Pro-Lifers Fear Disastrous Decision in "Roe v. Wade of Europe" Case

Pro-Lifers Fear Disastrous Decision in "Roe v. Wade of Europe" Case



STRASBOURG - Pro-life advocates involved in the "A, B and C v. Ireland" case fear that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is preparing to issue "an activist" decision that could lead to the abolition of the pro-life amendment of Ireland's constitution.

The ECHR heard arguments yesterday in the case that has been described as the "Roe v. Wade of Europe." Three women, two Irish nationals and one Lithuanian, who live in Ireland and obtained abortions in the UK, have complained to the Court that had they been allowed to have had abortions in Ireland they could have avoided medical complications, expense and "trauma."

In 1983 the Constitution of Ireland was amended to read, "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right."

In Court documents, the women have claimed that having to travel to the UK, "made the procedure unnecessarily expensive, complicated and traumatic," and that the "restriction stigmatised and humiliated them and risked damaging their health." They are being supported in their suit by the Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA), an affiliate of International Planned Parenthood.

The women claim that Ireland's law on abortion "was not sufficiently clear and precise, since the Constitutional term 'unborn' was vague and the criminal prohibition on abortion was open to different interpretations."

Pro-life advocates fear the ECHR is preparing to issue "an activist opinion" that will "abandon settled jurisprudence, impinge the sovereignty of Ireland, and result in a global assault on the unborn." William Saunders, senior vice president of legal affairs for Americans United for Life and a consultant in the case, wrote on National Review Online that ECHR case law and the European Convention on Human Rights, "would decide the merits of the case in favor of Ireland, but the mere fact that the Court is entertaining arguments is troubling."

The Court, in noting that the women had become pregnant "unintentionally," has dropped a hint that the question has already been decided, Saunders wrote.

"What relevance is the intent to create a human being to Ireland's right to protect its life once created?"

Saunders points out that the Court has bypassed the normal procedures for deciding which cases it will hear, which require that all possible local legal avenues be pursued before making appeals to the ECHR. He notes also that the ECHR has unusually referred the case to the Grand Chamber before waiting for an opinion from the lower chamber.

Other pro-life groups are warning that should the decision go against the Irish law, the case could have far-reaching effects for the other countries of the EU and around the world. John Smeaton, director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, which has filed a brief in the case, has said that the case is part of a larger plan by US abortion lobbyists to install a "right to abortion" in jurisdictions around the world.

Smeaton cited a memo prepared by the New York based Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), that revealed a detailed strategy to distort existing international human rights treaties in cases before international courts and in particular before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

CRR intervened in a case in 2007 in which the ECHR ruled that the human rights of a woman who had been refused an abortion in Poland had been violated under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Smeaton said the claims of the women in the A, B and C case "are not only unfounded, they are an attempt to pervert everything the European Convention originally set out to protect."

"No treaty or convention has ever recognised access to abortion as a human right. Article 2 of the European Convention protects the right to life and while it does not specifically prohibit abortion, it would be turning the convention on its head to argue that it provides a right to kill through abortion," he added. 

Contact: Hilary White
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: December 10, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Planned Parenthood Partnered in Safe School Czar's "Fistgate" Scandals

Planned Parenthood Partnered in Safe School Czar's "Fistgate" Scandals



BOSTON - Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, was a collaborator in the sex-education scandal now known as "Fistgate" that has enmeshed Obama's "Safe School Czar" Kevin Jennings in recent days.

According to information posted at Andrew Brietbart's Big Government blog, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in 2000 held its 10 Year Anniversary GLSEN/Boston conference at Tufts University. At that time Jennings was the executive director of GLSEN.

At the 2000 event, which was cosponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Education, a youth workshop was held, specifically targeting 14-21-year-olds, which taught them how to perform a dangerous sexual practice known as "fisting" - a practice so extreme that it cannot be described here.

After the content of the workshop was made public and an uproar ensued, Kevin Jennings, dismissed the event as an aberration. "Like the Parents Rights Coalition and the Department of Education, GLSEN is also troubled by some of the content that came up during this workshop," he said.

"We need to make our expectations and guidelines to outside facilitators much more clear, because we are surprised and troubled by some of the accounts we've heard."

However, despite Jennings' assurances, a similar event happened at the 2001 GLSEN conference the following year, again held at Tufts University, and this time involving Planned Parenthood.

According to Breitbart, a Planned Parenthood booth offered "fisting kits" at the 2001 conference, which was attended by an estimated 400 students out of the 650 attendees.

MassNews, which obtained one of the Planned Parenthood "fisting kits" reported that "they contained a single plastic glove, a package of K-Y lubricant and instructions on how to make a 'dental dam' out of the material."

A label on the package bearing the Planned Parenthood logo and phone number stated, "protects against STD's."

On the day of the conference campus police at Tufts reportedly were out in force to prevent concerned Massachusetts parents from video-taping and exposing the goings-on, as they had done the year before.

Breitbart's Big Government has been cataloguing the different aspects of GLSEN's promotion of hard-core homosexuality to youth during Jennings' tenure. Jennings was tapped by President Barack Obama to run the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools in the US Department of Education, with an emphasis on Jennings' efforts to make "safe schools" for homosexual students.

During the time of Jennings' tenure, GLSEN published a book list of recommended reading for youth grades 7 - 12, which the group had deemed "age-appropriate," but which included sexually graphic language and explicit descriptions of deviant sexual practices. (see coverage at Gateway Pundit here: WARNING: content extremely graphic)

Jennings stepped down as executive director of GLSEN in 2008.

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

Holdren's guru: Dispose of 'excess children' like puppies

Holdren's guru: Dispose of 'excess children' like puppies

Science chief acknowledges Brown as inspiration for career in ecology


John Holdren

Geochemist Harrison Brown, a member of the Manhattan Project who supervised the production of plutonium, advocated world government in the 1950s to impose mandatory controls over population growth, carried out, if necessary, through sterilization and forced abortions.

White House science czar John Holdren openly acknowledges Brown's writings influenced his decision to devote his career to the science of ecology.

