'quality' or 'value' of life. President Obama said, 'under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.' But Congress has voted 30 times against amendments that would ban abortion funding. Every proposed bill funds abortion, including the so-called Baucus bill from the Senate Finance Committee. This is unacceptable. We will not support any bill that funds abortion."

Staver continued, "We support health insurance that is affordable and portable. We support legal reform to stop frivolous lawsuits that drive up healthcare costs, while affording the injured appropriate compensation. We support portability, allowing people to take their healthcare with them so it is not tied to employment. We support options to purchase health insurance across state lines. We support competition; coverage of pre-existing conditions; wellness care and prevention incentives; tax relief that provides a dollar-for-dollar deduction for every dollar spent on premiums or other medical or prescription costs; and a dollar-for-dollar tax deduction with no limit from gross income for every dollar contributed to nonprofit organizations providing healthcare for free or at reduced cost to the needy."

Staver concluded, "We support freedom and the dignity of the individual. We oppose federalization of the healthcare industry that would create a maze of bureaucracy which will impede and delay critical care and decrease the quality of healthcare. We oppose a single-payer, government-run insurance program or the so-called public option. It is time to start over with a truly nonpartisan approach to healthcare."

Click here for a list of some of the organizations supporting these principles.

Source: Liberty Counsel
Publish Date: October 12, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Do the Math: What Happens when Bureaucrats Counsel Patients?

Do the Math: What Happens when Bureaucrats Counsel Patients?

When 53-year-old Randy Stroup of Dexter, Ore., applied to Oregon's state-run health plan for help with his chemotherapy, bureaucrats sent him back a letter. The letter stated that the state would not cover his chemotherapy but would pay for the cost of an assisted suicide.

The incident revealed an important truth about government health bureaucrats: they are not always compassionate, but they are good at math.


Sen. Max Baucus

The latest U.S. Senate healthcare reform proposal, by Montana Democrat Sen. Max Baucus, recently raised a ruckus by calling for reducing Medicare payments "by five percent if an aggregation of the physician's resource use is at or above the 90th percentile of national utilization."

Grading on such a curve, physicians who provide the least care win. When the government calls the shots in medicine, cost can replace care as the measure of effectiveness.

That's why some U.S. legislators have triggered protests by proposing to have government bureaucrats virtually barge into the physician's exam room by funding the counseling of patients about end-of-life considerations. Concerns grew even more when the assisted suicide group Compassion & Choices bragged of helping to shape the counseling clause.

"America's Affordable Health Choices Act" (HR 3200) in Section 1233 directs 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…"

Note that the one-sided "counseling" includes no information about why such an order might not be beneficial to the individual.

Of course, counseling by impartial experts and determining written guidelines for end-of-life decisions can be helpful, especially when the patient also secures a personal proxy whose devotion to her welfare is unquestioned. Yet while advance directives may be used to specify the continuance of or quality of care, in actual practice they tend to emphasize limitations on care. Advance directives also offer no guarantee that a healthcare institution will actually follow the patient's wishes in a healthcare crisis.

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine put it bluntly: "The effectiveness of written advance directives is limited by inattention to them." []

In a paper aptly titled, "The Limited Wisdom of Advance Directives," the President's Council on Bioethics noted, "Advance directives cannot be understood in the abstract, separate from the specific context in which they emerged or the legal and public policy environment in which they now operate." [http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/taking_care/chapter2.html]

The context of the end-of-life "counseling" program of HR 3200 is the bill's explicitly stated purpose--to "reduce the growth in health care spending." As health bureaucrats in assisted suicide states like Oregon and Washington have quickly discovered, premature deaths are cheaper than care.

Even absent legal assisted suicide, government bureaucrats can save money simply by convincing patients to accept a denial of care, and to put it in writing through an advance directive.

The context of state-sponsored chats with patients about their expensive end-of-life care also includes President Obama's revealing call 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."  (Click here for report)

In fact, according to a story in USA Today, "Estimates show that about 27% of Medicare's annual $327 billion budget goes to care for patients in their final year of life."


Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel

The counseling context is also found in the writing of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and brother of the President's chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens....An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."

