NEWS SHORTS FOR THURSDAY

Obama's Pick for Supreme Court Elena Kagan Sailing Through Pro-abort Senate Confirmation

With a series of quick quips and nimble sidesteps, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan deflected tough Republican questions on her views and judgment to sail on Wednesday toward likely U.S. Senate confirmation. During three days of hearings, Kagan has coolly turned aside Republican criticism she would be a rubberstamp for President Barack Obama's political agenda, without revealing much of her own opinions about the court or its decisions. Kagan's performance in the Judiciary Committee drew praise from Democrats and compliments even from some critics and appeared to put her on a path to confirmation by the full Senate sometime in July.
Click here for the entire article.


Media Ignore Planned Parenthood's $1.3 Billion Federal Funding Discrepancy

If $1.3 billion is unaccounted for and the media don't report it, did it really happen? According to an American Life League review of Planned Parenthood's annual reports, the organization received more than $2 billion in federal grants and contracts between 2002 and 2008. A June 16 Government Accountability Report, however, found that the organization spent just $657.1 million of taxpayer money in the same time period. The $1.3 billion discrepancy failed to catch the attention of the nation's major media outlets. None of the networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) or major newspapers (Los Angeles times, The New York Times, USA Today and The Washington Post) reported it.
Click here for the entire article.


Unity Restored at Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life with New President

Pro-life leaders are expressing their hopes that the new head of the Pontifical Academy for Life (PAV) can re-forge the organization's unity and get back to work promoting the Catholic teaching on the sanctity of human life. Among the important curial appointments made today, Pope Benedict XVI announced that Msgr. Ignacio Carrasco de Paula, formerly chancellor of the PAV, will be taking over as president.

The academy has been wracked with controversy over the last year after its former head, Archbishop Salvatore Fisichella, wrote an article, published by the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, that appeared to condone the abortion of twins in Brazil. The scandal of the so-called "Recife Affair" made headlines around the world, with the secular media and abortion advocates welcoming the article, claiming it indicated a "softening" of the Church's stand on abortion.
Click here for the entire article.


Notes from the NRLC Convention

Sitting on a hotel stage at the national convention of the Right to Life Committee, Rep. John Boehner smiled as Darla St. Martin, the group's co-executive director, introduced him as speaker of the U.S. House. "I'm getting ahead of myself,'' she said Saturday as she caught her mistake. "I'm dreaming of the future.'' The Ohio Republican, still minority leader of the House, joined the abortion regulators who met here over the last three days in predicting political  and legislative gains for their movement. Mr. Boehner was the featured speaker on the closing day of the national convention at the Hyatt Regency at the Pittsburgh International  Airport. The group reveled in recent gains for their position at the state legislative level. Speaker after speaker Saturday predicted that movement would be a prelude for gains at the federal level in congressional contests in November, when the GOP hopes to reverse the Democrat tide of the last two election cycles.
Click here for the entire article.


NY pro-lifers oppose dangerous legislation

New York 2New York's pro-life and conservative community is intent on halting passage of the Reproductive Health Act, which they consider to be a radical measure that would be the greatest expansion of abortion rights since Roe v. Wade.

According to Mike Long, chairman of the Conservative Party of New York State (CPNYS), New York already has the most liberal abortion laws in the country. "This bill would just broaden and totally liberalize and allow abortion under any circumstances, at any time, at any time period, to be performed," he explains.
Click here for the entire article.


Rwandan Genocide Rape Victims Grateful for Children Conceived in Rape

The tribal genocide of 1994 in Rwanda resulted in more than 800,000 Rwandan deaths and countless women suffering rape at the hands of the Hutu militia who were ordered to kill off the country's minority Tutsi tribe.

Now, 16 years later, the children of the raped women are facing the reality of how they were conceived. They and their mothers are looking for acceptance in a society that is still healing from the horrors of the past.
Click here for the entire article.

Report Debunking Fetal Pain Shows ‘Stunning Lack of Scholarship’: NRLC

    
                          RCOG

A newly-released report from the London-based Royal College Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) purporting to show that unborn children do not feel pain before 24 weeks has made international headlines in the last few days.  But according to pro-life leaders, the study ignores key evidence and is little more than an attempt by abortion advocates to deceive the public.

The issue of fetal pain received significant exposure earlier this year in the U.S. after a landmark law was enacted in April by the Nebraska legislature restricting abortion after twenty weeks.  The so-called "Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" was a response to the growing consensus that the unborn feel pain by that age, if not earlier.