Holdren has echoed Brown's call for global government by advocating the United States should surrender sovereignty to a "Planetary Regime" armed with sufficient military power to enforce population limits on nations as a means of preventing a wide range of perceived dangers from global eco-disasters involving Earth's natural resources, climate, atmosphere and oceans.

On page 260 of his 1954 book "The Challenge of Man's Future," Brown concluded "population stabilization and a world composed of completely independent sovereign states are incompatible."        

Writing that "population stabilization" is a goal "with which a world government must necessarily concern itself," Brown advised that "maximum and permissible population levels" for all regions of the world could be calculated by world government authorities using the rule that "individual regions of the world should be self-sufficient both agriculturally and industrially."

Brown even contemplates infanticide as a permissible solution to overpopulation in extreme situations, writing that "if we cared little for human emotions and were willing to introduce a procedure which most of us would consider to be reprehensible in the extreme, all excess children could be disposed of much as excess puppies and kittens are disposed of at the present time."

That Brown considers such a reprehensible reality a possibility is made clear on page 261, when he writes: "And let us hope further that human beings will never again be forced to resort to infanticide in order to avoid excessive population pressure."

'Pulsating mass of maggots'

Imagining a world population growing out of control to as many as 200 billion people, Brown suggested on page 221 "a substantial fraction of humanity" was reproducing as if "it would not rest content until the earth is covered completely and to a considerable depth with a writhing mass of human beings, much as a dead cow is covered with a pulsating mass of maggots."

Believing that there are "physical limitations of some sort which will determine the maximum number of human beings who can live on the earth's surface," Brown argued on page 236 that "there can be no escaping the fact that if starvation is to be eliminated, if the average child who is born is to stand a reasonable chance of living out the normal life span with which he is endowed at birth, family sizes must be limited."

He continues to specify that the limitations in birth "must arise from the utilization of contraceptive techniques or abortions or a combination of the two practices."

Brown openly endorsed putting morals aside.

"The conclusion is inescapable," he continued on page 236. "We can avoid talking about it, moralists may try to convince us to the contrary, laws may be passed forbidding us to talk about it, fear of pressure groups may prevent political leaders from discussion the subject, but the conclusion cannot be denied on any rational basis."

As far as Brown was concerned, government-mandated population control was necessary to prevent overpopulation.

"Either population-control measures must be both widely and wisely used, or we must reconcile ourselves to a world where starvation is everywhere, where life expectancy at birth is less than 30 years, where infants stand a better chance of dying than living during the first year following birth, where women are little more than machines for breeding, pumping child after child into an inhospitable world, spending the greater part of their adult lives in a state of pregnancy."

Ultimately, Brown resolves preventing overpopulation justifies government limiting human freedom, at least with regard to reproduction.

On page 255, Brown announces "it is difficult to see how the achievement of stability and the maintenance of human liberty can be made compatible."

How many births should be permitted?

On page 262, Brown proposes a rule government officials can utilize to mandate birth control measures.

"Let us suppose that in a given year the birth rate exceeds the death rate by a certain amount, thus resulting in a population increase," he postulates. "During the following year the number of permitted inseminations is decreased and the number of permitted abortions is increased, in such a way that the birth rate is lowered by the requisite amount."

Next, Brown insists that in a year in which the death rate exceeds the birth rate, "the number of permitted inseminations would be increased while the number of abortions would be decreased."

Brown formulates his rule as follows: "The number of abortions and artificial inseminations permitted in a given year would be determined completely by the difference between the number of deaths and the number of births in the year previous."

Combining this rule with his desire to implement eugenics, Brown writes on the next page, "A broad eugenics program would have to be formulated which would aid in the establishment of policies that would encourage able and healthy persons to have several offspring and discourage the unfit from breeding at excessive rates."

Brown openly acknowledged population control requires government limitation of human freedom.

"Precise control of population can never be made completely compatible with the concept of a free society; on the other hand, neither can the automobile, the machine gun, or the atomic bomb," he wrote on pages 263-264.

"Whenever several persons live together in a small area, rules of behavior are necessary. Just as we have rules designed to keep us from killing one another with our automobiles, so there must be rules that keep us from killing one another with our fluctuating breeding habits an with our lack of attention to the soundness of our individual genetic stock."

Holdren follows mentor's lead

Holdren's call for a planetary regime dates to the 1970s college textbook "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment" that he co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich and Ehrlich's wife, Anne. The authors argued involuntary birth-control measures, including forced sterilization, may be necessary and morally acceptable under extreme conditions, such as widespread famine brought about by "climate change."

Just as Brown had called for world government to control overpopulation to prevent eco-disasters, Holdren's call for a planetary regime was similarly motivated by ecological concerns.

On page 943, the authors recommended the creation of a "Planetary Regime" created to act as an "international superagency for population, resources, and environment."

Holdren clearly specified the Planetary Regime would be charged with global population control.

On page 943, Holdren continued: "The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime should have some power to enforce the agreed limits."

Holdren credits Brown with inspiring him in high school

Holdren openly acknowledges his intellectual debt to Brown's 1954 book "The Challenge of Man's Future."

In 1986, Holdren co-edited a scientific reader, "Earth and the Human Future: Essays in Honor of Harrison Brown."

In one of his introductory essays in the book, Holdren acknowledged he read Brown's "The Challenge of Man's Future" when he was in high school and that the book had a profound effect on his intellectual development.

Holdren acknowledged Brown's book transformed his thinking about the world and "about the sort of career I wanted to pursue."

As recently as 2007, Holdren gave a speech to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in which his last footnote included Brown as one of the "several late mentors" to whom Holdren was thankful for "insight and inspiration."

In the first slide of this presentation, Holdren acknowledged, "My pre-occupation with the great problems at the intersection of science and technology with the human condition – and with the interconnectedness of these problems with each other – began when I read 'The Challenge of Man's Future' in high school. I later worked with Harrison Brown at Caltech."

Contact: Jerome R. Corsi
Source: WorldNetDaily
Publish Date: December 9, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR THURSDAY

NEWS SHORTS FOR THURSDAY
(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.)

