Christian Leader to Plead 'Not Guilty' at Arraignment After Being Arrested for Praying on a Public Sidewalk Outside of a Planned Parenthood Clinic in Washington, D.C.

    
     Rev. Mahoney moments before his arrest.

Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, was arrested for praying and reading the Bible on a public sidewalk outside of a Washington, D.C. Planned Parenthood clinic.
 
Rev. Mahoney is being charged with "unlawful entry."
 
Photo: Rev. Mahoney moments before his arrest.
 
The arraignment will be on Tuesday, June 29, at 10:00 A.M. in room 115 of the D.C. Superior Court located at 500 Indiana Ave. NW.
 
Rev. Mahoney is being represented by the American Center for Law and Justice and Brian Chavez Ochoa based in California.
 
    

For years pro-life activists were allowed to pray, counsel and conduct peaceful pro-life witness on the public sidewalk leading up to Planned Parenthood.
 
On June 8, Rev. Mahoney was arrested for praying on the public sidewalk marking the first time in the history of Washington, D.C. that prayer and free speech activities have been prohibited and banned on the public sidewalk.
 
In other words, in our nation's capitol abortion takes priority over the First Amendment.
 
Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, comments,
 
"On June 8, I was arrested for praying on a public sidewalk in Washington, D.C. This marks the first time in the history of our nation's capital that prayer and First Amendment activities have been prohibited and banned on the public sidewalk.
 
"Sadly, the City of Washington, D.C. has chosen to protect the abortion industry and Planned Parenthood rather than the First Amendment. These actions should send shock waves to all Americans who cherish free speech and civil liberties.
 
"We must now ask the question, 'Is this the future of America under President Obama?'
 
"As I plead not guilty to these outrageous and baseless charges, I am affirming the power of the First Amendment and free speech and joining a long proud tradition of Americans who refused to keep silent and go silently into the night and surrender their God given rights and liberties."

Contact: Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney
Source: Christian Defense Coalition
Publish Date: June 28, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

 

Illinois Federation for Right to Life

2600 State Street, Ste E

Alton, IL  62002

 

Phone: 618.466.4122

Web: www.ifrl.org

E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

 

 

A clinic for assisted suicides?

Oregon -- one of three states where assisted suicide is legal -- may soon have a clinic set up specifically for that purpose.

    

Portland psychiatrist Stuart Weisberg, who specializes in addictions, has announced the opening of what he calls a "Dignity House" in The City of Roses. OregonLive.com says in an invitation to a special dinner next month, Weisberg claims to have been inspired by Michigan pathologist Jack "Dr. Death" Kevorkian, who boasts of helping to end the lives of 130 people who asked for his assistance.
 
But Rita Marker of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide points out that only two days after his announcement, Weisberg's medical license was suspended.
 
Rita Marker (International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide)"Interestingly enough, it wasn't because he was establishing an assisted suicide clinic but instead because he was prescribing inaccurately and erroneously," she says. "Now that emergency suspension, I would venture to guess, would not have occurred without his flamboyant announcement of an assisted-suicide clinic."
 
Marker points out though that with legalization of assisted suicide, it was just a matter of time for a clinic for that purpose to open. Weisberg's lack of a medical license, she explains, has nothing to do with opening the facility.
 
"...It wouldn't have to be a doctor who established the clinic as long as people just wanted to come there to take their death drugs," she states. "They could offer the amenities of a place where people could go. Rather than dying at home they could go to this place -- no fuss, no muss."
 
Marker notes that once Switzerland determined it would only punish assisted suicide when done "for selfish purposes," it was only a short time later that an assembly-line type of clinic was opened there.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: June 29, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

 

Illinois Federation for Right to Life

2600 State Street, Ste E

Alton, IL  62002

 

Phone: 618.466.4122

Web: www.ifrl.org

E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

 

 

Kagan's Office Delays FOIA Response Because It Doesn't Know What the Meaning of 'The Administration's Health-Care Reform Plan' Is

    
     Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan

The office of Solicitor General Elena Kagan has delayed responding to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted by CNSNews.com that seeks records that might shed light on whether Kagan would need to recuse herself from certain cases if she is confirmed as a Supreme Court justice.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 455, a former government employee who becomes a Supreme Court justice is required to recuse himself or herself from any case he or she expressed an opinion about while in government service.

The law says: “(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: … (3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.”

Given Kagan’s service as solicitor general, there could be a good number of cases she would need to recuse herself from if confirmed to the Supreme Court because she had “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while in office.
 
These could include, for example, those cases challenging the constitutionality of the health-care law that President Barack Obama signed in March. (Florida has been joined by 19 other states in a lawsuit that challenges not only the constitutionality of the law’s provision that forces individuals to buy health insurance but also provisions that impose mandates on state governments. Virginia, meanwhile, has filed a separate suit challenging the individual mandate.)
 
In a letter delivered to CNSNews.com via email on Friday afternoon, Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) Executive Officer Valerie H. Hall gave two reasons for the OSG delaying its response to CNSNews.com’s FOIA request. The first was that the OSG did not understand what was meant in the FOIA request by the term “the administration’s health-care reform plan.” The second was that it did not understand whether the term “any particular case” in the FOIA request actually meant “any particular case” or only referred to cases focusing on health care.
 
Initially, the OSG had declined to provide any materials at all in response to the CNSNews.com FOIA request, claiming an exemption under the law.
 
CNSNews.com sent its FOIA request to the OSG on May 25. The request asked for three categories of records:
 
--“Any communication to or from Solicitor General Elena Kagan and any record or notation of any meeting attended personally or electronically by Solicitor General Elena Kagan in which the administration’s health-care reform plan was a topic.”
 
--“Any communication to or from Solicitor General Elena Kagan and any record or notation of any meeting attended personally or electronically by Solicitor General Elena Kagan in which legal challenges to the health-care reform bill signed by President Barack Obama was a topic.”
 
--“Any communication to or from Solicitor General Elena Kagan and any record or notation of any meeting attended personally or electronically by Solicitor General Elena Kagan in which the question of whether Solicitor General Elena Kagan ought to recuse herself from involvement in any particular case in her role as solicitor general due to the prospect that it might later come before her were she to be confirmed to a seat on a federal court was discussed.”
 
Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, OSG had twenty business days—or until June 23—to respond to this request. On June 22, OSG’s Hall posted a letter to CNSNews.com—via ordinary U.S. Mail--stating that OSG would not provide the records requested by CNSNews.com, citing section (b)(5) of the act.
 
“We have determined,” said the letter, “that any documents you seek are exempt from disclosure for the following reason: 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5): Information consists of inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.”
 