In the U.K. abortion for social reasons is restricted past the 24th week of gestation (eugenic abortions are permitted up until birth), although there have been discussions in the last few years about dropping that limit by 2-4 weeks. Such a move has been endorsed by Prime Minister David Cameron, who said in April that, "I think the way medical science and technology have developed in the past few decades does mean an upper limit of 20 or 22 weeks would be sensible." However, the new report by RCOG is being latched onto by anti-life forces as evidence that there is no "scientific" reason to reduce the abortion limit.

But Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D., director of state legislation for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), says that, "An objective expert in neurobiology would be appalled by the stunning lack of scholarship in the RCOG article."

She noted that one of the authors is actually an abortionist, while the rest are largely abortion advocates.

The authors of the report dismiss the notion of fetal pain prior to 24 weeks based on the fact that the unborn lack a complete nerve connection to the cerebral cortex before 24 weeks.  But Spaulding Balch said this ignores the seminal 2007 study from the medical journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences entitled "Consciousness without a cerebral cortex."

According to that study even "children born missing virtually all of the cerebral cortex nonetheless experience pain," she said.
 
"Ironically, the article concedes the evidence that by 20 weeks pain receptors are present throughout the unborn child's skin," she continued, "that these are linked by nerves to the thalamus and the subcortal plate, and that these children have coordinated aversive reactions to painful stimuli, and experience increased stress hormones from it."

Paul Tully, general secretary for the London-based Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), observed that the 24-week limit on social abortion is a "red herring" in any case.

"The RCOG's claim about babies not feeling pain before 24 weeks begs the question: Why do abortion doctors keep making this point when they support the abortion of babies up till birth?"

Tully says the suggestion that doctors performing abortions are not causing the child pain by killing him or her is simply "a way of denying that what they are doing is evil and they know it."

"The RCOG is trying to find a comfort zone for its members. It is not concerned about the rights and the lives of the babies killed."

"The RCOG knows better than most people how marvellous, sensitive, complex and beautiful these babies are at every stage of development from conception onwards," he said.  "Life does not start halfway through a pregnancy, it starts at conception."

Click here to view the RCOG report.

Contact: Patrick B. Craine
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: June 29, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

How Would Kagan Rule on Taxpayer-Funded Abortion

30 Years After Harris v. McRae, Landmark Decision Holds New Significance During Kagan Confirmation Hearings

    
                     U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan

On June 30, 1980 - 30 years ago today - Americans United for Life (AUL) successfully defended the Hyde Amendment before the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case Harris v. McRae, resolving a four-year legal battle to ensure that Congress may prohibit taxpayer dollars from funding abortion.

The Kagan tie-in?

Harris v. McRae has prevented taxpayer-funded abortion under Medicaid for three decades, and established a legislative standard set by the Hyde Amendment. This narrow 5-4 decision has had a major impact on an issue upon which seven out of ten voters agree - public funds should not be used for abortion.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life, reminded supporters in a speech last week, "We won Harris v. McRae with one vote."

Among those who opposed the decision were Justice John Paul Stevens, whose seat President Obama proposes to fill with Elena Kagan, and Justice Thurgood Marshall, for whom Kagan clerked and has repeatedly singled out as someone she admires. Marshall, an advocate of unrestricted abortion, thought that a judge should "do what [he] thinks is right and let the law catch up."

Elena Kagan's record as a pro-abortion political operative who has pre-judged the abortion issue clearly demonstrates that she would use her position as a judge to impose her extreme views upon the American people, rather than impartially interpreting the law.

Dr. Yoest, who is scheduled to testify tomorrow before the Senate Judiciary Committee, will raise this critical point.

Today, with a full day of questioning ahead, Senators need to ask Elena Kagan what she thinks of Harris v. McRae. Will she respect this precedent or will she, like her hero Aharon Barak, "adapt the law to life's changing needs"?

Brief Background of Harris v. McRae:

In 1976, Congress passed the Hyde Amendment, which prevents the use of certain federal tax dollars to pay for abortion.  Cora McRae challenged the Hyde Amendment, taking action against Patricia Harris, then Secretary of Health and Human Services.  On June 30, 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the funding restrictions of the Hyde Amendment were constitutional.

Harris v. McRae is a landmark decision because it ensures that Congress can prohibit the use of taxpayer funds for abortion.