Federal Spending Bill May Include Abortion Funding in D.C.
 


The Omnibus Appropriations Bill, a massive yearly spending bill, is expected to be considered by the House later this week.  Democrats are adding pro-abortion provisions, including lifting a ban on funding for abortions performed in Washington, D.C.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, said lawmakers are trying to make the changes while everyone is focused on health care and other issues.

"They want to ram these through under a fast-track procedure," he told OneNewsNow, "where the Senate would never have even debated or had a chance to vote on these measures."
Click here for the full article.


Full page ad challenges Planned Parenthood to fess up on healthcare kick-back plans

Americans United for Life took out a full-page ad in Tuesday's The Hill, and it's fabulous. Click on the link to see the actual newspaper scan. Here's the letter. Click to enlarge....



americans united for life, planned parenthood, charmaine yoest, cecile richards, The Hill, healthcare 1.jpg

"I'll go first," I love it.

The next obvious question is, "Cecile, what do you plan to use public funded healthcare kickbacks for?"

But we already know the answer: to cover up underage rapes, and to target black babies for abortion, and most recently revealed, to use scare tactics and provide gross misinformation to abortion-vulnerable mothers.
Click here for the full article.


Pro-Life Resolution to Appear on Texas Ballot
 


The governing body of the Republican Party in Texas has voted to include a resolution on the March 2010 primary ballot asking lawmakers to require that women seeking an abortion would be able to see an ultrasound image before they agree to the procedure.

Kyleen Wright, president of Texans for Life Coalition, said they tried to get it passed this session.

"It was a measure that we pushed very hard in the state Legislature," she said.  It passed in the Senate, but died as a result of Democrats running out the clock filibustering on another measure."

Wright said many of the abortion clinics in the state already perform sonograms, but that doesn't mean women are seeing the results.

"Most of the women," she said, "don't know that it's in the package that they're paying for, don't even necessarily know that they are having this procedure and are never offered the opportunity to see the sonogram."
Click here for the full article.


Belgian Doctor Cleared of Murder Charges after Euthanizing 88-year-old, Non-Terminally-Ill Woman



BRUSSELS - A Belgian judge has decide not to prosecute a doctor specializing in euthanasia after he was accused of murdering a woman who came to him seeking death, but who was not terminally ill.

Dr. Marc Cosyns of Ghent euthanized the 88-year-old woman on January 5, 2008 after her own doctor had opposed the request for euthanasia. It was reported that the woman had an incurable disease that was not terminal and suffered from several other ailments.

The woman's son filed a complaint with the public prosecutor after he learned of Dr. Cosyns part in his mother's death.

Upon hearing of the judge's refusal to hear the charge of murder against him, Dr. Cosyns reportedly said, "I am very pleased that the right of the patient has been secured."
Click here for the full article.


Dominican nun, former Planned Parenthood escort, continues support for abortion



A Dominican nun who gained national notoriety by working as an escort at a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Chicago has applauded US Senators who voted against a pro-life amendment to the pending health-care reform legislation. Sister Donna Quinn—who quit her volunteer work with Planned Parenthood under pressure from local Church leaders—reports that she has sent thank-you notes to abortion supporters who lobbied their senators against the pro-life amendment. Sister Quinn expressed satisfaction that the amendment was defeated on the feast of the Immaculate Conception, saying that the Virgin Mary was “one of the first women in the New Testament to express ‘choice.’”
Click here for the full article.


Italy approves RU-486



Italy has granted final approval to the abortion pill RU-486 but, unlike most other nations, will limit its use to hospitals.

“There will be excommunication for the doctor, the woman and anyone who encourages its use,” Bishop Elio Sgreccia said in July, referring to the penalty of automatic excommunication associated with abortion. The retired president of the Pontifical Academy for Life added, “First abortion was legalized to stop it being clandestine, but now doctors are washing their hands of it and transferring the burden of conscience to women.”
Click here for the full article.

Denominations' support of abortion in health care 'tragic'

Denominations' support of abortion in health care 'tragic'



WASHINGTON - While evangelical and Catholic leaders have been working tirelessly in recent weeks to make sure any health care bill does not include federal funding of abortions, leaders of the nation's mainline denominations have been doing just the opposite, even going so far as calling abortion a "God-given right."

The Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Church of Christ and the United Methodist Church's General Board of Church and Society all are members of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, a pro-abortion rights organization that took part in a Dec. 2 "Stop Stupak" rally in Washington D.C., urging the Senate not to include the pro-life Stupak amendment in its version of the health care bill.

The United Methodist General Board of Church and Society -- the denomination's lobbying arm -- even sent out an alert after the health care bill passed the House, calling the bill itself a "major milestone" but lamenting passage of the Stupak amendment, which it saw as "a tremendous setback for access to comprehensive reproduction health coverage." The amendment passed the House 240-194 and prevents the government-run public option from covering elective abortion and also prohibits federal subsidies from being used to purchase private insurance plans that cover abortions.

The four previously mentioned denominations all have pro-choice positions of varying degrees, but their leaders' stances on abortion in the health care bill have surprised even some seasoned observers.

Mark Tooley, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, said most church members of mainline denominations would know little if anything about the lobbying effort. IRD is a conservative organization working to transform the "churches' social witness."

"They would be very surprised," Tooley told Baptist Press. "At least 90 percent have no idea what happens with the money after it leaves the local church. Certainly, 90 percent or more do not know that their denominations have lobby offices on Capitol Hill.... Most mainline Protestants aren't familiar with what's going on in their name. So, it would be very surprising to the vast majority."

The issue captured attention in the conservative Internet realm when Carlton Veazey, president of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, told a small gathering at the Stop Stupak rally, "Don't let anybody tell you that religious people don't support choice. You not only have a constitutional right for abortion, but you have a God-given right." CNSNews.com reported the comment.

Tooley said Veazey's quote was "in line" with other past comments.

"It's tragic," he said of the coalition's position about federal funding of abortion. "These same church groups were out there supporting Roe v. Wade in 1973.... It's horrifying that groups that are at least in theory parts of the body of Christ are not only defending abortion but demanding that it be funded by tax dollars."