In this initial June 22 letter, OSG did not claim that it did not understand what was meant in the FOIA request by the term “the administration’s health-care reform plan.” Nor did the OSG say in this initial letter that it did not understand that “any particular case” in fact meant “any particular case” as opposed to only those focusing on “health care.”
 
This initial June 22 OSG letter, in fact, fairly summarized CNSNews.com’s FOIA request. The second sentence of the letter said: “You requested records of communications to or from Solicitor General Elena Kagan (and notations of meetings attended by Kagan) on the following topics: the Obama Administration’s health-care reform plan, legal challenges to the health-care bill signed by the President, and recusal of Solicitor General Kagan from involvement in any particular case (in her role as Solicitor General).”

However, on Friday, June 25, OSG’s Hall sent a second letter to CNSNews.com via email. This letter stated that the June 22 letter “was sent in error.” The new letter explained that OSG was not claiming it was exempt under the law from providing materials in response to CNSNews.com FOIA request. 
 
“Previously, a letter dated June 22, 2010 was sent to you over my signature in response to your May 25, 2010 request, stating that the records you seek are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(2),” said the new letter. “That letter was sent in error.”

[In fact, the initial letter had claimed an exemption under section (b)(5), not (b)(2). Section (b)(2) exempts matters that are “related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.”]

The June 25 letter said the OSG had questions about the first and third categories in CNSNews.com’s FOIA request.
 
“It is unclear from your request what you mean by the phrase, ‘the administration’s health-care reform plan,’ in your request for the first category of records,” said the letter. “We would appreciate clarification of this phrase so that we can conduct an appropriate search.
 
“Additionally,” said the OSG letter, “it is unclear from your request whether the third category of records, like the other two, focuses on health-care, and whether the particular cases referred to in that third category thus are cases concerning the health-care legislation. We would appreciate clarification of the scope of your request on this point.”
 
The June 25 OSG letter said that once the office received the clarification it would “promptly process” the request.
 
CNSNews.com sent a response letter to the OSG later on Friday, June 25, stating that the term “the administration’s health-care reform plan” in the first category of its request should be construed to mean “then-pending legislative health-care proposals,” and that the words “any particular case” in the third category of the request should in fact be understood to mean “any particular case” and not just health-care related ones.
 
As reported by The Blog of the Legal Times, Kagan has in fact temporarily recused herself from her duties as solicitor general.

On May 17, she sent a letter to the clerk of the Supreme Court asking that the court deal with her deputy as the acting solicitor general from the date of her nomination onward. “In light of my nomination to serve as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Neal Kurnar Katyal, will serve as Acting Solicitor General in all filings after the date of my nomination involving the United States Government,” Kagan wrote in the letter. “I ask that you please address future correspondence from the Court to him, and that the Court’s docket sheets reflect his designation as Counsel of Record.”
 
Obama sent Kagan's nomination to the Senate on May 10, a week before Kagan's letter to the clerk of the Court.
 
In a questionnaire she completed for the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kagan said that the White House had first contacted her about the possibility she would be nominated to the Supreme Court on March 5. Justice John Paul Stevens publicly announced he would be retiring from the court a month later on April 9.
 
“I was contacted by Bob Bauer, White House Counsel, and Susan Davies, Deputy White House Counsel, on March 5, 2010, to inform me that the President wished to consider me for a possible Supreme Court vacancy,” said Kagan in the questionnaire. “Between that date and the day of my nomination, I had frequent contact with Mr. Bauer and Ms. Davies. On April 7, 2010, Ron Klain, Chief of Staff to the Vice President, contacted me about meeting with the Vice President. Also that day, I met with David Axelrod, Senior Advisor to the President; Cynthia Hogan, Counsel to the Vice President; and Lisa Brown, Staff Secretary to the President.”

“President Obama informed me on May 9, 2010 that he wished to nominate me to the Supreme Court,” said Kagan.

The Judiciary Committee questionnaire also asked Kagan about the issue of recusal. The questionnaire said: “Explain the procedure you will follow in determining whether to recuse yourself from matters coming before the Court, if confirmed.”
 
Kagan answered: “If confirmed, I would recuse in all matters for which I was counsel of record. I would also look to the letter and spirit of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges (although it is not formally binding on members of the Supreme Court of the United States), the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, 28 U.S.C. 455, and any other relevant prescriptions. I would also consult with my colleagues in any case where recusal might be advisable.”
 
Prof. Ronald Rotunda of the Chapman University School of Law--who is the co-author of Problems and Materials on Professional Responsibility, a legal-ethics textbook, and also Legal Ethics: The Lawyer's Deskbook on Professional Responsibility--believes that if Kagan does look to the letter and spirit of 28 U.S.C. 455 she will need to recuse herself from all cases she has expressed even a verbal opinion on as solicitor general.

Asked by email whether Kagan should recuse herself from any case coming before the Supreme Court that she has already expressed so much as a verbal opinion about to colleagues in the administration, Rotunda said:
 
“Of course. That is what 28 U.S.C.A. § 455(b)(3) requires. It is much stricter than the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct. The statute specifically requires that the justice disqualify herself if she has ‘expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.’ It does not require that the opinion be written, or formal or public. The legislative history shows the Congress wanted to require disqualification even of lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel, who do not argue before the Supreme Court. It surely covers the lawyers who do argue before the Supreme Court.”
 
Rotunda is scheduled to testify about Kagan and the recusal issue in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday.
 
Carrie Severino, the chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network, believes that the Senate Judiciary Committee should question Kagan about the issues she has advised President Obama about, and that she should recuse herself from cases related to advice she gave Obama.
 
“I think she needs to be asked during the confirmation hearings not about the substance of any advice she gave the president, but about what she gave him advice on,” said Severino. “Since as solicitor general her client is the U.S. government, the president is essentially her client. So if she gave him advice on, for example, the constitutionality of the health care mandate, she would need to recuse herself on that.”

Contact: Terence P. Jeffrey
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: June 28, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

 

Illinois Federation for Right to Life

2600 State Street, Ste E

Alton, IL  62002

 

Phone: 618.466.4122

Web: www.ifrl.org

E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

 

 

Kindergartners will get condoms if they ask

A school policy in a Massachusetts town is sparking reaction from a prominent traditional values group.

     
     Kindergarten Class

As was previously reported, Provincetown school officials have approved providing condoms to children as young as kindergarten age. Fox News Channel quoted the school superintendent, who justified the new policy with the argument that "children engage in sexuality with or without counseling, with or without condom availability."
 