With just 41 percent of Americans supporting President Obama's healthcare reform plan, the President and his Congressional allies would like us all to forget such revealing statements and simply heed their reassuring sales pitch.

The vast majority of American patients who want to keep the government out of their private conversations with their physicians simply aren't buying it.

Jonathan Imbody serves as Vice President for Government Relations for the Christian Medical Association, the largest faith-based association of physicians.

Contact: Jonathan Imbody
Source: NRLC
Publish Date: October 12, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

White Meat or Dark?

White Meat or Dark?

Eating Chickenosaurus


In the movie Jurassic Park, scientists used genetics to bring dinosaurs back to life. The death and destruction that results from this attempt to play God are a clear warning about where human hubris can lead.

Apparently, the message wasn’t clear enough—not even to those who worked on the movie.

Paleontologist Jack Horner, who was the technical advisor on the Jurassic Park films, has a book out entitled How to Build a Dinosaur. Horner wants to build his “dinosaur” differently from the people in the movie: Instead of wasting resources looking for intact dinosaur DNA in amber or other fossils, “he wants to hatch a dinosaur straight from a chicken egg.” And he’s serious.

The theory goes that modern animals, like birds, share genes with their “distant ancestors” that have been “switched off.” That’s why, according to Horner and others, birds don’t look much like their dinosaur ancestors.

Their goal is to turn these genes back on and produce what they’re calling a “chickenosaurus,” a bird with “clawed hands, teeth, a long, [dinosaur-like] tail and ancestral plumage.”

An obvious objection is that they are not really “building a dinosaur”—they are creating a freakish bird whose relationship to dinosaurs depends on the validity of contemporary theories about long-extinct animals and their modern descendants.

But the biggest problem with what Horner and others are doing isn’t scientific—it’s moral. Even if we can bring back long-extinct animals, which is by no means a given, the question remains, “Should we?”

Horner misses the point when he assures readers that the “chickenosaurus” wouldn’t be dangerous—and if stuffed and roasted it would “taste like chicken.”

The danger isn’t from Tyrannosauruses loose in San Diego—it’s from people wielding “God-like” powers. What should worry us is not scientists wielding this power over chickens, but over human beings.

We would be trying to “resurrect,” as the media invariably puts it, dinosaurs or other species to amuse ourselves or make some point. For instance, the “chickenosaurus” is intended as a “conversation piece” in a “public debate about evolution.”

I’m all for such a debate, but that is a dangerous prop to use. If scientists succeed, as Horner puts it, in “rewinding evolution” by manipulating the DNA of animals, are humans next? Why not?

While genetics holds great promise, that promise is coupled with a temptation to play God. Never forget that the field started out as eugenics, the attempt to “improve” the human race by weeding out the unfit. What author Edwin Black calls “newgenics” still sees human beings as a work in progress in need of substantial tweaking.

There is already much talk about “controlling our evolution.” What’s not talked about nearly as much is who decides what should be switched on and what should be switched off. Evolution, if it were true, we are told, doesn’t play favorites—but man certainly does. What in recent human history makes anybody think that isn’t a recipe for great evil?

Except that in the real world, the monsters won’t have clawed hands.Chuck Colson

Contact: Chuck Colson
Source: BreakPoint
Publish Date: October 13, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Man Misdiagnosed With Cancer Dehydrated to Death

Man Misdiagnosed With Cancer Dehydrated to Death



The UK’s Liverpool Care Pathway has apparently killed its first (reported) victim.  The Pathway treats dying patients as members of a category instead of as individuals. Rather than give patients the individualized treatment their respective symptoms and conditions warrant, the Pathway sedates patients thought to be near death, and withholds food and fluids until death.  About 16.5% of deaths in the  UK are now, apparently, via the Pathway, a far higher percentage than hospice professionals tell me require sedation to control symptoms.

Yesterday, I reported on a case in which a woman misdiagnosed as dying, was spared dehydration only due to the persistence of her daughter. I asked at the time, how many other such cases there are? We now know of at least one–only the ending wasn’t happy.  A man misdiagnosed with recurrent cancer was apparently sedated and dehydrated to death. From the story:

    A grandfather who beat cancer was wrongly told the disease had returned and left to die at a hospice which pioneered a controversial ‘death pathway’. Doctors said there was nothing more they could do for 76-year-old Jack Jones, and his family claim he was denied food, water and medication except painkillers. He died within two weeks. But tests after his death found that his cancer had not come back, and he was in fact suffering from pneumonia brought on by a chest infection. To his family’s horror, they were told he could have recovered if he’d been given the correct treatment.