Membership in mainline churches has fallen by a fourth in the past 50 years, according to the research firm The Barna Group.

Meanwhile, the leading evangelical denominations have been working to make sure the Stupak amendment remains in the Senate version. Southern Baptist ethicist Richard Land said "the Stupak-Pitts amendment is the minimum required for any genuinely pro-life person."

"People who claim to be pro-life" and accept anything less "have pro-life views as a preference, not as a conviction," he said.

Following are the four denominations' positions on abortion, according to their websites:



-- The United Methodist Church in 2004 adopted a position opposing partial-birth abortion. But the statement also says the decision to abort "should be made only after thoughtful and prayerful consideration by the parties involved, with medical, pastoral, and other appropriate counsel."




-- The Presbyterian Church (USA) in 1993 adopted a position stating, "The considered decision of a woman to terminate a pregnancy can be a morally acceptable, though certainly not the only or required, decision."



-- The Episcopal Church in 1994 adopted a resolution stating that the "Episcopal Church express[es] its unequivocal opposition to any legislative, executive or judicial action on the part of local, state or national governments that abridges the right of a woman to reach an informed decision about the termination of pregnancy or that would limit the access of a woman to safe means of acting on her decision."



-- The United Church of Christ has been pro-abortion rights since Roe v. Wade was handed down in 1973. It joined a friend-of-the-court brief this decade in trying to overturn the federal ban on partial-birth abortion. The Supreme Court allowed the law to stand.

Contact: Michael Foust
Source: BP
Publish Date: December 7, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

More pro-abortion threats loom in US Congress

More pro-abortion threats loom in US Congress



The push for public funded abortions in healthcare isn't enough. Pro-aborts never sleep in their bloodthirsty quest to advance taxpayer funding and access to abortion. The National Right to Life Committee issued this heads up last night:

    35 senators today warned congressional Democratic leaders against attempting to use omnibus appropriations legislation as a vehicle to overturn longstanding pro-life policies on 3 different issues....

    In a letter delivered today to Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (NV), the 35 Republican senators, led by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), warned that if any of the provisions making pro-abortion policy changes are included, the omnibus legislation will face stiff resistance. "We want to assure you that we are prepared to take full advantage of our rights under Senate rules" to prevent enactment of the abortion-related provisions, the letter states....

    Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the NRLC), commented: "At the same time that congressional Democratic leaders are trying to win enactment of government-funded abortion in their health care legislation, they are also considering using end-of-year omnibus appropriations legislation to try to smuggle in removals of longstanding bans on government-funded abortion in the nation's Capitol, and in their own insurance plans."

    Democratic leaders are currently crafting omnibus appropriations legislation that will encompass most or all of the 7 regular appropriations bills that have not yet been enacted for the current fiscal year.

    The possible abortion-related provisions at issue would:

  # lift a longstanding ban on funding of abortions by the city government of Washington, DC, allowing funding of abortion on demand with funds appropriated by Congress

  # lift a longstanding ban on coverage of elective abortions in the private health plans that participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, which covers over 7 million federal employees and dependents, including most members of Congress

  # permanently prevent any US president from restricting US funding of foreign organizations that are committed to promoting abortion as a method of birth control [JLS note: Mexico City policy]

So add your opposition to these 3 provisions when you call your senators opposing public funding in healthcare.

Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: jillstanek.com
Publish Date: December 8, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Some Senators Share Holdren’s View That Born Babies Are Not ‘Human Beings’

Some Senators Share Holdren's View That Born Babies Are Not 'Human Beings'



Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, says he believes some of his Senate colleagues share the view expressed by White House science adviser John P. Holdren in a 1973 book that human fetuses do not become "human beings" until sometime after they are born.
 
Holdren co-authored Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich in 1973.  The book calls for a "massive campaign" to "de-develop the United States" and concludes that redistribution of wealth "both within and among nations is absolutely essential."
 
On page 235 of the book, in a chapter titled "Population Limitation," Holdren and his co-authors wrote: "The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being. Where any of these essential elements is lacking, the resultant individual will be deficient in some respect."


Click here for the video.

Holdren holds a Senate-confirmed position as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and is the top science adviser to President Barack Obama.
 
CNSNews.com asked Sen. Inhofe in a video interview if he believed that Holdren should come to the Senate and explain whether he still believes these words in his book and what he meant by them. Inhofe, who is pro-life, responded that he believed Holdren's view that a fetus does not develop into a human being until sometime after birth is shared by some members of the Senate.
 
"There are members of the Senate who would probably agree with that," said Inhofe. "I mean, those of us who believe—and, scripturally, we, obviously, we are on solid ground—that life begins at conception. Many members of the Senate don't believe that. And that's why you are getting into the big abortion argument."
 
Inhofe said that he not only thought some of his colleagues did not believe a fetus develops into a human being until sometime after birth, but said he thought some of his colleagues would actually state that this was their belief.
 
"I think they would actually tell you that," said Inhofe.
 
"They would be candid enough to actually say that?" CNSNews.com asked.
 
"I think they would, yes," said Inhofe.

CNSNews.com has asked the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to make John Holdren available for a video interview about his past writings on human ecology, population, and the environment. The invitation has not been accepted.

Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: December 8, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Special Report Shows 'Handwriting On The Wall' for Failing Abortion Industry

Special Report Shows 'Handwriting On The Wall' for Failing Abortion Industry

Pro-life Movement gaining ground: Over two-thirds of all abortion clinics have closed since 1991, resulting in saved lives



WICHITA, Kans. - Operation Rescue has released the results of an extensive research project into the abortion industry showing that the number of abortion clinics continues to dwindle as Americans become more pro-life.

"We now have an accurate listing of every open abortion clinic in the country," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "In 1991, it was estimated that there were nearly 2,200 abortion clinics in the country, today there are just 713. The pro-life movement has made significant strides exposing and closing abortion clinics and shifting public opinion toward the pro-life position. This has resulted in lower abortion rates."