But Concerned Women for America CEO Penny Nance believes it is nonsensical -- and when told that a child requesting a condom would receive counseling in how to use it, she responded:
 
"You know, this is just the worst kind of example of schools jumping over the parent-child relationship and getting in between the parent-child relationship," Nance laments, "and it absolutely makes no sense."
 
According to the CWFA spokeswoman it also opens the door for a child who is being sexually abused to be sent to request a condom, told by a nurse or counselor how to use it, and sent on their way to be abused again. She believes school officials ought to know that if a five-year-old child asks for a condom, there could be abuse going on.
 
"And it really just explains how out of step the political correctness of our country has gone," adds Nance.
 
Parents cannot opt their children out of the program, which will go into effect at the beginning of the new school year; and if a child asks for a condom, their parents will not be notified. The case has created quite a storm -- even the governor of Massachusetts is now asking that a second look be taken at the policy.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: June 29, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

 

Illinois Federation for Right to Life

2600 State Street, Ste E

Alton, IL  62002

 

Phone: 618.466.4122

Web: www.ifrl.org

E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

 

Guidelines - When is someone brain dead?

     

In order to make sure doctors reach the correct conclusion in determining brain death, new guidelines that call for a lengthy examination have been developed.

The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) has issued new guidelines -- an update of rules initially written 15 years ago. Dr. Nick Yates, a spokesman for the Christian Medical Association (CMA), practices medicine in New York, where an existing checklist compares to the new guidelines. He thinks the update is a move in the right direction.

"I think that if this is followed, it should be a very good way of assisting the physicians involved to an accurate determination of death," Yates comments.

Dr. Nick Yates (Christian Medical Assoc. - CMDA)He explains that doctors have varied levels of knowledge and experience, but the extensive checklist would remove some of the "guess work" and variability among doctors.

"They need recommendations to follow. So if these are followed, I think it will go a long way with respect to an accurate diagnosis and hopefully removing of the inappropriate diagnosis," the CMA spokesman adds.

He believes that if the AAN puts the guidelines into effect, physicians will become aware of them over time, which would ultimately make them more knowledgeable in reaching their conclusions.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: June 26, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Criminal investigation of Planned Parenthood sought

Complaint cites 'patient abandonment,' 'negligence,' 'endangerment'
    
A pro-life organization that uncovered Planned Parenthood's provision of "telemedicine abortions," in which the pregnant woman never actually meets the abortionist, is seeking a criminal investigation of the procedures already in operation in Iowa.

"We believe that telemed abortions are illegal for several reasons and may rise to the threshold of criminal negligence," Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, said in a statement.

His group has asked the Iowa attorney general's office to investigate the possible criminal-code violations in Planned Parenthood's "scheme," in which an abortionist meets the woman only through a computer link and then launches a "remote-controlled push-button Internet abortion pill."

Understand Planned Parenthood's agenda. Get "Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom"

"Planned Parenthood's scheme to deny women personal access to licensed physicians is a prescription for disaster," Newman said.

The complaint cites Planned Parenthood of the Heartland and employees Thomas William Ross and Susan Haskell, both osteopaths.

The complaint asserts violations of the Iowa law requiring that only licensed physicians perform abortions, the endangerment of women's lives through the process that dispenses drugs by remote control, negligence in dispensing drugs in ways that exceed manufacturer safety limits, overbilling of insurance companies and "patient abandonment," since the abortionist remains unavailable to the patient – even in an emergency.

Operation Rescue earlier obtained confirmation of an investigation by the Iowa Medical Board into Planned Parenthood.

Operation Rescue Senior Policy Adviser Cheryl Sullenger had filed the medical-board complaint over the procedure, prompting the Iowa Medical Board's confirmation that it was looking into the "care and treatment" practices of abortionist Haskell.

The complaint had raised several concerns, including the fact that Iowa law allows only a licensed physician to do abortions, the Planned Parenthood of the Heartland procedure fell short of FDA-approved protocols for doctor's visits, no physician was present for the administration of abortion drugs and insurance companies apparently were overbilled.

Operation Rescue discovered the Iowa telemed abortion scheme during an undercover investigation of abortion clinics across the nation.

The organization documented in a recording Planned Parenthood's explanation of its setup.

"The physician doesn't actually come," the abortion company worker explains. "The physician who prescribes you the medication would be on a computer screen. You'll be on a computer screen. You can see each other and communicate. They're just not physically there.

"You would press a button that's on the screen, and a little box would open up with the medication in it."

Listen to the call:

Click here to download the mp3 file.

"The telemed abortion presents risks to women's lives and health that are completely unacceptable," Newman said when the plan was discovered. "The lack of access to a licensed physician throughout this risky and painful abortion process is shocking and likely illegal. Money obviously means more to Planned Parenthood than the lives and safety of women."

Sullenger's report on the issue explained the "telemedicine" procedures are "used legitimately in the medical field to lower the cost of consultations with specialists and exchange medical information between physicians electronically."

"However, telemedicine, or care in absentia, was never meant as a replacement for the personal, hands-on examination by a physician," she said.

Operation Rescue discovered a dozen small Planned Parenthood offices around Iowa were handing out the dangerous abortion drug RU-486, or mifepristone, and companion drug methotrexate even though the patients never had been examined personally by a physician.

"We believe that this practice is illegal and violates Iowa law that requires that a licensed physician perform abortions in that state, and increases the serious dangers to the public," Newman said.

Newman's organization also found Planned Parenthood deviates from FDA protocols for the dosage and number of office visits, and insurance companies are billed $1,000 for the process – twice what cash patients must pay.

Contact: Bob Unruh
Source: WorldNetDaily
Publish Date: June 25, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Wrong IVF Embryos Implanted Leads to End of Once Wanted Life

      

This just makes my head explode.  A woman was implanted with the wrong embryos, and rather than honor another woman's children and let them live, immediately terminated the pregnancy process.  From the story:

    A woman who sought help from a prominent Connecticut fertility center last year received embryos, but they belonged to another woman with the same last name. The mistake happened in April 2009 at the Center for Advanced Reproductive Services at the University of Connecticut Health Center, which will pay a $3,000 fine. A lab technician only checked the last name on the container with the embryos and pulled the wrong ones from frozen storage, according to the state Department of Public Health. Procedure is to check the medical record number and last four digits of the Social Security number. That patient who received the embryos was informed of the error within an hour and decided to take the "morning after" pill to prevent the pregnancy, according to state records.

IVF has proven to have many casualties, most particularly embryos treated as a mere thing–but also sometimes, as here, would-be birth and biological parents who become embroiled in terrible, heart wrenching circumstances.  And that doesn't even get into the culture of entitlement that IVF has helped foster (hello, Octomom!).