Contact: Matthew Faraci
Source: Americans United for Life
Publish Date: June 30, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Improved Eradicate Down Babies Test on the Way

    
        Blood test for Down's syndrome

A new test is in the works that will allow Down fetuses to be detected without the risks of current screening.  From the story:

    A quick inexpensive blood test for Down's syndrome that could save the lives of hundreds of unborn babies each year is being developed by scientists.  The 'holy grail' of diagnosis, it would pick up signs of the disease from a few drops of the mother's blood. The test could save lives by removing the risk of miscarriage associated with current tests…Dr Frints, of Maastricht University Medical Centre in the Netherlands, has already created a kit that can work out if the baby is a boy or a girl. She is adapting the kit to test for Down's syndrome and other genetic conditions could follow. Around 25,000 British women a year have invasive tests for Down's syndrome, so the test has the potential to save 250 lives annually.

The statement in the story really meant "save the lives of normal babies." These tests are intended as a search and destroy mission,  to find and promote eradication of Down fetuses.  The babies miscarried now as a result of invasive testing might be called collateral damage in the larger eugenic drive.

I am certainly in favor of preventing those miscarriages.  And, of course, some families will use the information provided to prepare themselves and family for the arrival of a child with a disability, as did the Palins (for which some will never forgive them).  But the latter benefit isn't the primary point of the test and certainly not why the medical establishment promotes universal pre-natal testing so enthusiastically.  Frankly, they are not satisfied with a 90% termination rate.

But isn't it ironic–that we will save some "good" babies, in order to find a better way to identify others to terminate.   If babies of color were being similarly targeted it would be called racism.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: June 29, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Bishops Urge Senate to Remove Abortion Amendment from Defense Bill

    
             United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

A Senate committee amendment that would authorize the performance of elective abortions at military hospitals in this country and around the world is "misguided" and should be removed from the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 3454), said the Chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities. In a June 29 letter, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston urged Senators to remove this amendment on the grounds that it breaks with longstanding federal and military policies on government promotion of abortion.
          
Cardinal DiNardo said it was disingenuous to suggest, as the amendment's proponents have, that the amendment is "moderate" in requiring patients at military facilities to pay for their abortions. "Which is a more direct governmental involvement in abortion: That the government reimburses someone else for having done an abortion, or that the government performs the abortion itself and accepts payment for doing so?" the Cardinal wrote. He cited a 1989 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court saying that "the State need not commit any resources to facilitating abortions, even if it can turn a profit by doing so."
          
Cardinal DiNardo also noted the longstanding nature of the current policy against providing abortions at military health facilities, which has been in place for 22 years with the exception of 1993-1995.
          
"During the brief period when these facilities were told to make abortions available, scarcely any military physician could be found in overseas facilities who was willing to perform abortions," the Cardinal added.
          
Cardinal DiNardo also said that the current military policy is in keeping with federal policy in general, noting: "Other federal health facilities also may not be used for elective abortions, and many states have their own laws against use of public facilities for such abortions."
          
Calling on the Senate not to approve the bill unless it maintains current law, as the bill approved by the House of Representatives already does, Cardinal DiNardo concluded that "this amendment presents Congress with the very straightforward question whether it is the task of our federal government to directly promote and facilitate elective abortions.  During the recent health care reform debate, the President and congressional leadership assured us that they agree it is not."
          
Archbishop Broglio of the Archdiocese of Military Services had written an earlier letter to the Senate against the proposed policy change.  Cardinal DiNardo endorsed his letter as well, noting that it urges Congress "not to impose this tremendous burden on the consciences of Catholic and other health care personnel who joined our armed services to save and protect innocent life, not to destroy it."
          
Click here for the full text of the letter (PDF).

Source: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Publish Date: June 29, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

How Kagan plotted for partial-birth abortion

As Clinton counsel, she rewrote findings of Ob-Gyn association

    
                  Elena Kagan with President Clinton

As associate counsel in the Clinton administration, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan rewrote a report by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology to strengthen its recommendation that partial-birth abortion remain legal, reports WND columnist Jill Stanek today.

A ban on the procedure, which kills a baby partially emerged from the birth canal by crushing its skull, was performed on pregnant women in the late stages of development until 2003 when both houses of Congress, in bipartisan fashion, overwhelmingly voted to ban it. Congress had twice banned the procedure during the Clinton administration, but the president vetoed the bills both times. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ban as constitutional.

As Stanek reveals in her column today, the Ob-Gyn group issued findings in 1996 to bolster the Clinton administration's opposition to the ban, but it was rewritten by Kagan, a lawyer, in an apparent effort to make it more persuasive.

"Documents released from the Clinton library show ACOG inexplicably (because no one from ACOG will now respond to press inquiries for an explanation) submitted its draft unhelpful opinion of partial birth abortion for review to the White House in the face of a ban being proposed in Congress and then changed it to suit Clinton's pro-abortion agenda," Stanek writes.