Operation Rescue has listed all abortion clinics along with a map showing their locations. The information shows a general relationship between access to abortion clinics and the abortion rate in each state. With few exceptions, the states with greater access to abortion clinics have higher abortion rates.

The release of the list launches "Project Daniel 5:25", Operation Rescue's latest campaign to expose abortion industry abuses and bring the perpetrators to justice. Project Daniel 5:25 is named after the Biblical story of Daniel, who was able to read the handwriting on the wall and predict the fall of a wicked kingdom.

"The days of legal abortion in this nation are numbered. Pro-life sentiment continues to gain ground as abortion support slips. Abortion clinics continue to close as demand decreases and as abortionists are increasingly exposed and reported to the authorities by pro-life groups," said Newman.

"Project Daniel 5:25 encourages those with pro-life views to establish a presence at their local abortion clinic to pray and offer help to abortion-bound women -- but also to monitor the clinic for criminal violations and other suspicious acts. We have never found an abortion clinic that follows the law. It is up to pro-life activists to serve as the watchdogs of the abortion industry and be the eyes and ears of law enforcement.

"We can do more than simply protest abortion clinics. We can document their illegal and dangerous behavior and work within the law to close them down.

"With a pro-life watchdog group at every clinic reporting what they see to the authorities, we will certainly see more abortionists criminally charged and abortion clinics closed. We know first-hand from having our offices in a closed former abortion clinic, that when clinics close, lives are saved."

Those who wish to participate in Project Daniel 5:25 are encouraged to call Operation Rescue at 1-800-705-1175.

Click here to read the report, view the map and list.

Contact: Troy Newman, Cheryl Sullenger
Source: Operation Rescue
Publish Date: December 8, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Senator Boxer Compares Viagra Prescription To Abortion in Opposing Amendment to Health Care Bill

Senator Boxer Compares Viagra Prescription To Abortion in Opposing Amendment to Health Care Bill



Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) on the Senate floor on Monday compared a woman’s choice to have an abortion with a man’s choice to privacy when seeking a prescription for Viagra, a drug used to enhance sexual performance. Boxer made her remarks while speaking against an amendment to the Senate health care bill introduced by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). Nelson’s amendment would prohibit federal funds from paying for any part of any health insurance plan that covers abortion.
 
“The men who have brought us this [amendment] don’t single out a procedure that is used by a man, or a drug that is used by a man, that involves his reproductive health care, and say they have to get a special rider,” Boxer said. “There is nothing in this amendment that says if a man some day wants to buy Viagra, for example, that his pharmaceutical coverage cannot cover it, that he has to buy a rider.”


Click here for the video from C-SPAN.
 
“I wouldn’t support that,” she said, “and they shouldn’t support going after a woman, using her own private funds for her reproductive health care,” Boxer said. “Is it fair to say to a man: ‘You’re going to have to buy a rider to buy Viagra and this will be public information?’”
 
“It could be accessed,” Boxer said. “No, I don’t support that. I support a man’s privacy just as I support a woman’s privacy. So it is very clear to me that this amendment would be the biggest rollback to a woman’s right to choose in decades.”
 
A vote on the Nelson-Hatch amendment is expected as early as today.

Contact: Penny Starr
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: December 8, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Obamacare: No Friend to People With Disabilities

Obamacare: No Friend to People With Disabilities



I have had great sympathy with the problem Obamacare has posed for people with disabilities. On one hand, many are terribly under-served by the health care system. On the other hand, I believe Obamacare will lead to explicit rationing of expensive patients, which will one day include people with disabilities. It could also one day support assisted suicide, as I reported here.

But now, I don’t see how the disabilities community can countenance this any longer. Democrats  have supported cutting $43 billion from home health care as a way to help pay the huge Obamacare tab.  From the story:

By a vote of 53 to 41, the Senate on Saturday rejected a Republican effort to block cutbacks in payments to home health agencies that provide nursing care and therapy to homebound Medicare beneficiaries. Republicans voted against the cuts, saying they would hurt some of the nation’s most vulnerable citizens. Most Democrats supported the cutbacks, saying they would eliminate waste and inefficiency in home care. The Democrats’ health care bill would reduce projected Medicare spending on home care by $43 billion, or 13 percent, over the next 10 years. The savings would help offset the cost of subsidizing coverage for the uninsured.

This and the projected $400 billion in cuts to be made to Medicare prove that Obamacare is to be financed out of the hides, perhaps literally, of our most vulnerable citizens, most particularly people with disabilities and the eldelry. I don’t see any other way of looking at it.

Oh, right: Afterwards the senate passed a measure–as it did after refusing to delete the wider Medicare–opposing all cuts in home health care. Sorry, you can’t cut $43 billion and also maintain the same quality of services. Either the services will suffer or the cuts won’t be made, meaning this is all a sham to make it fit the CBO cost workup.  I hope it is the latter. Either way, Obamacare may be the most dishonest bill in the history of the United States.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: December 8, 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.)

Hearing On Challenge To Okla. Abortion Law Delayed After Change Of Judges



Oklahoma County District Judge Twyla Mason Gray has recused herself from a lawsuit challenging an Oklahoma law that would require women seeking abortions to complete a lengthy questionnaire, the AP/KTUL reports. Before her recusal, Gray issued a temporary restraining order to block the law from taking effect until the suit is resolved. District Judge Daniel Owens will take the place of Gray, who did not provide an explanation for her departure. A hearing scheduled for Friday has been moved to Dec. 18 because of the change.

The questionnaire requires a woman to provide the state with her age, marital status, education level and the nature of the relationship with her partner. It also requires information regarding the number of previous pregnancies; a reason for the abortion; the cost and type of abortion; the method of payment and type of health insurance; and whether an ultrasound was performed. Plaintiffs in the suit argue that the law violates a state constitutional requirement that laws only address a single issue because it relates to four subjects: prohibiting sex-selective abortions, enacting new reporting mandates, redefining various abortion-related terms in state law and creating new roles for multiple state agencies. State attorneys have objected to that argument in court filings.
Click here for the full article.