Still, what a contrast from the last time this happened.  When the mistake was discovered in that case, the birth mother and her husband chose life for someone else's baby. Which choice reflects unconditional love?

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: June 28, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Euthanasia weighs evenly on U.S. morality scale

Gallup's most recent "Values and Beliefs" survey shows an even split among Americans on the issue of doctor-assisted suicide.

    
 
While Americans find abortion morally wrong by a 50-to-38 percent margin, the poll shows they are split evenly (46% to 46%) when it comes to euthanasia. Rita Marker, president of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide (ITF), explains that does not mean more people are siding with proponents of assisted suicide.

"Two years ago, 51 percent found it to be morally acceptable. It's gone down five percentage points," she reports. "The same way in 2008: 44 percent thought it was wrong; now 46 percent think it's wrong. So since 2003, it has not been this much of a drop."

That means that over the past seven years, fewer people are finding the practice acceptable. Marker points out that there were higher rates for doctor-assisted suicide in previous polls when the question was acceptability on the basis of pain when nothing further could be done for a terminal illness.

"But...none of the proposals that have been presented ever have said people have to be in pain," she points out. "When people begin to recognize...that it's just a diagnosis -- or as I say, misdiagnosis -- of a prediction on how long they have to live, that's the only thing that's required. It doesn't have anything to do with pain."

So she concludes that this "misdiagnosis" has led people down a slippery slope to suicide for no legitimate reason. For example, people in Europe obtain help to end their lives for depression, which can be treated. Likewise, a spouse choosing to die at the same time their ailing mate commits suicide may seek assisted suicide.

But realizing the divide among Americans on pro-life issues, advocates are working to change the hearts and minds by insisting that issues be framed properly.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: June 27, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Newspaper editor questions whether pro-aborts are to blame for misspelled pro-abortion graffiti

Somewhere between 7p on June 14 and 7p on June 15, vandals sprayed the following graffiti on the home of Dubuque, IA, pro-lifer Allen Troupe:

    

They were most likely incited by this sign in a window of Troupe's home...

   

Troupe filed a police report and anticipated fair and balanced media attention in line with what we know would be provided were pro-life graffiti to appear on the home of an abortion proponent - i.e., lots.

But not only did the local rag, the Dubuque Telegraph Herald, fail to post a story, it failed to even post the police report in its daily listing. Editorial staff either considered the incident too slight, or it was expressing bias by omission.

So Troupe emailed DTH editor Brian Cooper, and here was Cooper's response:

    

"Wouldn't you think a bona fide pro-choice vandal would know how to spell abortion?"

The overriding conclusion to draw from Cooper's rhetorical question is that "bona fide" pro-aborts can't be stupid.

There are thus 3 conspiracy theories Cooper was implying:

1. The vandal spray painting the misspelled graffiti was in actuality a covert but stupid pro-lifer.

2. The vandal spray painting the misspelled graffiti was in actuality a covert pro-lifer attempting to make pro-aborts look stupid.

2. The vandal spray painting the misspelled graffiti was not pro-life or pro-abortion at all but just a simple street vandal who wanted people to think s/he was pro-abortion.

In fact, I could only surmise Conspiracy Theories #1 and 2 until Cooper (pictured right) told me #3 by phone this morning.

"I'm not surprised you can't think of any other conclusion," he said, since I had identified myself as a pro-life blogger. "Not everyone is fervently pro-choice or pro-life. This could have been someone who doesn't have any opinion on it and wanted to vandalize but seem that someone else was doing it."

Well that makes total sense. A vandal into graffiti purely for the joy of it, uninvolved in the abortion battle either way, would know enough to connect a sign opposing Planned Parenthood with "aboration" and "baby killers" and decide to spray paint about it to somehow implicate pro-aborts because... Well, again, I can only come up with the fact the graffiti vandal was either #1 or #2.

The Telegraph Herald finally posted a story about the vandalism on June 23, but catch the headline:

    

Troupe "believes" the graffiti on his home was tied to his abortion opposition, but that may not be true? The story's 1st sentence reiterated the point:

Police are investigating a vandalism case involving a man who believes his house was targeted due to his opposition to Planned Parenthood and abortion.

So Troupe could have been in actuality drawing wild conclusions or hallucinating?

These journalists are either utterly biased or totally void of common sense and simple intelligence.

Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: jillstanek.com
Publish Date: June 28, 1010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Organs without Consent? Has There Ever Been Informed Consent?

      

Assemblyman Brodsky Earlier Introduced a Bill That Would Have Made Organ Donation the Default Position for Every New Yorker.

You know you are on to a scam when a proposal redefines basic language.   This politician has suggested that who is a donor should be decided by the state.

That's kind of like the mandatory volunteer corps the US House of Representatives voted on last year.

This shouldn't come as any surprise, however. Organ donation has never been about informed consent. I doubt if most people who give permission to have their organs removed realize they are authorizing the removal of those organs while they are still alive.

Many people think that if they die in the parking lot of a hospital they can have their vital organs removed and given to someone else. They cannot. It is too late. Most organs (the cornea might be one exception, for example) must be taken from your body while you are still breathing and your heart is still beating.

There were no legal organ donations of vital organs in the U.S. until after the AMA changed their definition of death in 1973 from the previous definitions of irreversible cessation of respiration and circulation (your heart stopped and you stopped breathing, and no one could resuscitate you).   These, of course, are Biblically-based definitions of death.

There were several awful consequences to this new legal phrase: brain death.

First, of course, there was no settled definition of brain death (and there still isn't!). At last count, there were about 23 definitions of brain death.

Second, only a new definition of death could justify the removal of vital organs. So, "he's dead now, we can take his organs" could be said legally, if not sincerely. This death was by decree, not by science or rationality. In fact, the legal change of definition that followed the AMA's change would be in the face of contrary evidence. Before the definition was changed, several "practice" studies were done using the new definition and resulted in calling some patients "dead". It carried no legal authority so no organs were removed, of course. But shockingly (to those wanting to change the definition), several of those that had been declared "dead" would come back to life.

Third, declaring people dead while they were still breathing and their hearts were still beating would more easily justify the removal of life support mechanisms. Instead of letting someone die (which arguably is justifiable in some cases) you would simply remove machines from people who were "already dead".

These changes have had one other sorrowful result. The line between death and life has been blurred in the eyes of the public. When Terri Schiavo was dying of thirst, many journalists defended what was done to this poor woman because she was "brain dead" anyway.

Now, some want to take organs from unwilling "donors".  What was questionably "informed consent"  may soon become "presumed consent."   Will death panels be even more encouraged to assign people to death, when there is the added "incentive" of finding good organs for harvesting?