The statement ACOG originally planned to release read:

    However, a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to gave the life or preserve the health of the woman. Notwithstanding this conclusion, ACOG strongly believes that decisions about medical treatment must be made by the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances.

"In other words, ACOG found no exceptional reason for partial birth abortion's existence," Stanek writes. "Legalized abortion could get along just fine without it. Nevertheless, in ACOG's curious opinion, PBA should remain legal."

Kagan wrote in a White House memo that the findings "would be a disaster."

Kagan then offered a revision that was accepted by the Ob-Gyn group.

Here are the edits Kagan gave ACOG:

    
                                 Click image to enlarge

Kagan's suggestion on the key point of contention read:

    An intact D+X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman ... .

The final version of ACOG's January 1997 used Kagan's language verbatim:

    A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. An intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision.

Stanek concludes Kagan "has demonstrated she doesn't let reason, facts, medicine, or science stand in the way of her pro-abortion ideology."

Source: WorldNetDaily
Publish Date: June 30, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Missouri Becomes Second State to Enact AUL’s “Pregnant Woman’s Protection Act”

    
                        Missouri Governor Jay Nixon

On June 25, 2010, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon signed House Bill 2081 into law, ensuring that a pregnant woman can use deadly force to protect the life of her unborn child. The new law is based on innovative AUL model legislation:the "Pregnant Woman's Protection Act."

In 2009, Oklahoma became the first state to enact this important and much-needed legislation, passing it by unanimous votes in both the House and Senate.

Recognizing a critical deficiency in state criminal laws, AUL developed the "Pregnant Woman's Protection Act" to ensure that women who use force, including deadly force, to protect the lives of their unborn children from criminal attacks are not later themselves subjected to prosecution and incarceration.

Importantly, the new law extends both legal recognition and legal protection to an unborn child. It also further isolates abortion as the only instance in which such legal recognition and legal protection are not afforded to an unborn child.

Contact: Denise Burke
Source: Americans United for Life
Publish Date: June 25, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR WEDNESDAY

Defunding Guttmacher

The Government Accounting Office (GAO) just put out a report on Planned Parenthood and other organizations that support legal abortion, and the report has been getting a lot of attention from conservative and Christian media outlets. It should be getting attention from other media outlets, too: The fact that the GAO can account for only $657.1 million out of $2.3 billion in federal funds that were appropriated to Planned Parenthood is astonishing, ideology aside. Overall, Planned Parenthood receives precious little scrutiny from the mainstream media, and it was very shrewd of 31 Republican Congressman to request for a GAO audit. Conservatives and pro-lifers should do everything they can to widely publicize this report, and conservatives should use this as an argument for defunding Planned Parenthood if Republicans take control of Congress after the midterm elections.
Click here for the entire article.


New Jersey Assembly Restores 'Family Planning' Funds
 
At a time when the Democrat-controlled New Jersey Assembly is being forced to accept fiscal discipline – and Republican Gov. Chris Christie's budget cuts – it drew the line with cuts to family planning programs.

Decrying Christie's decision to cut funding to 58 family planning centers – Planned Parenthood operates nearly half of them –Democrats immediately went on the offensive.

By Monday afternoon, the $7.5 million funds were restored by a vote of 30-10 in the Senate and 42-22 in the Assembly.
Click here for the entire article.


Sign ban shows signs of content-based restriction

Alliance Defense Fund has filed a lawsuit over a ban against a pro-life effort in Stayton, Oregon.

Frederick "Caleb" Pearson was demonstrating on a street corner with a sign showing images of aborted babies. While returning to his vehicle, a police officer approached him and told him he was violating an advertising ordinance. ADF attorney Jonathan Scruggs tells OneNewsNow that several weeks later, Pearson returned with a simple sign that read "Respect Life," but this time he was not stopped.
Click here for the entire article.


Lawsuit Against Obama's Embryonic Stem Cell Policy Reinstated

A lawsuit against public funding of embryonic stem cell research was revitalized Friday. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the dismissal of a lawsuit that contends the Obama administration's embryonic stem cell research policy violates federal law. The court found that the plaintiffs have "competitive standing" to sue. "Although private-sector funding of embryonic stem cell research has been practically unlimited, it has failed to produce results," said Alliance Defense Fund Senior Legal Counsel Steven H. Aden, in a statement.
Click here for the entire article.


Methodist Church of Great Britain to Clarify Position on Abortion Issues

The Methodist Church of Great Britain's annual Conference voted in favor of a new briefing to clarify its position on issues related to abortion. The vote comes one week after the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists published a review stating that fetuses in the womb could not feel pain before 24 weeks, therefore making it unnecessary to reduce the time limit for abortions. The briefing, to be produced by the Joint Public Issues Team over the coming months, will seek to explain the Methodist position on abortion "in modern language" and "place this in the context of modern law and science."
Click here for the entire article.