Tooth to Bone with Adult Stem Cells



More adult stem cell success to chew on. A new report describes how adult stem cells from dental pulp were used to regrow jaw bone for patients. An Italian research team used stem cells taken from the patients’ own molar dental pulp, mixed with a collagen scaffold, to grow bone in the jaws of patients. For some people, bone in the jaw can shrink away after removal of molars, sometimes leading to loss of other teeth. These patients need a replacement procedure to maintain jaw integrity. Use of the adult stem cells allowed “complete regeneration of bone at the injury site.”

The paper is published in the November issue of the open access journal European Cells and Materials.
Click here for the full article.


Modern Cannibalism: Company Seeks To Test Human Embryonic Stem Cells for Treating Blindness



WASHINGTON - Advanced Cell Technology, a small Massachusetts-based biotechnology company, said on Thursday it has asked for approval to test human embryonic stem cells in treating a rare cause of blindness. The company said it filed an IND, an investigational new drug application, with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to use the stem cells to treat patients with Stargardt's macular dystrophy. If approved, it would be the second U.S. approval to test human embryonic stem cells in human patients.
Click here for the full article.


5,000 Teenagers Are Repeat Murderers Every Year



More than 5,000 teenagers had an abortion last year that was at least their second termination. This means that one in 20 of the teenagers who became pregnant ended it with their second or further abortion. It caused further controversy yesterday over the Government's teen pregnancy strategy, which has not only failed to hit its targets but last year also saw numbers of conceptions among teenagers actually increase.
Click here for the full article.


First 3D MRI Scans of Unborn Babies



A new technique to get the first 3D images of unborn babies from MR (magnetic resonance) scans has been developed by Imperial College Healthcare. A team led by Prof Mary Rutherford, a neonatal neuroradiologist at Hammersmith Hospital, is using the images to find out how foetus' brains develop in the womb. This has been difficult to study before as unborn babies wiggle in the mother's tummy. MR scans require a person to be still as ordered slices are taken continuously through the body. 
Click here for the video.
Click here for the full article.


Adult Stem Cells Show Vaccine Like Promise in AIDS Fight



Here’s some good adult stem cell news, that has been–as usual–underplayed in the media.  Blood stem cells can be engineered to target the HIV virus. From the story:

    Their study, published Monday in the-peer reviewed online journal PLoS ONE, provides proof-of-principle — meaning a demonstration of feasibility — that human stem cells can be engineered into the equivalent of a genetic vaccine, according to a UCLA statement. “We have demonstrated in this proof-of-principle study that this type of approach can be used to engineer the human immune system, particularly the T- cell response, to specifically target HIV-infected cells,” said lead investigator Scott G. Kitchen, assistant professor of medicine in the division of hematology and oncology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and a member of the UCLA AIDS Institute. “These studies lay the foundation for further therapeutic development that involves restoring damaged or defective immune responses toward a variety of viruses that cause chronic disease, or even different types of tumors.”Researchers from the UCLA AIDS Institute and colleagues say they have shown that human blood stem cells can be engineered into cells that can target and kill HIV-infected cells, which potentially could be used against other chronic viral diseases.
Click here for the full article.

Health care bill’s definition of ‘preventive care’ could be backdoor for mandatory abortion coverage

Health care bill's definition of 'preventive care' could be backdoor for mandatory abortion coverage Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) Washington D.C. - The passage of an amendment requiring "preventive care" for women in the Senate's proposed health care bill could provide a backdoor to make abortion coverage mandatory, pro-life advocates warn. The Mikulski Amendment, passed on Thursday by a vote of 61-39, requires group health plans and health insurance issuers to provide coverage for "preventive care" for women and bars them from imposing cost sharing requirements on such care. Under the amendment, "preventive care" would be defined by the comprehensive guidelines of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). The National Right to Life Committee has reported that some pro-abortion advocates consider abortion to be "preventive" health care. It said the National Abortion Federation co-sponsored a 2009 publication titled "Providing Abortion Care" which explicitly stated that advance practice clinicians are "especially well positioned within the health care system to address women's need for comprehensive primary preventive health care that includes abortion care." The Mikulski Amendment's vulnerability to pro-abortion redefinition has concerned some pro-life leaders. "While this amendment does not explicitly require abortion coverage, it also fails to explicitly exclude it," wrote Mary Harned of Americans United for Life (AUL) at the AUL website. If the HRSA categorizes abortion as preventive care, it would recommend coverage for abortion by all private plans and force them to offer abortion coverage. Harned charged that this would further "the abortion lobby's agenda of mainstreaming abortion as health care." The NRLC said concerns that "preventive care" will include abortion should not be dismissed. But it argued that those who do dismiss those concerns should therefore have no objection to explicitly excluding abortion from that definition. The Mikulski Amendment was sponsored by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine). The Associated Press reports that it was intended to safeguard coverage of mammograms and preventive screening tests for women under a revamped health system. Source: CNA Publish Date: December 3, 2009 Link to this article.   Send this article to a friend.

Embryonic stem-cell funding - an incentive to kill

Embryonic stem-cell funding - an incentive to kill An internationally recognized expert on stem cells and cloning says President Obama's decision to lift restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem-cell research is wasting lives and taxpayer dollars when all resources should be going towards adult stem cells. The Obama administration on Wednesday approved 13 new human embryonic stem-cell lines for taxpayer-funded experiments. The 13 lines are the first to be approved under an executive order from President Obama, and the National Institutes of Health says dozens more cell lines will be available soon.   During the Bush administration, federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research was limited to cell lines that were already in existence before August 2001.   David Prentice (FRC)Dr. David Prentice, senior fellow for life sciences with the Family Research Council, says that by approving funding for new lines, the Obama administration continues to push political ideology, not science.   "Embryonic stem cells have not helped any human being.  In fact, [they] haven't helped that many rats and mice in the lab," Prentice notes.  "Only adult stem cells are actually helping patients.  The unfortunate part of this new approval is there are now more incentives for researchers to destroy young human embryos just so they can get taxpayer funds."   Prentice reports that nearly 80 diseases or injuries have been treated successfully with adult stem cells. Contact: Jim Brown Source: OneNewsNow Publish Date: December 4, 2009 Link to this article.   Send this article to a friend.