Contact: David Shedlock
Source: Cafinated Thoughts
Publish Date: June 28, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR MONDAY

U.S. Appeals Court Reinstates Stem Cell Suit

A U.S. appeals court on Friday reinstated a lawsuit that challenges an Obama administration policy for federal funding of some human embryonic stem cell research. The unusual suit against the National Institutes of Health, backed by some Christian groups opposed to embryo research, argued that the NIH policy takes funds from researchers seeking to work with adult stem cells. It also argues that new Obama administration guidelines on stem cell research are illegal. The three-judge federal appeals panel did not rule on the merits of the lawsuit itself, but said two of the doctors involved had legal standing to file it.
Click here for the entire article.


Doctor Tied to 68 Overdose Deaths Found Guilty

A federal jury found a Kansas doctor and his wife guilty of conspiring to profit from illegally prescribing painkillers to dozens of patients who later died, in a case highlighting medical treatment of chronic pain sufferers and prescription drug abuse. Dr. Stephen Schneider and his wife, Linda, are charged in a 34-count indictment with unlawful dispensing of drugs, health care fraud and money laundering. Jurors convicted them of a moneymaking conspiracy prosecutors say was linked to 68 overdose deaths. They were directly charged in 21 of the deaths.
Click here for the entire article.


Increasing Number of Women Consider Killing Their Children 'Because of Recession'

Women in increasing numbers are considering terminating pregnancies as a consequence of the recession, according to Dublin's Well Woman Centre. Chief executive Alison Begas said yesterday that up to one in five of the 2,000 of so women who presented to Well Woman for pregnancy counselling last year cited financial concerns as the main reason why they were seeking information on having a termination. Some of the women were married and already had children, some were professionals who had had their salaries or hours cut, and some came to discuss their options accompanied by their partners who had recently lost their jobs, she said.
Click here for the entire article.


No Term Limit Reduction Following Fetus Abortion Review

Britain's Prime Minister, David Cameron, has declined to reduce term limits for abortion following a 'bogus' study which concluded that the fetus cannot feel pain before twenty-four weeks and does not suffer distress during abortion. A scientific review in Britain found that the brain is not adequately developed to allow pain to be felt as the necessary nerve-endings have not formed. The review was undertaken by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who were commissioned by the UK's Department of Health and contradicts evidence often put forward by those against abortion, who argue that the procedure causes pain and distress for the fetus.
Click here for the entire article.


NHS Meltdown: Massive Cuts Loom as UK May Give Free IVF for Menopausal Women

Women over the age of 40 could get free fertility treatment on the NHS for the first time. The Health Service may have to scrap controversial age limits for IVF to avoid the threat of being sued under age discrimination laws. In future, trusts may decide whether women can have free IVF cycles by testing how many eggs they have left  -  their 'ovarian reserve'  -  rather than imposing a blanket ban over the age of 40. Last night critics said that encouraging women to have babies in middle age would put both mother and child at risk.
Click here for the entire article.


Abortion budget cuts upset NJ Dems

Because of a tight budget, New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie has taken action on state spending for abortion facilities by eliminating their funding.
 
While that has prompted objections from the pro-abortion community, Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council (NJFPC), points out that pro-life pregnancy centers have not received a dime.

"Planned Parenthood, if they believe that their programs are so valuable, they should go out and raise their own funding, just like most non-profits have to do," Deo contends. "And for them to be government-subsidized, we think, frankly is disingenuous."
Click here for the entire article. 

House Passes DISCLOSE Act

Pro-Life/Grassroots Muzzle Bill Goes to Senate

Critics on both left and right say act will disable grassroots political voices, including Tea Party movement

    
     House of Representatives

With a political audacity that has become characteristic since the caustic health care debates, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives voted Thursday to approve a campaign finance disclosure bill that critics on both the left and the right say will disable grassroots political voices – including the nascent “Tea Party” movement that has been looking to sweep away liberal incumbents in November.

At approximately 4:30 p.m., the House voted 219-206 to approve H.R. 5175, the “Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act,” which the National Right to Life Committee, other pro-life, pro-family groups, and even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have condemned as a threat to free speech and free participation in the political process. (Click here to see how your representative voted.)

The Act would force grassroots organizations to release the names of donors and members into a publicly searchable database maintained by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). Opponents of the bill say it would frustrate the ability of grassroots entities to communicate effectively with the public about public policy.

“This is a blatant attack on our organizations, members, and donors,” said Douglas Johnson, NRLC’s Legislative Director. “National Right to Life will do everything possible to keep this bill from coming out of the Senate.”

Johnson said that stopping the Senate from approving its version (S 3295) of the DISCLOSE Act is “a jump ball.”

“I think we have to take it very seriously. There are already 50 cosponsors of the bill in the Senate. But as you know, the Senate has different rules, and we will certainly do our best to persuade any Senator who will listen that this bill is unconstitutional, unprincipled, and nakedly partisan.”

Should the Senate approve the DISCLOSE Act, and should it be signed into law by President Barack Obama, the act would take effect in 30 days, even if the Federal Elections Commission has not yet crafted new guidelines – just in time for the mid-term elections in November.

During the one-hour debate on the bill, Rep. Dan Lungren expressed outrage that unlike every other campaign finance bill passed by the House, this bill has no provision for expedited judicial review. He said the lack of such a provision makes it clear the DISCLOSE Act is meant to influence the outcome of the 2010 midterm elections.

He also expressed frustration that so little time was given the House to debate a matter impacting Americans’ First Amendment rights.

“We have spent 40 hours in this Congress naming post offices. Can’t we spend a little time protecting the Constitution of the United States?” Lungren exclaimed.

“We’re talking about political speech: the essence of the First Amendment.”

Under the bill, all groups subject to the law’s requirements - including most 501(c)4, 501(c)5, 501(c)6, and 527 groups – would have to list all donors of $600 or more with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Groups must also post a hyperlink on their website to the FEC, where a list of the names of their donors can be accessed.

But the DISCLOSE Act exempts large 501(c)4 groups – like the 4 million strong NRA and 750,000 member Sierra Club – from having to report their donors if they have at least 500,000 members, over 10 years of existence, chapters in all 50 states, and receive no more than 15% of total contributions from corporations.

Unions also have significant exemptions. Most union dues are under $600 dollars, and so do not have to be reported. Union to union money transfers also do not have to be disclosed.

In a letter to Congress, the ACLU noted the irony that a bill ostensibly dedicated to uprooting corruption in the political process would exempt entrenched “mainstream” political interests from its reporting requirements, while “smaller organizations and those just starting out would have to disclose their donors in order to engage in political speech.”