Kagan revealing extreme view on abortion

During her ongoing confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan has been misleading on the abortion issue -- that's the view of Americans United for Life.

AUL attorney Anna Franzonello tells OneNewsNow that Kagan's view of abortion is contrary to the view of a majority of Americans who do see the need for some limits on abortion.
 
"She essentially confirmed her belief [in] Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton -- the cases from 1973 that essentially constitutionalized this 'right' to abortion -- with an expansive no regulations allowed," says Franzonello.
Click here for the entire article.

GOPers Flag Kagan's Abortion, Gay Advocacy in Confirmation Opening Remarks

     
      Elena Kagan at the Confirmation Hearing

Some Republican senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee indicated their opposition to Supreme Court hopeful Elena Kagan's pro-abortion and homosexualist agenda, as well as her activist leanings, amid opening remarks at the first in a series of Senate confirmation hearings today.

The committee began with a series of opening statements Monday. Questioning of the nominee will begin Tuesday.

Democratic senators lauded Kagan's credentials as a legal scholar, while Republicans expressed concern over her apparent penchant for political maneuvering and judicial activism.

Ranking GOP member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) noted in his opening remarks that as an advisor to the Clinton White House, Kagan may have been the "key person who convinced President Clinton" to endorse a "compromise" measure that gave him political cover to veto a partial-birth abortion ban.

Sessions also expressed concern over Kagan's controversial move as Harvard Law dean to ban military recruiters from campus in protest against the ban on open homosexuals serving in the military. "I can't take this issue lightly," said the senator.

In addition, Sessions took issue with Kagan’s having called Israeli Judge Aharon Barak - whom Sessions called the "most activist judge in the world" - her "hero." "Few could dispute this tells us much about the nominee," he said.

"It's easy to pledge fidelity to law if you feel you can change its meaning later as a judge."

Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) decried Kagan's "naked political judgment" when she worried in a memo that a decision against allowing taxpayer money to pay for a prisoner's abortion would "create some very bad law on abortion."

Sen. Orrin Hatch warned that both the Senate and the American people will want to know whether Kagan will impose her personal views on the law. "Will the Constitution control her, or will she control the Constitution?" he asked.

A Rasmussen Reports survey released last Wednesday found 42% of U.S. voters opposed Kagan's confirmation. Thirty-five percent supported Kagan, whereas 23% were unsure.

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.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

 

 

Kagan Reaffirms Extreme Pro-Abortion Position

    
     Elena Kagan with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid    

Moments ago, responding to a line of questions from Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Kagan confirmed her belief that "Roe (v. Wade) and Doe (v. Bolton) require" that any state "regulation" of abortion protect the "health" of women seeking abortion.  Kagan isolated the Supreme Court's holding in the 2007 case, Gonzales v. Carhart -- which upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2003 without a "health" exception -- by stating that the Gonzales decision only pertained to a particular abortion procedure.

"Elena Kagan, for the benefit of her supporters in the abortion lobby, reaffirmed her support for abortion in the extreme, without limitations or restrictions," said Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life. "The American people don't support this out-of-the-mainstream position and they don't want a judge who has already pre-judged the issue."

Under the Roe / Doe framework, an abortionist can offer any reason imaginable to justify performing an abortion at any time during a woman's pregnancy.  However, while upholding the Partial Birth-Abortion Act of 2003 in Gonzales v. Carhart without the massive health loophole, the Court also arguably narrowed the unlimited health exception created in Doe.

Therefore, abortion law is quite confused and is far from settled.  The fact that Kagan believes that the Roe / Doe health exception still applies unchanged to all laws pertaining to abortion indicates that she has not changed from the passionate ideologue who advocated against meaningful regulations of abortion while working for President Clinton.

During her time in the White House, Kagan argued for a health exception that went further than the one required in Doe.  She argued that a woman should have access to a partial-birth abortion if her doctor felt it was the best procedure for her health -- regardless of whether she actually "needed" an abortion at all.

This expansive reading of a "health exception" would actually take abortion jurisprudence farther than ever before, and drastically undermine the ability of state and federal legislators to pass meaningful regulations of abortion.  In light of the growing body of evidence that abortion is actually dangerous to women, and the advancement of technology that helps unborn children survive earlier outside of the womb, this is deeply troubling. 

Contact: Matthew Faraci
Source: Americans United for Life
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

 

 

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.