Life Versus Death, and the Coal Miner’s Daughter

Life Versus Death, and the Coal Miner's Daughter Loretta Lynn's "Coal Miner's Daughter," one of the greatest country-and-western hits of all time, romanticized a young woman's appreciation for her daddy, his hard work, her siblings and the hard times they lived through. Near the end of that lovely song, she sings "I'm proud to be a coal miner's daughter" and closes with the lovely words, "And it's so good to be back home again. Not much left but the floor, Nothing lives here anymore, Just a memory of a coal miner's daughter." The song reminds us that regardless of the times in which a family lives or how they have to sacrifice for one another, family ties are strong even when a home's bricks and mortar have all vanished. That's the wonder of being part of a family, of realizing what a blessing human beings are to each and every one of us. Sadly, the coal miner's daughter in that song is not the same one recently written about by Sheryl Gay Stolberg in the New York Times. Stolberg opens her ode to aborting a child by telling the reader, "In the early 1950s, a coal miner's daughter from rural Kentucky named Louise McIntosh encountered the shadowy world of illegal abortion. A friend was pregnant, with no prospects for marriage, and Ms. McIntosh was keeper of a secret that, if spilled, could have led to family disgrace. The turmoil ended quietly in a doctor's office, and the friend went on to marry and have four children." Stolberg fades to the present by explaining that the McIntosh of old is now Louise Slaughter, a member of Congress from New York, who is 80 years old and works to ensure that abortion is protected. But, as Stolberg explains, after 37 years of decriminalized abortion, there is at least a generation of young women who have grown up with abortion as a legal "right" and therefore do not feel a "sense of urgency" about ensuring that abortion is always and everywhere protected by law. While I think it is a good thing that young people may not be as politically zealous as their forebears, I don't believe for a minute that they are as simple-minded as Stolberg seems to surmise. While it may be true that some young people think of abortion as a personal matter rather than a political one, these happen to be the same people who, for the most part, voted to elect the most committed, zealously pro-abortion president in U.S. history. Mesmerized by his charisma, they support him by the thousands, so please, let's not get into the question of who is more committed to killing. According to Stolberg, women such as NARAL Pro-Choice America's president, Nancy Keenan, age 57, "who came of age when abortion was illegal, tend to view it in stark political terms—as a right to be defended, like freedom of speech or freedom of religion. But younger people tend to view abortion as a personal issue, and their interests are different." Well, not so fast. Let's consider the story of another heroic woman who, while not a coal miner's daughter, is a practicing physician who is under siege because she is pro-life in conviction and practice. Her name is Annie Bukacek. Her state is Montana, and her problem is that she is being investigated by state and federal officials allegedly because of her billing practices for Medicaid reimbursements. Dr. Bukacek is no wallflower and has been an outspoken critic of President Obama. Nor is she someone who has always been pro-life, as she readily admits. Dr. Bukacek, now 51, said that, at age 21, when she was five months pregnant with her first child and felt that baby kicking, "It was one of those life-changing moments—an epiphany if you will." And the result was that for the next 30 years she committed herself not only to her family but to defending the most defenseless members of the human family: preborn children. Some might suggest that she and her practice are being unduly criticized because her political position is not as acceptable to the "mainstream" media as that of Slaughter or Keenan. Dr. Bukacek commented, "I have a very strong constitution and can see the humor of these types of situations," she said. "For some physicians, this kind of thing would be devastating." She said her primary concern was for her patients. Bukacek said the investigators had access to patients' marital history, children's history, drug addictions, sexual orientations, religious preference, medications and illnesses. "These investigations are a huge infringement on patients' rights to privacy," she said. Bukacek said many people have suggested she has been targeted because she is an outspoken president of Montana Pro-Life Coalition and is on the steering committee of the Coalition Protecting Patient Rights. "I have been traveling throughout the state speaking as an individual against Obamacare," she said. She said she finds this difficult to believe because she doesn't consider herself that influential, but the timing seems at least suspect. Bukacek said the cost of these investigations has most likely outstripped the amount her office has billed Medicaid in a little over six years of operating the clinic. She said the recreation-vehicle unit that parked outside her door must have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. "This is your tax dollars at work," she said. Anne Bukacek, M.D., is a woman of courage, fortitude, and the priceless quality of honesty, which are evident in every aspect of not only her medical practice, but also her leadership of Montana's human personhood campaign. She has been a lightning rod for activism and a preacher of truth, even when told, as she was on one occasion, that she must no longer pray with her patients. She left the Kalispell Diagnostic Service after being told that she had to choose between prayer and her employment, because she would not compromise her faith. That is perhaps the defining characteristic of this remarkable woman. It isn't difficult to discern what made Loretta Lynn's "coal miner's daughter" truly a woman of love and life. She appreciated sacrifice, her parents, and all that went into growing up amidst physical poverty while surrounded by emotional riches beyond measure. Dr. Bukacek, one of seven children, has traveled similar roads, but also carved her own path.   Her journey is based on her conviction that knowing the difference between right and wrong, love and hate, and good and evil is more than just a major factor in personal happiness. It determines how one faces life's challenges. It is my opinion that Dr. Annie Bukacek, M.D. of Hosanna Health Care in Kalispell, Montana, will probably not be "honored" in a puff piece published by the New York Times any time soon. But I don't think that matters to her, as long as she remains true to her God, her family and her practice. As federal and state officials engage in an ongoing investigation of her medical practice, I doubt that Dr. Bukacek will be sitting around worrying herself to death about it when there is so much to do for the preborn, for her children and for her patients. I am betting that she will continue to courageously oppose Obamacare, explain how medical practices should be operated and do all she can to carry the standard of human personhood forward in the Big Sky state. Even though Annie is not a coal miner's daughter, I have a feeling she would agree that where there's love and appreciation for life, anything is possible because affirming the human person always brings joy—even during the worst of times. Contact: Judie Brown Source: CNSNews.com Publish Date: December 4, 2009 Link to this article.   Send this article to a friend.