“Those groups not challenging the status quo would be protected; those challenging the status quo would be suppressed,” they concluded.

House members had virtually no time to read the final version of the bill approved yesterday behind closed doors by the House Rules Committee. Instead of waiting for Congressmen and their staff to analyze the final bill, the Democrat leadership forced through today’s vote today by invoking a “Martial Law Rule.”

The Martial Law Rule dispenses with a longstanding House rule (Rule XIII(6)(a)) intended to give U.S. Representatives and the public enough time to understand significant legislation. The rule requires that there be at least one day between a bill’s unveiling and the House floor vote, and can only be suspended if two-thirds of the House agrees – but the Martial Law Rule dispenses with that process entirely.

Critics on both the left and the right have denounced the tactic, saying it empowers a party’s leadership to act in an authoritarian manner and endangers democratic self-government by forcing members to vote blindly on measures demanded by their leaders.

The bill requires that every time an organization runs a campaign ad, its CEO must appear in the ad and twice state his name and the organization’s name. The top five funders of the organization behind the ad – even if they had nothing to do with the ad’s funding – must also have their names listed in the ad. 

In addition, the most “significant” donor to the organization must list his name, rank, and organization three times in the ad.

Critics of the bill say that the disclaimers effectively devour valuable airtime bought by these groups that would otherwise be used to inform voters about a candidate’s record.

“We’re getting a little silly here. We’re talking about making disclaimers that are going to take the entire time of a commercial,” stated Rep. Lungren during debate.

He also expressed grave concern that individuals – with names and addresses publicly available – would be subject to reprisals for making a political statement. He pointed to the situation in California, where supporters of Proposition 8 have been victims of reprisals by homosexualist activists.

“We are chilling speech already, and now we are getting into direct intimidation by requiring the residence of people living there,” he said.

Other affected entities under the bill will likely include vocal liberal and conservative groups that communicate through the internet. While traditional media organizations like newspapers and television stations are exempt from the bill, bloggers, the vanguard of the “new media,” are not. 

Click here to see how representatives voted.

Contact: Peter J. Smith
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: June 24, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

--
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
2600 State Street, Ste E.
Alton, IL 62002

Phone: 618-466-4122
Fax: 618-466-4134

Web: www.ifrl.org
E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

Schilling says Disclose Act is Unconstitutional

    
     Bobby Schilling

Bobby Schilling, Republican candidate for Congress in the 17th District, condemned the Disclose Act on Thursday. The Disclose Act is a new campaign finance reform law being pushed through Congress. Schilling argued that the bill was politically motivated and unconstitutional.

"I oppose the Disclose Act for two major reasons," Schilling said. "First of all, I believe it violates the first amendment. This bill is intended to squelch speech that is currently constitutionally protected. Secondly, I don't believe this is a serious attempt at campaign finance reform. If we're going to change the rules of the game, they have to apply to everyone. Congress is working out backroom deals with certain special interest groups to give them exemptions, and that is categorically unfair."

Schilling also criticized the hasty nature with which the Disclose Act is being pushed through Congress.

"Thoughtful reform takes time," Schilling said. "You need to have input from both sides of the aisle, and the Constitution absolutely needs to be considered. It's unnerving to think that our current leadership is so quick to push through legislation that almost everyone agrees restricts freedom of speech."

Schilling, a native of Rock Island, graduated from Alleman High School and attended Black Hawk College. Schilling, a local business owner and father of ten children, is the Republican candidate for the 17th Congressional District in Illinois. Bobby is running on a platform of bringing jobs and real representation back to the 17th District. Earlier this year, Schilling conducted a 34-city "Bob's for Jobs" tour, where he met with voters and employers all across the 17th District.

Source: Illinois Review
Publish Date: June 24, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

--
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
2600 State Street, Ste E.
Alton, IL 62002

Phone: 618-466-4122
Fax: 618-466-4134

Web: www.ifrl.org
E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

Assisted Suicide Clinic Entrepreneur License to Practice Medicine Suspended

    

Awww.  Dr, Stuart–Big Heart–Weisberg, who wants to open up an assisted suicide clinic in which one can off themselves to the strains of beautiful music with Weisberg and his therapy dog at their sides for $5000, has had his license to practice suspended.  From the story:

A Portland psychiatrist who plans to open a private facility where people could end their lives under Oregon’s assisted-suicide law was suspended from medical practice Thursday amid a second investigation for improperly prescribing drugs.  The Oregon Medical Board voted 8-0 to suspend Stuart G. Weisberg, 37, a solo practitioner in Northwest Portland specializing in treating addictions…In 2006, the board gave Weisberg a five-year reprimand for improperly prescribing psychoactive drugs to seven patients who were recovering drug addicts or suffering chronic pain. Last year, the board lifted the reprimand but put Weisberg under the watch of another doctor. Haley said Thursday the “practice mentor” recently informed the medical board that Weisberg had terminated the relationship. The board learned that during the mentoring, Weisberg had wrongly authorized a medical-marijuana card for a drug addict and had improperly prescribed a different drug for another patient.

Swell guy.  The suspensions do not appear to involve his proposed Dignity House.  Looks like the limited liability companies may just have to wait.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: June 25, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

--
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
2600 State Street, Ste E.
Alton, IL 62002

Phone: 618-466-4122
Fax: 618-466-4134

Web: www.ifrl.org
E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

ND 88 Pro-Lifer Suffers Heart Attack, Diagnosed with Stress Disorder Thanks to Prosecution

    

Thanks to the strain of being subjected to criminal prosecution on charges of trespassing, one of the 88 peaceful pro-life protesters arrested at the University of Notre Dame in May of last year recently suffered a heart attack. According to Dr. Therese Beste's doctor, she continues to suffer from post-traumatic stress related to the prosecution.

The doctor's diagnosis has been submitted to the pro-lifers' defense lawyer as members of the group, known as the "Notre Dame 88," continue to face prosecution and a possible penalty of up to a year in jail and a $5,000 fine.

Beste, a Michigan resident, told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) that she travelled to Indiana in May 2009 because she was "horrified" to learn that Notre Dame, "Our Blessed Mother's University," would be honoring "the most pro-abortion politician in our nation."  The university had invited Obama to give the commencement address and receive an honorary law degree.

Beste says she is a devotee of the Virgin Mary, to whose intercession Roman Catholics attribute the end of ritual child sacrifice among Native Americans, after Mary appeared in a vision to Mexican peasant Juan Diego 500 years ago. Beste said, "Our Lady would be horrified to see a proponent of more child sacrifice walking on her ground. "

"The affront to Our Lady, to life and the graphic example of the lack of good, solid Catholic teaching in our Catholic schools came together for me at Notre Dame and I could no longer stand by and watch," she said. Beste said she joined a group led by Monica Miller of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society.