    Today, after being given an £18,000 pay-out over her ordeal, his widow Pat branded his treatment ‘barbaric’ and accused the doctors of manslaughter.

If the charges are true, at the very least this is negligent homicide!  What does the hospice have to say?

    Mrs Jones believes her husband was treated under the Liverpool Care Pathway, but insiders said it was only implemented after he died to help provide comfort to his wife and daughters.

What? A care plan was implemented after he died? That makes zero sense.  There needs to be an urgent criminal investigation to find out what’s what.

The bigger question is whether the Pathway will be curtailed so that the lives of other patients are not endangered or cut off from being lived to the last drop by being treated via checklist as members of a category. I doubt it.  In the UK–where the NHS is melting down and utilitarian bioethicists have been handed tremendous control over the ethics of care–I am beginning to suspect that the very sick, disabled, and elderly are looked upon as burdens that society can no longer afford.

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

NEWS SHORTS FOR TUESDAY

NEWS SHORTS FOR TUESDAY
(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.)

Senate Finance Committee’s Health Care Legislation Coming to A Vote


Senate Finance Committee member
Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, talks to
reporters on Capitol Hill on Thursday,
Oct. 8, 2009. (AP Photo/Harry Hamburg)

President Barack Obama's plan to remake the nation's health care system is about to take its biggest step yet toward becoming reality.
 
The pivotal Senate Finance Committee was poised to approve sweeping legislation Tuesday requiring nearly all Americans to purchase insurance and ushering in a host of other changes to the nation's $2.5 trillion medical system.
Click here for the full article.


Personhood: The Right Language and the Correct Strategy at the Right Time



In 1972, when Chief Justice Warren Burger appointed Harry Blackmun to write the majority opinion on Roe v. Wade it was at first rejected. Blackmun at first argued that a woman had a right to do whatever she pleased with her own body. This argument was rejected by Burger because it did not apply to drugs, public nudity, suicide attempts, and so on. It was too unsophisticated an argument for such a difficult case. Blackmun filed for a reargument and waited for Nixon to fill two vacancies on the nine member court (Roe was originally decided with seven). In October, the court heard rearguments with new appointees Powell and Rehnquist. This time Justice Stewart asked Sarah Weddington if it was critical to her case to say that the 14th amendment did not protect the fetus as a "person."
Click here for the full article.


White House Says Catholic Bishops Have Misinterpreted Law Banning Federal Funding of Abortion--And Its Application to Health-Care Bill


White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs (AP Photo)

One day after the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops vowed to “vigorously” oppose the health care bill under consideration in Congress if it is not amended to explicitly prohibit federal funding of abortions, the White House for the second time in a week said the bishops are wrong to assert that the bill permits funding of abortion.

White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs told CNSNews.com the bishops do not understand the existing law restricting federal funding of abortion. Click here for the video.

Click here for the full article.


Abortionist Punches Woman in Face in Road Rage Incident



Sandy Springs police have arrested abortionist Daniel E. McBrayer, 58, on charges of punching a woman in the face during an afternoon "road rage" incident last Monday.

Regina Ordaz says that McBrayer got out of his car at the intersection of Roswell and Abernathy roads, walked up to her car as she was stopped at a red light, and struck her in the face.
Click here for the full article.


Republicans Formally State Their Objections to Senate Finance Committee’s Health Care Legislation



Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., left, and the committee's ranking Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, center, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, during the committee's hearing on health care reform on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2009.(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
(CNSNews.com) – “Pretty much everything’s been said, and now it’s time to get the job done,” Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said Tuesday as the Senate Finance Committee prepared to vote on the fifth and final Democratic health care bill to emerge on Capitol Hill.
 
The “Baucus bill” is expected to easily pass the committee, given the Democrats’ 13-10 advantage. With the possible exception of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), all committee Republicans will vote against the bill.
Click here for the full article.

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.