Judge on Notre Dame 88 case allows appeals court to decide recusal issue

Judge on Notre Dame 88 case allows appeals court to decide recusal issue South Bend, Ind. - In a hearing today, the judge assigned to the case against the 88 pro-life protesters arrested for trespassing at Notre Dame's commencement exercises last spring, has allowed the request for her recusal to move to an appeals court. St. Thomas More Society attorney Thomas Dixon, who is representing the protesters, argued that Judge Jenny Pitts Manier has "an actual or perceived bias based on her prior rulings, her husband's outspoken criticism of Catholic pro-life teachings as a philosophy professor at Notre Dame and other factors." Judge Manier, the wife of a retired pro-abortion Notre Dame professor, is markedly pro-abortion herself, Laura Rohling, one of the Notre Dame 88, told CNA in an October email. In an October statement, Judge Manier denied any personal or judicial bias in the case and refused to recuse herself. She has also stated that her husband doesn't have a personal or professional interest in the case. However, after a more than two-hour hearing during which Dixon again presented his case against Manier, the judge granted Dixon's request that the final opinion on the recusal be settled in the Indiana claims court. "We're very pleased that Judge Manier has allowed this immediate appeal as it is critical that these vital issues be heard before a fair and impartial tribunal," said Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society. "Universities are supposed to be a place where free speech is welcomed and not silenced," Brejcha continued. "The pro-life movement is the next stage of America's civil rights movement. Notre Dame should not go down in history as another Birmingham, infamous for suppressing demonstrators for exercising their Constitutional rights." The defense of the protestors, who are being charged with trespassing by the university of Notre Dame, is based on the argument that the free speech rights of the pro-life protesters were violated by their arrest by campus police while demonstrating Obama supporters stood by watching. Though representatives of the university claim that the issue is out of their hands, Brejcha expressed hope "that Notre Dame will intervene and ask that the charges be dropped." Source: CNA Publish Date: December 3, 2009 Link to this article.   Send this article to a friend.

UNFPA Pushing for Hundreds of Billions for Family Planning

UNFPA Pushing for Hundreds of Billions for Family Planning NEW YORK, NY - At the United Nations this week, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) organized a commemorative seminar on the 1995 Cairo International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) and, in a look ahead, urged states to renew their commitment to the program, calling for over $200 billion (US) in funding for "sexual and reproductive health and family planning" alone. UNFPA's Ann Pawliczko gave a financial perspective of the ICPD Program of Action and presented a "revised ICPD Global Cost Estimate" for 2009 through 2015, when the ICPD program is scheduled to end.  Apart from $212 billion (US) for "sexual and reproductive health / family planning," UNFPA estimates that another $22.5 billion would be needed for "family planning direct costs" for the same time period. At the seminar, attended by less than 80 individuals representing government delegations and civil society, panelists presented a retrospective of the "groundbreaking" ICPD conference and sought to outline a way forward. Claiming that with only five years left to fulfill the commitments made at the ICPD and achieve the interrelated Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), "governments are called upon to redouble their efforts toward the integration of population and development policies." Opening the seminar, Dr. Werner Haug, UNFPA's Technical Division director, acknowledged that population has always been a "thorny and difficult" topic and that countries must now decide how to proceed after the Cairo Program of Action expires at the end of 2014. Dr. Stan Bernstein, a UNFPA senior policy advisor, called the Cairo consensus "novel" for its person-centered approach rather than just on numbers and demographics and praised the Cairo's reframing of population programs to a "customized approach" which seeks to provide couples and individuals with the means to achieve a smaller family size. Hania Zlotnik of the UN Population Division emphasized the alleged benefits of population reduction, touting that declining fertility "has potentially positive effects on economic growth" such as a reduced number of dependents, an increased number of workers, particularly more women workers since they are having less children.  Zlotnik lamented that funding for family planning was on the decline and warned that "the reproductive health of women and couples cannot be assured if women don't have the means to control their fertility." Laura Laski, another UNFPA representative, focused solely on "reproductive rights and universal access to sexual and reproductive health."  Laski lauded the progress made since the Cairo conference and highlighted the linkage to the MDGs. Laski pointed to the controversial MDG target on "universal access to reproductive health by 2015" as the new "center point" for future work on "sexual and reproductive health." (Pro-life critics note that states rejected a separate goal on "reproductive health" in 2001, only to see it reappear as a "target" in the annex of a Secretary-General's report in 2007.) Panelists concluded that the "chief constraint" to realizing the Cairo program of action is the "lack of adequate funding" and urged states to increase their political will, renew their Cairo commitment and "increase allocations for population activities" as a matter of priority. The UNFPA seminar was co-organized by UNITAR, the UN Institute for Training and Research, as part of the UN's celebration of the ICPD 15th anniversary. This article reprinted by LifeSiteNews.com with permission from www.c-fam.org. Contact: Samantha Singson Source: C-FAM/LifesiteNews.com Publish Date: December 3, 2009 Link to this article.   Send this article to a friend.

Pro-Life Policy on the Chopping Block

Pro-Life Policy on the Chopping Block   A Senate committee recently passed an amendment to the State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill, sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., which would prevent any future president from reinstating the Mexico City Policy.  The policy prohibits U.S. tax dollars from going to groups that perform or promote abortions overseas.  And now the Senate is considering an omnibus bill to roll all of its fiscal year 2010 spending bills into one large bill, including the Lautenberg Amendment. Joy Yearout, communications director for the Susan B. Anthony List, said it's just an extension of President Obama's extreme pro-abortion agenda – an agenda that doesn't sit well with most Americans. "That definitely is in contrast with the public, which does not want to see their money used to fund abortions anywhere," she said. But public opinion has not deterred President Obama, according to Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J. "This administration has been shameless in its abortion promotion," he said. It's possible the Lautenberg amendment may be included in an omnibus bill – several bills rolled into one large bill – or voted on separately.  In either case, there are efforts to exclude the Lautenberg amendment from the omnibus bill. Source: CitizenLink Publish Date: December 3, 2009 Link to this article.   Send this article to a friend.