When pro-life and pro-Obama protesters converged on Notre Dame's campus on commencement day, witnesses say only pro-lifers - recognizable for carrying pro-life imagery, rosaries, crosses, and pictures of Mary - were arrested. Since then, University president Fr. John Jenkins has stubbornly refused to request leniency for the ND 88, who are now under the power of the county prosecutor. Pro-life leaders and Notre Dame alumni have urged Jenkins to reach out to the pro-lifers, as his influence on their behalf would likely have great weight in convincing the prosecutor to drop the charges.

While she said the day of her arrest was "joyous and grace-filled," Beste relates that she later experienced "nights and nights of great anxiety and worry, horrific dreams of being shot by a firing squad and falling into a pit." 

"I feared going to jail for a year and what this would do to my kids," she said. "That was an unexpected development for me: I thought we would get a fine and a ticket. I never expected to be so persecuted for standing for Catholic beliefs on a Catholic campus by my fellow Catholics."

Eventually Beste suffered a heart attack and underwent open-heart surgery, which she called "the most painful thing that I have ever experienced."

A note obtained by LSN from Dr. Jeffrey Bossenberger, a physician, confirmed that Beste's stress over the events connected to her prosecution has led to worsened health.

"I feel she is suffering from post traumatic stress from [the prosecution] and obvious depression as well as her other medical problems," he wrote. "I highly recommend, at this point, that ... this case be put on hold until she is in further stable condition, both physically and mentally, or this case be pushed for dismissal."

Beste said that she continues to pray that Notre Dame "become a true Catholic School again and to put morality and Truth ahead of prestige and worldly glory, or it will cease to exist, cursed by the Lord for not bearing fruit."

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: June 25, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

--
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
2600 State Street, Ste E.
Alton, IL 62002

Phone: 618-466-4122
Fax: 618-466-4134

Web: www.ifrl.org
E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

Pre-abortion Counseling Should Include Questions on Abuse and Coercion Say Post-Abortive Women

    
      Silent No More Awareness

Leaders of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign (SNMAC), the world's largest network of individuals harmed by abortion, said today that a new study on the link between women who suffer physical or sexual abuse and their later abortions does not go far enough in identifying how women seeking abortion should be counseled.

"A Planned Parenthood official who participated in this Iowa study admits that her organization has not been asking women about any abuse they've suffered," said Janet Morana, co-founder of SNMAC.  "That Planned Parenthood has been aborting women's babies for four decades and is only now talking about maybe asking women if they've been abused shows that women's lives are of no consequence to them."

"Actually, asking women if they've suffered physical attacks by their babies' fathers would be an innovation for Planned Parenthood," added Georgette Forney, also a co-founder of SNMAC.  "What the organization's sales staff should really do, but which they will refuse to do, is ask women if they've been coerced by a boyfriend, husband, or parent to have the abortion.  We know that feigning concern for women is one thing for Planned Parenthood, asking women questions that might cause them not to abort is quite another."

Since the launching of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign in 2003, 3,877 women and men have shared their testimonies publicly at over 572 gatherings in 48 states and ten countries where more than 110,830 attendees have heard the truth about abortion's negative aftereffects.  More than 9,027 people are registered to be Silent No More.  Raising awareness about the hurtful aftermath of abortion and the help that is available to cope with the pain are two of the Campaign's goals. 

Contact: Margaret Sciarrino, Georgette Forney
Source: Silent No More Awareness Campaign
Publish Date: June 24, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

--
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
2600 State Street, Ste E.
Alton, IL 62002

Phone: 618-466-4122
Fax: 618-466-4134

Web: www.ifrl.org
E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

Parents Outraged at Planned Parenthood Class Teaching Sexual Positions

    
     Planned Parenthood's Sex Ed

Parents in Southwest Iowa have reacted in horror after learning that Planned Parenthood's co-ed sex education course not only used pornographic teaching materials but also taught children sexual positions.

Colleen Dostal told Fox News Radio, after discovering that her 14-year-old son had been taught sexual positions using stuffed animals meant to represent STDs, that the class was "horribly inappropriate."

“I do not understand why any adult with a classroom of children would show them sexual positions,” she told Fox.

Dostal said the class also included directions on performing female exams and used an anatomically correct model of a male sex organ to explain how to use a condom.

The parents said the school's principal was "mortified" when told the content of the class and apologized. Several other parents complained to school superintendent Dick Profit. Profit, however, claimed he had received equal numbers of calls supporting and opposing the explicit sex-ed, according to the World Herald.

Speaking for Planned Parenthood, Jennifer Horner defended the curriculum as giving children "accurate" information.

"We are not trying to keep any of this a secret. All information we use is medically accurate and science based," she said.

Planned Parenthood's extremely explicit take on teen sex-ed is evident from the "Teen Talk" section of their website, a series of pages decorated with images of heterosexual and homosexual intimacy, which leads youngsters to a wealth of information on deviant sexual practices.

One page entitled "All about the anus: how much do you really know about your anus?" gives explicit details on anal penetration as a source of sexual pleasure and "as a way to preserve the woman's virginity." While noting that anal penetration "is, of course, high risk for HIV," PP advocates using condoms or "Sheer Glyde dams" to protect against the fatal virus.

Elsewhere, Planned Parenthood dedicates a web page to advocating masturbation as "safe and healthy, and it's here to stay." The article hails the painkilling and stress-relieving qualities of masturbation, and assures that it's "fine" to do so several times a day.

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: June 24, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

--
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
2600 State Street, Ste E.
Alton, IL 62002

Phone: 618-466-4122
Fax: 618-466-4134

Web: www.ifrl.org
E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

Federal Court of Appeal Reinstates Case Against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to Stop Federal Funding of Research Involving the Destruction of Living Human Embryos

    
     The Great Stem Cell Debate

Today the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued its decision finding that doctors doing adult stem cell research have 'competitive standing' to sue. Therefore, the court reinstated the doctors' federal lawsuit, filed last summer that seeks to preliminarily enjoin and ultimately overturn the controversial guidelines for public funding of embryonic stem cell research that the National Institutes of Health issued on July 7, 2009.  The implementation of these guidelines marks the first time that taxpayer dollars will be used to fund research that will result in the destruction of human embryos.  Since 1994, Congress has expressly banned NIH from funding research in which human embryos "are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."
 
According to Thomas G. Hungar, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, "the language of the statute is clear.  It bans public funding for any research that leads to the destruction of human embryos.  NIH's attempt to avoid Congress's command by funding everything but the act of 'harvesting' is pure sophistry.  The guidelines will result in the destruction of human embryos and are unlawful, unethical, and unnecessary."

The plaintiffs contend that the NIH guidelines violate the congressional ban because they "necessarily condition funding on the destruction of human embryos."  In addition, the plaintiffs also allege that the NIH guidelines were invalidly implemented, because the decision to fund human embryonic stem cell research was made without the proper procedures required by law and without properly considering the more effective and less ethically problematic forms of adult and induced pluripotent stem cell research.

President Obama, in his March 11, 2009 Executive Order announcing his Administration's policy stated he was determined to fund ethically "responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research...to the extent permitted by law." Sadly, these guidelines while claiming to "implement" the President's directions, fail his own test because they are not only unlawful, they are based upon an ethically irresponsible misunderstanding of available scientific evidence.  One of the expert stem cell researcher plaintiffs, Dr. James L. Sherley, explained that "the great irony of the guidelines is that research involving stem cells safely derived from human adults and other sources presents the same if not greater potential for medical breakthroughs, without any of the troubling legal and ethical issues related to embryonic stem-cell research."  Clinical trials using adult stem cells have successfully reversed the effects of diseases such as lupus, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis.  The plaintiffs argue that because NIH promulgated its guidelines with a preconceived determination to fund human embryonic stem cell research and without considering these scientifically and ethically superior alternatives, the guidelines are invalid regulations and should be struck down.

Dr. David Stevens, Executive Director of Christian Medical Association, an organization of more than 16,000 doctors who are also plaintiffs in the case, said "we are opposed to this proposed illegal and unethical federal funding of destructive embryonic research that would compel every American to cooperate with such unlawful human experimentation and the violation of our fundamental medical research ethic never to lethally experiment on one human being simply to benefit the interests of other human beings."

Sam Casey,  Co-counsel for the plaintiffs and General Counsel of Advocates International's Law of Life Project, a public interest legal project specializing in cutting-edge bio-ethical issues, added:  "The majority of the almost 50,000 comments that the NIH received were opposed to funding this research, and by its own admission, NIH totally ignored these comments.  The so-called spare human embryos being stored in IVF clinics around the United States are not 'in excess of need,' as the NIH in its guidelines callously assert.  They are human beings in need of biological or adoptive parents."

The lawsuit is brought by a broad coalition of plaintiffs, including Dr. James L. Sherley, a former member of the MIT faculty, currently working as a senior scientist at the Boston Biomedical Research Institute; Dr. Theresa Deisher, the founder, managing member, and research and development director of AVM Biotechnology; Nightlight Christian Adoptions, a non-profit, licensed adoption agency dedicated to protecting and finding adoptive parents for human embryos conceived through in vitro fertilization; all individual human embryos whose lives are now at risk under NIH's guidelines; parents seeking to adopt human embryos; and the Christian Medical Association, a non-profit association of doctors dedicated to improving ethical standards of health care in the United States and abroad.  The Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending religious freedom and the sanctity of human life, is also serving as co-counsel on the case and providing financial support.

Contact: Samuel B. Casey
Source: Advocates International
Publish Date: June 25, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

--
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
2600 State Street, Ste E.
Alton, IL 62002

Phone: 618-466-4122
Fax: 618-466-4134

Web: www.ifrl.org
E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

NEWS SHORTS FOR FRIDAY

HPV Vaccine Blinds 16-Year-Old Girl

A 16-year-old girl lost nearly all of her vision within 10 days of receiving the second course of her vaccine against the human papilloma virus (HPV), reports a case study in the Journal of Child Neurology. The HPV vaccine is designed to prevent infection by the strains of the virus that are responsible for the majority of cervical cancer and genital warts cases. The study recounts the case of a previously healthy teenage girl who developed a headache on the left side of her head and began to lose vision in her right eye eight days after receiving her second HPV vaccine shot. Over the course of the following 48 hours, the pain spread across her head and she began to lose sight in her left eye as well.
Click here for the entire article.


Study Finds Link In Domestic Abuse, Abortion

Women seeking to kill their babies by abortion are more likely to have experienced partner violence than the general population, according to a recent study by University of Iowa professors and Planned Parenthood of the Heartland. The study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, was based on a series of private screenings of 986 women seeking abortions at Planned Parenthood on issues of physical and sexual abuse, as well as battering. Researchers completed the study over a period of 81?2 months; all the participants were Iowa residents. Researchers found nearly 14 percent of the women who sought abortions had experienced domestic violence from a partner in the previous 12 months. And 74 percent of those women said they had been abused by a former partner rather than their current partner.
Click here for the entire article.


Massachusetts School Officials Under Fire For Giving Condoms to Little Elementary School Children

Free condoms for grade schoolers? Not so fast, says Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. Patrick urged a Cape Cod school superintendent to reconsider the idea of giving out free condoms to all students who ask for them - including kids as young as first grade. "Comprehensive reproductive health education needs to be done in an age appropriate manner," Patrick said in a statement reported by WBZ television in Boston. "In those instances where local communities have agreed to make condoms available in school clinical settings, the norm - according to our Department of Public Health - is high school."
Click here for the entire article.


Retired British GP Admits Killing Patients without Consent: Could Face Charges

A retired UK doctor believes he has been treated “harshly” by medical and legal authorities after he admitted to deliberately killing some of his patients without their consent.

“I twice helped people die, not because they wanted to die but because they had such dreadful suffering,” Dr. Howard Martin admitted in a video interview with the Daily Telegraph.

Last week the General Medical Council (GMC) found Martin guilty of professional misconduct, saying that he had knowingly “hastened the deaths” of 18 patients by giving them excessive doses of morphine. The GMC called his conduct “despicable and dangerous,” and police are now investigating whether criminal charges could be pressed.
Click here for the entire article.


Abortion policy destroying European societies, Spanish bishop warns

Bishop Demetrio Fernandez of Cordoba in Spain said pro-abortion policies are leading to “the destruction of society,” to the degree that “prosperous European societies such as Germany, France or Holland, among others, are now dying.  He stressed that the same thing is currently taking place in Spain.

In an interview with Europa Press, Bishop Fernandez said the situation facing Europe is obvious. “If nothing more, if there are no children, there will not be a sufficient number of workers. But it doesn’t seem that anyone is concerned about this issue and only the Church is speaking up.”
Click here for the entire article.

--
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
2600 State Street, Ste E.
Alton, IL 62002

Phone: 618-466-4122
Fax: 618-466-4134

Web: www.ifrl.org
E-mail: mail@ifrl.org